Is this going to be the election where the internet trumps television?
Submitted by sedonix on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 22:16
Similar to the Kennedy election where TV showed its power for the first time, is this going to be the year when the internet becomes most important in elections?
The movers and shakers in society are on the net, it has a high enough penetration thoughout the nation, it does a much more thorough job of informing people, is not subject to control, and the conventional media doesn't see it happening. Sooner or later the internet will be the dominant force in elections, so why not now?
»
Mainstream Media has been Trumped Before!!
A couple of years ago South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun was swept to power by the blogosphere, despite no attention from the mainstream press.
It is widely accepted that his victory was due to organized, decentralized youth on the net.
Unfortunately I could only find a negative article in my quick search for a reference:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HF01Dg01.html
I'm sure that we could find something better about this event if we looked.
Mainstream Media has been Trumped Before!!
A couple of years ago South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun was swept to power by the blogosphere, despite no attention from the mainstream press.
It is widely accepted that his victory was due to organized, decentralized youth on the net.
Unfortunately I could only find a negative article in my quick search for a reference:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HF01Dg01.html
I'm sure that we could find something better about this event if we looked.
This reminds me of something
This reminds me of something I wrote recently elsewhere. I figure it should suffice as an expression of my opinion.
http://freethoughtsociety.org/?q=node/515
The conventional wisdom says that television won JFK the 1960 election. By that election television had been around long enough and penetrated enough markets to fully integrate itself, as a technology, in the American political process. By then, its use was widespread enough that if one were to understand how it really worked and how it effected people, elections could be won or lost based upon how one used it.
Arguably, the internet offers as much of a change to the dissemination of information as the introduction of tv did (I'd argue more so).
But the internet has not reached 95% market reach, as I'm sure it will eventually. But not quite yet. So its effects haven't really fully overwhelmed the old business models and media establishment.
Howard Dean's success was mostly built upon the use of the internet. And here we are, four years later, and we're watching another candidate operate outside of the mainstream and use the internet as a political organization and fund-raising tool. Howard Dean didn't win the nomination, and Ron Paul has a ways to go, but the impact both candidates have had is enormous.
If money is the mother's milk of campaigns, and it is, Ron Paul is the clear leader in the field given his success these last few quarters when it comes to fund-raising.
I'd have to argue that the only thing that is really keeping out of the 1st to 3rd polling positions is the concerted effort on the part of old media to suppress any information coming from his supporters.
When do we reach a tipping point?
When do enough people have access to information that isn't vetted, controlled, manipulated, and shaped by the talking heads employed by weapons manufacturers and international banks?
When does the internet elect a president and have an objective, tangible effect on the electoral process the same way tv did with JFK in 1960?
When will old media be tired and old enough to finally lose its grasp on molding and shaping political opinion through the use of clever graphics, 5-second sound bites, fear mongering, and lies?
Maybe this won't be the year that "the internet" elects a president. But if the past experience with Howard Dean or Ron Paul's current run is any indication of the future, its only a matter of time before people get some real choices that tv, as a technology and medium, could never possibly deliver.
http://www.FreeThoughtSociety.org/
MSM fear mongers lost touch with the public long ago
Howard Dean would have probably taken the nomination in 04 if it weren't for his high-strung personality and the infamous "scream" speech. They called him an internet anomaly, but he did not have nearly as much support as RP. I don't recall seeing a single Howard Dean sign in my city. Their attempted smears on RP, have failed. He has gained several thousand new meet up members since Sunday, and raised another $150k. We as a nation are starved for the truth, and with the exception of a few, everyone wants out of the global conflicts with which we are entangled. They called Ronald Reagan a “kook” and “un-electable”, and you see how that turned out. It took them over 8 years to get rid of him.
RP is a lot different. He already had a huge following long before he decided to run. RP is not some pre-madonna who always aspired to be president. He was drafted by the people, earlier this year, and has experienced a steady growth of support. I have yet to find a single individual who has changed their minds about Ron Paul.
There are enough people out there who are sick of the status quo, or scared to death of electing another GW, that he can't lose. It only takes a few million votes. If each of us can manage to convert 10 people, which I already have, he will win. The MSM have lost their grip on our minds. Not that polls matter, but I've seen a lot of polls that show the MSM in single digits in accuracy and credibility. Ask around, and you will probably not find a single person who thinks that the media reports the truth. Press on fellow patriots!! Don't let them discourage you, and of course VOTE FOR AND PROMOTE RON PAUL!!!!
Ouch
It's prima donna, not pre-madonna. Some misspellings, fine. Unintentional howlers, please no.
There is a real difference
Watching TV is mostly passive. We take in whatever comes up on the screen. While the internet can be used in that way too, most people on the net are actively sharing thoughts and ideas. Net users are much more likley to take action. Just watch and see :-)
Why not now.
I've been online in one form or the other since 1980. The internet is so important to democracy and knowledge that I truly feel sorry for those individuals (citizens) who don't use its full potential. They are being left behind. The good news is, it is never too late.
I think the internet already is a dominant force in elections -- among the savvy. As more people wake up, it's going to be phenomenal. I hope that's going to happen this year.
------------------------------------------------
The Dr's prescription: Take the red pill.
I hope so. I have covered a
I hope so. I have covered a lot of ground taking the best information from this site and emailing it out to people, and they do the same.
I turn on the TV rarely now
Usually only to see you-tube excerpts. Unfortunately, CNN and/or FOX are always on at the health club, at bars, and at airports.
I just look away. It makes me uncomfortable to look, and it's so beyond getting any useful information.
Same thing with TIME, Newsweek, US News and World Report, the Chicago Tribune.
I used to read these once upon a time.
Let's hope this isn't "Snakes on a Plane 2"
Remember that fiasco?
Money raised and a blimp is awesome but this is what the media thinks of the internet:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1229136,00.html