I am not surprised at all to find out that the Obama campaign, in either election cycle, has been using different technologies and techniques in order to keep a finger on the public pulse for politics.
Obama's team pioneered the use of Social Media as a way to reach out to the public while campaigning across the country: whether it was online townhall meetings or the use of Houdini in the first election for president that they participated in. Obama's administration, whether you agree with their policies or not, have been expanding the government's use of social media in a successful manner.
They have found out that keeping the technology "in house" has saved them headaches by being easier to fix when an issue arises.
The finance team for Obama's campaign raised MORE money this past election cycle that the one prior to it probably BECAUSE they were so willing to integrate with newer technology as it comes out.
Also, I would argue that we were still starting to cross the threshold from early adopting of smart phone technology in 2008 compared to 2012. And, it is probably because we were further along in the adoption process during the second election that they were able to raise more money than previously.
The one thing I dislike about the Atlantic article is that about half way through the FIRST of two pages, it focuses on Harper Reed and not the technology that he uses. He used the word #YOLO, along with others on the Obama campaign. He knows a club owner and is a Hipster-esque nerd.
And while I wouldn't mind learning about him on his own, I feel that this article should be split into two distinct articles: one about the campaign and one about the man himself. But they decided to combine them and make it unnecessarily long. Longer than even a print medium would use. And, since it is online, it needs to be short, sweet and to the point unless the title suggests that it is going to be a combination piece.
There isn't enough multimedia on the piece either, making it long and drawn out. And while I probably won't have much multimedia on this blog, I am not trying to draw in readers. I am simply replying for a class assignment while this author is attempting to draw people in and get them interested.
Frankly,the author choosing to do that lost my interest altogether though I kept reading.
I do enjoy the statistic on the second page of the article that states: "In 2008, Facebook was about one-tenth of the size that it is now. Twitter was a nothing burger for the campaign. It wasn't a core or even peripheral part of the strategy, "(Madrigal).
I think this is interesting because: 1) I joined Facebook when I was a Sophomore in high school. It was only a few months shy of 2008 that I registered for an account in the website; 2)I noticed a major change in the focus of Obama's campaign with which social media platforms were being used. They tended to focus more on Twitter and the use of YouTube for livestreams online.
While I was more socially and politically aware than my peers in high school, partially because most of my friends were of age and able to vote in that election cycle, I wasn't fully aware of how they were mainly focused on one site or another at the time.
Though, I certainly realized the change between the first and second campaigns when I was of age to vote.
I also realize that many people I know have adopted Facebook after myself during the time Facebook expanded exponentially. For example, my entire immediate family is now on the site. My grandmother and her siblings are on the site as well now.
I have also been able to keep track of my cousins who I have never actually met before because they live out in California on Facebook.
And while Twitter is 140 characters of short, sweet and to the point, it can lose something in translation when you just need a few more characters to finish the sentence.
So, I definitely feel like the quote resonates with me as I have personally been involved with how the Internet has been evolving just like anyone else who has been signing online to newer and better services these few years.
---------
The Internet has the potential to be wonderful for democracy as it creates a public sphere where there wouldn't have been one before. Everyone who has access, in theory, has a voice.
It can also be a rallying point for people who would otherwise not have a voice, ex: Ferguson and the Occupy Movements around the United States.
The Internet both allows established forces in government to stay in power while also allowing people to dissent and possibly overthrow government forces, case in point The Arab Spring.
The Internet has a lot of potential for democracy as well as other political agendas, such as ISIS.
If you want access to it, it exists. Much like how people say if it exists, there is probably porn of it. No matter how wrong and taboo it is, it will be accessible through the Internet as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment