New Media Change How Political Conventions are Covered

Yesterday’s New York Times, in an article by David Carr entitled “In Denver, A Thousand Little Pieces,” examined how the “new media” changed the coverage of the event:

The numbers are changing the game. Old media have often (not always) regarded bloggers and their ilk as fleas on the dog. If newspapers and networks didn’t break the story, the gatecrashers wouldn’t have anything to write about. But the new media players who came to Denver were not there just to annotate mainstream coverage: they’re in the hunt themselves.

The cable television blabbers still put a frame around the event, and the morning analysis pieces in The Washington Post and The New York Times continue to generate pickup and chatter, but the picture that emerged from this convention was also rendered in a thousand other pixels of coverage.

But bloggers didn’t just bring their own new perspectives to the coverage; they also spurred the mainstream media to more activity:

Mainstream media outlets are meeting the insurgency with guerrilla tactics of their own, with major newspapers using huge reporting assets to infuse the 24-hour news cycle with deep reporting and videos.

“You had mainstream reporters wandering around with video cameras, and bloggers doing a lot of original reporting and everything in between,” said Arianna Huffington. “At a convention, it is the little pieces that complete the puzzle, and you had all of these sources of input here.”

And just as CNN created the 24-hour news cycle a generation ago, bloggers have put pressure on the traditional media to ramp up the intensity of their activity. No more sleepy convention mornings:

Just four years ago, the big white tents at the conventions that housed the media hordes would come to life slowly, with stories from the night before being passed around along with articles from the daily press. Now reporters and editors jack in when they wake up and stay there.

“It used to be you could sort of take it easy in the morning and chat over lunch and then maybe start to fire up some stories by midafternoon,” said John F. Harris, editor in chief of Politico and a veteran of The Washington Post. “At this convention, our reporters work from 8 in the morning until midnight.”

On paragraph of the article highlighted a different ethic of bloggers as compared to mainstream media, and one in which the latter are found wanting:

Politico had a particularly nice run this week, setting up the convention with the McCain housing crisis, detailing some of the sniping between the Clinton and Obama camps and suggesting that Karl Rove made every effort to kill the possibility that Joe Lieberman, the Democrat turned independent, would be nominated for vice president.

Whereas any blogger in this case would link directly to the referenced stories on Politico, such as its Rove-Lieberman piece, the Times‘ links to Rove and Lieberman were to their bio pages on the nytimes.com site. I believe there are two major reasons for this linking policy:

  • The “Just Trust Me” Factor – For more than a century, newspapers and other mainstream media had a monopoly on reporting, and had no need or ability to facilitate people checking their work. Journalists were the “synthesizers,” and it never even entered their minds that to show the original source material so their readers could see for themselves.
  • The “Hold onto the Eyeballs” Factor – Given their economic difficulties, it seems many media outlets have a policy that they don’t link to external sites, to avoid losing page views. The Times isn’t alone in this; The Washington Post, for instance, does the same thing.

Whatever the reason, one thing that’s clear is that the journalists and their editors aren’t giving primary consideration to the interests of their readers.

Carr closes with examination of a for-profit reprise of the PBS slogan — “If We Don’t Do It, Who Will?”

As reporting staffs at newspapers are cut, journalists have spoken of the threat that important civic issues — say, for instance, the first major party nomination of a black candidate — would go undercovered. But almost anyone who wanted to know anything about what was going in Denver could find it somewhere.

“I’m certainly preparing Daily Kos for the day when Internet and television are one and the same,” said Markos Moulitsas, the founder of Daily Kos, which estimated its traffic at 37 million page views for the busy month of August. “One of our jobs is to wrestle as much of that away from them as possible. A few gatekeeping elites shouldn’t be allowed that much influence.”

Traditionally trained journalists have contributed powerfully to this country’s common good, and can continue playing a huge role in the future, particularly as they take advantage of the potential of “crowdsourcing.” But as the national political conventions show, they no longer have the field completely to themselves.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Obama, McCain Both Have “Girls”

In his analysis of Barack Obama’s use of social media in Social Media 302, Associate Professor Scott Meis called attention to a key difference between this campaign cycle and those of the past:

In the past, a campaign team may have overreacted to a video such as Obama Girl or been concerned about not having a say in the messaging behind a video such as Yes We Can. Instead, the Obama team has embraced these videos and recognized the value and power of user-generated content in moving others to action.

That’s a really crucial change in the media landscape, and it’s here to stay. Candidates formerly would try to control the campaign’s message, but that has become extremely difficult if not impossible. As Scott mentioned, Obama Girl had a brief period last summer in which she essentially dominated the campaign news.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU]

But now BarelyPolitical has also added “McCain Girl” to its YouTube lineup:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iyDWvvkG64]

And just as we will expect to see Obama-McCain and Biden-Palin debates in the next 60 days, there is also a “Candidate Girls Olympics” competition.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1msrwpsSd8]

Social media are more than just “new media.” I define new media as a way for organizations to bypass the mainstream media and deliver content directly to audiences. Social media means they aren’t “audiences” anymore. They can and will talk back, whether on social networks or through their own blogs.

As Scott said, it’s encouraging that both of the major campaigns have significant involvement in social media. (You can read about the McCain effort in Social Media 301.) But whether the campaigns are participating or not, the reality is that with the widespread availability of these cheap and easy tools, rank-and-file people across the political spectrum will be engaged on-line in this momentous election.

Social Media 302: Barack Obama’s Social Media Strategy

In Social Media 301, we examined the McCain campaign’s use of the Web, and invited an associate professor to provide a similar analysis for the Obama campaign. Scott Meis, a SMUGgle from Chicago, has risen to the challenge with Analyzing Barack Obama’s Social Media Strategy. Here’s an excerpt:

Visit any of Obama’s networking tools and you’ll find a donation widget. He’s engaging target audiences on their own turf and using these tools and platforms to motivate others to donate and help drive others back to his website. All these tools are serving as key extensions of interaction and user involvement but centered around a clear call to action. It really is brilliant. You see a great video on YouTube that inspires you to participate, whamo, the donate button is a simple click away.

One could definitely argue that Obama is just trying to see what sticks, but let’s remember, this is the presidential election. Technically, his audience is everyone. The Washington Post has even gone so far as to title Obama as the “King of Social Networking.”

Check out the rest of Scott’s analysis on his Social Media Snippets blog.

Social Media 301: GOP and McCain Use of Web

No campaign has used the Web as effectively as Barack Obama’s has, as his record-setting fundraising totals testify. He’s the second-most popular person on Facebook, after Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps. I have invited any SMUGgle with first-hand experience of the Obama on-line campaign (and who got the early-morning text message last Saturday about the Biden selection as the VP candidate) to become an Associate Professor and write a post analyzing its strengths (and whatever weaknesses they may see.) A couple of people have expressed interest, although neither has yet submitted a post. Hopefully we’ll have something fairly soon.

Meanwhile, because my political leanings are conservative and because I worked in campaigns and government on the Republican side for 14 years prior to a career change, I’m doing this post examining the McCain campaign and its use of the Web.

As of this writing, Sen. McCain trails Sen. Obama by 1,236,581 “supporters” on Facebook, although I think there has been something of an uptick in support for McCain since he named Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

The GOP candidate recently launched a redesigned McCainSpace, which Erick at TechCrunch reviewed with a jab at the candidate’s superannuation. He also expressed bewilderment at why both McCain and Obama feel it is necessary to create their own social networks given that large social networks like Facebook and MySpace already exist.

While I generally agree with Erick’s perspective for most businesses and organizations, in this case he’s flat wrong. The campaigns of the two major party candidates for President are by definition “big enough” to create a critical mass of interest that can make a standalone social network successful.

Like the Republican “all of the above” energy policy that supports increased drilling, conservation and development of renewable alternatives, the social networking strategy for national campaigns should involve both the general purpose sites like Facebook and a proprietary site. In this way, campaigns own the data and can avoid being in a position where a decision by Mark Zuckerberg or his MySpace counterpart would limit their ability to communicate with supporters. And when you create your own site, you have the freedom to add functionality not available in the general purpose sites.

It’s not “either/or;” it’s “both/and.” I’m a McCain supporter on Facebook, but I haven’t joined McCainSpace. Other people may not want to join Facebook, but are motivated enough by the presidential campaign to want to get involved somehow. If they go to JohnMcCain.com, they may just decide to join his social network as their introduction to social networking.

Although the McCain campaign has been behind in its adoption of Web 2.0 strategies, it’s doing fairly well in more traditional Internet campaigning. For example, when I searched for Joe Biden this evening on Google, here was the result page (click to enlarge).

Note that when you click the sponsored link that has the top position on the right side, it takes you to a place where you can see this ad (embedded from YouTube below):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8]

The McCain campaign has others of its ads (including this one that is 94 seconds long and couldn’t be used on broadcast TV) on its YouTube channel.

On the JohnMcCain.com site, as of this evening I saw this banner at the top of the page, which apparently offers different views of the site based on the user’s indication of voting intent (click the image to enlarge).

His site also has a McCain Nation section to encourage activism, a blog that publishes photos and campaign news (and also has embedded YouTube videos, and also has a Volunteer Action Center.

So, while the McCain campaign hasn’t attracted as big a following in the social networking sites, and hasn’t raised anything near the astronomical amounts Obama’s has through the Web and otherwise, it does appear to be closing the gap somewhat and doing some basic things right.

The polls seem to indicate that this race will be another extremely close one. It’s guaranteed to be historic, with either the first African-American president or the first woman VP.

I renew my call for someone on the other side of the aisle to provide a Social Media 302 course on the Obama campaign’s use of the Web.

Update: Scott Meis, on his Social Media Snippets blog, has provided a helpful overview of the Obama campaign’s web efforts. Thanks, Scott!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Social Media 202: Screencasting

Screencasting is a way of letting other people see what is on your computer screen. It lets you capture either the whole screen or a particular portion and create a movie file that you can upload to a video sharing service like YouTube or Facebook.

The benefits of a screencast are obvious, particularly for SMUG. Instead of a slideshow of a sequence of static screen shots uploaded to Slideshare.net and synched to a sound file (pretty good alliteration, huh?), we can now show and tell with full motion, so you can see exactly how to do things. Pictures are extremely helpful, but movies should make the teaching clearer and the learning easier.

But how do you (or I) turn my computer screen into a movie?

For Mac OSX, Ambrosia’s Snapz Pro X is an excellent screencast software choice. It’s easy to use, and I was most pleased that it not only delivers great movies of my Mac screen, but also my Windows XP partition. You can see that example in this post on social sharing with WordPress.com. Unlike most of what you see in SMUG, Snapz Pro X isn’t free: it costs $69. But I think it’s worth it for the power it gives you.

Just to show how far you can go with this, I decided to do a demo screencast using Flip video of me addressing my fellow SMUGgles from the front porch of Old Main:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvJepnorgdY]

Steps involved in this were:

  1. Shoot the video of me talking using a Flip on a tripod.
  2. Transfer the file to my Mac and open in QuickTime
  3. Play the video at half-size, while capturing the surrounding 640 x 480 window using Spapz Pro X screencast software, and then saving to a QuickTime movie file.
  4. Open that file and repeat the cycle, creating another QuickTime file that could again be played at half size.
  5. After repeating a couple of more times to create the “hall of mirrors” effect, edit the pieces together using iMovie or Final Cut.

The point, besides having some fun showing a movie of a movie of a movie, was to show that through screencasting you can do show-and-tell training demonstrating anything on your computer screen.

Ironically, the only thing I can’t screencast using Snapz Pro X is a step-by-step introduction to using Snapz Pro X!

I still like Slideshare and will use it to some extent (particularly for the Snapz Pro X course), but I think a screencast can be a much more effective way to teach.

If you’re a Windows user, this list from Mashable has some screencast software alternatives.

What do you think? How could you use screencasting for your training programs?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine