RSS
Twitter
'YouTube Moments' Hold Politicians Accountable
from the power-to-the-people dept
Virginia Postrel points out a great story on the way YouTube is changing the dynamics of political debate. It points out that when Bill Clinton was first running for president in 1992, the media landscape had relatively few mechanisms for holding politicians accountable for misstatements. There was only room for so many stories on the nightly news, and so when politicians told white lies, reporters tended to move on before anybody could check the claims for accuracy. But now that anyone can create a blog post or a YouTube video, politicians' fibs and gaffes can take on a life of their own, whether it's Hillary Clinton's sniper fire, Barack Obama's "bitter" Pennsylvanians, or John McCain's "100 years in Iraq." The nightly news doesn't always cover these kinds of comments when they happen, but someone in the blogosphere almost always catches them and they then get endlessly reported, debunked, and hashed out online. And once a clip has generated a lot of heat among bloggers, it can often become a big enough story that mainstream media outlets pick it up again. While some of these attacks can be nit-picky or taken out of context, on the whole it's a definite improvement in the quality of democratic debate. With video cameras everywhere and bloggers ready to pounce on any misstatement, politicians have a stronger incentive to tell the truth, and not to talk out of both sides of their mouth.
Meanwhile, USA Today reports that the presidential candidates are raising eye-popping sums of money in small increments via the Internet. In the first quarter of 2008, Barack Obama led the pack with $129 million in small donations, followed by Hillary Clinton at $65 million and John McCain at $37 million. Even John McCain's fundraising would have been considered a major accomplishment four years ago -- Howard Dean made headlines with $15 million in online donations in the third quarter of 2003, much of it from small donors. If the trend lasts -- and there are good reasons to think it will -- it will also have a democratizing effect on the political process. Presidential candidates will be more inclined to pay attention to the priorities of grassroots activists, and comparatively less worried about pleasing insiders capable of raising money in $2300 increments.
And of course, these developments are connected. The rise of blogs, YouTube, and other participatory media has gotten more people engaged and invested in the political debate, which in turn makes them more likely to open their wallets. Conversely, the fact that blog readers are often campaign contributors gives bloggers real leverage over candidates -- bloggers can punish candidates perceived as not playing fair by directing contributions to their opponents. All of which is producing a more engaged and accountable political process. Of course, things are far from perfect, but there are good reasons to think that 21st century politics will be better than politics was in the 20th century.
Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
1 remark...I don't think "Presidential candidates will be more inclined to pay attention to the priorities of grassroots activists, and comparatively less worried about pleasing insiders capable of raising money in $2300 increments."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
WTF?
Of course, things are far from perfect, but there are good reasons to think that 21st century politics will be better than politics was in the 20th century.
Riiiiight. Because having the media concentrate on every off-hand remark a candidate makes is so much more important than talking important issues like the economy or the war.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
geez...
Send in the Trolls!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Won't change anything for a good 10-20 years, I reckon
Barely anyone bothers to look up political quotes on the net unless it's a "lol look how stupid bush is" thing, and of the few that do, only a small percentage will actually vote.
So until the internet-minded generation gets to the "we actually care about voting" stage, none of this will make any difference.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Until the baby boom generation is dead it's kind of pointless to vote. They are the majority in this country and they decide the elections.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: WTF?
Apparently Mr. Comboman is not familiar with the machine politics of the first half of 20th century.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
BS
As Michael Moore demonstrates video can lie as well as any other medium. A little clip here, a cut there, and its easy to lie. Even in the above post the McCain reference is utterly decontextualized on YouTube because its clear when you watch the nonedited version thta McCain was referring to hundred in the reference of a base like we had in Germany or Japan- NOT ongoing military actions. Cameras lie just as much as anything else.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: BS
So if crime fighters fight crime and firefighters fight fires, what does a "FreedomFighta" fight?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
FreedomFighta
"So if crime fighters fight crime and firefighters fight fires, what does a "FreedomFighta" fight?"
Totalitarianism.
Next question?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Read The Post
Some of you seem to be reading the post, and mixing two separate arguments by Tim:
#1 A publicly accessible log of video clips will hold politicians more accountable.
#2 As the Internet changes the nature of fundraising from a few rich donors to numerous smaller donors, Politicians will continue to pander to their contributors, but that group will look more and more like 'every citizen'.
Many of you (like comment 2) do a very nice job of refuting his conclusions in #2 based on the downside of #1.
I think the #2 point by Tim is a great observation, and is one of the few optimistic elements I have heard regarding politics in the 21st century.
Tim's point #1 is more ambiguous, as it's true that "clipping" politicians' videos, and catching them out of context has led to guarded politicians who stick to party lines, and are afraid to ad lib. It has also fueled lots of "out-of-context" propaganda on every side of every debate. But the "clipping" would occur if there were an Internet record or not. Plenty of "News" (and I use the term loosely) shows don't need the net to edit video out of context.
But there is a more important trend at play than clipping, and that is the Internet's memory. Now, average Joe's can find politicians who change what they say as a matter of convenience, or who are particularly inconsistent. Accountability might be a bit of a surprise, since the only show that seems to hold politicians responsible for things they have said in the past is a f@#$# comedy show. Why isn't this part of the newsmedia's regular day job?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Accountability
Along these lines, I got tired of being insulted by politicians when I would write them about some issue that I was concerned about. Some pols don't seem to have a problem dismissing people or calling them "insane" via email because they don't think their words are going to get any further than the recipient. So I've started a message board called http://www.rudepoliticians.com where anyone can post their correspondence with politicians. Pols should be held more accountable for their actions. I, for one, wouldn't vote for a politician if I knew he/she was abusing his/her power and acting like a total jerk. Politicians should be open-minded and responsive to citizens. The Internet gives us a great way to expose the bad apples.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment