| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
|
| | -- By AnaCorrea - 12 Feb 2008 |
|
>
> | Introduction |
| | "Ha-Ha! Your medium is dying!"
-Nelson, mocking a print journalist on The Simpsons. |
|
<
< | There have long been concerns that “new media,” as embodied by the Internet, will soon supplant traditional channels of communications, if it has not done so already. This tension between the old and new media is currently being played out in the presidential campaigns. |
>
> | There have long been concerns that “new media,” as embodied by the Internet, will soon supplant traditional channels of communications, if it has not done so already. This tension between the old and new is currently being played out in the presidential campaigns where each of the candidates has incorporated new media to some extent in their campaigning. This paper will look at three of the ways in which the presidential candidates have used the Internet to harness funds, attention, and support with varying degrees of success. |
| | |
|
>
> | The Cyber Piggy Bank: Personal Websites and Fundraising
Fundraising is at the heart of campaigning. Popular support matters little if a candidate does not have the financial support to make it to November. Traditional fundraising has seemingly taken a back seat to its Internet counterpart. As Terry Mancour of the Guardian Unlimited noted “Who has time - or money - for a $1,000-a-plate rubber-chicken dinner?”[1] Indeed, the candidates have made it extremely easy for people from all walks of life to contribute. All that a would-be-donor needs is an Internet connection and a credit card number. Visit any of the candidate’s personal websites and your eye will be drawn to the bright red button soliciting donations; John McCain? ’s main page consists of little more than a picture and a gigantic red rectangle proclaiming “Donate Today.” [2] |
| | |
|
>
> | The candidates proudly tout their Internet fundraising totals, using that financial support to gauge popular support, and berate their rivals for underperformance in the online donation arena. Barak Obama, for example, has repeatedly emphasized his online fundraising success. Online contributions to his campaign are expected to top $30 million in February alone, while Hilary Clinton had to personally lend $5 million to her own cash strapped campaign.[3] The financial disparity between the candidates will most certainly have an effect, and thus, the impact of internet fundraising can be felt. |
| | |
|
>
> | Nevertheless, Internet fundraising success does not necessarily translate to political success. Howard Dean, arguably the pioneer of online organization and fundraising, did not even manage to obtain his party’s nomination despite the generous cash flow. More recently, John Edward’s Internet fundraising tally spiked in comparison with his rivals, but he ultimately dropped out of the race after failing to win a single primary. Similarly, Ron Paul outpaced his mainstream rivals, raking in $20 million online in the fourth quarter of 2007, but “In spite of his online popularity, the eccentric Republican won 10 per cent of the votes in the Iowa caucus, 8 per cent of the votes in the New Hampshire primary and only 6 per cent in the Michigan primary.” [4] Because tangible success does not correlate to online financial support, it remains difficult to measure the impact of this use of new media in the presidential campaigns. |
| | User Generated Content |
|
<
< | Endorsed Content
Youtube/CNN Debates
Unendorsed Content
Obama Girl
Yes We Can Music Video |
| | Social Networking Sites |
| | Myspace |
|
<
< | References:
- Gueorguieva, Vassia. Voters, Myspace, and Youtube: The Impact of Alternative Communication Channels on the 2006 Election Cycle and Beyond, Social Science Computer Review 2007, ssc.sagepub.com/cgi/rapidpdf/0894439307305636v1.pdf
- Mancour, Terry. User-generated candidate. Guardian Unlimited. February 7, 2008.
|
>
> | Conclusion
[1]Mancour, Terry. User-generated candidate. Guardian Unlimited. February 7, 2008. |
| | http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/terry_mancour/2008/02/user_generated_candidate.html |
|
<
< |
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/weekinreview/20lizza.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0516/p01s02-uspo.html. |
>
> | [2]http://www.johnmccain.com/landing/?sid=gorganic
[3]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8374.html
[4]New Media’s Role in the U.S. Presidential Campaign, The Independent, January 28, 2008
http://www.freepress.net/news/29875 |
| |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line: |