The emergence of the Hillary 1984 Youtube spot raises a lot of interesting questions. How and where do we get information on political candidates? Who is responsible for the material? How does it compare to official campaign "spin?" Is the source an independent grassroots voice, or is it actually disinformation from the campaign that is designed to appear as independent?
In case you're not up to speed on this, a digitally re-edited version of Apple's 1984 Think Different ad has appeared on Youtube, posted by someone using the pseudonym ParkRidge47 (referring to Hillary's hometown and year of birth). It ends with a link to BarackObama.com, but Obama's campaign says they had no part in creating this ad.
The explosive growth of blogs and Youtube is rapidly changing the political campaign process, creating many grassroots opportunities to affect campaigns from the outside. It is much easier to expose questionable campaign donors and other information that usually would not see the light of day in the pre-digital age.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran news article on the phenomenon.
It feels like the winds of change are blowing in a big way. I'm seeing the effects on local campaigns, such as the 49th ward aldermanic run-off. I'd imagine that political campaigns may be very different 10 years from now, as grassroots efforts increase in prominence and influence. Power to the people!
2 comments:
It's both good and bad- like most things. People can share unfiltered information but also deliberate misinformation ala the Swift Boat John Kerry fiasco.
My thought is if it gets more people involved and the youngest generations involved, it's a good thing.
I agree.
I think it could make politics more relevant to younger people and get them more involved. That could be positive if that involvement is more honest information sharing and discussion than disinformation.
Post a Comment