With just the weekend between now and the start of the major party conventions, the amazing thing about the New Media is just how little it has impacted so far on the story. No major leaks about the vice presidential nominations, no blogger unmaskings of damaging revelations about the candidates at the top of the ticket, no shaky video of loose talk or surrogates jockeying for position.
Is is possible that the campaigns have learned how to contain the new viral media, or is something else going on? With Twitter, Qik, FriendFeed, and other social media platforms now in place and largely battle-tested for the coming storm of pre-baked circuses, why is the news so tightly controlled by the traditional networks?
Perhaps the nature of the underlying story of this election undercuts the technology equation. With a disruptive candidate like Barack Obama, people are looking to the media for less, rather than more drama. The shiny object fascination with radical technology change has given way to a more pragmatic mood, where iPhones have become commonplace and the rapid spread of information throughout the day and on the move has let the mainstream media play more to its traditional strengths as not just aggregators but synthesists of the news.
Real time bursts of information over Twitter and IM have changed how we react to events; the edge professionals have with insider notification is being smoothed out and delivered as a service to consumers via intermediaries who give away the data for the ongoing relationship. We use Facebook and other social hubs as early warning systems, insurance against being out of the loop when breaking information makes a difference in how you do your job or finding one.
Read the rest of this entry at TechCrunchIT
See all
Post
Joe Biden is now Barack’s running mate.
When TV & PC melt into 1 device habits will change in favor of New Media
Any idea when we can expect this to happen?
I blogged previously about the promise that Obama would announce his VP candidate via SMS and email. But last night CNN broke story first on leaked information. Then Obama sent txt announcing Biden. Mine came at 1am/4ET!
The only legit reason to txt at that hour involves a booty call.
They announced on Twitter even later.
mature view?
there is nothing to cover at the conventions.
nothing will happen that is not already scripted, managed, spun.
there will be no news. they don’t need to be covered.
If all you are going to use SMS and Twitter for is broadcasting, at least be polite about when you do it.
Better yet, get an @reply in your tweetstream once in a while, or mention feedback you read in a text message when you’re responding to a question.
Once you start actually having a conversation with me, maybe I’ll feel like you’ve earned the right to hit me up for a 1am booty call.
Social media in political and other campaigns being increasing. Technology
change the public.
Well for any of the skeptics that weren’t sure about the role of social media within our futures, the campaigns prove right here the power of such tools.
New Media (Blogs, Twitter, SMS) contains the hunger and passion that Old Media had when it first began.
Old Media no longer has a stranglehold dictating to the masses what they consider news, since technology allows anyone with a Cell Phone to publish it to the web via Photos, Video, SMS, etc.
Over the years, mainstream media became more about making $$ rather than investigative journalism. Let us hope this new movement keeps some aspect of truth for a few decades before selling out.
wherever you go take your favorite blogs tech, political, or otherwise with you - go to http://www.moblogga.mobi on your mobile device
No, no, no. I think Social Media can’t cover political campaigns.
Or… maybe you just missed it. Like Politico’s story about McCain and his inability to remember how many homes he has, and Talking Points Memo figuring it out (between 8 and 11 depending on how you count them, totaly value around $14 mill).
Or McCain’s admission that he’s a complete boob when it comes to the Net. That got picked up by social media too.
Twitter and Facebook? Not so much. But they’re just transport vehicles for info that’s on blogs. Blogs are and will continue to be primary sources of news for this campaign.
cheers,
dt
“(between 8 and 11 depending on how you count them, totaly value around $14 mill).”
I love that that’s the conclusion– if he’d answered either 8 or 11, the ‘outrage’ would be exactly the same. Besides which, his family live in most of them, and they are not owned by him personally, etc etc etc. Biggest non-story in a long time. His answer could have been phrased better but I don’t care if he knows how many properties he owns, or shares of stock, or mutual funds, or bonds, or bank acounts, off the top of his head.
I would love it though, if Barack knew that Russia’s on the UN Security Council and can veto resolutions, or if he knew we don’t have 58 states, or if he knew how many half-brothers he had and maybe sent them a couple of bucks now and again.
In any case, social media has gotten some stories noticed, and held certain stories in the spotlight when the mainstream dismissed them. Edwards and the Enquirer, in my opinion, would have continued being ignored if social media hadn’t been reporting on the reporting itself.
i think your giving the internet and social media too much credit. there has always been an alternate to the main stream media, no matter what the medium of the time was. the edwards story would have been broken somewhere, with or without the internet and social media.
as for a general statement about elections, i think social media does a considerably worse job covering the election than the main stream media, simply because they have almost no credibility.
1st tweets timeline of VP choice, with chart… http://tweetip.us/lk5ip
Maybe it has something to do with people just not caring? Why would new media be covering politics if regular, random people weren’t covering politics? Ask yourself, how many people do you know that talk politics a lot, or that feel the need to update you about politics in person. Probably not too many, right? So why would people’s actions on the social web be any different?
Social media covers political stuff, as Dan pointed out above. The main difference I see is that most of it is blatantly one-sided and makes no qualms about it (there is nothing wrong with this) because they have less interests to answer to (kind of like politicians).
Good article. I think it just goes to show how irrelevant Twitter, Qik, FriendFeed, et al, are to the ordinary person. Tout them all you want, but for a social media device, the vast population is ignorant to the existence of most of these so called game changers, let alone how to use them. Fail.
TC has a habit of overestimating the impact of ’social media’ sites. The truth is, most Americans have no idea about Twitter, Qik, FriendFeed, etc., and really have no desire to partake in such systems.
Social media in political and other campaigns being increasing in usa but not for other countries.
People may be growing in their confidence to defend a truth when they speak a truth. Politicians lie so much, maybe some see the value of telling the truth and behaving. Maybe … we whupped dem chirrin’.
Well for any of the skeptics that weren’t sure about the role of social media within our futures