Point, Click, Counterpoint: How New Media is Changing the Way Politics are Made
By Joel Gunz
Gunz Communications
Originally appeared in Vox
Other than acknowledging YouTube's preeminence in the digital landscape, the recent presidential debates on YouTube didn't exactly put the New in New Media.
In response, The New York Times ran a series of op-ed pieces penned by media gurus describing a genuine New Media debate. Their suggestions ranged from the practical to the silly to the Orwellian. Here are a few:
"The audience should be given a share of the stage with the debate moderator. The millions of voters watching the debate could interrupt, in real time, from the comfort of their homes to help hold the candidates accountable for their answers. If people thought Hillary Clinton did not answer a question thoroughly, they could text on their cell phones, call the toll-free number on the screen, or vote online to register their dissatisfaction." - "The People's Court" by David All, Republican campaign consultant.
"Each debate would have a live audience and Webcast. [All] debates would be stored, open to the public, and licensed with simple software tools so that citizens could easily rewatch, remix and share. An ambitious blogger could create "Democrats on immigration," splicing into one online video the smartest, funniest, most provocative statements from the debates." - "Time of Their Lives" by Zephyr Teachout, director of online organizing for Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign.
"Imagine if presidential debates were not one-night-on-a-stage affairs, but always on. By wearing [personal webcams that always transmit data], candidates would embed themselves in the Internet 24/7. The hard questions that inevitably arise from daily interactions with staff members, reporters and the public would provoke "answers" that could be stored, parsed and double-checked by citizen debaters. It would provide us with what television debates promised but never delivered: a way to discern the knowledge, intentions and character of a potential president." "Keep 'Em Coming" by Kevin Kelly, Editor-at-Large, Wired magazine.
Web 2.0 isn't only about "virtual worlds" and consumer-created content. What's truly new about the new Web is its capacity for a depth of engagement that has never been seen on a global scale. As emerging technology writer Steven Johnson has written, "After a half-century of technological isolation, we're finally learning new ways to connect." From syndicated blogs to online forums to the sheer volume of online video footage and other content, we can see how presidential hopefuls answer not only the canned questions, but we can also see how they act during unscripted moments.
And this matters. Because leadership isn't just about rhetorical or oratorical skills. A president's job, day in and day out, is unscripted and unrehearsed. And his or her leadership abilities need to be firmly in place whether the mic's on or off.
As Kelly, above, concluded, "Lincoln and Douglas crisscrossed Illinois 150 years ago, challenging and prodding each other in hours-long debates. Now that the networks are open, we can again demand strenuous, unscripted politics."
TV has long been accused of creating public discourse that favors style over substance. That's not entirely true or fair to the medium. Politicians' uneasy relationship with the media centers around the near omnipresence of reporters' microphones and TV cameras. Correspondingly, public cynicism toward elected officials has increased precisely because television exposes the substance of the political process.
And Web 2.0 is pushing media ubiquity to the nth degree.
Microphones, cell-phone videos and webcams are now putting public figures under a near 24/7 spotlight. Under this kind of scrutiny, there isn't a presidential hopeful alive who will not emerge from this election unscathed. Cobble together enough video footage and even the articulate and hyper-controlled Hillary Clinton can be made to look like a dimwit. You can bet that Barak's supporters are working on that right now, not to mention video junkies within the Republican camp.
Maybe that's not so bad. Amid this chaos also lies the increased likelihood that citizens will be treated to a well-rounded, coherent picture of the candidates - warts and all. And that's progress.
The always-on capabilities of cheap recording devices and Web video are facilitating the logical next step for democracy. Over the next year and a half, each candidate will be found to be smart in some ways and really dumb in other ways. We'll see the candidates - and those who end up occupying the White House - for what they truly are: humans just like you and me.
