YouTube: A Wreath After The Wrath?
November 25, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Could the YouTube revolution in politics backfire?
We’ve become quite enamored with YouTube’s edgy ability to bring us raw, uncensored, unscripted moments from politics for our ridiculing pleasure. But is this public video voyeurism setting ourselves up for the next logical development: politicians will simply provide us less raw, uncensored, unscripted moments?
The question is prompted after reading this excerpt from Washingtonian editor at large Garrett Graff’s new book “The First Campaign: Globalization, the Web, and the Race for the White House” in the December issue of the magazine:
While Virginia senator George Allen faced a particularly devastating situation with his “macaca” comment, none of the 2008 candidates will escape the wrath of YouTube.
The rules of the game have changed — and not in the candidates’ favor. In the new world, candidates have to be prepared that anything they say could travel around the world before they finish a speech.
If that’s the case, then politicians will surely become even more guarded than ever before. And that’s a terrible thing. We will have more robotic candidates and politicians — more talking points, more platitudes, more stay-on-message public encounters. And far less fun. All in fear of the YouTube upload.
Savor what we’ve got. Because by learning more now, we may learn far less real soon.
elycett said,
November 26, 2007 @ 10:58 am
You bet. Just ask the Australians about Ruddbot.
DS Dan said,
November 26, 2007 @ 11:09 am
With YouTube, a candidate says nothing to prevent people from finding out what they truly believe.
Without YouTube, the candidate can say everything since no one can hear it.
Both are equivalently bad for our knowledge of a candidate’s beliefs.
TMLutas said,
November 26, 2007 @ 11:17 am
The solution is to create a system where each voter defines what they want to know before they’ll vote for somebody and a personalized “no vote” ballot is generated where *nobody* is telling them enough to make an informed decision or those who are hold unacceptable (to the voter) opinions. This is not a difficult problem to code for.
Sue said,
November 26, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Or, we could end up with a HILLARY CLINTON! Wow, what a concept.
Don said,
November 26, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Less candid, less raw?
You know that Romans of ‘good’ families spent years being tutoring in good rhetoric and logic. It might not be a bad thing to have an environment in which to avoid those awkward public moments, that those seeking the responsibilities of public office once again apply themselves in classical training. Those who are well grounded will likely avoid the pitfalls while presenting themselves with a ease that belies contrived or phony.
Retired E-9 said,
November 26, 2007 @ 11:58 am
“The solution is to create a system where each voter defines what they want to know before they’ll vote for somebody and a personalized “no vote” ballot is generated where *nobody* is telling them enough to make an informed decision or those who are hold unacceptable (to the voter) opinions. This is not a difficult problem to code for. “
TMLutas,
In an era where even asking a voter for identification is considered “racist” and “intimidation” there are no problems that are not “difficult”.
As for the concept that “each voter defines” their expectations before they vote is…..ambitious.
Personally, I think YouTube simply gives cover to the trend politicians have engaged in since Nixon; namely to avoid any interaction with any voters unless they have large sums of money.
Your representatives and senators don’t want to talk to you anymore than absolutely necessary. That includes speeches, campaigning or, god forbid, actually corresponding with you, the voter.
You can test my hypothesis by going online and send your representative an email. If you receive any response it will most likely be a newsletter with a link asking for a donation. Anwsering machines and even personal letters seldrom result in anything more than a printed newsletter or other junk mail.
Face it, we have permitted our elected representatives to create a new self-defining aristocracy that has put itself above “our” laws and us and I don’t see any changes in the future.
Jimmie said,
November 26, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
I see it as a good thing….we the….the phonies…will be weeded out…it will have to take us closer to the truth…can’t be all bad.
fahs ibair said,
November 26, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Don’t fret. As our politicians become more guarded, the reward grows for the one that can buck the trend. Transparency isn’t always a good thing, but it is pretty nice.
ronbo said,
November 26, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
I think we can look forward to more “reality TV” from candidates: scripted moments that are intended to appear spontaneous.
8 said,
November 26, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Here’s how I see it: candidates are more honest with their core supporters and they present a crafted image to the public. The only thing that can change is that candidates will become less honest with their supporters or more honest in public. If they do the former, avoiding statements that can be taken out of context or painted as extreme, they’ll have to find a new way to signal to their core voters, otherwise they’ll appear to be a calculating politician who has no core values.
Richard Cook said,
November 26, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
The candidates will not say much but the electorate look at the candidates as a rorshact test. This will not be good.
jblog said,
November 26, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Perhaps this is pollyannish, but maybe this will lead to candidates who are more authentic in the first — people who aren’t (and don’t need to be) afraid to be seen for who they are.
If YouTube forces all the current candidates to become inauthentic, prepackaged, shrink-wrapped, caricaturzied automatons, voters will spot it instantly. And that may create an opening for new candidates who are more real.
Gekkobear said,
November 26, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
I dunno, this definitely looks bad for politics. It used to be that a Politician could give completely opposite opinions to different groups and not be caught. Now they’re going to be shown to be opportunistic pandering weasels, with clear video evidence to back that up.
Wait, did I say bad for politics? I meant bad for opportunistic pandering weasels.
TLB said,
November 26, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Politicians can do what they want, but they’re always going to have to take some questions from the audience occasionally. There’s a huge opportunity for non-”journalists” to do the job those “journalists” won’t do by asking real questions. Forget about trying to get Macaca redux, concentrate on calling them on their lies.
Suzanne said,
November 26, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Well, we could always take heart in the possibility of a candidate who can be both candid and desirable at the same time. Oh wait, that would be Ron Paul.