The Social Media Philosophy Project

Tagged: Barack Obama RSS

• thePuck 6:55 pm on September 27, 2008 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Barack Obama, CNN, John McCain (2), Politics (3), Politics of the United States, Twitter (8), United States   

  Social Politics and The Quiet Revolution 

  Something very interesting is happening.

  

  Questions from Digg were submitted to the candidates for the presidency of the United States. CNN has shown and interacted with the ongoing conversation on Twitter. Traditional media is paying attention to what the web has to say. Why?

  Is it because they understand and approve of the kind of bottom-up, grassroots power that comes from social media and online networking? Perhaps. But I think it is something more. I think the people who have been running things for so long have finally run into something they can’t buy out, can’t bribe, can’t spin, and it is driving them nuts.

  Every aspect of this election has been closely followed by the online tribes, each making their own contributions. Some of these contributions have been more thoughtful, like those who brought attention to the fact that although McCain claimed to “suspend” his campaign, his campaign offices never stopped operations. Some, like this video from CollegeHumor, took a slightly less journalistic approach.

  

  In the interest of fair representation, I would like to show the other side of the contrived political line, but most of that seems to be things like this:

  

  Sarah Silverman has even called for a new kind of exodus.

  

  What is really interesting about all of this, though, is that any attempt to do politics as usual, with the spin and lies that normally go along with that, has been torn apart within (literally) minutes of either side airing it. Sites like Factcheck.org had responses to each claim the respective candidates made during the debates up a few minutes after the Sept. 26 debate was over.

  Each side of partisans in this election also have been getting their collective asses handed to them every time they try to lie, with the wildy varying “results” for the Sept. 26 debate being compared immediately online.

  The result of all this has been an interesting phenomena. People who have been very used to controlling the media with pressure and bribes are coming up against a force they don’t know how to cope with…the natural human tendency to dislike being lied to, on a massive scale.

  Now, all my life I have been asking a simple question that no one ever seems to have an answer to: if we all know that everything about politics is a scam and all politicians are liars, why do we continue to play their game? Now, admittedly it is much more nuanced than that, but still…we seem to have some very different ethical expectations on our leaders than we would from strangers on the street.

  But now that the street is global, now that we can all talk and compare notes, will we allow our leaders to continue to spin us, or will we demand authenticity and transparency on an entirely new scale? When a politician’s claims can be checked and the results circulated worldwide as they are made, can any of them dare to lie and spin the same way? In short, hasn’t the modern web given us the means to hold our leaders responsible for their claims and promises?

  Couldn’t we use this to essentially make them be honest? Couldn’t we have a quiet revolution, where no one got hurt and no shots were fired, by simply taking back the truth?

  I would love to hear what others have to say.

  

  thePuck, Confusion, and Matt Searles are discussing. Toggle Comments

   

  • Matt Searles 11:20 pm on September 27, 2008 Permalink | Reply

    I don’t really get the feeling that big media gets this social media stuff enough to even.. well often what they say about it is a bit off the mark. I know that CNN’s social media guidelines, for folks who work there.. is enough to make any self respecting social media type not want to work there… so I don’t know really…

    Though I do know that the local NPR radio station is actually kind of joining the community.. which is pretty cool.

    I still think there’s so few of us whom are really into this stuff.. that we probably think we are more important then we are.. even if we are the future… And even if we are fundamentally changing things. I think it’s just that power structures and big business are not real great at the change management biz.. and business probably has to be radically re-conceptualized to ever get so it can really do stuff…

  • Confusion 6:28 am on September 28, 2008 Permalink | Reply

    I think you’ll find that the clip from http://www.prayerhour.com is some form of straight-played humour.
    I was unsure about it, until I looked at the merchandising page, and realised that THIS was there:
    http://www.prayerhour.com/html/merchandise.html

    Though maybe you meant to link to satire? Didn’t seem like it from context.

  • thePuck 10:23 am on September 28, 2008 Permalink | Reply

    @Confusion

    Who can tell the difference? And really, who cares? The main reason I chose it was because I didn’t think it would turn the stomachs of my readers. The fact is the McCain side of the fence are not exactly “with the times” as far as social media go, and every attempt they make to do so just doesn’t catch on. So I had to pick some example to match the Obama side, which is very social media savvy, and this is what I found.

    The very fact that there is little to any recognizable difference between the satire and the real stuff should say something. Have you ever seen the forum board “RaptureReady”?

  Reply Click here to cancel reply.

  Name (required)

  Email (required)

  Web Site

  
  

   

• thePuck 10:50 am on August 9, 2008 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: astroturfing, Barack Obama, Barack Obama presidential campaign 2008, campaign, grassroots, John McCain (2), New Media, Politics (3), Social Media (30)   

  “Astroturfing” vs. “Grassroots” Social Media Marketing 

  Image by chad davis via Flickr

  Always active and alert timelady brought this travesty from Mashable to my attention. John McCain is promising “incentives” to engage in social media on his behalf…essentially he’s crowdsourcing his social media marketing campaign. This is in an effort to counter the strong grassroots social media campaign his opponent, Barack Obama, has been gathering since he announced his candidacy. This technique, paying people to mimic the behaviors of grassroots campaigns, has been dubbed by some “astroturfing“. Needless to say, this tactic is criticized.

  It seems that Rizzn wants to defend astroturfing and make an interesting claim:

  Essentially, the McCain campaign is taking a very capitalist approach to their digital campaign strategy, just as the Obama campaign could be described as having a very hippie approach to their campaign strategy. McCain is providing a rewards system for those interested in promoting his message, where as the Obama campaign tries to (and often succeeds in) getting folks involved in spreading the message based on idealism.

  Later he claims:

  But what about MoveOn? What about the Howard Dean blogosphere movement? What about the network of Obama blogs? What about the countless other Twitter campaigns that launch based on issues that arise on a near weekly basis? Are these things not essentially the same thing for each of their respective issues? Suddenly when a Republican gets New Media savvy, it’s got to be termed as something negative?

  Sure, none of these campaigns explicitly incentivized their campaign messages, but they encouraged users to go forth into the blogosphere and spread the word.  What is the McCain campaign really doing here?  Are lifelong liberals, or folks who aren’t supportive of the McCain presidency suddenly going to pop out of the woodwork so they can qualify to recieve a McCain bumper sticker or a McCain baseball cap?

  Now, I think that this is like comparing punk rock and disco. A grassroots campaign has the kind of traction and appeal it does precisely because it comes from the hearts, minds, and hands of real people who really care about whatever it is they get connected to promote. It has credibility because those people are doing it for honest reasons. This is credibility through sincerity and integrity.

  Now, when you purposely try to imitate that process by making it look as though people care and want to promote you, so that your campaign appears to come from the credible source of sincere real people, that is about as dishonest and manipulative as you can get. There is a huge difference, and Rizzn acknowledges it without actually allowing it to affect his argument:

  none of these campaigns explicitly incentivized their campaign messages

  So it’s like he sees the problem, but doesn’t want to acknowledge it anyway. He sees what makes it different, the exact issue, but then says there is no difference and it doesn’t matter. And he tries to blend in some sort of swipe at liberals, like they are being crybabies or something for pointing out that an astroturf campaign has no credibility, actually hurts credibility, and is a vast and horrific attempt to co-opt social media.

  I would like to make clear, I am neither liberal nor conservative. I have no interest in choosing between a Big Mac and a Whopper. Instead of having a party, I just have a rudimentary understanding of ethics. But this seems to be pretty easy to parse from logic, as well:

  p1: If two things differ is some salient respect, then they are not the same. (Identity Relation)

  p2: (there exists an x such that x is) Grassroots campaigns (x has property p) are motivated from below and are trusted because of this.

  p3: (there exists a y such that y is) Astroturf campaigns (y has property r) are motivated from above and simply do more to make the object of that campaign seem to lack integrity and credibility.

  p4: r =/= p (from p1)

  .’. (therefore): x =/= y

  Or, for Rizzn and the difference-challenged (the politically correct term for people who say how something is different while still claiming they are the same):