So I've been kicking around some incoherent thoughts on the subject.
We've entered a new age in American politics. In 1961, Daniel Boorstin wrote that American politics were defined by image and pseudo-events. The ideas and the values of a candidate were all wrapped up in stage-managed meetings and conferences. The sound bite (made even worse now by the 24 hour newscycle) was becoming the main arbiter of political discourse. The style was more important than the substance and, as people figured that fact out, politicians would try to up the game of hiding the truth.
In today's society, thanks to YouTube and the blogs and what not, we are seeing a new day of political electioneering and criticism. Discourse is still virtually absent, but people are able to take existing cultural artifacts and manipulate them, add music or re-edit them or what not, to create a new meaning. The image is no longer in control of the politicians and their organizations. Sure, this has been the case through print media for some time, but the new internet distribution Take, for example, the video at the bottom of the page. It is pretty well flawless (except that the dog in the pic isn't a poodle) and it really says a lot about the Obamamania that is sweeping the college campuses and other circles.
But look at the dark undertones. The image selection leaves a sick taste in your mouth. Is that more effective than a 5 page magazine article? Is it more accurate? Will future elections be decided based on who can hire the best video editors and creative minds, rather than the best speech writers? The individualized production capabilities are staggering.
Friday, March 07, 2008
YouTube Politics
3 comments:
Honestly, this had all the feeling of one of your run-of-the-mill, sarcastic, out-of-context, Youtuber edits, until the very end with the Obama eyes while the crowd chanted. That's when I found it profoundly disturbing.
I think that video editing has long been a campaign crutch. They just called them "mudslinging ads" back in the day. My favorite thought on all of this, though, is that one day, video edits will influence what your Joe Average voter believes to be true about the candidate and the world, much in the way that, early in 2000, one of the TV news channels displayed the results of a poll that showed the a little more than 20% of those responding believed that George HW Bush was in fact George Bush the Sr. Those people vote.
I imagine that Boorstin's comments were heavily influenced, given the time frame, by the Nixon-Kennedy debate of 1960; radio listeners thought Nixon won the debate, TV viewers thought Kennedy outperformed Nixon. That solidified the role of television in politics, but the reality is that politics will take advantage of every medium available. The difference with the Internet is that anyone who wants a voice can have one.
At this point, the voices on the Internet are adding to the public discourse, such as it is, but a lot of it is preaching to the choir. These videos and commentaries don't often circulate widely beyond people who already believe or are susceptible to believing whatever point is being made.
To the specific video posted, I don't know that something like this would ever make for good mainstream political opinion shaping. The video is critical of Obamamania, pointing towards the "cult of personality" ostensibly building around Obama; but that's too cerebral of a point for the average viewer. I don't think you can really reach viewers with anything more complicated than LBJ's "Daisy Ad," Reagan's "Morning in America," the "Willie Horton" ad, or more recently, Hillary Clinton's "3 AM" ad. Quick, simple, and visceral. Anything more complex than that is going to require the target audience to have the kind of understanding of the subject that you would expect from people who read five page magazine articles and books and are generally well-informed; unfortunately those people aren't going to be influenced by a 30-second commercial.
Successful campaigns have, since at least the Nixon-Kennedy debate of 1960, hired the best video editors and creative minds available along with the best speechwriters (and to an extent the speechwriters are the best creative minds available for political purposes) to create very slick, flashy, TV-friendly campaigns that decide elections. I don't see a difference between that and these viral videos aside from the message and the impact of Internet-based media. While the Internet may provide the opportunity to provide a more intellectual message in a more creative way, I don't think independently produced media is going to have any extra influence on elections without a total sea-change in how people are receptive towards non-traditional, independent media.
>>The video is critical of Obamamania, pointing towards the "cult of personality" ostensibly building around Obama ...
That was it! I knew there was this really distant, familiar vibe this video had, and that was it! It conjured up those same sensibilities that Living Colour was touching on in that song.
I have been racking my fucking brain over that since I've seen the video, one of those "tip of the tongue" kinda things ...
Post a Comment