As a politics major and someone who has met a fair share of politicians, I can honestly say that only a small fraction are “the real deal.” Many are interesting, some entertaining, but several times I find myself not 100% satisfied with what a candidate brings to the table. I guess in a way this is a good thing. After all, who wants to blindly follow someone? However, after a while of meeting a number of individuals, and learning more about the business, I find myself getting annoyed more frequently. Classmate Stephanie Brumfield summed it up very well in her article which addressed older people resisting new technology. This has become a frustration of mine as well, particularly with politicians who “fake it” and try to use new media to get votes.
The onset of the new media age has, of course, dramatically affected the political classes. Politicians need to master this form of media in order to reach voters and serve constituents. It’s no different from the invention of the television. When television was created, politicians needed advertising experts to master commercials. Television did away with some of the older, more classic, models of campaigning, such as going door-to-door, or trying to gain the support of unions to organize large numbers of voters. Television is not what it used to be. Viewership on the “big stations” is way down. People now have hundreds of channels to choose from and are no longer only concentrated on a few. And honestly, who watched commercials anymore with TIVO and DVR? Television is getting much less attention from candidates while new technology is. But with a television you actually had to be the candidate in the advertisement. You had to speak, interact, and make your case to the camera. With new media, the personal involvement of the candidate is not nearly as significant. A twitter update, a note on Facebook, a friending spree on Facebook, a follow request and the like, can all be manufactured through someone simply posing as the candidate. An intern sitting in the back office can take an impersonal statement handed to them, and put it online to make the candidate look like they are lively and active on new media.
Congressman Jason Chaffetz is a noted tweeter which Politico took note of in their recent article on the issue:
“There’s a method to the madness here,” Chaffetz says. “If you can break bread with somebody, if you can laugh with somebody, then you open up a door in order to talk to them seriously about public policy.” “It only works if you do it yourself,” Chaffetz told his colleagues. “If you have your staff [do Facebook and Twitter on your behalf], it’ll be lame, and everyone will know it. I really feel like most members do a pathetic job of being accessible and real to their constituents."
Chaffetz hits it right on the head. When using new media you must be REAL. Phoniness is very detectable.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
How a Politician Used Wikipedia to Poison the Jury Pool
Joe Ferriero was once one of the most powerful men in New Jersey politics. He was Chairman of the Bergen County Democratic Organization, which served as the political arm of one of New Jersey’s most powerful counties. Every statewide office holder needs to win in Bergen County. Without the support of Bergen, and Ferriero, a candidate cannot run up the margin to win the office. He turned Bergen from having a republican in every local office and sending several to the state legislature, to defeating almost all of them, and replacing them with democrats loyal to his machine. He raised millions of dollars over his tenure running the county. When his candidates were financially well off, he would loan money to other counties and candidate and further advance his clout. Hillary Clinton, during her primary campaign for the democratic nomination for president, personally came to Bergen County to accept Ferriero’s endorsement in the race. Her “kissing the ring moment” with Ferriero secured his endorsement, and thus she won New Jersey on Super Tuesday in 2008. Ferriero was a big deal. Today though, he sits up and edits his Wikipedia page.
Indicted in 2008 on corruption charges, Ferriero was forced to surrender his post. So what did the powerful political mogul do to prepare for his trial? In addition to spending probably hundreds of hours with legal counsel, Ferriero created a Wikipedia page for himself.
In a clear attempt to begin to cast himself in a more positive light, after weeks of negative press following the indictment, Ferriero and friends (according to politicsnj.com) created a Wikipedia page that highlighted his softer side. It made mention of his alter sever days, of his charity giving, of how he cared for older family members, etc. Politicsnj.com called the page “a clear attempt at image manipulation.” While making a Wikipedia page is no crime, it is when you mock portions of the trial. The page, in edits defending Ferriero, mocked Chris Christie (the US Attorney) for indicting Ferriero as political payback. Christie was a republican appointee, and now happens to be running for governor. Such commentary was thought to be interfering with the trial, and affecting the jury pool, and the Judge ordered the Wiki, and other online mentions and discussions of the trial, halted.
Ferriero was convicted this week on three of the eight charges against him, including the most serious charge carrying a possible 20 year prison term. Following the conviction another technological hand was played to Ferriero’s benefit, a website raising money for an appeal.
Indicted in 2008 on corruption charges, Ferriero was forced to surrender his post. So what did the powerful political mogul do to prepare for his trial? In addition to spending probably hundreds of hours with legal counsel, Ferriero created a Wikipedia page for himself.
In a clear attempt to begin to cast himself in a more positive light, after weeks of negative press following the indictment, Ferriero and friends (according to politicsnj.com) created a Wikipedia page that highlighted his softer side. It made mention of his alter sever days, of his charity giving, of how he cared for older family members, etc. Politicsnj.com called the page “a clear attempt at image manipulation.” While making a Wikipedia page is no crime, it is when you mock portions of the trial. The page, in edits defending Ferriero, mocked Chris Christie (the US Attorney) for indicting Ferriero as political payback. Christie was a republican appointee, and now happens to be running for governor. Such commentary was thought to be interfering with the trial, and affecting the jury pool, and the Judge ordered the Wiki, and other online mentions and discussions of the trial, halted.
Ferriero was convicted this week on three of the eight charges against him, including the most serious charge carrying a possible 20 year prison term. Following the conviction another technological hand was played to Ferriero’s benefit, a website raising money for an appeal.
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Internet Celebrity
In class on Wednesday we discussed the creation of the “internet celebrity.” This is essentially someone who became famous largely, or entirely, because of their behavior online. Like the fat guy dancing to the “Numa Numa” video which helped launch him (and Youtube) into superstardom. Then there is Tom, the guy who made MySpace. He triggered MySpace so that everyone had him as a friend. His profile was visited more than any major celebrity’s. That’s one class of internet celebrity, the rocket-ship fame; they do one thing that shoots them into fame.
Then there are these celebrities who have some fame to begin with, but the viral nature of the internet gives them a platform on which to spread their name. Paris Hilton, who was kind of famous for her family name, became an internet superstar with a video that has been downloaded online more times then some full length feature films. Meghan McCain, daughter of US Senator and twice failed presidential candidate John McCain, finds herself in a similar category. She has some fame to begin with, but uses the internet to create her own brand. She is someone who is savvy enough to use the internet to groom their celebrity. She has 70,000 Twitter followers, and each got a shock this week she described Twitter with: "What once was fun now just seems like a vessel for harassment." She was criticized this week for a twitpic photo that was a little too revealing for some of her followers.
Like all internet celebrities though, any publicity is good publicity. Her photo had CNN and other news sources buzzing about her “deleting her account” and “unsure of what McCain would do next.” Wow. What a world we live in now where CNN, a world famous news organization, does a story on why someone might delete their Twitter. Of course the news played right into what these internet celebrities want (or need): more followers on Twitter, more page visits, or more friends on Facebook. There is a direct correlation between someone’s “stats” in the above categories and where they fall in the internet celebrity/social media world. The higher those numbers, the more reputable you are.
Some people then try to make themselves internet celebrities. They may try and bolster their online credentials to appear to be more popular then they really are.
A “friending or following addict” is not the person to blame them for doing this however. The social media culture puts a tremendous amount of online credibility based on how popular you are.
Soon internet celebrities will be a dime a dozen. Try something original to become famous, don’t just friend a whole bunch of people. Get stuck in a hot air balloon or something really weird.
Then there are these celebrities who have some fame to begin with, but the viral nature of the internet gives them a platform on which to spread their name. Paris Hilton, who was kind of famous for her family name, became an internet superstar with a video that has been downloaded online more times then some full length feature films. Meghan McCain, daughter of US Senator and twice failed presidential candidate John McCain, finds herself in a similar category. She has some fame to begin with, but uses the internet to create her own brand. She is someone who is savvy enough to use the internet to groom their celebrity. She has 70,000 Twitter followers, and each got a shock this week she described Twitter with: "What once was fun now just seems like a vessel for harassment." She was criticized this week for a twitpic photo that was a little too revealing for some of her followers.
Like all internet celebrities though, any publicity is good publicity. Her photo had CNN and other news sources buzzing about her “deleting her account” and “unsure of what McCain would do next.” Wow. What a world we live in now where CNN, a world famous news organization, does a story on why someone might delete their Twitter. Of course the news played right into what these internet celebrities want (or need): more followers on Twitter, more page visits, or more friends on Facebook. There is a direct correlation between someone’s “stats” in the above categories and where they fall in the internet celebrity/social media world. The higher those numbers, the more reputable you are.
Some people then try to make themselves internet celebrities. They may try and bolster their online credentials to appear to be more popular then they really are.
A “friending or following addict” is not the person to blame them for doing this however. The social media culture puts a tremendous amount of online credibility based on how popular you are.
Soon internet celebrities will be a dime a dozen. Try something original to become famous, don’t just friend a whole bunch of people. Get stuck in a hot air balloon or something really weird.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Facebook Friends
Today I noticed that the number of “friends” I had on Facebook was about to pass 1500. 1500! I took a second glance at that and could not believe that the number had gotten so high. Did I really know 1500 people well enough to add/confirm them as a friend on Facebook? Clearly the answer to this question is no. When I scrolled through some friend lists, I began to notice some themes behind which I had become friends with these people. The friends I had on Facebook could be divided into four categories.
True Friends: (33% of friends) This is the obvious category. People I actually am friends with. Family members are included in this category. Home friends, college friends, family members, that’s it.
Friendship requests originated from: mutual
Kind of Friends: (40% of friends)People I maybe had a class with in high school, friends of my brother or sister, or a weirdo who I might want to defriend but I would be too worried about them being insulted. Also a number of people I go to college with that I friended the summer before freshman year. (Everyone seemed to be doing that).
Friendship requests originated from: mutual
Status Friends: (20% of friends) In your professional field, there are always those interesting people you may friend just to be part of their network. So with me being a politics major, I am friends with many politicians, pundits, high-profile people, and people I have added just to network with.
Friendship requests originated from: me
Not Friends: (7% of friends) This is the category of people that I confirmed just because they were too weird to pass up. This person was maybe a person with forty friends, part of an African country’s network, and a profile picture of him and an elephant. These people looked too interesting to reject.
Friendship requests originated from: them
Voyeurism is less of a concern for me since I am now older and also a male. However, with all these friends that I have collected, I feel like my invisible audience has expanded far beyond what is should be. If you consider that 2/3s of my Facebook friends I don’t know well enough to trust, I should begin to correct some of these friendships. How often are these 1500 people looking at my profile? Are these random people looking at my photos or updates? Are they me using my picture for something?
Maybe some defriending is in order.
True Friends: (33% of friends) This is the obvious category. People I actually am friends with. Family members are included in this category. Home friends, college friends, family members, that’s it.
Friendship requests originated from: mutual
Kind of Friends: (40% of friends)People I maybe had a class with in high school, friends of my brother or sister, or a weirdo who I might want to defriend but I would be too worried about them being insulted. Also a number of people I go to college with that I friended the summer before freshman year. (Everyone seemed to be doing that).
Friendship requests originated from: mutual
Status Friends: (20% of friends) In your professional field, there are always those interesting people you may friend just to be part of their network. So with me being a politics major, I am friends with many politicians, pundits, high-profile people, and people I have added just to network with.
Friendship requests originated from: me
Not Friends: (7% of friends) This is the category of people that I confirmed just because they were too weird to pass up. This person was maybe a person with forty friends, part of an African country’s network, and a profile picture of him and an elephant. These people looked too interesting to reject.
Friendship requests originated from: them
Voyeurism is less of a concern for me since I am now older and also a male. However, with all these friends that I have collected, I feel like my invisible audience has expanded far beyond what is should be. If you consider that 2/3s of my Facebook friends I don’t know well enough to trust, I should begin to correct some of these friendships. How often are these 1500 people looking at my profile? Are these random people looking at my photos or updates? Are they me using my picture for something?
Maybe some defriending is in order.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
YouTube Video On How Annoying Twitter Can Be
Very good points that made me laugh. There is a market out there for constant updates and if people didn't want it, Twitter would not be a 50 million person enterprise right now.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Be Careful What You Tweet; You Don’t Know Who Is Watching
Today at work I had an embarrassing moment. I intern for Congressman John Boehner and I attended his press conference today on current events. During his remarks he made a very funny comment about the current healthcare plan that the democrats are proposing. The plan is likely (or really unlikely) to include a government option for health insurance, called a public option. Boehner was asked today for his thoughts on the public option and he remarked that he thought the public option was “about as unpopular as a garlic milk shake.”
I thought this was a very funny quote, and in the twitter world the first one to tweet gets the street cred. So I tweeted it out, along with a picture I took of him at the microphone. The picture got about sixty views. When I returned to my office from the press conference I was given an assignment to run something upstairs to one of Mr. Boehner’s leadership offices. (Boehner is the republican leader in the house). When I walked into the office upstairs I find the man I was looking for and he says to me “so you were talking some pictures at the press conference?”
I was so nervous that I was violating some kind of rule and that he saw me taking the pictures, but actually he had my twitter page up on his screen and a picture of me was staring back at me. For a second I worried about my previous tweets. Did I say anything embarrassing? Something I wasn’t supposed to repeat? Something that may make my boss look bad? I was nervous where he was going with this. He finally said that he was following me and that he and I should talk more about media and how I can help the Congressman. I breathed a sigh of relief and talked about new media with him for a few more minutes.
It just goes to show you that invisible audiences most definitely exist. People have the ability to search you or the search the topic you are writing about, and even with levels of protection people who are your “friends” or “followers” can still copy/paste what you say, or have five people staring at the screen behind them.
If I said something off-color, I very well may have cost myself my job today. Instead I might have opened a new opportunity.
I thought this was a very funny quote, and in the twitter world the first one to tweet gets the street cred. So I tweeted it out, along with a picture I took of him at the microphone. The picture got about sixty views. When I returned to my office from the press conference I was given an assignment to run something upstairs to one of Mr. Boehner’s leadership offices. (Boehner is the republican leader in the house). When I walked into the office upstairs I find the man I was looking for and he says to me “so you were talking some pictures at the press conference?”
I was so nervous that I was violating some kind of rule and that he saw me taking the pictures, but actually he had my twitter page up on his screen and a picture of me was staring back at me. For a second I worried about my previous tweets. Did I say anything embarrassing? Something I wasn’t supposed to repeat? Something that may make my boss look bad? I was nervous where he was going with this. He finally said that he was following me and that he and I should talk more about media and how I can help the Congressman. I breathed a sigh of relief and talked about new media with him for a few more minutes.
It just goes to show you that invisible audiences most definitely exist. People have the ability to search you or the search the topic you are writing about, and even with levels of protection people who are your “friends” or “followers” can still copy/paste what you say, or have five people staring at the screen behind them.
If I said something off-color, I very well may have cost myself my job today. Instead I might have opened a new opportunity.
Facebook First Impressions
It’s so true, if someone is not on Facebook, in my mind they don’t exist. People who don’t have a Facebook are instantly branded a total weirdo by society. We have all had that conversation, or overheard that conversation, where someone says something about how they met someone and that person didn’t have a Facebook and now therefore they think that person is weird. The most classic example is the conversation everyone had with their home friends before coming to school.
My summer before college:
Me: “I looked my roommate up on Facebook. Don’t think he has one.”
Friend: “This guy must have something wrong with him.”
Friend 2: “Probably one of those study types.”
Me: “Great, I’m stuck with a loser.”
My summer before college:
Me: “I looked my roommate up on Facebook. Don’t think he has one.”
Friend: “This guy must have something wrong with him.”
Friend 2: “Probably one of those study types.”
Me: “Great, I’m stuck with a loser.”
Best Web Ad of This Election Season
New Media has had a profound effect on politics. This ad was launched on YouTube (for free) and the "mainstream" media picked it up because of the attention online that it got. That's free, earned media. A perfect campaign move.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)