New media and how it helps Democrats
Ben Smith had a very interesting post at the Politico about how what he calls “new media” is changing the way the presidential campaign is covered:
For better or worse, what’s happened here is part of a broader democratization: The media has been disempowered, and canddiates are judged — often utterly out of context — by whatever is picked up by the unblinking eye of the embed’s digital cameras and the blogs’ telegraphic style. There’s no space for reporters, who used to interpret these moments, to balance a bad minute with a good day, to tell readers and viewers how they should understand an utterance, or even to choose what’s news: They’re just racing to beat their rivals to the web with a terse dispatch and snippet of video. Some of the blogs and aggregators who pick them up will try to be fair and provide that context; others (more) will use them to reinforce the partisan stories they’re already telling. And readers can choose how to take each moment.
I think this is exactly right, and, tellingly, he wrote this in response to another reporter’s piece about how this change hurts McCain.
I believed that unfiltered scrutiny of candidates helps Democratic candidates in general. The reason is simple: Democratic candidates generally have a better mastery of policy details than Republicans and, all other things being equal, candidates who know more policy details will make fewer gaffes. It’s hard to imagine Obama (or Hillary) confusing Shia with Sunnis the way McCain does, for example. And the reason Democratic candidates have a better mastery of policy details is simple as well: Democratic voters value policy mastery, Republicans don’t (in general). Democratic voters are likely to choose their candidate the way they might choose a doctor or a lawyer — largely on the basis of whether or not the candidate seems to know what he or she is talking about — while Republicans are more likely to choose their candidate the way someone might choose a drinking buddy. Remember the whole “which candidate you’d rather have a beer with” question?
For whatever reason, the media also dislikes policy details. So the media’s “context” is usually just some kind of excuse for the candidate’s gaffe, especially if they like the candidate.
So, the idea that this election may be decided on the basis of which candidate makes fewer mistakes that end up on YouTube should be comforting, not scary, given the alternatives.
Related posts:
I agree with your general point about the Democratic candidates’ willingness to engage on issues. In addition, there’s a specific problem with McCain, which Martin points out in the piece you linked:
I don’t think McCain is that good off-the-cuff — he just has gotten a pass from the media because he’s accessible. But he’s sure better unscripted than he is scripted. With YouTube and blogs, that “strength” becomes a weakness, since McCain inevitably screws up when speaking off-the-cuff.
Obama performs best when he’s behind a podium and orchestrated events. His strength dovetails with the current media environment.
Exile says:
There’s more to it than simply mastery of policy.
Democrats have more “people friendly policies”. Rethuglicans have less “people friendly policies”. In general, Dems support social security, ending the war, birth control and abortion rights, raising minimum wage, government regulation to benefit people rather than companies, investment in infrastructure, SCHIP, health care for everyone, and on and on and on. These are policies that survey after survey show are broadly popular. Rethuglicans, in general, are against all of those things, and they have to avoid coming out and saying that directly, all the while making it sound like they are doing things to help the common man. Its difficult to contort your speech to do that. Things like YouTube and blogs are very good at pointing out what the Rethuglican candidates are saying, and when they verbally let out their support of reprehensible policies, or refuse to answer a question because the candidate doesn’t want you to know his true position (see John McSame, access to insurance provided birth control) or they come right out and say that your dissatisfaction with the economy is whining, then they get caught by the new media.
New media wants the people to know these things, while old media hardly thinks it is worth mentioning. And thus, new media gains even more advantage over old media (which for old media, seems to me to be a self-inflicted wound). And so there are many cases where new media becomes much more helpful to Democrats, while old media seems to be, in most cases, helpful to Rethuglicans.
I’ve just got to react to the Ben Smith (with a big paint brush) but…
Reporters interpreting the moments - sounds like pick and choose to me. I’ll pick and choose a couple of moments like Hillary’s New Hamsphire tear, Obama’s pastor, flag pin, the general pass on McCain, Al Gore internet moment, the lack of a role the media played in the entire Iraq war.
I’ll grant some exceptions but
Reporters report, news editors pick and choose. Add this to massive consolidation, and profit driven performance what can one expect?
I certainly don’t’ begrudge making a profit but when expanding margins means essentially neutering the ability to gather and report/deliver news - (aka, cutting reporters, bureaus, etc) what do you expect.?
I see new media as filling that void. I also see old media as using the new media to generate ideas for follow-up.
That’s pretty much my take too, that if you look at the issues that reporters pushed this cycle, they really were quite bogus.
I agree that Democratic policies are more “people friendly”, Republicans’ more “corporation friendly.”
But I think the differing attitudes towards policy mastery are important too. It’s possible that the real reason Republicans don’t master policy details is that they know the details of their policies are unpopular and would rather not discuss them.
The positive thing I see in the environment is that quickly developed scripted responses do seem to work. A lot of Obama’s quips, and even some of his speeches, seemed to be intelligent responses to things that happened very rapidly. It’s not exactly off-the-cuff but it’s not stay-the-course either. And I think it’s more like what governing actually involves — rapid, but not off-the-cuff, responses to developments.
So if he’s so good “off the cuff” why is he ducking the town hall debates McCain wants?
I know, he’s too busy campaigning in all 57 states.
John, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on how Republicans choose their candidates as opposed to how Democrats do so. You seem like a pretty issues-based guy. How do you feel about having a guy like George W. head up your party?
I realize I laid it on a little thick in terms of how Republicans choose their candidates when I said “like choosing a drinking buddy.” But I think there are differences and I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on them.
He ducks the town hall debates because they are of little use to him. Obama pulls in thousands when he speaks. Mccain pulls in a couple of hundred. McCain is just looking for an audience and wants Obama to provide it.
(In answer to your question)
Let’s see…go see the Dave Matthews Band perform live, or go see Dave Smith and his Marvelous Harmonica…decisions, decisions DeCaro.
Gads.
I choose my drinking buddies largely on the basis of whether or not they seem to know what they are talking about.