January 21, 2004

Is the Internet Relevant to the Campaign?

After the Iowa caucus, Chris Lydon of Blogging of the President says that today there is much questioning of whether the internet has any real effect on the 2004 election. After some thought, he concludes that yes, the internet is changing the election.

We bloggers should be prepared for a contest of sorts with the dinosaurs of old media. The Iowa results were a victory for the other guys. Television--both the paid commercials and the robotic, idiotic repetition in "news" coverage of the "angry" theme--was brutal on Dean and the amateur energy of his campaign. The national newmagazines mugged him--TIME with its "Who is the Real Howard Dean" cover, Newsweek with its "Doubts About Dean." [I am reading with giddiness and horror Kevin Phillips' "American Dynasty," detailing doubts about the House of Bush that the newsmags have always avoided.] Tom Brokaw reported on caucus night in Iowa that there was no discernible trace of Internet influence on the race. Bob Novak opined on CNN that there never was any such thing as a Dean movement.

Chins up, bloggers! We can take this teasing.

Chris is right. The internet is changing and shaping this election in ways that will not be understood until this election is over. The tools of the internet that have been so deftly used by the Dean campaign are truly transforming the election. The huge war chest of the Republicans can be countered by the small, individual contributions by the millions of us that want Bush out of the White House. And although Dean's campaign on the Iowa organizing had glitches, the problems can be reworked and solved -- it got people connected and involved. No matter whether you supported Dean or not, this is a very positive step.

I also think that blogs are feeding ideas and input for that national campaign and the power of this that cannot be overstated. There is a hierarchy of blogs, but they are funnelling up real ideas and conversation (through the interactive comments and posts) to the campaigns and the Democratic party. I would hate to see what the DNC would be running on if there hadn't been a way for base to feed up their concerns, their ideas and their funds.

I also think that the media itself will continue to change as the internet affects the way they do things. The right wing has had talk radio to drum up complaints and to discipline the media for being too liberal. Well, now the media is very aware that they better rethink just parroting rightwing talking points because the rightwing isn't the only one reacting to the news. If they don't figure out how to report facts, then they will feel pain from the liberal fact checkers too. And if they don't report accurately, then we'll find our own reporters. Kos' reporters in Iowa were fantastic! Clearly the pros will be looking at the freshness and authenticity of those reports and perhaps they'll ask to practice real journalism themselves.

One other point about Iowa: the high turnout for [just] a primary should cause the Republicans a lot more concern. If they are to win, new voters have to be kept home or vote Republican. And although the Republicans have a massive war chest (and some desperate personal reasons for wanting to hold on to power [ie: the investigations that would come next]), they will have a very determined and aroused foe. And I don't think too many of the new voters are going to be flocking to Bush. Thus, this primary had some very good harbingers for the upcoming election. And the internet is going to be a big part of it.

Update: Checking into How To Save the World, I found that Dave Pollard is finding his ideas and thoughts being read by people in the media. It's yet one more example about why the internet is making a real difference in our world.

Posted by Mary at January 21, 2004 02:50 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Mary,

Great post. I'm not convinced that high turnout will help Dems, or that it'll happen. But I could be, easily.

Posted by: MattS on January 21, 2004 03:37 AM

As all bloggers know, 'Mercans are as isolated and out of touch as any people in the world, and the corporate media intends to keep it that way.

The Internet and blogging look like our last best hopes. They're making a difference against tremendous odds, but we have be sure the Internet stays independent. How much to you think Rupert Murdock or Bill Gates would pay to brng it under control? Karl Rove?

Posted by: Karlsfini on January 21, 2004 09:53 AM

As it turned out, Bush is way ahead of me and already planning to get the Internet in hand:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0121-01.htm

Posted by: Karlsfini on January 21, 2004 11:28 AM

Hi Karlsfini -- I'll be watching for this too. Thanks for bringing to our attention.

Posted by: Mary on January 24, 2004 03:24 AM
Post a comment














Name and email address required.