The Truth about Jakob Nielsen

Listen closely because I may never say this again…

Jakob Nielsen is my hero.

There I said it. Ok, he looks goofy and has way too many pictures of himself on his site, but he also says something in his article, Accessible Design for Users With Disabilities, about disabled internet users that I have been trying to get people to understand for years.

Nielsen says, “In general, it is often the case that design rules that may have been intended to help users with disabilities end up being of benefit to all users.”

I am not blind, actually I have 20/20 vision. Yet I use a screen reader every day. I use it for online news, email, class work, websites, everything. I have even found a website that has a professional voice actor reading the Bible.

I can adjust the speed of the text reader in order to cover material faster than I can read it by myself. This is exactly what Nielsen is talking about.

The internet is changing the way people expect to get information. Politicians and campaigns must acknowledge this. The days of telling people what you want them to hear, how you want them to hear it, and when you want them to hear it have past.

Embrace this change and embrace giving people the choice of what information they want or risk being left behind when the train of progress leaves the station.

JibJab vs. IPDI

Peter C's argument that the Institute for Democracy, Politics, and the Internet (IPDI) should be voted Top 10 Who Are Changing the World of Internet and Politics is compelling, but has the IPDI ever used animated satires set to music. JibJab has made viral spread of their message nothing special. Their ability to be equal parts offensive and correct has made them beloved by all political circles.

JibJab has taken the rich history of political cartoons to the next level, on demand animation. I remember the first time I got an email saying “You have to see this”.

It would be possible to teach an entire class on the analysis of the JibJab political animations. In my humble opinion, This Land is a work of art, but be warned it has some language that may not be appropriate for you younger readers. In a report written by the IPDI, Under the Radar and Over the Top: Online Political Videos in the 2004 Election, it is stated that This Land was viewed 50 million times. I don’t care if it was drunken fraternity guys watching it over and over, that’s a lot of viewings. The report also states that, “Only the two videos produced by
JibJab.com skewered both candidates equally.”


Don’t miss understand me, the long, dense academic reports produced by the IPDI are a great resource, but how many of them have gone viral. In today’s political atmosphere of self-importance and personal attack, I like the idea of that JibJab is out there writing something to point out how humorous politics really is sometime.

The IPDI’s report states “Karen Jagoda, president and founder of the E-Voter Institute called “This Land” a “watershed moment.” She said, “TV-obsessed ad strategists don’t get the fundamental shift JibJab portends for political programming. This change means that a couple hundred thousand dollars spent wisely online could translate into a windfall for candidates equal to a TV buy in the millions. That is, if you do it right.”

All political consultants should be ready to defend against this or use it to spread a message.

I just hope that Bush, Kerry, and other featured characters of JibJab’s work can take a step back and laugh at themselves when viewed through the prism of political cartooning at its best. And who knows maybe they will understand the other side’s point-of-view better because of it.

Now I realize that I, by using one of those long, dense academic reports produced by the IPDI to defend my position that they should not be named Top 10 Who Are Changing the World of Internet and Politics, seem a little hypocritical. Ok, I guess I will delete the Online Politics cookie and vote twice, once for JibJab and once for the IPDI.

Don’t you love the New Media.

Pandora’s Box

But will the established content production and distribution moguls — in publishing, media, and entertainment — simply allow the little guys to push them to the margins? How will this transformation play out, and how will it impact political fundraising?

Those are some pretty difficult questions to answer, but I will give my opinion. The “big guys” will probably struggle to preserve the statues quo, but once they realize that this is impossible they will embrace change or be replaced as the “big guys”.

This very principle can be seen in politics. Lobbyists are one of the “big guys”, but the very principle of lobbyists goes something like this:

Since it is impossible for individuals of a constituency, small businesses for example, to keep track of relevant legislation, identify pro-business candidates, and take direct action, or give directly, to affect the desired outcome, a lobbing organization, the National Federation of independent businesses (NFIB), must do this for them.

This logic held up until the last couple of years. The internet, with its informative blogs, news on demand, and campaign websites, has began removing the very obstacles that made Lobbyists necessary. All you lobbyists out there don’t be to frightened. An industry that has this much money and influence will not just disappear. It will, only after losing its battle to resist change, embrace change and retain its power though possibly changing its role.

Although very soon any American will have the resources to research candidates and legislation in order to decide who and what to support, most will not take advantage of this. The new role for Lobbyists may be familiar to them.

But only through learning how to use the new technologies of the internet will traditional institutions be able to continue prospering.

The possibility for an outsider using an internet fundraising campaign to run an otherwise not viable campaign is definitely out there, and when one person does it with some level of success, Pandora’s Box will be opened.

More on Immigration

Check out this posting about Immigration on the TeamGOP blog, the author must be a very intelligent guy. He’s probably hansom, too.

The FEC’s debate over Blogging.

Today’s Washington Post has an article about the debate over regulating blogging. FEC Hears Bloggers' Bid to Share Media Exemption By Brian Faler does a good job of giving an overview of the issue.

I only wish the paper would do a better job of explaining Carol Darr’s opinion. She contributed to Putting Online Influentials to Work for Your Campaign.

As we study using the “New Media” as a political tool, I think it is important to remember that this media is so “New” that it will probable change significantly in the next five to ten years.

These Bloggers are by definition Influentials. Should it matter that they are just congregating in one place to discuss their political views?

This is like saying a coffee house that is frequented by liberal thinkers is actually supporting the liberal agenda. This is too large a intellectual leap for even the Right Wing Conservative Conspiracy to make. Well, maybe…

But before anyone starts attacking my position, let me say that I have not been able to study this enough yet. I welcome input from everyone out there. Please help educate me on this issue.

NASA sued?

It is nice to see that America is not alone in having to deal with crazy lawsuits. Now Russia has a lawyer greedy enough to file this suit
A RUSSIAN astrologer is suing Nasa after claiming their recent
experiment to study comet Tempel 1 has altered her horoscope.

Wow!

Bloging Tips

I found some great general advice for blogs by Jon Stahl. I thought of posting this as a comment to some conservative blogs but the ones that need it the most don’t allow comments.

Online “Influentials”

Some are familiar with the concept of “Influentials”, people who are opinion leaders. An excellent paper on the subject of using the internet in a political campaign is Putting Online Influentials to Work for Your Campaign prepared by the Institute for Democracy, Politics, and the Internet.

The concept that the internet has a much higher concentration of “Influentials” than the real world is completely believable.

If a political campaign accepts this as being true, it makes sense for it to use an internet presence to recruit and mobilize “Influentials”. This is because, if a campaign successfully accomplishes this, the “Influentials” will become macro campaigns, working to influence those around them.

This issue is interesting, and I am still thinking about this paper. The first question that came to mind was concerning the distribution of the “Influentials”. I think it is possible that the internet “Influentials” are not evenly distributed, maybe concentrated in urban areas or regions of the nation.

The D.C. area has to have more than its fair share of “Influentials”.

If this is the case, it may be worth targeting a campaign’s internet presence toward the over represented population.

More on “Influentials” to come…

Article on Volunteer Recruitment

Found this article about recruiting volunteers.
Still recruiting volunteers on the phone?
It ties in well with last week’s class, Volunteer Mobilization, GOTV, and Synergy.

You have to take note of the biases of those conducting the survey. They are trying to sell something, namely email services, but I think they have a point.

Our class has two recurring mantras:

Online – Offline Synergy
The new media is a permission media.

The idea of using email to identify and mobilize volunteers addresses both of these goals, especially the second one.

If a campaign is asking a person to give up time to come and help without pay, that campaign needs to ask in the most convenient way possible.

The Cell Phone Snake Oil

Is the digital divide a problem? If so, should it be solved? If so, how can it be solved?
The Economist believes that the answers are yes, yes, and cell phones. In the article The Real Digital Divide the UN’s approach of building “old school” infrastructure is criticized.

A better solution, according to the article, is the promotion of cell phone usage. The article points that the “evidence suggests that the mobile phone is the technology with the greatest impact on development.”

But I am skeptical.

First, the idea that cell phones create economic growth is hard for me to swallow. Is it possible that economic growth leads to more cell phone usage?

Second, I have trouble believing that the money spent on “Mobile Technology” would not be better spent on clean water technology or education technology.

Lastly the article states that a “new report from the World Bank notes that 77% of the world's population already lives within range of a mobile network.” If this is the case why is the problem not already getting better?

The implications of this scare me.

Now brace yourselves. As you may know, if you are a regular reader or a friend, I am a Christian who ascribes generally to conservative thought. Shocked I know.

If mobile technology is the solution to world poverty and the economic problems of the underdeveloped nations, then we need not do much more because soon they will have cell phone capability.

I am afraid that people would declare victory too soon and not apply the mass of resources over a long period of time needed to truly solve these problems.

I am worried I will hear a friend at church say, “we don’t need to give money to Samaritan’s Purse, I read that cell phones will fix the economies of the underdeveloped nations.”

Exaggeration I know but you picture.

Mobile technology may be a tool in opening communication, but we need to make sure we are doing all we can as Americans (and as a Christian in my case) to meet the needs of nations that are not as blessed as ourselves.

This problem is big: wars, famine, political corruption, religious oppression, unclean water, standards of sanitation, available healthcare, unfair trade standards, and on and on.

I don’t have too much faith that a cell phone in each hand will solve all of these.

Scientific Truth

The following was posted as a comment to LAT on "Science Fiction".

It is just not that simple. “Scientific Truth” is a rare jewel to find. Jonathan Duffy, BBC Online reporter, explains this well in his piece, “Faking it: Where science goes wrong”. Duffy points out that most, 90%, of what is printer in scientific research journals turns out to be “wrong”. This does not sound like “truth”. This is how science works, researcher after researcher constantly revisiting this issue or that. Sometime the original conclusions are supported, sometimes they are not.

Even Newton’s Laws of Motion are not exempted from the possibility that they may be wrong. Einstein proved this.

“Scientific Truth” is hard to find and almost impossible to prove. The system is just too large for us to completely understand.

I am not saying I have any real insight on the current debate concerning grazing, but the point I want to make is:

Be careful believing that anyone or any party has a complete understanding of “Scientific Truth”.

Congressional Responsibility though websites

While reading what Dennis Johnson has to say about Congressional Websites, I thought about how the needs of constituents never really change. The internet has only changed how people want to receive information and possibly how much information.

If you enjoyed this chapter, I encourage you to check out Constituents and Your Web Site: What Citizens Want to See on Congressional Web Sites and Congress Online: Assessing and Improving Capitol Hill Web Sites.

This is a lot of information, but it is interesting.

The concept that I found most interesting was the idea that constituents wanted to know what their elected officials were doing.

By this I mean, what their congressman is doing this minute. Why is this not done more? I think this is a wonderful idea.

A congressman could post his schedule on his website, automatically updated. All his meetings would be right there. He could even post notes or summaries of the meetings. This could go along way to involve constituents in decisions and prove that you, as a congressman, are working hard for them.

This may also help weaken the hold on congress that lobbyist try to exert. For example: Does candidate “A” deserve reelection? He met with lobbyists 10 times more often than constituents.

OR

Looking at the notes form your meeting with congressman “A” why are you telling me something different.

There are a few possible drawbacks:
This may prevent congressman, of one party or ideology, from meeting with people or groups from the opposing party or ideology.
Opposition could watch schedules in order to predict strategy.
And of course…
A Congressman may actually have to attend all his committee meetings.

Sandra Day O'Connor retires

Let the fun begin....

Email on the Mind

E-mail Overload in Congress: Managing a Communications Crisis is out dated but still educational. I recommend also reading the Update as well.

The pros and cons of the email options for a political office are spelled out expertly. The thing I kept asking my self was, “Who are these people that refuse to answer email with email?”

I guess this is simply an example of a bureaucracy changing slowly, but it still amazes me. I am glad that the Update goes on to say how many offices have adopted better email policies.

I also liked the fact that Tennessee was so well represented.

To Bill Frist, I say “well done”!

To Zach Wamp, I say “bravo”!

Digital Copy of Class Reading

Just a note for you other folks who prefer digital versions of class readings: E-mail Overload in Congress: Managing a Communications Crisis (the first link) is a digital copy of one of this week’s class reading.

There is also an update to “Email Overload”.

Looking around I found several other interesting articles.

Check it out.

Presidential Muses

No matter what your opinion of John Kerry, any who follows political campaigns should read James Verini’s It's the incompetence, stupid.

This article describes the Kerry campaign from an insider’s point-of-view, and goes to reinforce a belief that I hold about Presidential Elections. I believe that either major party candidate for President (sorry Nader) can win any given election.

Few times since FDR, has this not been true. Truman defeating Dewey is a great example. No matter how unlikely a Truman victory appeared, Truman’s hard and smart campaigning led him to success.

The election of George W. Bush over John Kerry is another example. Elections are important. James Verini points out a few small things that could have made a difference in the 2004 election.

Bush may appoint a Supreme Court Justice, or two. What a stiff penalty for not running an effective campaign.

We should all take this to heart. Be passionate, run the best campaign, and win, for to the victor goes the spoils.

If you buy an email list...

If you buy an email list to use for political purposes (or anything else), you need to read this post.

Never, ever, ever send emails to these domain names

The right to lie!

After reading Narrowcasting in Ohio, writhen by Steve Purpura, Jacob Karczewski, and Annie Hanson, I should be discussing the concept of narrowcasting. I should look at how this could allow politicians to tell people what ever they want to hear in order to win.

But what’s news about that. I am more interested in the last line of the story.

“A lesson from the 2004 campaign may be that we need to call on our leaders to clarify regulation on political advertisements on mobile devices and call for increased transparency of campaign messaging and 527 organizations.”

Are the authors really suggesting that we need to “clarify regulation on political advertisements on mobile devices”? So campaigns will have to get the information they want to present to voters approved? This sounds extreme.

(Since it has to do with mobile devices, I look forward to what Kathie’s Politech has to say.)

Call me crazy but I think politicians should be able to lie to voters.

That’s right lie. If the American public wants a liar to represent them in government then so be it. And what if the people don’t know the lies are lies? That is what the media, current elected officials, and the other candidate is for.

Once the power to prevent any political speech is granted, any free political speech ends.


(Since it has to do with mobile devices, I look forward to what Kathie’s Politech has to say.)

Call me crazy but I think politicians should be able to lie to voters.

That’s right lie. If the American public wants a liar to represent them in government then so be it. And what if the people don’t know the lies are lies? That is what the media, current elected officials, and the other candidate is for.

Once the power to prevent any political speech is granted, any free political speech ends.

Text Reader

I mentioned in class that I use a program that reads text and was surprised by the response. I never thought that many other people would be interested in this kind of software. There are many programs out there, but I use ReadPlease 2003. The basic program will be enough for most, and best of all, its free.

Using it is simple. Just copy text and paste it into the window of ReadPlease. Then press play.

The text being read will be followed along with highlighting. You can adjust the speed of the reader and the size of the text. This makes it perfect for the visually impaired, and those of us that stare at a screen all day.

The free version has a limited paste area and has fewer voices than the paid version. The paid version can also be “docked”. This means that you can “dock” it in Word, allowing you to use both programs in the same window.

There are other minor differences. The one biggest difference is that the paid version allows you to create an mp3 file. This means that you can create a file and load it to an mp3 player to be listened to on the go. If you want to check it out, you use the full version on a trail basis.

I use it for everything. It reads blogs, long emails, websites, PDF files (only high quality PDF files allow “Copy Text”), and anything else. I also use it for proofreading. It is easier for me to catch mistakes by listening to my work read back to me.

Technology in campaigns

Frank E. Watkins’ essay, Technology, the Internet and Progressive Politics, is a little dated but still worth a read. His personal experience using technology in Jesse Jackson Junior’s congressional campaign is articulated well. I have only worked the fundraising side of a primary, so it was interesting to hear how the software they used helped them target their voters so specifically. In general campaigns it would be difficult to do this so precisely.

Side note: I hope Mr. Watkins received some money from the makers of Monarch. A few times I thought I was reading a commercial. But hey, if I thought a piece of software made the difference in a campaign I would be singing its praises as well.

I have used Monarch, along with other campaign software packages. This type of Contact Management software can be crucial, but I think another benefit this technology can offer is not being taken advantage of.

From my experience, the biggest hurdle facing political campaigns, and therefore political managers, is the necessity to “re-invent the wheel” every campaign.

A perfect example of this is the last State Senate race I ran in Tennessee. We started from nothing. Sure we got some voter data from the Party but it was the general stuff: Name, address, known issue, vote history. What we needed to know was: Who are the volunteers in the area? Who has a house perfect for a fundraiser? Who knows all the school teachers in Fentress County?

This is the kind of information that a campaign needs. This is also the information that the last campaign in the district has (or had).

I dream of instituting a process that will allow information to be not only used to run strong campaigns but then be preserved to allow for a quicker start of the next campaign in that district.

All politics are local, right? Well imagine what would happen if the information collected on a local level, State Senate district, was then transferred to the National level, Presidential campaign.

I may be way off base but I think this could increase the ability of Presidential Campaigns to target there voters.

Jon Stuart…GOP Spokesman?

Jon Stuart is featured in this GOP video. Don’t believe me?
Check it out. The video is "The Democrats Today".

Thanks Technorati

I was reviewing my referrals and noticed that some people came to my blog by way of Technorati.

Technorati calls itself "the authority on what's going on in the world of weblogs", and since they know about my blog, I guess I agree.

Thanks.

Blog on Blog'a

Check out From Pennsylvania: Chuck Pennachio brings the AP to its knees. This is a short post that everyone in New Media should read. It is short enough for even you, Southern Dems Still Exist.

This article goes to prove that the power of the “New Media” is growing. Anyone that plans on playing a role in any campaign must realize the importance of this budding technology.

I must also admit that I have become much more open to the fact that this “New Media” will play a role in elections back home in the Great State of Tennessee.

Republicans Only

I recommend A Listless Party written by Garance Franke-Ruta to anyone interested in the differences, practically, between how the Republicans and Democrats operate politically. She does a remarkable job of explaining how email lists develop and are important a well groomed list can be. Her assertions about the collective behavior of Republicans and Democrats may be generalizations, but they are interesting. I also believe they are relevant.

The Republican Party as a whole has done a good job of retaining political foresight. This ability to look past the present and prepare for the future has paid off. I believe this trend is in reaction to being the minority party for so long. It began to take shape with Newt.

Now, the Democrats are in the minority and are, arguably, the minority party. If the Democrats fail to come together in order to take advantage of the new frontier of politics, the internet, and the Republicans resist the impulse to jockey for individual power, therefore threatening unity, the GOP might finally be ready to be the Majority Party.

Grading a GOP Newsletter (part three)

In this final installment the GOP finishes strong. The last two components I am commenting on are the “email a friend” and un-subscription functions.

The “email your friend” tool is right at the bottom of the email. It is simple and you can email to up to five friends. Having a user friendly “email your friend” function is a must. This is the best way (next to a satirically funny cartoon) to encourage the viral effect that is the Eldorado of internet politics.

Finally, there is a simple unsubscribe process. This is key. In the new world of the internet, an organization must not force itself or its information on people.

Overall, I think the GOP could do better. No, the GOP must do better, if it wants to continue winning the hard fight for the public’s mind.

Grading a GOP Newsletter (part two)

So far, this newsletter is not doing too well, but this changes quickly. After opening the newsletter, I found this statement:

This National Review article isn't to be missed! Take action today by calling talk radio and writing letters to the editor describing Dean's hypocrisy.

This is a wonderful example of useful links. These links allow a user to find contact information for the talk radio shows and newspapers that are in their area. The linked pages also provide tips for making the most of both media outlets.

This is wonderful. There is a problem though. I input an Arlington, VA zip code and the database did not have any talk shows listed as serving my area. This may just be a temporary glitch but it seemed systemic.

Also the article was nice. The use of content that has already been successful in “old” media is usually a good idea. Though they could have used the power of links in the body of the newsletter.

We are no longer limited to linier conversation…use the links to source material and provide a more in-depth experience.

Don’t just say…“it wasn't the Republican party that opposed Teddy Roosevelt's anti-lynching legislation”.

Give me the option of learning more… “it wasn't the Republican party that opposed Teddy Roosevelt's anti-lynching legislation”.

Grading a GOP Newsletter (part one)

Since I have been reading Jakob Neilsen’s analysis of political email newsletters, I decided to conduct my own critique of a GOP newsletter I received on Friday, June 17, 2005 at 6:36 PM.

The first mistake is a major one. This newsletter appeared in my inbox as being from Michael DuHaime. This newsletter comes from a different author as often as not. There is no way, short of opening the email, to know it is really from the GOP.

This newsletter should appear as being from the GOP, unless there is a celebrity author.

Second, this newsletter had an ambiguous subject line: “In Case You Missed It”. The subject line should always offer some explanation to what the email is about. This subject line may be offering me a low mortgage rate or a chance to by gold.

I almost did not open the email because of these factors.

Stay tuned for further analysis…

“same Bat time… same Bat channel”.

Where's my TeamGOP?

I just finished reading Jakob Neilsen’s Bush vs. Kerry: Email Newsletters Rated. He makes some interesting comments focusing on the quality of newsletters in the 2004 Presidential campaign.

Although he makes several good points, I believe the most important is having a standard for who the newsletter is from.

If people voluntarily subscribe to a newsletter, then make it easy for them to notice it in their inboxes.

As is the case for many of you, I receive a fair amount of junk mail so I think it is of utmost importance for a newsletter to be clearly identifiable. No matter how good the content is if it is not opened it is not read.

For example TeamGOP.org is a political newsletter I subscribe to. They are great writers and great guys. They also do a great job making it clear that an email is from them.

I, as a subscriber, appreciate this.

Thanks AL!

After reading Jakob Neilsen’s Newsletter Usability: Can a Professional Publisher Do Better?, I was struck by a few thoughts. First, I was in no way surprised that the Post’s newsletter would be better than Bush’s or Kerry’s.

These are people that publish a paper for a living... anyway.

Second, one of Neilsen’s gripes with the posts newsletter was that it was not integrated with the Post’s site. There were not links to it from the Post’s webpage and vice versa. This also makes sense.

Newspaper writers are not known for their ability to cross reference articles. It would be frustrating if the front page of the Post told you that more information could be found in a paper published two weeks ago.

The ability to link information is one of the most revolutionary sides of the internet.

This ability should impact a campaign’s online strategy. The newsletter should not be viewed as a separate project from the website or other emails.

Each component of the online campaign should be viewed as a part of the whole. Each should build and enhance the effectiveness of the others.

Links should connect each intuitively, while still accounting for the poor fools who can not receive HTML emails.

Cross-referencing used to be a difficult ordeal, and citing a reference used to involve a footnote or endnotes. Now both of these are easily done with hyperlinks.

Thanks again for the internet… Al Gore.

Job Security

Reading the assigned reading and following class discussion has brought me to a realization.

This stuff is sophisticated.

Next I thought, what does this mean for me, and I came to an epiphany (one that I am sure most others in New Media class came to long ago). This being the more complicated the field of political management gets the more money I should be able to make.

Over the past fifty years, political operatives have been building the niche of political management. My peers and I in the George Washington Political Management (GSPM) program are attaining skills that the amateur, the guy that runs political races on the side during his free time, does not have.

As this process continues with technological advances the gap between the professionals and the amateurs will only grow.

Could technology actually limit political speech by making it necessary to have a professional operative on the payroll to run a competitive campaign?

The new Gatekeepers…

Going back to Sunstein and the question of informational gatekeepers, I found this article about Google.

Before I get started I want to say that I love Google. Google has made great steps toward changing the internet from overwhelming seas of unmanageable information to systematic searchable annals of human knowledge.

This being said, I am worried by this World Net Daily article entitled, Google blocks ad for anti-Clinton book. This article claims that Google has refused to sell ad space to political organizations with particularly conservative leanings.

Is this fair? Google has become the premiere way for people to find information on the internet. What happens when Google, or any other search engine, starts deciding what sites can be found? Would allowing only one political side to purchase advertisements constitute in-kind contributions and corporate giving?

The Institute for Democracy, Politics, and the Internet hints, in The Political Consultants' Online Fundraising Primer, that such action may fall under regulatory guidelines.

“Both campaign Internet operations and volunteer efforts to support a candidate,
which could be seen as an in-kind campaign contribution, must follow applicable
election laws in collecting online contributions.”

So do we need regulation calling for equal treatment by search engines?

This could get complicated.

Online Fundraising for dummies...like me!

After reading the first chapter of The Political Consultants' Online Fundraising Primer, produced by the good folks at the Institute for Democracy, Politics, and the Internet, I felt enlightened. I am not kidding in at all. This is a must read for anyone that is going to be running a campaign.

The most insightful concept is simple: “E-mail is more important than my Web site!” Wow! At first I had trouble wrapping my mind around this, but I think I get it.

A wed site, no matter how great, is passive. It only sits there waiting for someone to view it. A possible supporter or contributor can be led to a campaign’s site by 1) seeing the address on other campaign material, i.e. push cards, TV spot, direct mail, etc ; 2) clicking on a link that leads to your site; 3) results of a web search, like Google.

Of these three, clicking on a link is the easiest. So what does this mean? A campaign should strive to get a link to its website in front of as many receptive people as often as possible.

Had I realized this a year ago I would have made getting a link to my candidate’s website on other related sites and in as many emails as possible. I am beginning to see how even in rural Tennessee the internet could be a big asset.

One Man's FOX is another Man's CBS.

In two other GSPM classes I have studied reliability recently. The first definition found on Google for “reliability” is:

The extent to which a measurement instrument yields consistent, stable, and uniform results over repeated observations or measurements under the same conditions each time. For example, a scale is unreliable if it weighs a child three times in three minutes and gets three different weights.

In reading the some blogs concerning Dean’s statements recently, I was amazed with the how both conservatives and liberals think that main stream media (MSM) is biased, against them.

Note examples:

The American Thinker The double standard lives Democrats get cut such double-standard slack from the MSM when it comes to public statements that no ill effects would result.

In Search of Utopia The Democratic Party - Version 2005 Folks, this is the Democratic leadership making the best of a bad, Conservative media-dominated situation!

Libertarian Librarian A Clarification I don't want a counter to the liberalness of the MSM-- I think talk radio and Fox News and blogs are doing an adquate (sic) job of that-- I just want the MSM to realize that they are, in fact, biased to the left.

I wander if there will ever be a standard measurement for media bias that will be agreed upon by liberals and conservatives alike, but alas I am sure that will never happen.

I am a little afraid to ask, but I will anyway. What do you think? Is the media biased against you? Does anyone out there think the media is biased in favor of them?

Dean crossing the line...which line?

As some of you may have heard Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, made of few comments in recent days that have attracted some attention.

While following this issue in the blogosphere and reading a post on Kathie's PoliTechentitled The line! Where did it go?!, I found my self thinking about how behavior online and offline will have to be reconciled.

Dean’s comments are not very sensational when compared to the type of rhetoric that is thrown around on political blogs every day. But as we have seen saying such things offline can be dangerous.

Is there a different standard for online behavior as compared to offline behavior? I think so. As society in general begins accepting online communications as normal, there will a reconciling of the standards.

This will increase the standards of political discourse online but also lower the standards of offline rhetoric. Please, someone who is smarter convince me that I am wrong, because I hope I am. Campaigns are nasty enough now.

Hillbilly Bloggers

I really agree with Jonah Seiger when he said last night that the blogosphere is a little over-hyped right now.

My experience is in rural TN State Legislative races (Mainly State Senate). I have little experience in federal races and none at the presidential level. So, for better or worse, this is the lens through which I view the world.

I kept thinking to myself last night could a State Senate campaign in TN use a blog. I have setup websites before, but the only people that go to them are my candidate's diehard supporters or my opponent's people.

In these districts, a candidate is expected to meet with the influential people personally. They all tend to be older than forty, some a lot older.

Christine R. Carl’s study, Bloggers and Their Blogs: A Depiction of the Users and Usage of Weblogs on the World Wide Web, finds that the likelihood of a blogger being over the age of 40 is not too good. (Note: Carl’s study is dated, but I was unable to find more recent academic work that looks at blog use by age. Further Note: TNridgerunner is a little over the age of 40, so they do exist.)

Also, how many rural Tennesseans are present in the blogosphere?

Illegal immigration: Part One

The latest post on the Daily Kos, GOP hate-monger testing presidential waters, raises the issue of illegal immigration as a major issue in the President 2008 race. I agree with Kos, some. I have learned during my short life that my stepfather has any almost uncanny ability to relate to the common man, although he is far from common.

He told me four years ago to keep an eye on immigration. He believed that immigration was going to dominate the political landscape within a handful of years. I must say that it appears that he was right again.

This issue is complex, and I am trying not to have any more super-long posts. Therefore, I may have a series of writings that address immigration.

For this installment I would like to point out how the internet allows single issue voters a medium to communicate. In several places I have read that the political parties are going to loose strength as the gatekeepers of political information. The internet allows groups to form that hold ideas that are not supported by either political party.

Immigration is a of perfect example of this. Neither party wants to address the issue of immigration. The Democrats are afraid of upsetting their minority base, while Republicans are afraid of upsetting businesses that employ illegal aliens.

I am interested in seeing how citizen groups use technology to promote their issue. The Minute Man Project is a good example of the use of a website to gain nationwide support and portable devices, mainly cell phones, to communicate rapidly between members.

Other immigration sites:

Wake up America

The American Resistance

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

Other sites that address immigration:

Negative Population Growth (NPG)

Bloging bad...maybe

I have a question for all of you in blog-land. Could the advent of political websites and blogs actually discourage political action outside of cyberspace? I don’t know the answer and I have not read any studies concerning the topic.

(I only spent about thirty minutes with google scholar trying to find some. I did find an interesting paper entitled “Bloggers and Their Blogs: A Depiction of the Users and Usage of Weblogs on the World Wild Web”. I have not read it all yet but is it looks interesting.)

Getting back to my question, I think the answer could be yes. I think that people using the internet, expressly blogs, might feel that they are taking action to evoke political change and therefore neglect other action that may actually be more efficient.

I could see how someone could get a false sense of accomplishment after spending hours to keep a blog current and interesting. This could lead him to neglect other behavior such as handing out flyers or going door to door for a candidate.

I am not convinced at all that my hypothesis is correct.

What do you think?

The Evil Hammer

After reading Russell Buckley’s article, The Death Knell of Privacy, I could only think of all the ways this technology can be used to make life worse. But wait, is making someone accountable bad. I have two distinct ideas to convey tonight: 1) accountability has its place and 2) just because something can be abused does not mean it should not be used.

First, the importance of accountability has been lost in our world of individuality. We (and I am speaking to most of the “western” world) have become so focused on self fulfillment that responsibility to others has been lost. For example, I am married. I am no longer free to seek selfish fulfillment because I have a responsibility to my wife. (Now I am in no way complaining. If you have ever met my wife you will know that I got the better deal.) I have someone else’s needs to consider before making a decision.

Now want does this have to do with Buckley’s article? A lot. Buckley sees the ability to be tracked as a way for an overbearing boss to crack the whip if an employee is goofing on the job. I agree that companies could choose to do this, and if they do they have every right to do so.

I began to think how neat it would be to have your phone alert you when your wife was with in a mile or make sure your teenage daughter was really spending the night at her friend’s house. The benefits became even more apparent when my wife and I went to a friends apartment for the first time last night. It took twenty minutes for us to all meet up because we did not know exactly where the apartment was and they did not know where we were.

How cool would it be to have a function on your phone that would tell you “Dave is 245 feet north west”. This would be great.

Could someone abuse it? Absolutely. Could wives use the technology to checkup on their husbands? Could parents use it to checkup on their children? Could employers use it to check up on employees? Well, yes, yes, and yes. But is this that big of a deal. I do not think so. All of these groups mentioned have responsibilities to one another and therefore anything that helps insure accountability is not inherently bad. Tracking an employees movements may help protect that employee. For example, “I see that you really were stuck on the interstate for five hours without moving”.

Secondly, just because something can be abused does not mean it should not be used. There are many examples of this. Being that I am from Tennessee I think I will use examples that remind me of home. My father has built many things in his life. He has built furniture, barns, and homes. He has tried to teach me how to handle a hammer.

The hammer is a great tool. With it one can build structures that are remarkably complex, but that hammer could, just as easily, bludgeon someone to death. So for this reason, should the hammer never be used? Should those who might explore hammer technology not be encouraged to continue study?

These questions are silly. We should never limit the study of technology because the results of that technology might be used for evil, as long as that study does not harm others.

An example of this is stem-cell research. The US government allows private stem-cell research, even though a large portion of this nation does not believe it is right.

Another example is firearms. The gun itself is not evil. It is very similar to a hammer. In the right hands a gun can insure a good turkey dinner, but a criminal can use that same gun to attack his neighbors.

Technology is amoral. It should never be labeled as good or evil. Morality is introduced by us mortals, and one day we will be held accountable for how we have used our technology.

Wendy's getting the finger

I hope that people, especially candidates, learn that there is a difference between name branding (also name ID) and persuasion. If one sees signs all over for “Wendy’s”, is it necessarily good? I don’t think so. Because if one has formed an association between “Wendy’s” and “finger in my chili”, all that seeing that name is going to do is make the person want to vomit.

I have really enjoyed reading all those posts on how the internet can pursade. The idea that struck me as being really meaningful was that the internet lets poeple learn, about a canididate, what and when they want to.

Thanks

Thanks to Kathie for the advice on making my posts easier to read.

America's Role...

I advise all to check out Peter C’s comments pertaining to Thomas Freidman’s article America’s DNA.

I am trying not to get emotional about this article. I think the events of 9/11 are still too recent to be completely removed for emotion, but I am trying. I feel as if Freidman’s arguments are not something to consider. Is the US overreacting? Are there unintended consequences to new US policies? What messages is the US sending to its friends?

But Freidman is completely ignoring another side of this discussion. He speaks as if the US arbitrarily decided to tighten its security protocols. The US was attacked by a foreign power on its home soil and thousands of her civilians were killed by terrorists. I am happy to say that the US was not accustom to such events.

All the security procedures Freidman is critical of have been put in place to protect US citizens. Freidman and Peter C speak of the US’s role as it concerns the “rest of the world”. The US has, before and after 9/11, taken actions, both as a nation and as individuals, to aide other peoples all over the world. I don’t think it is accurate to compare the US to a “child who is sulking” because the US is taking action to protect her citizens.

The primary responsibility of any country is to its citizens or subjects. Therefore, the US should provide reasonable security for its citizens before worrying too much about the how those security measures will appear to others. For example,

“Sorry about the increased inconvenience on your foreign contest winners but we are trying to protect our citizens.”

The US is a great country that, like all other nations, has made mistakes. She continues to work for the spread of democracy while protecting her citizens.

God bless America.

Be sure to check out the comments of DCD714 and BWS to Peter C’s original posting.

Blogging in the real world

As most of you may know, recently in Tennessee several elected officials were arrested on charges of accepting bribes and, in one case, threatening to kill anyone that may testify against him. The FBI, TBI, and other law enforcement agencies were involved in the sting operation named “Tennessee Waltz”, one of Tennessee’s official state songs. Roger Abramson wrote and interesting postmortem concerning bloggings role in the reporting of the “Waltz”.

More info on the Tennessee Wlatz.

Please read this article.

Reading Keith Thompson’s article Leaving the left, that appeared in the May 22 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle saddens me. I advise everyone to read this no matter what your political persuasion. This man not only left his party but his ideology. I hope that I never have to make this decision. Further, I hope that I would have the courage to walk from the Republicans or the “Right” if I ever believe that they no longer stand for the principles that I hold. I disagree with the GOP on a regular basis and feel disappointed at times but to feel politically abandoned must be devastating. I wonder how many people have had to consider this on either side. What issues drive such decisions? Does emerging technology play a role in this process?

Websites as yard signs?

Tonight in class an interesting point was brought up. Professor Ireland was commenting on the reluctance of traditional political managers to make website presentation a priority. She was focusing on the research, or more correctly lack there of, that states that the internet is persuasive.
Now before I upset every one of you technical savvy blogers out there, hear me out. I am in no way trying to say that a campaign website is not useful. I just don’t think that persuasion is the task that the internet is best used for at present. My experience is in Tennessee, and I admit this limits my view point. So I limit my conjectures to Tennessee.
(Back to the subject.) The examples of the internet being used effectively that I am aware of do not include examples of persuasion. Dean and his “meet-ups”, Bush with his “Flip-Flop” games, or Kerry with his blog. In class we have even heard about fundraising successes, which could be considered persuasion to donate. But I really wonder how many people out there changed there vote for President or Governor or any office because of good website.
Now this may all change, and if it does it will probably be third party sites that become the most persuasive. If a site can become so trusted and supported that it forms a loyal following, it could use this reputation to sway voters.
But until then, the internet should not be put down for what it is not but applauded for what it is. It is wonderful at organization, communication, and possibly fundraising.

Internet bad… not really

In his article, The Daily We, Cass Sunstien makes his apocalyptic views of the future of democracy in an Internet driven world clear. He foresees a time when the average Internet user is a virtual hermit, seeking out homogenous groups to interact with while shying away from conflict. Sunstien also describes the current world as one where people use the street corner and public park as a source of alternative ideas. I must say that the world Sunstien describes, with benevolent information gatekeepers, sounds nice.
I would like to visit some time. In the world in which I live, the media is biased… and not just a little. In the city in which I live, the bums are the only people that speak to strangers on the street, and they aren’t interested in discussing the nature of the democracy. In other words I disagree with how Sunstien characterizes the current social and political reality.
This being said, my critique of his thoughts on how that reality will change is of little use. Henry Jenkins does a good job of an