Issue Web Pages
I was astonished to read that visitors spent an average of 22 minutes on John McCain's issue pages in the 2000 election. As the authors point out (on pg. 96) our democracy has been reduced to 10 seconds soundbites. I have to wonder whether McCain voters were higher educated, and therefore spent more time on his issues pages. George Bush won the nomination, as we have learned, with a very poor internet strategy.
The authors did make a good point about the layout of issue web pages. If voters were to spend an average of 22 minutes on your page, you cannot bore them with white pages on policy. Instead, an effective issues webpage will have lots of good graphics and pictures as well as informative text. The text must be kept concise and direct. Most voters do not have the time or the patience to wade through wonkish policy documents. You do run a risk in dumbing it down, however.
It seems like a delicate balancing act, however. You might lose a lot of your highly educated voters by speaking in overly simple arguments, and the internet might be the one place where wonkish policy documents could thrive. As the internet becomes more mainstream, consultants might have dumbed their issues down too much as they seek to appeal to a wider audience. Could we eventually see the point where web sites become as sensationalistic and overly simple as televison ads?
5 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
You're right about the need to dazzle your audience with simple statements and some serious dumbing down, but you ignore beautiful part of the Internet! An issue site can have the initial page for the morons among us, and then have it linked to actual substantive discussion of the issues. We can truly have it all. As long as the initial page is sufficiently easy and welcoming, the audience should be able to choose how in depth they study the issue. I think even the policy wonks would be surprised at how eager the American public is to learn about the issues.
- Thanks for posting on my blog and thanks for the compliment!
Delablogger made exactly the same point I was about to--that on television you're limited by time and cost constraints, and that you're also competing with so many other things such as dinner, family and other channels to keep the audience members' attention. On the Internet, though, your visitor is there because she wants to be, not just because your message happened to pop up between scenes on a "Friends" rerun. The Internet allows you to cater to both the educated and uneducated voter on the same site, and I don't think you'll see dumbed down messages replacing visitors' chance to actually learn about the issues. Augmenting, possibly, but never replacing.
I think that the internet will only feed into the recent trend of dumbing down campaigns and packaing everything into soundbites. It seems that many candidates lack substnace as they are dealing with a public with a short attention span. While I hope that the internet will always be a place where people can go to look for the substance behind a candidate, I think it is likely that politicians will continue to pander to an uninformed electorate that responds only responds to wise cracks and bad press.
Thank you all for your comments.
Post a Comment
<< Home