Ethics and Political Web Videos
After reading the assigned chapter on the ethics of persuasive technologies in B.J. Fogg's book, I'd like to expand a bit on what I wrote about yesterday regarding web video. As the IPDI authors make quite clear, the lack of accountability for web video authors has allowed many unethical videos to be distributed. They predict that as the quantity of videos out there goes up, the number of unethical and manipulative videos will rise as well. I explained a bit of my reasoning yesterday for disagreeing with IPDI's major worry--that unethical web videos will come to have a major impact on the coming electoral cycles--and after reading Fogg's chapter I have a bit more to add.
In discussing the ways that technology can be used to unethically persuade, Fogg lists six different ways in which this commonly happens. I think the first is applicable to the current status of political web videos:
I think this is exactly the way that some of the political web videos of the last cycle were able to cross the ethical line. Ten years ago, professionally edited video almost always came from credible, established sources. As a result, it was rare that video was used for outright manipulation. But today, it is easy for almost anyone to make such videos, and I think that in some ways the public hasn't caught up to this fact.
When a user views one of these videos--especially if the overall message of the video is something he or she is inclined to believe--the newness and uniqueness of the experience short-circuits the normal fact-checking region of the brain. Instead of asking whether the content shown was perhaps taken out of context, the viewer walks away simply believing that Cheney is incredibly mean or that John Kerry sat on stage with Jane Fonda at an anti-war rally. After all, it was in the video!
I think this was particularly the case with the Jib-Jab video, and the authors of that piece certainly could have gotten away with much, much more dishonest content. As mentioned in the IPDI piece, animated web videos often can get away with more extreme content, with the report suggesting that humor is the way they are able to do so. I agree that humor helps, but I also think that it is because watching such a Flash video is such a new experience for most people. They've never seen anything like it, so their reaction isn't to parse it for accuracy, but to simply enjoy it.
But will this always be the case? I'd like to think that the number of people who click on the irritating pop-up ads designed to look like system messages for your computer has gone down as people have become more familiar with the fact that it's a dishonest manipulation, and the same will likely happen with political web video. As the newness of the concept wears out and viewers become more familiar with the medium, they'll take a more critical eye to the actual content of the videos.
Today, political web video makers can get away with a lot of dishonesty, because many of the viewers are still blinded by the science of it all. And there will always be those videos that get made and distributed by highly partisan Influentials, given the lower ethical threshhold, say, an anti-Bush voter will have for anti-Bush content. But as political web videos become less of a novelty and more of an expected part of the political communications process, authors will have to clear a higher ethical bar. In the end, as I said yesterday, it will be the responsible, high quality, effective web videos that end up being the difference makers.
In discussing the ways that technology can be used to unethically persuade, Fogg lists six different ways in which this commonly happens. I think the first is applicable to the current status of political web videos:
Ethical issues are especially prominent when computer technology uses novelty as a distraction to increase persuasion. When dealing with a novel experience, people not only lack expertise but they are distracted by the experience, which impeded their ability to focus on the content presented. (p.215)
I think this is exactly the way that some of the political web videos of the last cycle were able to cross the ethical line. Ten years ago, professionally edited video almost always came from credible, established sources. As a result, it was rare that video was used for outright manipulation. But today, it is easy for almost anyone to make such videos, and I think that in some ways the public hasn't caught up to this fact.
When a user views one of these videos--especially if the overall message of the video is something he or she is inclined to believe--the newness and uniqueness of the experience short-circuits the normal fact-checking region of the brain. Instead of asking whether the content shown was perhaps taken out of context, the viewer walks away simply believing that Cheney is incredibly mean or that John Kerry sat on stage with Jane Fonda at an anti-war rally. After all, it was in the video!
I think this was particularly the case with the Jib-Jab video, and the authors of that piece certainly could have gotten away with much, much more dishonest content. As mentioned in the IPDI piece, animated web videos often can get away with more extreme content, with the report suggesting that humor is the way they are able to do so. I agree that humor helps, but I also think that it is because watching such a Flash video is such a new experience for most people. They've never seen anything like it, so their reaction isn't to parse it for accuracy, but to simply enjoy it.
But will this always be the case? I'd like to think that the number of people who click on the irritating pop-up ads designed to look like system messages for your computer has gone down as people have become more familiar with the fact that it's a dishonest manipulation, and the same will likely happen with political web video. As the newness of the concept wears out and viewers become more familiar with the medium, they'll take a more critical eye to the actual content of the videos.
Today, political web video makers can get away with a lot of dishonesty, because many of the viewers are still blinded by the science of it all. And there will always be those videos that get made and distributed by highly partisan Influentials, given the lower ethical threshhold, say, an anti-Bush voter will have for anti-Bush content. But as political web videos become less of a novelty and more of an expected part of the political communications process, authors will have to clear a higher ethical bar. In the end, as I said yesterday, it will be the responsible, high quality, effective web videos that end up being the difference makers.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home