Technology is changing the world, and technology itself is changing at the same time as well. With blogs, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and countless other new technologies (and the websites that use them), our experiences, our thoughts and our ideas- essentially, everything that we are- can be more public. Not just “we” as in people, but organizations; groups, companies and- as we saw in the recent US election- politicians.
With around 120 million votes cast, close to 65% of the American population voted in the highest turnout since the election of 1908; an unprecedented level of involvement. Much has been written about the role that the internet played in the election, with both candidates using new media in a way never before seen in political campaigns.
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen a successful presidential candidate turning out to be the one making better use of a new media; the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy saw TV playing a similarly disruptive role, where Nixon was more radio-friendly, but Kennedy was better prepared for TV;
The televised debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon was probably the most decisive event for the election of 1960. The growth of TV as a new medium, and declined use of radio marked a significant change in how campaigns are ran today. For the TV appearence, Nixon refused to wear make-up and therefore appeared unshaven, tired and sweaty under the lights. Kennedy, however, did wear the make-up and so appeared cooler and more composed than Nixon. Kennedy, before the debate, returned tan and attractive from vacation. Not only did Kennedy appear to be better groomed, and handsome, his suit was navy popping off the grey back drop. Nixon’s suit was grey, blending in to the curtain behind him. With these factors combined, Among TV viewers agreed, Kennedy won the debate. Richard Nixon’s deep, strong, radio appealing voice won over all radio listeners, they agreed Nixon won the debate. Nixon entered the race ahead of Kennedy. Television as a new medium changed presidential elections from this point on, marking the election of 1960 significant. Radio voice failed to prevail over now “candidate centered” television campaigns.
This analysis by comScore of internet traffic to the Obama and McCain campaign websites show the online advantage that Obama had since January- but it wasn't just busy campaign websites; tracking of mentions in blogs and numbers of friends on social networking sites show a similarly one-sided picture.
It’s not just the way that the candidates campaigned that reflects the difference that the internet has made; a Guardian column about “How satire changed the course of history” argues that it was Tina Fey’s impersonation of Sarah Palin- spread virally through YouTube- that was what swung the election. (On the other hand, John O’Farrell has pointed out that the comedy world doesn’t really seem to be ready to make jokes about Obama yet— although the air of optimism that surrounds him will probably be the source of satire when the jokes start flowing…)
The fact is though, internet penetration and usage is far higher than it was during the last election- and many of the tools used simply weren’t available last time around. Whether Obama’s use of social media was a reason he won or a symptom of the support he had is hard to say, but equating the use of modern media in campaigning with a new style of government could be a rash analogy to make. The system that the new president will have to work within will undoubtedly take longer to change than the society that elected him.
Apparently Obama himself is a heavy user of his Blackberry, so his first technological challenge when he enters office is how he’s going to use it. It’s been said that he will be the first President to have a laptop, but the complications that this will raise for his role are considerable. The security that will have to surround the actual computer will no doubt be incredible- it's hard to imagine an even vaguely open internet connection- and this is clearly going to affect the way he can use it and what he'll be able to do with it. It's one thing for a politician like Bush to have someone else deal with his emails and digital information for him, but I think anyone who has got used to working with a computer will have an idea of how odd it would be to suddenly start working without one and having someone else type, send and organise their files for them.
So imagine what will happen if he has to give up his blackberry? Will he go back to using a "featurephone", receiving text message updates instead of emails- or be restricted to using it on a read-only basis, with only “low security” emails being sent to him? If so, then there’s a possible argument that maybe it would be better to assume that this low-security channel is inherently insecure, and therefore should be an open channel- so not just a weekly YouTube address, but a constant Twittering about the life of the President; an open line of communication, rather than closed but hackable email threads?
It seems incredibly unlikely; even though these new technologies were undoubtedly being used as an alternative broadcast channel rather than as a two-way line of communication for his campaign, its one thing for Twitter and blog posts to come from the office of a political candidate but quite another to see it from the office of the Commander in Chief. Sure, we’ve seen Obama’s YouTube address as a response to Bush’s radio address- but is this really doing something different, or the same thing in a different way?
The change.gov website seems like an interesting start (and TechCrunch has some other interesting suggestions as to how he could use online media in new and interesting ways.) But as news sources get increasingly interconnected, information about the President becomes ever more open and available and we will know more and more about the man, his life and his activities, perhaps the question isn’t whether it’s something that we will ever see from the Oval Office, but when?
Post new comment