The Information Society and Presidential Elections
Posted by admin on August 9, 2010Christopher May suggests that the information society provided people with ideas that it would
“Allow greater political participation by individuals, facilitated by the enlarged potential for communicaton” (C.May 2002)
Markus Prior supports the idea that the information society would have a strong affect on politics. He suggests that technological advances in the media environment directly effect politics due to the distribution of information. (M.Prior 2007) These ideas can be seen in the recent Presidential election in America. The increased use of the internet and fast pace communications allowed the global public to witness almost immediately the situations in America. Instead of just seeing the traditional banner stand on the front lawns of supporters, you had blogs and adverts all over the internet all the time. The information society and improvement of technologies allow for quick an easy access to information. But has this changed the election process and outcome?
The information society played a part in the candidate’s campaigns for years. During the1960’s candidates began to use the media to sell themselves to the public. (J. McGinnis 1970) They employed advertising Guru’s to help formulate a strategy to attract supporters. One of the most important examples of this is advertising to sub-groups of swing nations rather than advertising to the mass public. Internet has become a key source of information for younger voters. A poll conducted by SS&K and Advertising Age in New Hampshire, found that in the days leading up to the state’s primary 52% voters under 30 visited the home pages of candidates whereas only 43% watched their television advertising. (J.McGinnis 2008)
Televised campaign debates began in 1960, the first to be filmed was between J.F. Kennedy and Richard.M.Nixon, (J.McGinnis 1970) these developed in to what know is seen to be a popularity competition rather than a political election. McCginnis identified that during the 1968 election two candidates employed advertising agencies to help with their campaigns.(J.McGinnis 1970) This was a key moment in election history, from that moment on it can be said that candidates were driven by what would sell to the public.
“The response is to the image, not the man–it’s not what’s there that counts, it’s what’s projected.” (Raymond Price Nixon’s image adviser,J. McGinnis 2008)
“Television is no gimmick, and nobody will ever be elected to major office again without presenting themselves well on it.” -(Television producer and Nixon campaign consultant Roger Ailes, 1968)
The question posed then is how to sell a president in 2008? According to some the Internet is the magic answer. (J.McGinnis 2008)
The internet allows individuals to communicate freely without constriction. This reflects Thomas Jefferson’s ideal democracy, that stressed the importance of individualism and the reduction in the role of the government.(C.May 2002)
“ Jefferson’s fundamental democratic value- “ free communication amoung the people, which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right”- reigns without interference (D.Post 1996)
What May is trying to suggest is that the internet is a perfect example of the democratic ideal.(C.May 2002) Don Tapscott suggested that the development and improvement of the information society allows for a truer democracy. He suggests that because of ICTs people are more informed and therefore make more reliable choices.(D.Tapscott 1996) They have the freedom to access uninfluenced information. Which in turn allow democracy to take on it’s true form.
“Democracy is about choice, being able to make choices that determine the future” (D. Tapscott 1996)
During the 1980’s the information society and it’s involvement in politics grew. Wilson Dizard suggested that the use of the information society in elections was just another form of furthering politics, but would also provide a
“new force by the sophisticated use of communications in ways that often seem to favour direct self-serving actions over the more difficult, slower process of consensus.” (W.Dizard1982)
What the internet provides us with is an opportunity to access information freely. We are also able to provide our own information and therefore move away or decentralize politics. This allows people to believe more strongly in the concept of ‘self governance’.(C. May 2002) This can be seen throughout the recent Presidential election, the candidates provided the public with information about their campaigns, this then was transferred on to the internet using the candidates websites and then spread using forums, social networking sites, and multimedia sites, such as YouTube. The public, were then free to interpret, use and analyse the information as they wished, without the ‘bias’ of ‘old’ news coverage.
John Naisbitt supports this idea. He believes that the information society is moving us towards decentralization.
“We are giving up grand, top-down strategies, imposed from above, and substituting bottom-up approaches–And because political power is dencentralised, you can make a difference locally.” (J.Naisbitt 1984)
The concept of locally making a difference in terms of elections, was one of the great competitions of the recent US election. In an article written by John McGinnis he states that the recent election overcame the problem of advertisements only being aimed at the mass public.(J.McGinnis 2008) During both the 2004 and 2008 elections candidates were able to produce low cost adverts for voters who did not fit in to the generic masses.
“ Campaign strategists have learned to target ads down to the congressional districts and precincts where undecided and swing voters live.” (J.McGinnis 2008)
Another way of looking at the positive aspects of the internet is to analyse Barrack Obama’s website and the success he had with donations from the public. Eric Sinrod provides an in depth look in to this. The website is incredibly informative and easy to use, according to Sinrod it has sections covering every possible aspect of Obama himself, his campaign, his future plans, his views on current issues and information about Obama’s choice for vice president Joseph Binden. All these aspects help the public to become more familiar with the candidate.
“Making Senator Obama more accessible and relatable to his supporters” (E.Sinrod 2008)
Further to the ideas of familiarizing himself with his supporters Obama allowed himself to be made in to a commodity. There is an online store where the public can purchase Obama and Democractic merchandise to advertise their support.(E.Sinrod 2008) Another key device used by the website is the opening page is a form to make donation to the campaign. This approach was one of Obama’s biggest success in terms of raising money. Sinrod’s final statement that;
“The Internet is here to stay when it comes to presidential politics. It certainly has worked to the advantage of Senator Obama, and other recent candidates, and it will continue to do so going forward.” (E.Sinrod 2008)
Connotes how important the information society has become in politics and for every new development in technology, there will be a new development in campaign strategy.
However not everyone agrees with the ideas that the information society has furthered the politics or that it has changed the process and outcomes of elections. William. D. Rubinstein recently wrote an article surrounding the recent election and the ideas that Obama won in a landslide. During and after the election campaign many articles were produced praising Obama for his use of the media, suggesting that he has helped to increase voter turnout and has inspired youths and ethnic minorities to vote. However Rubinstein critises these claims suggesting that
“Rather remarkably, too, voter turnout did not massively increase, either as the result of the charismatic Obama luring youth and ethnic minorities into the ballot box” (W.D. Rubinstein 2008)
He states that 121.4 million people voted in the 2004 election, and 126 million people voted in 2008. However he suggests
“Given America’s population increase in four years, turnout in 2008 was quite possibly below that in 2004.” (W.D. Rubinstein 2008)
Unfortunately there is no clear answer to the questions posed by the involvement of the information society in politics. There are positive and negative aspects associated with the process and outcome of elections. However this has always been the case, lets just hope that the right decision was made.