« Design @ TheseDays | Main | links for 2007-05-12 »
The change of media and use in politics
The consequences of 'we the media' are becoming very obvious today, with elections nearing.
In the States huge sites are set up, using blog, myspaces, videoblogs and sofort to promote, in UK Blair is having a YouTube channel to pass his own messages, in Belgium OpenVLD launched their own OpenTube video channel.
Everywhere politicians get the message and appear on YouTube, purposely or not.
Where before the traditional media had to be approached, today politicians just make their own video channel, passing their own message without the interference of a journalist.
This is a huge shift in campaigning.
Moreover, what we see is how these politicians not only use the tools of the journalist, they also use the 'style' of journalism.
There is a distinct difference between the little movie of Lien Braeckeveldt for example, and the movie of the Prime Minister congratulating Sarkozy.
The first is definitely an 'ad' in the style we can see them on television between movie breaks, while the latter has a distinct journalistic style, as if it could have been in the news.
Technorati Tags: influence, media, politics, youtube
The media has been evolving a lot recently.
News got transformed from 30 minutes broadcasts into full-time news channels. We became part of the news. We open the news all day feeding our rss readers.
We got embedded journalism, where journalists got embedded in the American Army invading Iraq.
The purpose of the army was very clear: give an insight 'positive' view.
There was a lot of criticism on this using of journalists, requesting them to subscribe certain rules. And the integrity of their reports was questioned.
Could these journalists be independent? Or had they become tools of the army?
Today even this journalist is out of the picture: he doesn't exist in this scheme anymore.
Because you take a camera man, you write a text, and you make your own news item, and broadcast it by yourself.
I think this evolution is inevitable, and a logic continuation of the media.
There shouldn't be any laws preventing this (like there was the famous podcasting-law in Belgium)
but I do believe schools should pay attention to it, and teach it in media classes, explaining this major shift.
How long before each politician has his own Joost-channel, featuring what he/she did today.
And how is the viewer's perception on all of this?
It is quite interesting to see how Belgium politicians are using this new media, and it has to be said:
OpenVLD seems the one getting it, having their own OpenTube.
The question there is if it hadn't been better to use a YouTube channel, thus resulting in a wider audience.
When the news says 'The Prime Minister launched a presidential campaign', in my eyes the internet aspect is definitely part of it.
I suggest BVLG can do a research on the matter: compare the political parties, check who's using how many interactive web tools (look how I avoid web2.0 ;) ). Who has a myspace, a youtube channel or an interactive campaign.
I think if I would be in university now, writing a thesis, this media research would be my topic of interest...
Really, I'll wonder what the future will bring us.
Posted on May 11, 2007
in Living in Belgium
Digg this | 
Add to Delicious | Technorati reactions | Permalink | 
Comments (10)
Comments
"OpenVLD seems the one getting it, having their own OpenTube."
I really cannot agree with your statement. After visiting the OpenTube website I could not help but think that somebody had not done their homework on the new web 2.0, social media or whatever you want to call it.
First of all the name: OpenTube. It is such a cheap referral to the uber popular YouTube. It just shows a huge lack of originality. It is (like the VLD namechange) a name that my two year old could have come up with.
Second: with a name comes an attitude, an image. The VLD wants to -obviously- be open. 'Open' entails that you are connected to your audience, you speak to your customers, you are open and listen to what they say. Nowhere on the site could I find a feature which enables us -the public- to comment, to leave some content (not even under the interactive button on openvld.be)
The only thing that can be done is sit down and swallow what they have to say.
Way to go Open vld!
Posted by Elke | May 11, 2007 9:21 PMTo see how it should be done: www.mybarackobama.com
"OpenVLD seems the one getting it, having their own OpenTube."
I really cannot agree with your statement. After visiting the OpenTube website I could not help but think that somebody had not done their homework on the new web 2.0, social media or whatever you want to call it.
First of all the name: OpenTube. It is such a cheap referral to the uber popular YouTube. It just shows a huge lack of originality. It is (like the VLD namechange) a name that my two year old could have come up with.
Second: with a name comes an attitude, an image. The VLD wants to -obviously- be open. 'Open' entails that you are connected to your audience, you speak to your customers, you are open and listen to what they say. Nowhere on the site could I find a feature which enables us -the public- to comment, to leave some content (not even under the interactive button on openvld.be)
The only thing that can be done is sit down and swallow what they have to say.
Way to go Open vld!
Posted by Elke | May 11, 2007 9:21 PMTo see how it should be done: www.mybarackobama.com
interesting remarks really.
that's why i think it is interesting to compare what the parties did.
i think i looked at it from that perspective.
openvld and spa are doing something. the rest is like 'watching'
that's probably why i also said that i wonder if openvld should have chosen youtube as the platform instead of making a probably very expensive one of their own.
and you are right, the interactive part is kind of missing.
i guess they are afraid of the real change.
tx for your insight
Posted by ine | May 11, 2007 9:35 PMA good thing about these new media channels is that it forces politicians (and to extend all advertisers) to be more creative (and spectacular) than the next one to draw attention to what they have to say and they have the potential of reaching a wide audience. But That's maybe a good thing for the entertainment value of it, it also holds the danger of the message being surpassed by the medium. E.g. the other day I was talking about cool commercials with some other people. In many cases everybody remembered the commercial but not the message or which company is was about.
Posted by sven | May 11, 2007 9:52 PMI think there's also less filtering of the message. The critical viewpoint of the journalist exists at the same place as the opnion given by the politician. But now the message is passed to the public directly and you have to find that filter or critical view on the topic elsewhere (blogs, classic newspaper,...), if you find it in the first place. So maybe there's more danger to get desinformed.
Very interesting topic indeed, but it's hard to find good answers and to predict what the future will bring.
Any politician who dares to put up yet another one of those doomed myspace pages will surely be unable to count on my vote. Oeh how I hate that thing.
Posted by Stijn | May 12, 2007 12:17 AMThere are some serious regulations about posting political videos online. In theory, politicians are not allowed to start their own television channel. Also an internet television channel is considered to be a tv channel by Belgian law. The only thing that can be put online are uncut versions of speeches. But in reality nobody seems to care and justice is having a hard time to examine their own laws. Like many laws in Belgium, they are there to be ignored...
Posted by Bart | May 12, 2007 12:56 AMHow I love it when people say "Today even this journalist is out of the picture: he doesn't exist in this scheme anymore." Because now it's still something of a novelty, politicians and political parties that create and distribute their own content, but for how long? Soon, literally everybody will be doing it - a tsunami of biased opinions, propaganda and downright lies. I'm sure people will feel nostalgic about the time that professional journalists provided the news - and showed more than one side to every story. And told the stories that no politician wants to tell...
Posted by Fredegre | May 14, 2007 1:20 PM@fredegre: totally agree with that point of view.
Posted by ine | May 14, 2007 2:16 PMThe big advantage of independent journalism is the deontologic code provided by journalists.
Today this is disappearing. I cannot say if the evolution as it is, is good or bad (I am not a person who wants to say that everything was so much better in the early days): it is just an evolution and we will have to deal with it.
I try to write down this strange evolution to get people react to it.
Some of us do notice it, but how many people don't know what is going on and keep on watching tv as it is real.
(This subject is a returning subject for me, I wrote my first thesis on it, my second too, I produced 'art' on the matter, and it intrigues me how it i evolving...)
More new media as political tool:
Posted by Elke | May 16, 2007 3:03 PMSen. Hilary Clinton launched a text messaging service to keep her supporters updated on new developments in the campaign. Read the full article on The Wall Street Journal website
I see the link in my previous post does not work. Here's the full link to the Wall Street Journal article: http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB117918406231802526-uoznj0vNOnc1YrdJbaKLFALQ0eA_20080514.html
Posted by Elke | May 16, 2007 3:05 PM