Blue States of Mind

Thanks Again!!!

2005-07-23T06:11:00.000-07:00

Thanks Emi and Phil!!!

2005-07-22T09:05:00.000-07:00

Blogging and John G. Roberts

2005-07-21T12:35:00.000-07:00

From the day that Sandra Day O'Connor announced that she was stepping down as a Supreme Court Justice to take care of her ailing husband, the blogging world went berserk. Liberal bloggers wrote blog after blog concerning the grave importance of who Bush would nominate and the likelihood that President Bush would appoint a conservative judge to replace O'Connor's swing vote.

The frenzy of blogging did not stop and only heated up when President Bush announced on Tuesday night that John G. Edwards was his nominee for the Supreme Court position. According to an article in today's Washington Post, fifty of the top liberal bloggers joined together with Senator Ted Kennedy in a forty-five minute conference call organized by BlogPAC, to create a plan of attack in anticipation of President Bush's nomination. After the conference call, BlogPAC put calls into Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's office, Sen. Russell Feingold's office and liberal organizations such as MoveOn, Alliance for Justice, NARAL and People for the American Way.

According to the Washington Post, this conference call which brought together Congressional representatives, liberal organizations and bloggers, was an indication of the importance that blogging plays in today's political world. The article points out that this is the first nomination of the twenty-first century and liberals will use technology extensively to get their views concerning the nomination across. Senator Kennedy involved himself with the bloggers because he recognizes their potential to "convey the impact that this decision will have on hundreds of millions of Americans, whose last line of defense for their freedoms and liberties is the Supreme Court," according to the article.

These blogs have the potential to reach a huge audience, and by combining forces, they hope that the message from liberal bases will be as strong as possible concerning the Edwards nomination. Obviously each blog will write their own individual messages to their respective readers, but the goal as a whole will be the same and a central message will connect these blogs and organizations to each other, inspiring their readers to take the course of action they suggest.

I think this is an interesting idea, and may be used in the future with stronger results, but for now I truly think Bush's nomination of Edwards does not leave a lot of wiggle room for liberals to work around. He looks great on paper and while these blogs have compiled opposition research on him, I am not so sure that there is enough fire around Edwards for the blogs to be as effective as they hope.

All in all I think the use of synchronized blogging is a good idea in theory and I think that it is advantageous for the Congressional representatives and liberal groups to join forces with the blogs. I bet we will be seeing a lot more of this in the future from both Democrats and Republicans.

Finals!!!!!

2005-07-20T13:11:00.000-07:00

Get Out of Blogging Free

2005-07-17T15:06:00.000-07:00

Filtering in China

2005-07-16T09:24:00.000-07:00

The study Internet Filtering in China in 2004-2005 is a very interesting analysis into China's online filtering habits.

What I find very interesting is the lack of transparency that the filtering has. According to the study "the state does not generally admit to censoring Internet content, and concomitantly there is no list of banned sites and no ability for citizens to request reconsideration of blocking, as some other states that filter provide." While topics are described as sensitive or prohibited, the legal code is non-specific. As broad as the code is there are laws which prohibit citizens from testing the boundaries. As such there is also a "ban on spreading state secrets to discourage" the practice.

In China the government legally has the ability to control what users can see and what they can share with other Internet users. It was very interesting just to browse the list of accessible and non-accessible URLs according to the study. Sites that deal with the democratization of China and even certain pages that link from Yale's Web site can not be accessed. It truly is amazing what people can and what they cannot see.

The Future of Ideas

2005-07-15T09:08:00.000-07:00

In his analysis The Future of Ideas, Stanford law professor Lessig made some very stark comments as to the direction the Internet is taking as we move into the future. To be honest, after reading just a small excerpt from the Future of Ideas, I found his insights very depressing.

The Internet inspired a revolution of innovation and new ideas exploded as the Internet progressed and that innovation was fostered by the Internet. Today, Lessig argues that a counterrevolution is taking place, replacing innovation with a general stifling of creative energy and control by powerful conglomerates. These conglomerates take advantage of the law and technology and Lessig argues are taming the Web as we know it.

Lessig offered the opinion that today the Internet is changing from an "open forum for ideas into nothing more than cable television on speed." This insight is an interesting analogy but I am not sure that I completely agree with it.

I am torn because on one side, I do see the rise of blogs, in this country mind you, to be a powerful force allowing people to speak their minds. But then I can also appreciate that the Web is becoming more regulated and the flow of information not be as free as it once was because of corporate interests. Obviously there are no easy answers, but just from reading a brief excerpt I am interested in hearing what else Lessig has to say.

Be Careful What You Blog

2005-07-14T08:37:00.000-07:00

According to an article in today's Washington Post concerning the rise of blogging and the potential impact that revealing personal information online will have in the future, a staggering 79 percent of teens believe that people their age are not careful enough when giving out information about themselves online.

I believe that this is a critical mistake that has the potential to stir up trouble in the future. For some reason people today have misgivings about using a credit card online to make purchases, but at the same time have no problem revealing the most intimate details of their lives to total strangers. People do not feel guarded when blogging for instance because there is a certain degree of anonymity behind the concept.

I would advise anyone who has any inkling in them whatsoever that one day they might want to run for public office to be as careful as they can when sharing personal information about themselves online. I agree that something as innocent as a Facebook profile where someone puts a drunk picture of them up and belongs to groups that focus around drinking, partying and drugs, might not be a big deal today because of the college culture, it could potentially open a very nasty can of worms for the candidate in the future.

When trying to decide how much information is too much, I would use stick to the conservative side. I would never post anything that would cast me in a negative light, because fifteen years down the road my Facebook profile from when I was only twenty-two could potentially cause a lot of damage to me as a candidate.

Influentials Revisited

2005-07-08T17:33:00.000-07:00

Thanks to who Damien and Outside Damage who responded to my post yesterday with very interesting points. To be perfectly honest they articulated much more eloquently than I did a point I wanted to make but neglected to succeed in doing.

The point they made which I did not was the fact that it really does not take much to be considered an influential. An influential can be a guy who sits on his couch all day and does not have to be a Congressional intern.

What I was attempting to say but did a poor job of is the fact that despite the virtual ease of becoming an influential most people do not rise to the challenge. As my responders said, anyone can be an influential. So why don't more people take the miniscule effort to become one?

I was not trying to suggest that an influential should only be a political insider. Instead I wish more "normal Joes" would take it upon themselves to get themselves somewhat connected.

Again, thanks guys for responding and helping me collect my thoughts. :)

Influentials

2005-07-07T13:29:00.000-07:00

According to a study by the Institute for Policy, Democracy, and the Internet, influentials "tell others what to buy, who to work for, and where to go to vacations." But what exactly makes a person an influential?

The answer is not as much as you may think. To be considered an influential you only need to participate in three out of eleven acts in a year, including a public town hall meeting, working for a political party, making a speech, serving on a committee or organization, attending a political protest or rally, writing a letter to the editor and a few other tasks.

To be honest, I think it is a little sad that you really have to do that little to be an influential and to help affect the choices that others make. I think that it just goes to show you again how little average people actually have to do with the democratic process. For GSPM students like myself, I fulfill most of these qualifications numerous times in a year. To me it is second nature to participate in the democratic process, whether it be by attending a political rally, working for my party or going to hear a candidate speak.

However, to many people it is not second nature to do any of these things. I feel that so-called influentials like myself, need to do a better job in getting people involved in these activities.

RSS: The TiVo of the Internet

2005-07-06T09:05:00.000-07:00

We have talked at length in class about the importance and convenience of RSS feeds and advertising agencies are starting to pick up on that as well. The New York Times features an article on the fact that marketers are beginning to see RSS feeds as a tool that they can take advantage of as well and I think political campaigns will also jump on the band wagon eventually as well.

Marketers are beginning to explore using RSS feeds to expand advertising opportunities, providing conversational and informative advertisements . Advertisers see RSS as the TiVo of the Internet, allowing information to directly come to the consumer who can then store the information for later use. Their plan is to link advertisements along with RSS feeds that a consumer will receive from the New York Times for example.

While few companies are already jumping on the RSS bandwagon because testing is still going on, Microsoft is confidently leading the pack. Not only will RSS will be offered in their next operating system, which means that most people who buy Microsoft products after 2006 will find RSS very easy to use, they have already started to use RSS advertising. Consumers who are interested in Microsoft products can opt in for Microsoft RSS feeds, which will basically be advertisements for Microsoft in a new form that does not read like a traditional advertisement. Through RSS the technology is hidden as is the marketers' advertising strategies.

I think that there is a lot of potential in RSS advertising. By hiding technology and allowing people to sign up for updates, I believe that advertising will inevitably change within the next five years as RSS becomes more prevalent. This will undoubtedly have an effect on traditional advertising venues as well.

I definitely do think that political campaigns will also be expanding their use of RSS as the technology evolves as well. Taking a cue from the private marketing industry, campaigners will most likely find a way to enhance their candidate's images and positions in the polls.

Bill Bolling

2005-07-05T10:33:00.000-07:00

Taking a look at the Bill Bolling for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia Web site I have a number of positive and negative observations concerning the Web site. Unfortunately for the campaign my criticisms do tend to outweigh the positives of the site however and I feel that key changes need to be made if the campaign wants to use the Web effectively.

On a positive note, I am happy with the overall layout of the site. What I like about it is the fact that it is extremely easy to navigate and the links on the homepage make sense. The main links laid out on the left side of the homepage include the most pertinent points of contact for the campaign, including: Welcome, About Bill Bolling, On the Issues, In the News, Legislative Links, Contact Information, Endorsements, Support Bill Bolling and On the Road.

These links are all critical components of the campaign and since there are only nine, the viewer does not feel overwhelmed by the amount of information which is present on the opening page. If a viewer, for example, wants to know more about Legislative Links, the link then breaks down into Legislative Biography, VA Online Legislation, and Session Highlights links. This makes sense, because the viewer does not need to be bombarded with those links when they initially view the homepage and only appear when the viewer decides they want to focus on the Legislative Links option.

In addition, I am happy to see that the home page has large volunteer and contribute graphics on the right side of the page. I think it is absolutely critical to make it as easy as possible for anyone going to a web page to volunteer or to make a contribution to the campaign. Having large graphics for these two options on the home page is advisable in my opinion, because if a voter comes to the page solely to volunteer they will not have to navigate their way to the volunteer page, and will only be one click away, making the task far easier.

While I am happy to see the volunteer and contribution graphics on the home page, these links also happen to be the biggest source of contention and annoyance that I have with the Bolling campaign. Since May 31, 2005 I have on five occasions clicked on that link, giving two different email addresses with the hope of getting email updates about the campaign and to sign up as a volunteer. As of today, July 5, I have still not heard from the campaign.

Having to register numerous amount of times and not hearing back from a campaign is unacceptable. What good is having a link present if the campaign does not follow up? The campaign’s lack of follow-up is sure to turn away a number of voters who had every intention of donating their own personal time to help the campaign and it is certainly not a good campaign move.

The contribution link is source of annoyance for me, because it is not a secure page and is not on an https page. Once again, by failing to use the web properly I believe the campaign will turn away important voters. In today’s world, people are already very skeptical about making online purchases on secure sites and I believe it is a mistake for a campaign to ask the voters to contribute on a site that is not secure. Bolling’s campaign should value the voter’s time and their own security more when asking for their donations.

In addition, the campaign has included an “On the Road” link on the main page, but the link has not been updated since a week before the primary on June 14. When a voter clicks on the link, they are directed to a notice that “There are no upcoming events currently stored online. Please contact our office if you have any questions concering upcoming events not listed here. Thank you!” Not only do I think that it is not advisable for a campaign to make it look like a candidate has nothing going on, it is also a mistake to spell the word “concerning” incorrectly on the page. I think this makes the Web site look sloppy and uncared for and not updated often enough.

In addition, the “In the News” section is not as up to date as it could be. Since June 4, only four articles have been posted in this section. When I did a quick Lexis Nexus search for Bolling, I found over two hundred and fifty articles. Granted some of these might be repeat stories or might not feature Bolling in the most positive light, but I am sure that a few of the articles would be a positive addition to the section and would make Bolling’s campaign look more newsworthy. In addition, I think it would be advisable for Bolling to include links to any radio, print or television advertisements the campaign has generated as well as their response to any negative advertisements that have come their way for the voters to take a look at if they desire.

Along the same line, the opening home page text has not been updated since Bolling won the nomination in June. Instead it still reads that Bolling and Kilgore went on a statewide tour on June 15 and 16. It is now July and I believe the home page should include an updated note from the campaign. This is no longer news and should be archived in the “On the Road” section.

For the site as a whole, I do not think enough photographs are included. This is especially true for the “About Bill Bolling” link. His biography section is text only and does not include a picture to show the voter who Bill Bolling is. I think that it would be advisable to put a picture of Bolling looking official as State Senator on this page and to also include a picture of Bolling with his family. In addition, I do not think his family connection is highlighted enough. Instead, it seems as if his family is an afterthought only worthy of two sentences at the very end of the biography. It does mention his wife and two sons and what church they are affiliated with, but it does not make the voter feel connected to the Bill Bolling as a family man.

In addition, while pictures are included in the “Bill Bolling” link, they are very grainy and do not have captions describing who is in the black and white photos. The photos do not appear to be the web quality and leave the voter guessing who is in the photo. Once again, this link does not feature his family enough. The fact he is a father of two sons is not even mentioned. While the link does mention the fact that Bolling was the first in his family to attend college and that is where he met his wife, he does not come across as a real person and instead re-states his legislative accomplishments, making him come across as not believable.

What is clear to me is the fact that the Bolling campaign did not put a large portion of funding into the Web site and possibly does not see the Web as being an important aspect of the campaign. I believe though that the page that is up has a number of key flaws that should be immediately fixed and I think if they remain untouched the Bolling campaign might lose some support.

Happy 4th of July!!!

2005-07-04T14:24:00.000-07:00

Third Party Blogging

2005-07-03T17:33:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading the special edition of the Congress Online newsletter, How Congress Uses Blogs and was interested by the five different ways representatives are using blogs and I think that they make a lot of sense. It is important to note though that this article did maintain that Congressional offices are hesitant in starting to use blogging in a widespread manner.

As I have written about before, one of the reasons why Congressional offices are not exactly jumping through hoops to blog because they are afraid of the consequences blogging will have on spin control. They are afraid to put too much information out there that can be troublesome in the future.

The fourth type of blog the article mentioned was Third Party Blogging. This is a technique that such figures as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer have used and have posted blogs on established outside blogs such as Daily Kos. Now I think it is a good idea to use such influential blogs because of the large audience they reach, but I have to wonder if Congress members are so afraid of spin control and getting too much information out there, why they would really want to do this. Daily Kos allows readers to respond to blogs that are posted and as such a Congress person will have to deal with people who do not necessarily agree with them and who might post negative comments about them.

With all the concern over spin and the way that some elected officials are so paranoid about how people perceive them I am surprised they would want to open that can of worms. Yes, it does mean they do not need to sit in front of the computer and create blog entries day after day, but to me it does not really add up.

I wish that more elected officials would drop their cautious outlook and work overtime to speak to the people and create an open forum for discussion and I would like to see more people like Tom Tancredo step up to the plate and post their own blogs for their own constituents.

A Slight Modification

2005-07-02T11:20:00.000-07:00

Yesterday in my blog I basically said that I wasn't so sure if blogging would be a good or bad idea for a Congressional representative to utilize on their Web sites. While I am still not sure of the answer I must make a slight modification to what I said.

When I considered what size of a population would take advantage of a Congressional blog, I downplayed the scope. Today I decided to take a look at the blog that Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) keeps, and was surprised (and impressed) to see the number of comments that his blog entries receive. While I was thinking that maybe a hundred people might respond, I was surprised to see that some entries had over 800 comments.

Yes, I still stand by my opinion that not everyone will read the blog and the comments might be slightly skewed to represent a small component of the constituency, but maybe blogs make sense. It might eventually become a great way to open up a forum and get the constituency talking, but for the Congressman or women's electoral sake, they should hope that what the constituents say is in their favor.

It is all about Control....

2005-07-01T11:04:00.000-07:00

I believe that Molly Chapman Norton's article, "Why Congress Doesn't Blog...And a Few Members Who Do" makes complete sense concerning the apparent lack of interest of current Congressmen and women have towards creating a blog on their Web sites.

In today's world of spin, Congressional offices like to be completely in control of their message and what communications the office circulates to the media and its constituents. I completely agree with the notion that a blog is not seen as a critical component of a Congressional Web site not only because offices do not want their views and positions misunderstood, but also because the Web sites are so behind the times to begin with. Blogging would mean that the office would need to severe a bit of its control and add to their workload further and I am not so sure many Congressional offices would be too conducive to that idea.

Do I think that blogging should be utilized on an officials Web site? To be honest I do not know the right answer. I can see the pros and cons to the question on equal footing. Yes, blogging would be a good way to key into constituents' minds, but a true blog would not filter what anyone would comment on. This means the elected official could be setting themselves up to look badly. Having the ability to see what the voters believe could potentially help an official navigate the political spectrum in the best way for their constituency and it would provide the voters with an easy to use communication forum. On the other hand, the constituency as a whole would not respond or even read the blog, only a few people who are truly interested in the politics would and they would therefore present a skewed vision of the constituency. If someone is not going to pick a newspaper to read an article about some Congressional appeal, they are certainly not going to blog about it.

It is my position that campaigns have a lot to learn from corporate uses of the Internet and officials already elected and in office have a whole lot more to learn than even the campaigners. Blogging is a buzz word that we are all very cognizant of now, but these offices have a lot to catch up on. Congressional offices will eventually find a happy medium where they get the best out of blogging while minimizing their losses, but I think this will definitely take some time to evolve and come to light.

If a Democrat Wants to Win the White House it is Time They Make a Smart Investment...

2005-06-26T12:35:00.000-07:00

The first paragraph of Technology, the Internet and Progressives puts a great deal of insight into one of the reasons why a Democrat is not in the White House today. Democrats have a tendency to refuse to put an adequate amount of campaign money into their Web components and do not accept technology as willingly as the Republicans. "Conservatives know that modern technology is the most efficient and effective way of 'getting to people' and 'getting their message out.'"

To me it seems ridiculous in the year 2005, some Democrats are still unwilling to put enough campaign resources into their Internet strategies. The Internet is a critical component to any campaign and a poorly designed site might make the difference between a winning and losing campaign.

The way I see it why wouldn't a candidate want to create best Web site they possibly could? I see a site not only as the perfect location to store a clearinghouse of positive news reports about a candidate but also help the candidate to make a personal connection with the voter. They can tell their life story, show pictures taken throughout their lifetime, highlight their accomplishments and explain their policy stances. As Emi showed in class Tuesday, candidates can take quizzes to see how their views correspond the candidate's. That is a great tool. Web sites also serve as a direct avenue to garner campaign support - both economically through donations but also through volunteer sign ups.

If I was to lead a campaign today, once I developed a message and a strategy I would start from the web up. All of my traditional campaign collateral like banners, bumper stickers and yard signs would point voters in my candidate's site direction where they would have an amazing tool at their disposal.

I am all about online newsletters, banner ads and volunteer connection emails. I think that the Web is the best place to get both like minded and undecided minds together to support a candidate or a product. It all seems so simple and a non-issue to me, but perhaps that is because I am of the Web nativist generation. When I want to know something about a person or a thing the first place I go to is the Internet.

If a candidate does not see the Web as being important in an election today or worthy of a large amount of funding I would say that they are making a critical mistake. I believe if you ignore the Web in politics today, you will most certainly get ignored at the polls.

Rocked the Vote....

2005-06-25T12:20:00.000-07:00

As I said in my previous post, 2004 was supposed to be the year of the activist and as I said Kerry lost the election, the activists didn't. I see this to be the case because activist groups did manage to make a difference in this country's political landscape.

According to Manjoo, in 2004 activists groups helped Kerry to pull much bigger numbers in certain areas as opposed to what Gore pulled in 2000. In fact in Ohio alone Kerry won over 554,000 more votes than Gore did. In my book that is pretty impressive. With a volunteer staff of over 120,000 ACT showed that people are not too lazy to work to get out the vote.

I do not see the third party movement as a failure because these groups managed to make themselves relevant in the modern day political world. Becoming more mainstream, these groups helped to attract attention to the election and the poltical process. I do believe that these groups should savor these small victories and work to build on them.

By building on these small victories, I believe activist groups should communicate together and relaize they are working towards a common goal. Just because Bush has four more years in the White House does not mean that these activist groups and all their volunteers worked for nothing. They worked on the basis of principle, got their point across and I believe they got more people to the polls. Although Kerry did not win I believe these groups made a major contribution to the political world. Now they just need to work together with the Democratic Party and proper communication could mean a world of difference and a Democrat in the White House in 2008.

ACT Didn't Fail... Kerry Did.

2005-06-24T12:06:00.000-07:00

According to Farhad Manjoo 2004 was supposed to be the year of the activist. Activist groups like ACT and other third-party movements were supposed to team together with the Kerry campaign and defeat Bush, only the Kerry campaign did not live up to their end of the bargain. Kerry lost, but ACT and other activist groups managed people to get involved in the democratic process.

ACT successfully managed to engage otherwise non-political people to get involved in the election and successfully turned out many first time voters. Sure some of these non-voters turned voters came out to support Kerry but the fact of the matter was Bush simply had more votes. He won fair and square and that was not the fault of ACT or any other activist group - it was the fault of the Kerry campaign.

Bush inspired volunteers, Kerry asked for money. While ACT tried to tip the political balance in favor of Kerry, there was simply not enough support behind him. I believe that the Kerry campaign was not coordinated enough with these activist groups. The Kerry campaign had a very hard time connecting with the voters because I believe they were asking people the wrong questions.

While ACT and MoveOn.org attempted to get people involved, the people did not vote for Kerry. Bush had more support and made more of a connection with the critical voters in swing states like Ohio. Instead of working together, activist groups and the Kerry campaign were not synchronized. Instead, they acted as separate components and thought each other was handling something like voter registration when neither was.

Narrowcasting

2005-06-23T11:46:00.000-07:00

Narrowcasting is the political marketing of the future. In future political campaigns, marketers will craft specific, important messages to highly targeted groups of individuals. Through narrowcasting, these influential messages will be targeted to the specific groups based on demographic, polling and self-selection according to an article found on campaignaudit.com.

By using such information as credit card history, marketers are able to, for instance, use voting records to link with credit information to find out what kind of homes people live in and what kinds of cars they drive. Computer models then chart a county and make predictions about what messages will be effective in what areas. A specific and tailored message is then created that get out the vote volunteers will deliver in video form to the constituents.

America Coming Together (ACT) used this technique quite crudely in the 2004 elections and I believe in the future narrowcasting will come to play a great deal more. As targeting techniques get more sophisticated important groups of the citizenry will be targeted by narrowcasting and will be sent a very specific message.

I believe that in swing states that are so important narrowcasting will play an important role. In these states every vote counts to the fullest and having the ability to create a message uniquely designed for each segment of the population could mean a great deal. By using narrowcasting the candidate's have the opportunity to see what more people are likely to believe and they can in turn use this to their advantage. This multilevel marketing strategy is interesting marketing development and I look forward to seeing its uses evolve and become more sophisticated.

Still Waiting...

2005-06-21T09:32:00.000-07:00

Just to update you all, it is now June 21 and I still have not heard from the Bolling camp despite the fact that I signed up to volunteer and to receive email updates on May 31, June 6, AND June 19 (yes I tried once again). I still think that is absolutely ridiculous and have to wonder what the campaign is thinking.

I also thought I would share with you all a few more things that bother me about Bolling's Web site. First off on the home page the site brags that Bolling along with Jerry Kilgore and Bob McDonnell just completed a "successful statewide tour... (and) visited every major region of the Commonwealth." Wow, that sounds like quite a busy trip, however when you click on the On the Road Link, no upcoming events are scheduled. What if I am interested voter, who missed their rushed statewide tour and hoped to catch them soon? Since there are no events listed as upcoming does that mean they are done making appearance?

Also, I think it is a huge mistake to say the candidates visited every "major region of the Commonwealth." Shouldn't all regions be major to these candidates? If I lived in a town that was not close to any of the campaign stops I might get the impression that the candidates did not feel that my area was important or "major" enough to visit. I might then infer the candidates are not major enough for me to vote for them.

I also have to laugh when I see the NEW! graphics on the homepage next to the Endorsements and Support Bill Bolling links. Now if I did not know anything about the campaign I might think that he just got these nominations and is just getting support. Yes, it is a picky issue that I bring up but voters are picky.

Lastly, I will just complain again about the volunteer section. We already know that the campaign has not gotten back to me, even though I signed up THREE times, but even if you just want campaign materials, which I point out is its own link, you are forced to re-direct yourself to the Volunteer page. If I can't get the to send me any volunteer information can I really rely on them to get me a bumper sticker I can put on my car or a sign to put in front of my house???!!!!

RSS Feeds A Solution to Spam Blockers

2005-06-20T11:09:00.000-07:00

Over and over again in my daily bloggings I talk about the Internet's evolution and its growing importance in the political campaigning world. I talk about how people come up with new ideas that I believe will change the political landscape and campaigning in the future. Today mostly all political candidates fundraise online, virtually everyone has a Web site and I think soon mostly everyone will be using RSS feeds to get this information out.

According to Amy Gahran one huge limit to the importance of campaigning email newsletters is the fact that spam blockers prevent many voters from ever receiving the information. In fact, Gahran points out that two years ago a study by Steve Outing estimated that over 38% of opt-in email gets blocked by spam detectors. She also points out that this figure has definitely grown in the past two years.

The solution to the spam issue is sending out the information through an RSS feed. In my mind it is a great idea. The RSS feed will mean I will get the information I sign up for instantly and better yet my inbox will not be clogged. It is a much more perfect way to get the information out there.

The use of the Internet in campaigning is no where near meeting its potential and I think it is up to creative thinkers to find new ways to use the Internet. These new ways will provide excellent alternatives to traditional campaigning methods. People will begin to get the most amount of information they want in the easiest ways possible. In my mind it is a winning combination.

The Three Commandments of Online Campaigning

2005-06-19T15:48:00.000-07:00

Every political operartive who works on an online campaign should take the time to learn three simples rules. These three rules were written by Jacon Nielsen and while it should not take a rocket scientist to understand and follow these rules, they are often overlooked by professionals operating an online campaign.

Without further adieu here they are:

1. Energize the party faithful. Get them excited about the candidate and give
them talking points to influence their friends and family.
2. Collect donations.
3. Answer undecided voters' questions, and hopefully convince
them to support the candidate.

While these rules seem painfully clear to us as we read them, it is almost unbelievable that some political operatives are not following them. We are not just talking about someone running for mayor of a small town in the Mid-West here, we are talking at the presidential level.

John Kerry a Senator running for President of the United States made critical web mistakes that are simply unforgivable. Instead of energizing the faithful, Kerry simply asked hardworking Americans for money and once sent two emails in one day soliciting funding. That is simply unacceptable.

I think that political campaigners should read these rules, understand them and their connotations, commit them to memory, say them three times before they go to bed at night and if that fails print them up, frame them and post them in their offices for everyone to see.

No stamp required

2005-06-18T15:10:00.000-07:00

After reading a study by Jacob Nielsen on the uses of email newsletters in the Kerry and Bush campaigns and how underestimated they are as a political tool, I began to question the role of email newsletters in a campaign. To be honest I did not really think much about their importance before, but after taking a few minutes to consider the situation my mind is made up. Email newsletters just make sense.

First off, I will re-state the importance of making an emotional connection with the voter. Email newsletters give the candidate the unique opportunity to speak directly to the voter, connect with the voter, and offer their views, policy points and even life stories.

In a saturated market where a political candidate can not possibly respond to every aspect of a campaign at all times, the newsletter provides an outlet to get the word out in non-traditional ways.

For these reasons and many others, it makes me wonder why campaigns are not putting money into email newsletters. A campaign will spend countless amounts of money sending direct mail to voters, but they do not invest enough resources into an online version of a similar product.

I believe that online newsletters should be targeted like direct mail. One of the best aspects of direct mail is the fact that very specific demographics of the country can be targeted and specific messages are crafted to suit that particular demographic. The same can be true for online newsletters.

The people who sign up for the newsletters most likely are interested in the race and support the candidate. It might be annoying for the voter, but why not ask these voters for demographic information when they register for the newsletter? I am not talking life story but certain key questions. This way the campaign can craft an email newsletter and target it to the demographics.

Email newsletters have one huge advantage over direct mail. A carbon copy can be forwarded to countless voters. If the emails are targeted, supporters can then forward it to people they know who have a stake in the issues. The people they forward it to, might already be supporters but some might be undecided voters. By targeting online newsletters a campaign has the potential to win undecided voters.

I believe email newsletters will one day become critical components to a winning campaign. Targeting is just the start of a new way of reaching voters.

And let's be honest, email is a whole lot less expensive than sending a piece of direct mail through the US Postal Service. No stamp is required.

Still Waiting...

2005-06-17T08:48:00.000-07:00

Way back on May 31, I signed up not only to receive email updates but also volunteer on Bill Bolling's campaign Web site and I have not heard from the campaign since. In fact, I even re-submitted both requests on June 6 with a different email address. Even though I took the extra step to register again neither email address has received any word from the Bolling camp.

This makes me wonder why have a volunteer or email request link if you are not going to follow through and contact the people who want to support you? I think it is ridiculous. While I am not registered to vote in Virginia and would not vote for Bolling even if I was, there is no way for the campaign to know that.

For all they know I am a billionaire supporter willing to invest big money in the campaign. They could be making the biggest mistake of the campaign by not taking the time to contact me. The fact of the matter is they will never know, because at this point if I was a billionaire supporter I would be so disgusted with the campaign I would not give them my money.

I think that whoever I working on Bolling's site should get up, take action and respond to anyone who requests email updates or requests volunteer information. By not responding they are sending an awful message out to the public and I am sure they will lose a few votes as a result. Shame on you Bill Bolling!

Connecting Emotionally

2005-06-16T11:09:00.000-07:00

Reading Jacob Nielsen's Email Newsletters During Last Week of Presidential Campaign it becomes increasingly evident that in order to use the Internet to its advantage in terms of fundraising efforts, newsletters and other online materials should appeal not just for funding, but for an emotional connection.

If a voter receives an email everyday for their money, they might feel disconnected from a candidate and not so much a resource but a clearinghouse. They get the idea that the candidate is only after their money and not their support and the voter will inevitably tune out the fundraising pleas and disconnect themselves from the campaign. On the flip side if a voter gets an email newsletter day after day asking for their support and offering new and unique ways they can use their friendships and social circles to expand a candidate’s base, they will feel like an integral component of the campaign.

Nielsen points out the difference between the Kerry and Bush campaigns. While Kerry continually asked for money, Bush asked people to make a difference and engage their friends and family in the race. As a result Bush supporters became inspired and got involved. They circulated the newsletters and forwarded them out, expanding the Bush base, not only in terms of supporters but also in fundraising efforts.

This is a lesson that I believe all candidates should learn. It is a matter of taking the time to understand the voters and what matters to them. A voter does not want to be seen as a checkbook to a campaign, they want to feel like a valued member of the team. As a member of the team, they have a tangible connection to the results of the election and have an emotional bond with the candidate as well.

Well that was quick....

2005-06-15T09:36:00.000-07:00

For the past few weeks I have been watching the Bill Bolling campaign for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia. Yesterday Bill Bolling won the Republican primary against Sean Connaughton. Now I am not a huge fan of the Bolling Web site and have a number of criticisms against it. The Web site is not updated frequently enough and in my opinion has not done as much as it can do to enhance the Bolling campaign.

As I said, the Web site tends not to be updated so this morning I was pleasantly surprised to see that the site was changed to highlight Bolling's primary win. While I think the site's homepage is still relatively boring and does not inspire me to get excited about Bolling as a candidate it did mention he won the nomination. I would have liked to see more of an emphasis on actually thanking the voters who went out on the hottest day of the year and made it to the polls. Bolling's thank you to voters was an afterthought and I was not impressed.

As I looked at the site I thought it would be interesting to see how Bolling's Republican opponent, Sean Connaughton, reacted to the Bolling victory yesterday. I thought that Bolling's Web site was boring, but after seeing the Connaughton site, it looked like Disneyworld. The site had been stripped of its graphics, links, and any allure and only features small black font on a white screen and reads "Sean thanks all his supporters from the bottom of his heart. He wishes the winning Republican Team all the best in the November General Elections. He pledges his support to the Kilgore/Bolling/McDonnell Republican Ticket."

Call me crazy but looking at that Web site it does not seem that Connaughton is too thrilled to pledge support to the Republican ticket. He could not even find it in himself to use commas to separate the tickets names. It looks as if he just added the text to do the right thing and support his party but give me a break this does not seem genuine. I understand losing a bid for nomination must be crushing, but I think Connaughton owes more to his supporters.

At the least, the site should have been updated to reflect his lost and the original shell with the links should remain. I think Connaughton should have released a letter to his supporters thanking them for their votes and their dedication to his campaign. He should have said that while he lost the nomination he would still fight for the issues that he believes in. I also think he should have shown more genuine support for the nominated Republican team.

Yes, Connaughton lost but isn't this Web site a tad bit lacking? For the sake of the Connaughton supporters and the Republican Party as a whole I do not think Connaughton should have checked out this quickly. Looking at that site all I see is a sore loser, not a person who will remain committed to the people of Virginia. It is hard to tell anything else from a candidate with just three lines of black text on a white screen....

Matt Drudge: Shaking and Stirring the News

2005-06-14T09:50:00.000-07:00

"Matt Drudge is right where he wants to be: front and center, shaking things up, making everyone squirm a bit." ~Andrew L. Shapiro The Drudge Factor

When many people today think of blogs the Drudge Report immediately comes to mind. Pundits like Shapiro claim that Drudge excels because he separates himself from the traditional media approach and sensationalizes and dramatizes what he reads off the news wire.

Drudge began his blogging career without any experience in journalism like many other bloggers. Whether you love his site or hate him, Drudge refuses to fit into conventions and says what he wants. The interesting thing about blogging and the Drudge Report however is the fact that while many people get their news from the site, and Drudge presents the details he might not always spin the stories without biasing one side over another. No matter how much Drudge dramaticizes while traditional journalists try to remain more neutral and two sided, Drudge does not have anything to apologize for.

Not making any apologies Drudge and other bloggers present the news as they see it. Do you think that is the allure of blogs or do you think that is the danger of blogs? To me I really do not see any easy question to the answer.

It is the little things that count....

2005-06-13T10:08:00.000-07:00

I believe when it comes to online recruitment and fundraising it is the little things that count and make all the difference. While these sound like really stupid little things they could make a big difference in whether someone will contribute their time, support or money to a campaign.

First off all campaigns out there should make sure that if someone signs up online to volunteer, they should be contacted in a prompt manner. An individual should not have to wait around to hear that a campaign would appreciate any little effort they are willing to make and when and where their services could be needed in the near future. I signed up to volunteer for one particular race on May 31 and as of today I have not heard from them. Not only does that piss me off, it makes me feel as if the campaign does not need my help. I certainly do not want to vote for a candidate who does not value my time as a supporter. What good is having a volunteer option if you are not going to contact me?

Next, if I take the time to write out my correct contact information, a campaign should take the time to spell my name correctly on anything they send me. This may sound silly also, but a mistake could turn someone away from a campaign as well.

Also, make sure the Web site is up to date. If it is June 12, 2005 and I click on the upcoming events link the upcoming events should not list what happened on May 1, 2005. Not only does that make a campaign look sloppy, it makes them look like they have nothing going on. I might even question if they are still in the race and I certainly do not want to invest my time or money in a non-viable candidate.

Sure these sound like suggestions a twelve year old would make, but it is the little things that count. These little things that sound obvious to you and me should not be overlooked during a campaign no matter how intense the political season may be.

For example, it is imperative that if a person puts their name on a volunteer list, they should not have to go to the trouble to contact the campaign again. The day that a person volunteers they should be contacted to not only thank them for signing up, but to also inform them about the most recent events in which their help would be instrumental in making the event a success.

Some of the benefits of online fundraising....

2005-06-12T10:31:00.000-07:00

While I won't bore you by saying how influential the Internet can be in a political campaign, I will say that online fundraising does have a number of benefits over traditional fundraising methods. I learned most of the reasons after reading this publication produced by the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet

Their research shows that while the average mail in donation is $35, the average online donation is $100. That is nearly three times the donation level and that could surely make a difference in a campaign. In addition, a political supporter can forward an email or a web page to hundreds of their friends and acquaintances to garner support. Even if ten of those hundreds contribute this will still make a huge difference. Sure we cannot get the same kind of targeting results online as we get through direct mail but the potential to reach more people is key.

When I think of all the list servs that I am a member of I can only begin to think of the potential that I could raise. By forwarding one email to one of those list servs I could increase a campaign's bankroll substantially. By only typing in one list serv address, I could make the difference between whether a campaign is able to afford that one critical ad at the end of the campaign. Sure that may sound like a cocky statement, but with the Internet it is possible.

Ignore the Internet At Your Own Peril...

2005-06-11T08:36:00.000-07:00

Rupert Murdoch, a seventy four year old self professed "digital immigrant" recently warned news magnates of the vast importance of the Internet and the effects web based news forms such as blogs have in today's world. Murdoch claims to be foreign to the web based world and struggles to face web technology preferring more traditional venues, but he has interesting views on the importance the Web has in the news industry today.

He recently warned his peers "We need to realise that the next generation of people accessing news and information, whether from newspapers or any other source, have a different set of expectations about the kind of news they will get, including when and how they will get it, where they will get it from, and who they will get it from" according to the Guardian Unlimited.

Murdoch publicized the alarming views that youths have towards newspapers today. He stated that only 9% of youths describe newspapers as trustworthy, just 8% find them useful and only 4% find newspapers entertaining. While elder people are digital immigrants, the young are digital natives and Murdoch believes the media has to cater to their position.

While Murdoch says that the news media needs to get in touch with what people want, it is something that is easier said than done. He says that youth and other individuals go to blogs to get their news because the traditional media is not offering them what they want. I wonder how the media will ever know what the people really want.

Once again, while people say the media is too soft and should focus on hard news but when the media does present a hard news story the people do not tune in. Instead Michael Jackson coverage rules the ratings war. As sad as is a majority of people do not pick up a newspaper to get their news. Instead they log on.

Get By With a Little Help From Your Competitors???!!!!

2005-06-10T07:37:00.000-07:00

When you think of search engines, you probably immediately think Google or Yahoo. Well AOL wants to change that and they want to accomplish this goal by actually using their competitors. AOL is introducing a new search portal and rather than spending millions of dollars in traditional television marketing, AOL is actually using the Internet to let users know about this new service according to today's New York Times.

AOL is actually buying advertising space on Google, marketing its new portal. They want to rival Google and they are using Google to get the word out. It is a little ironic isn't it? Google says it does not mind taking AOL's money but I have to wonder if this is a good business move on its part. I do not think that AOL will take the market share for search engines away from Google, but I can only wonder what will happen next.

Will a move like this find a way into political Internet advertising? Are we going to see Democratic Candidates buying advertising space on Republican Web sites? Would those Republican Web sites be willing to take money from their competitors? Some say that the political world is behind the corporate world in terms of Internet use, so will they one day adopt these tactics as well?

I guess we will just have to wait and see if AOL made a sound investment in its out of the ordinary advertising strategy. Time will only tell....

Blogging is Everywhere....

2005-06-09T11:01:00.000-07:00

Ever since I began taking Politics and the New Media, I swear that I cannot get through an hour without hearing the word "blog." Blogging is everywhere and it seems that everyone has an opinion on it. It seems as if "blog" is the hot word to say and an incredible amount of articles are devoted to the topic.

So here is another one on the subject from yesterday's Washington Post.

Blogging is being used widely throughout the political arena and campaign managers are just beginning to see how great of a tool blogging can be. For example, Ben Chandler who successfully ran for Congress in Kentucky was able to use blogging to his advantage. By placing a campaign fundraising banner ad on Daily Kos for two weeks he was able to raise a little more than $80,000. Not bad for very little work in just two weeks. That figure really is incredible, showing once again that blogging is an important tool.

To be honest I am beginning to feel like a broken record but everywhere I look I find more and more evidence about the importance of blogs and the influence that they potentially have. It only makes me wonder if the columnists who keep writing these articles feel the same way....

More on the Impact of Blogging

2005-06-08T11:43:00.000-07:00

Back onto the subject of blogs, The Pew Internet & American Life Project just completed a survey of forty of the biggest and most respected political blogs to determine if and how much blogs can influence the media and how the media influences them. Guardian Unlimited highlighted the study's findings in a recent article.

In the article GSPM's (and Pew's) own Michael Cornfield said, "Sometimes blogs lead and can be very influential and other times they're followers," adding that bloggers are beginning to have some influence in shaping the agenda of the media. Blogs can survive the "smoking gun" type memo such as the one that helped break Rathergate and that is why they have the potential to make an impact.

While blogs do help us disseminate the wealth of information that is out there, Cornfield feels we should not place too much weight in blogging's ability to necessarily impact political life. Cornfield said "For a conversation to acquire the intense simultaneity of buzz, and for buzz to register with force in public affairs, requires a number of other factors to be present, few of which are likely to be at the disposal of a single blogger, or even a blogging collective, ready to activate at will."

What blogs do have working for them is that they are able to condense materials that might be hundreds of pages that the general public would never have the time nor the desire to read into manageable smaller pieces the people would not mind reading.

I do find it very interesting that the Pew Institute has completed a study to help answer some of the questions PMGT 218 has been asking in class sessions or on individual blogs.

Are Bloggers Just a Bunch of Know Nothings Sitting Around in Their Pajamas?

2005-06-07T08:43:00.000-07:00

Last night in another GSPM class, Political Communication Strategies, we had three guest speakers who came to speak in front of our class. They were reporters from the Washington Post, the Hill and CNN. Mostly they spoke about their jobs, their relationships with press secretaries, and the protocol they follow each day. We discussed what news is and how they find their scoops.

As the discussion evolved the issue of blogs came up and one student posed the question of whether the reporters had ever used a blog to write a story and whether or not they thought blogging was a force for the traditional news media to reckon with.

Answering the question, the representative from the Washington Post admitted that he had actually once formulated a story with the help of a blogger, who he did give credit to in his story, but he did not really look to bloggers to make news. Instead he felt bloggers simply opine about the news that the traditional news media reports. In essence he said he does not believe that bloggers will out scoop traditional news venues.

When the representative from CNN answered the same question he basically said that he thought that bloggers do not hold such an important place as some people are speculating they do, but he also doesn't think that bloggers are just a bunch of guys sitting in front of their computers at home in their pajamas.

Even if bloggers are a bunch of guys sitting in their pajamas I believe that blogging is beginning to find its own place in the world. Some people do believe what they read in the blogs is the news and we all need to come to terms with that.

The three reporters even said while they do not agree with Drudge's views on everything he writes he does have a good pulse on everything that is in the news because he reads from the same wires and reports from them. Whether Drudge gets the story 100% right or not, we all need to accept the fact that blogging is a new form of communication and should not just be pushed to wayside because it is not a traditional form of reporting.

More Texting Notes

2005-06-06T08:45:00.000-07:00

After reading about the uses of text messaging to help care for AIDS patients in Africa and campaigning/protesting organization uses, I decided to look into how prevalent the use of text messaging actually is today.

I came across a UK site devoted to the expansion of text messaging complete with text statistics and various new uses of SMS technology.

The use of text messaging is extremely interesting. No longer just a form of entertainment for friend to friend communication, text messaging is now a critical component of campaign communication strategies. After Pope Benedict was voted in one of the first things he did was text message subscribers to Pope John Paul II's text messaging list.

Text messaging is now being used as a service for deaf people and is also being used in emergency management in areas where cellular phones do not have good service. Media Centre predicts that an estimated 30 billion text messages will be sent during 2005 and 70% of mobile phone users now text message on a daily basis.

How A Simple Text Message Can Save a Life

2005-06-05T16:23:00.000-07:00

While I may resist Big Brother watching me all the time, new technological advances truly do have the potential to save lives. While I may use text messaging to send my friends silly messages throughout the day to make them smile, counselors use SMS text messaging to save HIV AIDS patients' lives in South Africa.

I was truly amazed when I read Megan Lindow's article on the subject. As Lindow described a situation in which a counselor visiting an AIDS patient noticed a dangerous syptom the patient was displaying and she used text messages to send a red alert message and got the patient into treatment the very next day.

This text messaging capabilities allow a single counselor to treat hundreds of patients and cuts down on the incredible amount of paperwork that plagues AIDS treatment centers in South Africa.

It truly is amazing what something as simple as text messaging can do in this world. It can save the lives of AIDS patients in Africa, help citizens organize protests and spread democracy and can even help topple entire governments.

The capabilities of seemingly unimportant technological advances like text messaging are vast. Whether it is through cyberdemocracy or saving lives, text messaging is not just about sending a friend a funny message. Text messaging can actually make this world a better place. When is text messaging going to be used to its full potential in American politics?

Big Brother Is Watching...

2005-06-04T08:17:00.000-07:00

Sure I am a decent, law abiding citizen and really do have nothing to hide from the authorities, but after reading the Death Knell of Privacy article, I feel like maybe there is something I need to hide from. I think in the future I may need to find some kind of hiding place so that I can have some semblance of privacy.

In theory I do think new technology like tracking devices, CCTV cameras, and idenitification cards are a good thing, but to be honest I don't really want some big brother out there watching me. If I am at work and need to take a break from the monotony and stress of my workplace, I don't really want my boss to be alerted by some sort of employee tracking device

Sure I think this technology might make the world a safer place because people might not be tempted to commit a crime out of fear that some camera will film them, but I'm not so sure I want some entity knowing what I am doing at all times.

I was at a family friend's home that is a retired government worker the other day and we were discussing the use of the new satellite imagery component of google and I mentioned how interesting I thought it was to google in my address and see an image of my childhood home. My family friend said, "Please I have seen satellite imagery that was so sharp I was able to read the time off a person's watch while they were getting the mail from their mailbox."

So it appears that Big Brother is already watching and as technology continues to develop he will be getting an even clearer image of exactly what we are doing and when we are doing it. Is privacy as we know it a thing of the past?

Is There Such a Thing As Off the Record Anymore?

2005-06-03T07:39:00.000-07:00

In today's world is there really anything such as off the record anymore? With the need for juicier and juicier stories to make the headlines there really is not that much of a place for anonymous tips. Sally Quinn, reporter and wife of Ben Bradlee pondered this same question in today's Washington Post.

She claims that what made Deep Throat so legendary was that the identity did not leak out until this week. The fact is that in today's world if a story is too good it will eventually come out and so too will its sources. What sets Deep Throat apart for so many years was the fact that the story did not come out and integrity and trust ruled.

If a Deep Throat type source came to a reporter today do you think that their identity would be protected? To be honest I highly doubt it, because the source would probably succumb to the allure of book deals, movies, and talk show interviews with a big payoff (this is not to say that I would blame them for falling into the media trap).

Whatever your personal feelings about Deep Throat and whether you see him as an American hero or traitor, he didn't leak the information for money or fame, he did it because he saw it as his duty as a responsible citizen.

An Even Better Tivo?

2005-06-02T12:39:00.000-07:00

For all of you TiVo addicts out there, here is the next generation of TiVo. But if I was you I would wait until they actually perfect the technology!!!!

The New Media: Disneyland is Today's News

2005-06-02T12:21:00.000-07:00

Sylvester Brown put it best in his article "Conyers Looks for News in the Wrong Place" when he likened the media today as hunting to report on Disneyland. While the public of the past derived its news from sources that presented news solely, the media of today presents a circus.

While stories like the Runaway Bride and Tom Cruise's crazy fist pumping on Oprah over his girlfriend of less than a month take the place of front page news stories, the real news gets pushed to the wayside. Why? Because the real news doesn't entertain the public. Simply stated it is not in the interests of the news media to report the real news. Instead we have twenty-four hour coverage of the Michael Jackson case, while reporters cannot find time to break the story that British and American officials allegedly conspired in 2002 to attack Iraq, a year before the war began.

The real news stories of the past simply do not get the airtime anymore because the new media is interested in the circus type stories. Britney Spear's pregnancy and Paris Hilton's upcoming nuptials are the hot topics of today. The new media certainly does point to the fact that Disneyland is today's news.

Can the Internet Be Used to Persuade?

2005-06-01T15:46:00.000-07:00

Each day I believe the Internet grows and becomes a more important piece of our lives. Not only do I believe the Internet can help us keep in touch with our loved ones and friends better than ever before, it can teach us about things we don't know and can offer us new insight into the world. But can it be used to persuade? Of course.

The Internet in my opinion is an excellent breeding ground for original thought and contrary to Sunstein's opinion, the Internet is great for democracy. The Internet is a critical component of a campaign and can be used to sway voters onto its side. The key word is component however.

We all say that the Internet will never replace a grassroots volunteer's phone call the day before an Election and will never replace spending the money to put a key billboard up on a busy interstate, but it can be used in conjunction with these techniques. Why not put the candidate's Web address smack dab in the middle of the important billboard? Rather than just reminding voters of a particular candidate's name, let's tell them where to go to find out more.

The Internet can be used to persuade because it can offer more information than a single piece of direct mail ever will. We can place candidate response ads on the Internet that are perfect in the form of 43 seconds, but we could never do that on television. We can have a candidate publish a blog where the voters can engage him or her in discussion. Where else can we do that?

People say that the problem is we cannot make an individual go to a Web site to learn about a candidate. No kidding. At the same time we cannot make a person sit in front of the television to watch a 30 second television spot either.

The Internet can be used to persuade and has been used to persuade and will do so even more in the future.

WebPagesThatSuck.com

2005-05-31T12:42:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading "The Biggest Web Design Mistakes of 2004" on WebPagesThatSuck.com and I thought it was awesome. What I can't believe is that someone who takes the time to design their own Web site would make these mistakes.

The first mistake that they mention is "Believing people care about you and your web site." This is something that all political candidates should consider. Flanders, the author goes on to explain that an individual goes to a Web site to solve their own problems and web designers should have that in mind.

That is why I believe a candidate's position on the most important issues should be the focus of a candidate's Web site and the focus should not be a fundraising effort. Web sites in political campaigns should first offer the public what they want to hear - that particular candidate's stance on the issues and how those views may differ from their opponent.

For example, if a voter goes to a Web site to learn about a canidate, they will not want the focus of the home page to be "Give me money" instead they will want to first learn the issues. The focus should be "Here is what I stand for." After that voter reads the issues they should be directed ot the fundraising pages. On the flip side, if an voter educated on the issues comes to the Web site with the sole intention to donate money, they may not need to read the background information but will still have the opportunity to and then click on the secondary focus which would be fundraising.

I agree with Flanders and his opinion that a Web site is not about "opening a new marketing channel or getting donations or to promote a brand. No. It's about solving your customers' problems." In this case, I believe it is acceptable to switch the word customer and replace it with voter, and it may not be as much solving a voter's problems, but making the issues more clear.

Will Something as Innocent As a Blog Cause the Next Newsweek Scandal???

2005-05-26T12:25:00.000-07:00

After our class engaged in a brief discussion on Tuesday discussing the merits/dangers of an unfiltered, non regulated Internet where free speech reigns, I remembered reading the following short blog on the Washington Post's Web site by Joel Achenbach. Achenbach questions the role of groupthink the Internet can bring on. He offers the question of whether this groupthink will cause the masses who read blogs and other online discusssions to simply believe everything they read, which can lead to chaos.

Yes we all expect a major situation if a journalistic entity like Newsweek makes a critical mistake and prints inaccurate information, but what happens when an unregulated blog prints something incorrectly? Could an otherwise non-noteworthy blog become a big deal if something it prints (whether it is verified or not) suddenly becomes newsworthy or the topic of conversation across the globe?