The 2008 Presidential elections have been amazing in that they have managed to capture the voters’ attention in almost every imaginable way. How? Mainly through the Internet. With the exponentially increasing popularity of the Internet, print journalism and magazines have decreased in popularity since the last few decades. Now, most people resort to the Internet, and the candidates sure know how to use this to their advantage.
“The Internet IS the new television as far as 21st century campaigning is concerned.” These are the words of Walter Anderson, who argues that “While it is true that candidates have used the Internet since the 1992 election, its usefulness and capabilities really started to come alive in the presidential election of 2004.” Social networking sites like MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube allow candidates to quickly upload their campaign information and advertise, at no cost. The use of these sites as campaign media is a new invention. Thus, the Internet has adapted a huge cost-effective advertising role. It is now the main medium through which candidates reach millions of voters; this audience can’t be obtained through any other way.
On the other hand, Josh Catone argues that not everything that appears on the Internet is true or can be trusted. He notices a clear discrepancy between who the Internet suggests will be the next president compared to what the polls illustrate. MySpace, Youtube and Facebook all tend to lean more towards Obama than towards Clinton (based on number of “friends” and “supporters”). Nevertheless, according to Catone, every poll indicates that Clinton is in the lead. So why the difference? He explains that since “older voters still made up the majority at the polls (…) it could be that a lot of the action candidates see on those sites is from people who aren’t likely to actually cast a vote.” He therefore concludes that even though the Internet is a wonderful asset to politics, it can’t be trusted to predict outcomes.
The Pew Research Center indicates that the Internet as a source of campaign information has increased. Meanwhile, traditional news sources have declined slightly. However, the Internet is still the secondary news source, TV being the first. Still, among the young, TV is secondary. Similarly, Tiesha claims that the Internet is a blessing for political campaigns. She mentions that blogs encourage debate and healthy disagreements which enrich the participants. This way, they become more informed. According to her, “anyone with a keyboard, monitor and internet connection can become a political pundit.” Blogs that foment debate can also aid in putting out there every point of view and avoiding polarization, which is what Sunstein advocates against.
The Internet is such a useful tool that even people who are just not into doing extensive research about every candidate have a solution. Speak Out offers a free survey that consists of multiple questions pertaining to political aspects, and it then “matches” you with the candidate that is more according to your beliefs. Isn’t this marvelous?
On another note, I must mention momatad’s (scroll down upon clicking the link) opinion, which I think is crucial in deciding how the Internet affects the 2008 elections. She says: “It is a useful tool, but just that, a tool, that can be used for good or bad.” This sounds quite reasonable. The Internet is out there, filled with knowledge, for anyone to use. However, it is up to the person to decide if he/she will use it as an information tool or for other purposes. When used correctly, the Internet could become an infinite fountain of campaign knowledge that aids anybody when making the decision of who to vote for.
Without a doubt, the Internet has revolutionized how Presidential elections develop and this year, candidates have experienced a transition to cyberspace unlike any other time.
