Will the Internet ever replace television in election campaigns?
First, it is important to understand why advertisers prefer television versus the Internet in their marketing strategies. “They like TV because it is a privileged platform from which to sell products, unduly handicaps local interests in favor of larger, more moneyed concerns, and, because it is visual, provides an incredible vehicle for the manipulation of people’s symbols at a fairly subconscious level” (Cagle 3). A perfect analogy to this is the preference of corporate business rather than small businesses because it creates a common name and theme amongst consumers thus enhancing sales and furthering the entity’s reputation. In the political arena this translates to the two party system currently in place. So long as this ideology exists television will never cease to be a major presence in campaigns.
On the same token, the Internet allows candidates to reach their constituencies by means of one very important consideration. Due to the ideology discussed above, candidates find “their ability to speak directly to voters increasingly limited” (Davis & Bimber 16). One cause that bears direct relationship to candidates’ limited ability is in reference to the term sound bite. This is the actual time a political candidate actually speaks in a news story. “While in 1968 the average length of a sound bite was 42 seconds, and by 1996 it had fallen to just over 8 seconds” (16). Candidates are receiving less air time to project their own message due to the spin and analysis of the traditional media outlets. This trend is continuing in the future, discouraging candidates from utilizing traditional media.
Sources:
Cagle, Kurt. "Internet Politics." 04 Aug. 2006. O'Reilly Network. http://www.oreillynet.com.
Davis, Richard, and Bruce Bimber. Campaigning Online: the Internet in U. S. Elections. New York: Oxford UP, USA, 2003. 13-42.
First, it is important to understand why advertisers prefer television versus the Internet in their marketing strategies. “They like TV because it is a privileged platform from which to sell products, unduly handicaps local interests in favor of larger, more moneyed concerns, and, because it is visual, provides an incredible vehicle for the manipulation of people’s symbols at a fairly subconscious level” (Cagle 3). A perfect analogy to this is the preference of corporate business rather than small businesses because it creates a common name and theme amongst consumers thus enhancing sales and furthering the entity’s reputation. In the political arena this translates to the two party system currently in place. So long as this ideology exists television will never cease to be a major presence in campaigns.
On the same token, the Internet allows candidates to reach their constituencies by means of one very important consideration. Due to the ideology discussed above, candidates find “their ability to speak directly to voters increasingly limited” (Davis & Bimber 16). One cause that bears direct relationship to candidates’ limited ability is in reference to the term sound bite. This is the actual time a political candidate actually speaks in a news story. “While in 1968 the average length of a sound bite was 42 seconds, and by 1996 it had fallen to just over 8 seconds” (16). Candidates are receiving less air time to project their own message due to the spin and analysis of the traditional media outlets. This trend is continuing in the future, discouraging candidates from utilizing traditional media.
Sources:
Cagle, Kurt. "Internet Politics." 04 Aug. 2006. O'Reilly Network. http://www.oreillynet.com.
Davis, Richard, and Bruce Bimber. Campaigning Online: the Internet in U. S. Elections. New York: Oxford UP, USA, 2003. 13-42.
posted by Christopher DeSanto at 7:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home