Comments on: The Dark Side of YouTube Politics

By: Jeffrey Jones

Jeffrey Jones — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:27:14 +0000

That’s an interesting way to think of it, Matt, for I haven’t really considered that the person being attacked may need to be prepared–probably with humor, which shows how bad Franken “performed” here–to react in a way to defuse the attack. Indeed, I think humor is probably the ONLY way to kill the performance (if you will).

With that said, why I wrote this post is to question whether (as per Derek’s comments above) the conventions are so well established in viewers’ heads (think 60 Minutes conditioning) that these videos establish winners and losers from the outset, that is, are somewhat “predetermined” by the style itself. And the reason, of course, is the audience for whom this will be meaningful.

By: Matt Sienkiewicz

Matt Sienkiewicz — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:49:00 +0000

I’m most struck by the ways in watch the Michael Moore style and the immediacy of Youtube would seem to privilege a certain type of political thinker who looks quite different than the more formal image of the past. The cardinal virtues of a political candidate in that media environment seem to be perpetual self-awareness and improvisational thinking. Yeah, this was always part of the world of debates and press conferences but those things tend not to erupt in the grocery line because someone pulls an Iphone. In any case it has the potential to seriously upset the balance of thinking well and thinking fast that is built into traditional notions of a good leader.

One my favorite Scandinavian comedians (what, you don’t have that list ready to go for a first date? No wonder you have time for blogs…) wrote that you have “White House Potential” if 95% of your decisions are “correct.” Part of the joke is that he means 95% of every decision, no matter how trivial. He was joking, but was also probably right.

By: Tim Anderson

Tim Anderson — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:23:23 +0000

A question: I have often wondered if these “questionings” really should be framed as PR events ala Bernays, i.e. another utilization of third parties to promote a specific clients agenda. I wonder what you think about that given that PR eschews “Truth” for specific dialogic reframings. This was one of the items that the Franken, of all people, chose to engage in with the development of Air America. It’s also something that Lakoff seems to be proposing. In this case, the last year has been the re-strengthening of the right as “victims” to mobilize resentment. Thus, these interviews have nothing to do with the truth, but rather have a visual agenda of associating the right with an “underdog status”.

By: Derek Kompare

Derek Kompare — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:12:42 +0000

The key phrase here is “the political right has demonstrated a willingness to believe almost anything”. This alone represents an insurmountable event horizon, at least as far as a good chunk (though far, far from a majority) of the American public is concerned. Until the political and cultural environment evolves past this moment, any of these iterations of “truthiness” must be regarded critically. I’d argue that’s the case with progressive media as well, i.e., we shouldn’t let our politics (no matter how passionately we may feel them) trump our critical tools.

Getting past this moment will only come, I feel, after the last vestiges of the “news business” (vs. “journalism”) as we’ve known them for the past century or so are taken down. Guerilla “gotcha” videos still rely on long-established TV news representational codes. Those codes are exactly the problem, and the longer we continue to accept them as normative (or worse, “natural”), the longer we’ll be stuck with them.