The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi has this article today which basically reiterates the by-now well-known political phenomenon of posting embarassing candidate videos on YouTube and other Internet video sharing sites. But Farhi does put some new perspective on this trend, noting that despite the role of online videos in exposing the worst sides of candidates, TV still reigns in its reach.
Even so, political professionals say online video isn’t a substitute for traditional forms of communication, such as advertising and news coverage. The difference is sheer numbers: A 30-second TV spot for a candidate can reach hundreds of thousands of would-be voters at once, as can a newspaper story or an evening news report.
But, unlike TV, Internet video doesn’t come and go — it just hangs around for folks to view at any time. And, getting a video on YouTube is almost instantaneous, unlike before the rise of Internet video when a campaign might take precious make-or-break days to get damaging footage into a TV ad.
What’s changed, too, is the speed with which the public can view this kind of footage. When Burns [Senator Conrad Burns, R-MT] commented during his 2000 reelection campaign that some Montanans were without health care coverage because they “choose not to be insured,” his opponent, Brian Schweitzer, used the comment in a TV ad that aired three days later. Nowadays, such video likely would be posted in a few hours.
Cynthia Brumfield at 11:16 AM|Comments(0)
Blogs We Read
