Campaigning and the Internet **GRADE**

The increased role the internet has played in American political campaigns is undeniable.  It has been used in presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004, but the full capabilities likely were not seen until the 2008 race between John McCain and Barack Obama.  This was even more the case for Barack Obama, whose internet campaign strategy was unmatched and helped him reach and motivate young voters across the country.

Perhaps the most useful aspect of the internet is its ability to raise money from people with varying levels of economic standing.  Both Howard Dean in 2004, and Obama in 2008 were largely funded by regular people making smaller donations of $20 or $50. This was a group of potential donors that was largely untapped in previous elections and played a large role in putting up the record fundraising numbers seen by Obama and Dean.  Campaigns are typically funded though large scale donations from wealthy donors. 

This practice of collecting thousands of smaller donations has proved beneficial and comes at little cost to the campaign.  Whereas holding large, grandiose fundraising galas take the campaigns time and money to pull off, sending out an email with a ghost written plea from the candidate explaining that they need all the help they can get to defeat their opponent, is all but cost free and can be sent to every single email address the campaign has on record.  This increases the potential donor field exponentially.

Speaking of costs, the internet provides free advertising through social media like Facebook and Youtube.  This allows the candidates to infiltrate the lives of voters and get their message out through a whole other platform in addition to television and radio.  It was estimated that videos posted on Youtube by the Obama campaign were watched for 14.7 million hours which would have cost close to $50 million in television ads (Miller, 2008).

Organizing campaign events was another task made simpler and cheaper through the use of the internet.  Instead of using hundreds of volunteers to operate get out the vote campaigns and alert supporters of rallies and campaign stops, messages could be sent via the web to get the word out and save the volunteer man hours for other tasks.

The role of the internet created an increase in candidate scrutiny.  This allowed candidates to directly address the attack ads made by their opponent, and the extensive information on the web allowed voters to fact check the attacks themselves.  This issue was again addressed by the Obama campaign with fightthesmears.com which debunked a number of false accusations made by his opponents throughout the campaign.

Going along with the fact checking, the internet has allowed candidate vetting to reach new levels.  Voters have access to more information on each candidate than ever before.  Whether it’s the candidates personal life history, positions on issues throughout their career, or statements made in the past, the internet allows voters to hold candidates accountable for their statements and actions by providing them with a large quantity of information.

In all, the effects of the internet on campaigning have probably had a net positive effect for voters.  More information on candidates is always a good thing, even if voters may become annoyed with the constant barrage of communications they must deal with.

Sources:

Miller, C. C. (2008, 7 November). How Obama's Internet Campaign Changed Politics. Retrieved April 2011, from New York Times: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-internet-campaign-changed-politics/

Organizing for America. (2008). Fight the Smears. Retrieved April 2011, from http://www.fightthesmears.com/

Google is Making us Misinformed, Not Stupid **GRADE**

Nicholas Carr’s thesis in Is Google Making Us Stupid?  is that the volume of information that we are exposed to in short amounts of time on the web, has changed the way people read and process and absorb information.  People prefer expediency to the long drawn out process of reading through page after page of narrative.  He explains this using several examples of how the mind has changed through the development of technologies like the ticking clock, but the point he is really making is that our attention spans are much shorter now that we can access the information we deem necessary at such a rapid rate with the internet.

He argues that Google’s endgame, a world where people no longer utilize their own intellectual contemplations but rather a constant and never ending search for information, will change human thought in a way that should worry us all.  It will turn our concept of the human brain from what it is now, to just an “outdated computer than needs a faster processor and bigger hard drive.”

His concerns are legitimate and his argument is well crafted.  There does appear to be a change in our view of human intellect.  He references Socrates’ fear that people would no long utilize memory, but rather become dependent on the written word to provide them with the information they needed, when they needed it.  Information on demand, if you will.  This is what the internet has enabled, for better or worse.  Is there a need to retain large amounts of information when the answer can be found in a few seconds with a Google search?  After all, one of the greatest minds of the 20^th century, Albert Einstein, is credited with saying “never memorize what you can look up in books.”

While I appreciate Carr’s argument and understand his concern, I believe the worry is unwarranted.  What the internet and its predecessors such as the printing press and written word have done is increased human efficiency.  Any argument that that these developments have been counterproductive to human development fails to acknowledge the progress made since their invention.  There’s no denying that human life has become better since the access to information has increased.  Were people not machines when they served no purpose but to get up in the morning and work the fields without being exposed to any additional information than what is necessary to survive?

I’m of the thought that technology, and the internet, is far more likely to propel people to even higher levels than we are at present.  Carr’s statement that “our data-stoked minds will bring a golden age of intellectual discovery and universal wisdom” is far closer to what will actually happen as the internet further penetrates our lives and intellectual process.

While I disagree with Carr that greater and faster information access is a bad thing, there is a problem with this that needs to be remedied.  There are vast amounts of information on the internet that is inaccurate.  The internet has allowed anyone with a connection to pose as experts and present information on any subject imaginable as though it were fact.  While our access to information has grown exponentially, a large portion of that information is inaccurate or subjective in nature.

Internet browsers look for a quick answer to a question often plug said question into Google and end up on a Wikipedia page or Google answers page where the credibility of the person providing the information is unknown.  Whether it be the death of a celebrity who is actually still living, or the birthplace of the president, the internet has allowed false information or the opinion of a person without necessary expertise to be treated and interpreted as fact.  This should be the number one concern about the information overload provided by the internet, not that more information is somehow counterproductive to human progress.

Sources:

Carr, N. (2008, July/August). Is Google Making Us Stupid? Retrieved March 2011, from The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/

Epic 2015 **GRADE**

From a philosophical standpoint, Epic 2015 has been incredibly accurate in predicting the effect of the internet on 21^st century society.  In this regard, we are increasingly close to actually living in a world described by the video.  However, the actual course of events outlined by Epic 2015 is overly dramatic and predicts a much more rapid evolution than what we have actually experienced.

While most of the video tells a story of how society will integrate with the internet, and how tech companies will evolve and alter information dissemination from now until 2015, the real theme I take from it is the following:  the interconnectedness created by the internet, will make traditional information dissemination obsolete.  What this means is that news agencies like the New York Times will be unnecessary because people will be so connected by the internet, that the information will spread from person to person so rapidly that we will not need to rely on the more traditional methods.

The way in which this has happened has not occurred in the same way that Epic 2015 predicted.  Although the emergence and diversification of Google has happened in a similar fashion (the acquisition of other companies into their larger service network and expansion into seemingly unrelated fields like renewable energy), the monopolistic nature of their presence is not the case.  Companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook (The video mentions Friendster; right church, wrong pew.), have emerged as competitors, and have not joined forces.

Microsoft, which has dominated the software market for decades, has struggled to keep up.  The video’s prediction that most of Microsoft’s moves would be responsive to the moves made by others, and not innovative, was accurate.  It has been pushed by more innovating companies such as Apple and Google and has seen its market share decline as a result.

Finally, the decreasing role of traditional news outlets is touched upon by Epic 2015.  Credit must be given for this fact.  Sites like Google news and the emergence of the “blogosphere” have greatly decreased the need for daily newspapers.  The damage has been significant for daily print media and the publishing world as whole.  Newspapers and news magazines have decreased significance.

My main critique with Epic 2015 is that is falls into the same trap as most predictions of the future: it identifies trends, but then overestimates the speed of their evolution.  Like most predictions of the future, they predict a much more rapid and dramatic evolution than what actually takes place.  This is common in just about every prediction of the future as there are too many variables in play.  Where’s my jetpack and flying car?

Also, while the decreased role of traditional news outlets such as the New York Times is occurring, the sources that have closed up are mostly smaller, local newspapers.  Larger ones have found ways to transition to online services.  In fact, they still play a vital role in information sharing; they just do so in a different fashion.

Although a lot of information is gathered through social networking sites like Twitter, Google, and Facebook, most of the information being shared originates from traditional news companies like the NYT.  The reporting done through social networks and Google is secondary.  This could change in the future, but not by 2015 as the video predicts.

Sources:

Sloan, R. (n.d.). Epic 2015. Retrieved March 2011, from Making it Happen: http://epic.makingithappen.co.uk/