Will DVR Save Democracy?
Probably not. But it is disrupting the campaign process, and that could be a good thing.
In an Associated Press article today Erik Schelzig questions how the fast growing technology of Digital Video Recording will affect political campaigns, which in the last decade have become increasingly dependent on television advertising as a (if not the) major promotional tool.
The thirty second ad (with a little help from some brilliant campaign finance loopholes) have given birth to the 527 sponsored ads, made infamous by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" spots during the '04 Presidential election. But how can mud-slinging ads make their way to the viewers if the viewers are skipping commercials with their TiVo? Will this cause the average citizen to actually read about the candidates before voting instead of casting a ballot based on thirty-second wisdom? Nice to think so, but probably not.
What will happen is that campaigns (and their henchmen the 527's) will find another method for delivery. Maybe internet video ads, maybe cell phone text messages, but rest assured they'll get the message out there.
This new trend might even result in less information being made available on the candidates. Some major companies (Ford and Coca-Cola for example) are contemplating using 2-5 sec ads specifically made to play at the beginning or end of commercial breaks to catch the TiVo-ers as they scan through. While campaign experts say it's unlikely that politicians would use this type of ad, suggesting it would be difficult to say "something meaningful" in that amount of time, I wouldn't put it past them. There was a time when politicians scoffed at being able to convey their ideas in a thirty second TV spot as well.
DVR won't save democracy, I guess that's still left up to us. But TiVo will save you from missing the latest "Flava of Love" and how can you be truly free without Flava-Flav?
In an Associated Press article today Erik Schelzig questions how the fast growing technology of Digital Video Recording will affect political campaigns, which in the last decade have become increasingly dependent on television advertising as a (if not the) major promotional tool.
The thirty second ad (with a little help from some brilliant campaign finance loopholes) have given birth to the 527 sponsored ads, made infamous by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" spots during the '04 Presidential election. But how can mud-slinging ads make their way to the viewers if the viewers are skipping commercials with their TiVo? Will this cause the average citizen to actually read about the candidates before voting instead of casting a ballot based on thirty-second wisdom? Nice to think so, but probably not.
What will happen is that campaigns (and their henchmen the 527's) will find another method for delivery. Maybe internet video ads, maybe cell phone text messages, but rest assured they'll get the message out there.
This new trend might even result in less information being made available on the candidates. Some major companies (Ford and Coca-Cola for example) are contemplating using 2-5 sec ads specifically made to play at the beginning or end of commercial breaks to catch the TiVo-ers as they scan through. While campaign experts say it's unlikely that politicians would use this type of ad, suggesting it would be difficult to say "something meaningful" in that amount of time, I wouldn't put it past them. There was a time when politicians scoffed at being able to convey their ideas in a thirty second TV spot as well.
DVR won't save democracy, I guess that's still left up to us. But TiVo will save you from missing the latest "Flava of Love" and how can you be truly free without Flava-Flav?
posted by Daddy Rogue at 3:33 PM
2 Comments:
Kudos to you Benz for staying updated on your politicians, and shame on the politicians for using the Jesus Fish as a campaign symbol.
I agree that I have no problem with a candidates Christianity (or other religious affiliation) being a part of the way they are presented. It will (or should) color the way the govern we ought to know about it. But cutting that religious belief down to the equivalent of a soundbite is a little shady. It's like, "oh I'll use the fish symbol and that way Christians will know I'm one of them, but I won't alienate anyone by being too out there religiously. Whatever.
i have a pmajor problem with the mixing of politics and religion...any religion. so, yes, it is (in my opinion) distatful and disrespectful to any faith to use it as a campaign tool. and those who use it as that are doing a great disservice to their faith.
Post a Comment
<< Home