A Politician’s Presence Online: Does it Legitimize or Jeopardize their Campaign?

Having only recently entered the blogosphere, I was somewhat surprised at the number of blogs that exist solely to analyze political events and politicians. Accordingly, in my previous post I mentioned the potential for the internet to sway the next election and the fact that online advertising is likely to have both a positive and negative influence on a candidate’s campaign. Unfortunately, the true effectiveness of an online presence for a presidential candidate both in terms of finance and awareness is unknown (see below image of Mitt Romney's Facebook profile). However, the diverse and ambiguous nature of internet sources has prompted me to compare its power to that of traditional media, and I have therefore decided this week to explore the blogosphere to further understand what bloggers feel about presidential candidates’ relationship with the internet. The first post I found, “Is the Next President on YOUR ‘Friends’ List,” is published by AOL Consumer Advisor and host of DIY Network's Tech Out My House, Regina Lewis. Her entry discusses potential motives for candidates who establish online identities and the growing importance of marketing in this manner (sample "Friends" list on left). The second, found on Beltway Blogroll by the editor of National Journal’s Technology Daily K. Daniel Glover, analyzes a new trend that has emerged from politically-inspired blogs: nutpicking. Nutpicking is the practice of culling negative visitor comments from blogs and using them as evidence in “attack ads” against a specific candidate, party or blog. I have offered my comments on their posts below as well as directly on the authors’ respective blogs.

“Is the Next President on YOUR ‘Friends’ List?”
Comment:
First, I want to thank you for your insight into the online community’s influence over presidential candidates and their campaigns; you give credit to many of the benefits that having an online presence can offer for influencing presidential elections. I agree that having an online identity, a profile on Facebook for example, allows candidates to establish relationships with people who are not particularly interested in politics. This is the result of their interactive ability that provides a unique medium for candidates to reach out to a younger audience. As a university student, however, I would be interested in knowing how effective Facebook and Myspace profiles are in communicating candidates’ positions. Because the internet is cluttered with ads and spam, and because computer-savvy users can create phony “replica” sites, it is not easy for Facebook users to know which sites are valid and which should be avoided. When we learn about “new friends” in these interactive communities, our generation is rightfully suspicious, and we have learned to question the identity and authority of everything we see, especially online. Additionally, while I agree that the internet “enables large numbers of small donations from everyday people,” I would like to know how many of those donations are actually from new as opposed to regular campaign donors. Especially when trying to reach a younger crowd, the possibility of a Facebook user spending money while browsing through their “new friends” does not seem very promising. The internet is certainly changing the marketing of politics, but it is not going to usurp the role of television anytime soon. Campaigns will simply have to add it into their strategy and learn how to exploit it better.

“‘Nutpicking’ The Comments on Liberal Blogs”
Comment:
Your opinions on nutpicking are both informative and interesting. I agree when you argue that attacking bloggers is a “mistake for politicians” because it ruins their credibility, but also because it puts the bloggers in the limelight, and may draw unwanted attention to the very blog that is being denounced. However, while it is possible that few voters will realize the attack ads are “silly” for being sourced to blogs rather than “authoritative sources,” it may be a dangerous assumption to assume all voters will not be swayed by this form of marketing. Candidates are seeking approval from a vast audience, and since attack ads are shown on other forms of media rather than the internet, those viewers that are not as computer-intelligent as bloggers (or other frequent internet users) may not consider the amount of credibility that should be given–or not given–to blogs. Since the internet does give candidates the potential to raise money and support, it would be unwise for politicians to ignore the blogosphere. Harsh criticism from the public is nothing new; it seems childish for candidates to nutpick as a strategy of opposing–and drawing attention to–the enemy. Understanding that blogs can help and hinder a candidate’s campaign, why not approach the blogosphere with a “can’t beat them, join them” strategy? Candidates may create better publicity by integrating the blogosphere into their campaign rather than using it as a weapon against opposing parties. That way, the blogosphere’s nature of being a “free exchange of ideas” is maintained. Senator Barack Obama is a good example: recently reaching out to bloggers through his own blog, Obama created a poll specifically designed to establish a healthy interaction with bloggers and promote positive awareness in the media.