For some historical reference, the beginning of online blogging and the use of internet as a major campaign tool is rather recent. In 2004, one of the pioneers in e-campaigning, Howard Dean, took a chance and invested in what would become one of the biggest ways of campaigning in the few years to follow. E-campaigning has taken an entire new level of fundraising. According to a Washington Post article by Jose Antonio Vargas, Joe Trippi, Dean’s campaign manager, “leveraged the Web to raise $7.6 million in the second quarter of 2003.” This seemed rather incredible since online campaigning had not yet developed. With an entire internet campaign team in hand, many claim Dean would not have succeeded as much as he did without the help and power of the internet and its supporters.

Now 2007, with the elections creeping up, the candidates seemed to have embraced and prioritized the web as one of their primary campaigning methods. So what exactly is it that the internet provides that has made such an impact on the way politicians campaign? After contemplating this issue, the answer seemed to boil down to one thing, proper exposure. With many newly developed websites such as Youtube working hand in hand with blogs and even traditional media sources such as Washington Post, candidates were getting more and more exposure in many different ways. It seems that the more they are exposed into the public’s eyes, the more people take interest in their own preferred candidates. With more and more Web users growing endlessly, millions of citizens seemed to also embrace the changes the internet brought. Soon enough, it is inevitable that the Web supporters began to donate more and more money in support of their favorite candidate.

So what are these technology developments that the internet has to offer that enables for this new movement?

First and foremost, one of the major players in candidate campaigning seems to be bloggers. Over the past few short years, the blogging community grew in what seems to be an impossible rate. With millions now in hands reach of their very own blog, the community created an entire new environment for the way candidates’ names were spread. Not only were ordinary people creating this new environment, but even the candidates themselves seemed to join in on this movement. With almost every 2008 candidate opening and managing their blog with a Web team, ordinary people were frequenting these blogs to get more and more information. Within these ordinary people were also many frequent bloggers who in support of their favorite candidates, wrote endlessly in their own personal blogs. It is no wonder how merely blogging has made such a great impact on campaign fundraising.

Secondly, there seems to be many new technological developments that have also accepted E-campaigning. For example, Youtube, one of modern technology’s biggest inventions, has prioritized the presidential elections as one of their major concerns. Youtube has dedicated an entire website which reveals many political video citizen journalists from all around the world. Along with Youtube, According to an article from Examiner.com, companies such as XM radio, a newly developed satellite radio company, has developed a station completely devoted to the 2008 Campaign converage. With hundreds of thousands to millions of users utilizing new tools such as Youtube and XM, the campaign seems to have successfully transferred to a digital era. With more and more people focusing on the new media age, it is inevitable how candidates have benefited majorly in fundraising.

All in all, the 2008 presidential elections have taken a much different path in exposure and fundraising. With many new digital developments along with the integrated Web, the change is much for the better. Candidates are able to connect with a much bigger horizon of followers. Equally importantly, finding information about the candidates have never been easier. At the click of a button, anybody with internet access is able to view their favorite candidates take on whatever issue. The internet has definitely proven itself to be beneficial to not only candidates but millions of internet users alike.

It was interesting to begin the article off with the story of David Hauslaib. As a junior at University of Washington who has interest in new media technology and more specifically blogging, I found it quite interesting how a person, average as me, can take on the blogging industry. I guess that is the beauty of blogging. Like Peter Rojas stated, “anyone can start a blog, and anyone can make it grow.” It seems that with the right amount of effort and dedication, it can be done. But like Rojas also said, keeping the blog up to date is the hard part. Especially since blogging is strongly based on “breaking news,” bloggers must be at their toes 24 hours, 7 days a week.

Another aspect of getting a blog’s name out there is not simply directly to audience members, but it is interesting how blogs all work together to help eachother out. It seems that in order for a blog to truly succeed, their names must be linked and mentioned from other blogs, and vice versa.

One of the questions that popped up in my mind while I was surfing through my favorite fashion/trend blogs was, how do new comers manage to compete with already established blogs such as Hypebeast and Highsnobiety? These are well established go-to blogs for streetwear fashion, so what incentives do people have to check out new blogs that most likely will report the same material? The competition for blog popularity seems to grow more and more as blogs continue to pop from all around the world. The business of blogging seems only to be growing and really shows no sign of downfall.

1) Do you check out other blogs that are similar to some of the major blogs that you frequent?

2) Have you ever thought about starting a blog that you can manage on a 24 hours per day level?

3) “Blogging is increasingly becoming a survival of the fittest—and that all boils down to who has the best content.” Do you believe this quote is true? Do you believe that blogs will easily replace on another?

First of all, the article begins by explaining how and why traditional media is in many ways inferior to the newly integrated internet media source. It does not come to a surprise that mainstream media, traditional and internet, is simply controlled by a number of people. For example, the authors of “Shaping the Web: Why the Politics of Search Engines Matter,” Lucas Introna and Helen Nissenbaum state that “the gains, the powers, and the access were consolidated in the hands of a few dominant individuals and institutions” (pg 2). Sadly, traditional mainstream media has become a very much centralized system where merely a few super power individuals battle over the power to control the media system for monetary gain. It is often difficult to realize that everything we watch and listen to may heavily and sometimes completely based on how much money they are earning.

This is where the internet comes into play. It has been shown that the internet, through search engines, is a broad global way for people to experience all sorts of different perspectives. The internet enables people to search for all kinds of websites. Unfortunately, Introna and Nissenbaum expresses a concerning twist to this relief. The article reveals the gradual growth of corporate and centralizing development.

<blockquote> The general position we defend, and illustrate in this one case, is that although the Internet and the Web offer exciting prospects for furthering the public good, the benefits are conditional, resting precariously on a number of political, economic, and technical factors (pg 3) </blockquote>

This reveals that when using a search engine, even though what is shown to us may seem like the complete unbiased list of what we need and seek, in the end the listed factors alter everything that we see. The article reveals that a study of search engines conducted by CL Giles and S. Lawrence in 1999 estimates that search engines merely 16% of the Web. While 16% of the Web seems like a very small percentage, the statistics consists of 800 million pages. It is truly mind boggling to see that 16% is composed of already 800 million pages. So the next question to ask is, where is the 84% of the remaining World wide web going? The article states that there are several factors that go into a way a search engine works.

First of all, the way the Web is indexed is one of the biggest factors. This falls into two main categories of how a search engine indexes the Web. One includes directory-based search engines such as Yahoo while the other is a system like Alta Vista which utilizes “spiders” and “robots” which search through previously visited URL’s. Basically, a directory based search engine is set up so that people submit their sites and are then filtered and decided by “human gatekeepers.” Even though we would all like to believe that these human filters are non-biased, and in the case of Yahoo, filtered by relevance, it is evident that the criteria is often not consistant and human-biases come into effect.

In another case, a system which uses “spiders” often skips some of the most important information and sites due to the fact that this system is solely based on what these computerized spiders have visited in the past. So really, both categories of indexing has both its pros and cons. It is then left in the users’ decision to utilize which ones they want to trust and use.

So the next problem we encounter past indexing is ranking which sites should be shown as #1 and on. This may seem discouraging, however, according to the article, many search engines may elevate a site’s ranking by monetary gains. Similar to a way advertisements work, companies and individuals will simply pay a search engine on a highest-bid system to get the #1 position in a search.

But there is hope! According to Introna and Nissenbaum, for a search engine to succeed, they must “establish a reputation for satisfying seekers’ desires and needs; this way they will attract seekers in the first place, and then will keep them coming back” (pg 19). This shows that if a search engine desires to maintain its popularity, it cannot base its entire engine on how much money someone is willing to give them. It is also heavily dependent on what the people want and how effectively the search engine finds the keyword.

The question that is soon followed is, how is this problematic then? According to market enthusiasts, it is completely normal. It acts simiarly to a typical market with a supply and demand system. What people want, individuals and institutions will pay to provide it, and the search engine will serve to reveal these sites. So a problem that begs to be answered is, is it really a problem if the people are getting what they want? Some would say that as long as everyone gets what they want, it is not a problem. But, some would argue that the Web should be a public good and should not be altered and should be controlled by the public, not some centralized system.

In conclusion, the answer is not a clearcut answer. There seems to be no right or wrong in the way the internet and search engines should be run. I think we will see gradual but evident changes as the internet develops in the future. Hopefully, no matter which way the internet takes, as long as it is effective and useful, I am happy with what the internet can provide for me.

DOWNLOAD PPT FILE HERE

Introna, L & Nissenbaum, H. 2000. Shaping the Web: Why the Politics of Search Engines Matters.     The Information Society. 16(3):1-17.

So the question that begs to be answered is, why are these websites becoming so popular? Is it that difficult to surf the net for an extra five minutes to find news? Well the answer is actually quite simple. Simplicity, Convenience, and overall ease seems to be the key. In an April 9th article on Collision Detection, the author uses this example.

<blockquote>When I interviewed Cory Doctorow — cofounder of Boing Boing – for my recent New York magazine feature on blogging, he pointed out an interesting aspect of Boing Boing’s success: Simple, straightforward headlines.  </blockquote>

It turns out that people want easy straightfoward news given to them, rather than having to find them. This makes perfect sense. With the development of such websites and RSS feeds, not only do people have to goto a single website for all their news, RSS feeds enables them to sit back and read all their favorite news sites when it is directly sent to them.

Another point the article makes is that people do not want confusing, clever and witty headlines. Why take the time to figure out what the article is about when you can get the very basic summary by reading a straight forward headline? Unfortunately, both ways sound like great ways of gaining readers. A witty clever headline can get the attentions of readers at a single glance, while a straight forward headline takes away the pain of having to figure out the riddle-like headline.

Overall, I guess the direction our internet culture is going for is convenience. Afterall, this makes perfect sense because many technological growth was based solely on making our lives easier.

1) Do you think this only shows how lazy people in our society is getting?

2) The article states that “The human readers of blogs are beginning to behave like bots, too.” Do you agree that people are becoming mindless bots that simply scroll through headlines?

3) With internet news reading becoming a much more mainstream way of communications, have you seen a change in the way people perceive traditional media? If not, do you expect to see any changes in the near future?

Aside from that, it is quite interesting to see how blogging has gradually but surely blurred the lines of “legal responsibilities and liabilities.” I think the problem is that a lot of times, because blogs do not seem as formal as traditional news sources, people freely use and quote media sources on their blogs. Not only that, but they use video clips, sound clips and basically anything that may be of good use to them and their blog. I think what we’re failing to see is that blogging is still a form of communication and anything and everything that is not rightfully not their’s should be credited in the right manner.

It is funny how Suzanne Stefanac uses the term “common sense” a lot in order to describe how a blogger should take precaution before referencing to things. What seems to be common sense in traditional media, almost does not seem so with blogging. Maybe because blogging is such a new way of communications and still not quite formal, people don’t feel the need to use the same precautions as they would with traditional ways of communication.

1) Does it matter if it is a personal small blog or a major mainstream blog when it comes to copyright infringement?

2)  Do you find yourself worrying about online legal problems when you post on  your own personal blogs?

3)  With blogging surely on the rise, do you think this problem is something that can be resolved soon in the future or do you think the problem has only begun?

Hometown: Broomfield, Colo.

Religion: Evangelical Presbyterian

Education: 

• University of Northern Colorado, B.A., 1968
• Holy Family High School

Experience:

Businesses Owned, Past Careers, Board Memberships, Etc.:

• Teacher, Drake Junior High School

Public Service / Elected Offices:

• Representative, United States House of Representatives, 1999-present
• Secretary of Education Regional Representative, 1981-1992
• Colorado State Legislature, 1976-1981

Position on Issues:

Immigration: Tancredo is known for his strong voice against illegal immigration. As one of his major issues, Tancredo has publicly voiced his planned actions to strengthen the borders and “eliminate benefits and job prospects so they do not stay.”

Social Security: Tancredo’s statements on Social Security -

<blockquote>The best suggestion I have heard is to switch from a defined benefits approach to a defined contribution approach with payroll tax funded private investment accounts. These accounts would be made available to young workers and function similarly to 401Ks.</blockquote>

*Find more information from his official campaign website

or a short bio on Washington Post 

With the news of Google buying Youtube, it may have seemed like a short thought idea, I think Youtube is still a website that is in need of guidance and development. I personally think it is a greaty move on Google’s part to buy Youtube. Youtube, only merely 2 years old, seems to still be growing and developing. I think with the help of Google, Youtube will develop into a much safer website. Even though infringement problems may never go away for Youtube, Google may develop Youtube into a website with negotiated terms with corporations that enables users and corporations to enjoy the existance of websites such as Youtube.

1)  Do you think Youtube will be the same if there was an automatic upload filter that disabled videos that may cause copyright infringement?

2) Do you usually use Youtube to watch personal videos or TV show clips?

3) Recently, Spiderman 3, released this past weekend was uploaded and enabled to be viewed on Youtube. Do you think Youtube is only getting worse?

Edward Cone also states that “with the Internet, an effective campaign creates a community that will on its own begin to market your product for you.”

With websites such as Newsvine and Newscloud and various other blogging community websites, it is undoubtably true that the internet can be utilized as a much more efficient and growing way of gaining support. Unlike TV advertisements, the blogging community is able to carry on full discussions and share information in a much more faster, efficient way. Also, the internet can become even more useful when used with other forms of communication, such as TV. With sites such as Youtube and Google Video, campaign commercials can be spread through the internet much faster than a single viewing on TV. Not only is the internet good grounds for sharing information, Cone also states that the internet may be used for people to set up real life meetings where they can support the campaign much more directly. The internet connects people halfway across the country and gives them all something to relate to and talk about. I think amonst all things, blogging will become very beneficial for political campaigns. I think this day and age, many people spend a good portion of their day infront of their computers. It only makes sense that people will begin to utilize this portion of the day to support political movements.

1) Do you think internet campaigning will become a major, if not primary form of political movements

2) What are some of the negative aspects of utilizing internet campaigning over traditional ways?

3) Do you think as the blogging community grows, it will make a major change in the way people decide on their vote?

While researching about how much money was raised online, I actually ran into some great statistics on the 2004 elections.

http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/98/press_release.asp

Also, a New York Times article reported that Senator John Kerry collected over $34 million, which includes $3 million of money raised online in a single month.  Over the past year, Kerry raised $56 million online.

…More to come.

Secondly, I came to realize how much important objective journalism is. On page 93, Stefenac uses the example of Walter Cronkite and Bill Moyer’s response to Cronkite’s biased news reporting. Moyer was quoted as saying “If I’ve lots Cronkite, I’ve lost American.” I found this very interesting due to the fact that this shows how much trust and power we give to mainstream media journalism. With a single biased statement, a reporter can easily help audience members make decisions. It seems that people put their trust on these reporters in revealing to them the most simple, objective news, but when the journalist puts an odd spin on their reporting by revealing their biased views, people still trust and follow their words.

With all being said, I think this goes to show how important of a roll citizen journalism may have on society. When people begin to trust citizen journalists, I think this may change the way people make decisions an think about current events.

1) What negative aspects do you see with the rise of citizen journalism?

2) In the case of Walter Cronkite, do you think his reported words would have altered your thoughts on news events?

3) Do you think citizen journalism crosses the line of objective reporting and advocacy often? How does this change the way you think?