Politics on the info-superhighway - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ARTelevision · 07-26-2004, 10:35 AM

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,...opstories_html

This story has some important aspects to it, even though it is nothing resembling an in-depth report. But it can serve to start a discussion regarding the current use and potential of the Internet and candidates' web sites in particular.

The article is pretty balanced, since it's really web-designers' views that are highlighted - very critical. But the fact is, John Kerry has used his web site to gain a record amount of Internet donations flowing to his campaign. Since that's a high volume cash register he has there, I'd say he's using the web successfully at this point.

Superbelt · 07-26-2004, 11:02 AM

I like it, it brings the elections back down to the american people, like Campaign Finance Reform intended it to be.
It's one of the two biggest gifts Dean gave the democratic party. A way to energize the base and equalize the funding disparity between D and R.
Because of the net and online fundraising efforts via blogs I've sent donations to congressional and senate candidates that I agree with, that may not be anywhere near me but be viable candidates. These races have been specifically targeted by major party organizers like Markos Zuniga of dailykos as races that leave the incumbent vulnerable. It's seen as being able to take a seat from someone who doesn't deserve it. I have donated to candidates in Ohio, Colorado and of course Penna.
It's a good way to smartly direct money rather than just pour it in impotent campaigns. And in bulk force like kos does, it actually gets the candidate to listen to us.

jb2000 · 07-26-2004, 11:06 AM

It seems John Kerry's site is newly re-faced in the last couple days, but sticks with the peaceful/positive atmosphere. It does seem easier to navigate now.

Bush's reminds me more of a Headline News kind of approach with a lot of activity and things jumping out at you.

I guess it seems like Kerry's is kind of open for you to explore and seek what you want to find, while Bush's puts what it desires out for you to find. Both are navigable for those that want to.

seretogis · 07-26-2004, 11:10 AM

AHEM!

Quote:

Unleashing the Web Police
By Adam L. Penenberg

02:00 AM Jul. 26, 2004 PT

Marshall McLuhan, "the medium is the message" messenger, once observed, "Mud sometimes gives the illusion of depth." Which is relevant, I suppose, because in campaignland there's plenty of mud and precious little depth. Still, it is instructive to watch the presidential campaign play out on the candidates' websites.

On his website, President Bush has adopted a slash-and-burn strategy for his re-election run. He probably figured the strategy works so well as an environmental policy. More to the point, he knows it doomed Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) in the 2000 Republican race. On the GeorgeWBush.com splash page last week, amid social-issue iconography; a plug for a cyberchat with the president's party-girl daughters; and click-through tabs for "Economy," "Compassion" and "Homeland Security," sat a shaded box labeled "John Kerry: The Raw Deal." It read: "As part of his extreme makeover, Kerry announces his support for the doctrine of pre-emption he repeatedly denounced."

That's far from the only anti-Kerry rhetoric. Site visitors can download TV ads running in swing states that assail the Massachusetts Democrat's family values and political integrity. There are clever gimmicks like the "Kerry gas tax calculator" ("How much more would he cost you?") and the "John Kerry travel tracker" ("See why John Kerry is wrong for your state"). The blog announces in a press release, er, blog entry that the Bush campaign is moving its 24-hour-a-day war room to Boston for the week, "ready to respond to every misstatement, flip-flop and reckless attack."

What is Kerry & Co.'s response? It seems they prefer to project a positive image -- at least for now. They don't even acknowledge the partisan attacks. Instead, we get "America's Freedom Trail," in which we learn Kerry plans to "travel from his birthplace to the birthplace of America on his way to accepting the Democratic Party's nomination." There's the Kerry-Edwards "Opportunity Agenda" -- targeted to the middle class, natch. A "Brother in Arms" touts military vets, while a "Commitment to Education" announces a plan to fully fund "No Child Left Behind." Heavy on promises, short on specifics, it's a paean to lofty political rhetoric.

But the jury is still out on whether Kerry can define himself for voters before Bush and Cheney do it for him -- in cyberspace and beyond. (And if you are part of the crowd that can't stomach either candidate, this click is for you.)

In the end, it may not matter what kind of information appears on the candidates' websites, as long as they have a cool design. So says a 2002 Stanford study called "How Do People Evaluate a Web Site's Credibility?" commissioned by Consumer WebWatch, which is affiliated with Consumer Reports. Although most Americans claim to know which factors to weigh when attempting to gauge a website's credibility, it appears they don't. The Stanford study showed that people are frequently "distracted by superficial aspects of sites that had little to do with the depth, breadth or the quality of the content." Nearly half of the study's participants -- about 46 percent -- rated a site's credibility based primarily on its design or look.

Since 15,035 members of the media, including 35 bloggers, have been sucked into the vortex of convention coverage in Boston, I decided to round up some Web designers and writers to sample some political websites like those belonging to our commander in chief and his chief challenger. Sorry, Ralph. No free publicity here.

For inspiration, I turned to US Weekly's famously mean "Fashion Police" spread, in which a gaggle of comedians, fashionistas and pop-culture reporters bash celebrities' wardrobe choices. A recent one on Mariah Carey included comments like, "This dress eliminates the need to stand over a blowing vent" and "Victoria has a secret. Mariah does not."

I asked my witty Web posse, consisting of Alexander Robinson of Adro Design; Mark Tuchman, creator of the parody site Dumbanddubya.com; graphic illustrator Bob Eckstein; writer Kurt Opprecht; and blogger Waldo Jaquith to take their best shots at:

The incumbent: President George W. Bush
Robinson: "Who is Bush's art director, Old Glory?"
Jaquith: "Consistent with his administration's standards, Bush's blog permits no public comment."
Tuchman: "GeorgeWBush.com renders Bush parody sites like mine redundant."
Opprecht: "Is that the Grinch on the homepage?"

The challenger: John Kerry
Opprecht: "Theresa Heinz Kerry gets billing above John Edwards? Look out, it's the Hillary plan!"
Tuchman: "This website perfectly captures the candidate: uninspiring, monotonous, convoluted."
Eckstein: "Looks like it was thrown together faster than his decision to pick Edwards. It will probably change by next week -- the website and/or running mate."
Robinson: "This site navigates like a sinking ship. One page lists the link 'One Hundred Days to Change America.' How many days will it take to find this link from the homepage?"

Senate majority leader: Bill Frist (R-Tennessee)
Eckstein: "(This) website has the aesthetics of a phone bill. Good use of repeating dull photograph, though."
Robinson: "The graphics remind me of Fat Elvis: Tennessee icons meet pharmaceuticals."
Tuchman: "The top banner graphic showing a Tennessee Titan, mountain and guitar is more appealing than a logo consisting of a stack of assault rifles, an illegal abortion and oil-drilling rig."

Senate minority leader: Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota)
Tuchman: "Very informative. I learned he is still a senator. Note to webmaster: Change the typo at top where it says Democratic 'Leader.'"
Eckstein: "This website sums up why nobody cares about South Dakota."
Robinson: "I feel like I just stepped in a cow patty."

Worst Senate website: James Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Jaquith: "I didn't know anybody still used Dreamweaver."
Opprecht: "Don't they have the Internet in Vermont?"

Worst House website: Mac Collins (R-Georgia)
Tuchman: "Best viewed with Netscape Navigator v.2.0, and 9,600-bps modem."
Robinson: "The site kindly told me, 'We have attempted to make this site as accessible as possible,' but didn't support my browser (Safari)."

Have your own nominees for worst website by an elected official? E-mail me and I'll publish the best (or worst) ones.

ARTelevision · 07-26-2004, 11:27 AM

Thanks. I certainly might have made it easier to access...doh!

Sorry 'bout that.

cthulu23 · 07-26-2004, 12:16 PM

The article is a little off-base, as it focuses on the personal websites of politicians rather than the unofficially affiliated sites that are the real drivers of the net-politico phenomenon (blogs, for example). Nit-picking aside, almost anything that helps individuals to become more personally active with politics is a positive in my book.

jb2000 · 07-26-2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cthulu23
The article is a little off-base, as it focuses on the personal websites of politicians rather than the unofficially affiliated sites that are the real drivers of the net-politico phenomenon (blogs, for example). Nit-picking aside, almost anything that helps individuals to become more personally active with politics is a positive in my book.

I think though, the intent of the article was not to go into the impact of political websites on American Democracy, but instead a web-design critique on the personal websites of politicians. Sure, you could do the same with any other political sites, but as much influence as they may have, nothing better illustrates a candidate's/campaign's own perspective of their internet presence than their own site.

ARTelevision · 07-26-2004, 02:57 PM

Yes. I think the best thing about these sites is the fact that they're out there - and like most things on the Net, allow a more direct and interactive relationship with users and content providers than was available in the past.

07-26-2004, 10:35 AM	#1 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Politics on the info-superhighway http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,...opstories_html This story has some important aspects to it, even though it is nothing resembling an in-depth report. But it can serve to start a discussion regarding the current use and potential of the Internet and candidates' web sites in particular. The article is pretty balanced, since it's really web-designers' views that are highlighted - very critical. But the fact is, John Kerry has used his web site to gain a record amount of Internet donations flowing to his campaign. Since that's a high volume cash register he has there, I'd say he's using the web successfully at this point. __________________ create evolution Last edited by ARTelevision; 07-26-2004 at 10:37 AM..

07-26-2004, 11:02 AM	#2 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I like it, it brings the elections back down to the american people, like Campaign Finance Reform intended it to be. It's one of the two biggest gifts Dean gave the democratic party. A way to energize the base and equalize the funding disparity between D and R. Because of the net and online fundraising efforts via blogs I've sent donations to congressional and senate candidates that I agree with, that may not be anywhere near me but be viable candidates. These races have been specifically targeted by major party organizers like Markos Zuniga of dailykos as races that leave the incumbent vulnerable. It's seen as being able to take a seat from someone who doesn't deserve it. I have donated to candidates in Ohio, Colorado and of course Penna. It's a good way to smartly direct money rather than just pour it in impotent campaigns. And in bulk force like kos does, it actually gets the candidate to listen to us. Last edited by Superbelt; 07-26-2004 at 11:05 AM..

07-26-2004, 11:06 AM	#3 (permalink)
jb2000 Crazy Location: Allen, TX	It seems John Kerry's site is newly re-faced in the last couple days, but sticks with the peaceful/positive atmosphere. It does seem easier to navigate now. Bush's reminds me more of a Headline News kind of approach with a lot of activity and things jumping out at you. I guess it seems like Kerry's is kind of open for you to explore and seek what you want to find, while Bush's puts what it desires out for you to find. Both are navigable for those that want to. __________________ "Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy. Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. 'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see." - DTH

07-26-2004, 11:27 AM	#5 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Thanks. I certainly might have made it easier to access...doh! Sorry 'bout that. __________________ create evolution

07-26-2004, 02:57 PM	#8 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Yes. I think the best thing about these sites is the fact that they're out there - and like most things on the Net, allow a more direct and interactive relationship with users and content providers than was available in the past. __________________ create evolution

07-26-2004, 12:16 PM	#6 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	The article is a little off-base, as it focuses on the personal websites of politicians rather than the unofficially affiliated sites that are the real drivers of the net-politico phenomenon (blogs, for example). Nit-picking aside, almost anything that helps individuals to become more personally active with politics is a positive in my book.