This just in from the national Democratic Party.
For a few months, we’ve had Democratic Party “trackers” recording hundreds of hours of Republican candidates in the field. From event to event, we’ve got footage of some pretty revealing moments. Some are regular Americans putting a candidate on the spot with a tough question. Others are blatant contradictions. A lot of it is just the standard candidate stump speech.
The footage isn’t high quality, but it’s straight from the field — and there is a lot of it. Since there’s more than my team can realistically process, we’ve decided to throw it up on the web and put the Party’s most powerful asset — you — to work.
As soon as a tracker leaves an event in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or wherever they’re taping a Republican candidate, they’ll head to a computer and upload it directly to a special section of Democrats.org called FlipperTV. That means you’ll have a chance to go through the latest video the same time we do.
Nobody has ever done anything quite like this before, but with the Internet giving ordinary Americans like you access to the tools you need to change an election with the click of a mouse, we need to make sure you have everything you need to do just that. The video is yours — you can just let us know what you find, or you can take it, re-mix it, add music, and make your very own ad out of it. It’s up to you.
On the one hand, I applaud this effort at accountability. On the other hand, I wonder who in their right mind is going to seek elected office if every public utterance, and increasingly every private one, is subjected to instant scrutiny — let alone the indignity of being remixed to Arcade Fire or whomever.
Maybe, however, my concern is misplaced: the quality of our leaders has been so varied over the past 200 years, it’s hard to imagine we could do much worse.
Um, Bob… we’re talking about public appearances where the candidates know their being filmed by the opposition party.
<
p>If the candidate is dumb enough to pull a macaca part deux, shame on him or her.
<
p>If you’re willing to speak to people you’ve never met before about why they should fund/phonebank/vote for or otherwise support your election, you need to be willing for those remarks to be shared verbatim with anyone else.
<
p>And BTW — since it’s not the FCC [or CSPAN or PBS for that matter], it ain’t Big Brother. It’s the simple combination of democracy and cheap communications. That’s a good thing methinks.
And this one way to find the others.
<
p>One of the problems with racists is they think their racism both right and popular. So it will pop out, as with Trent Lott and George Allen.
Okay, yes, it does play into the “gotcha,” politics our system revels in. But, that’s where we are now, and this seems like one of the better ways of dealing with it. First of all, it crowd-sources the work, saving a lot of resources. Instead of having interns low level staff (or volunteers who could be doing more productive things) wade through hundreds (and eventually thousands) of hours of footage, it goes to people who would probably be on their computer anyway.
<
p>More importantly, my hunch is that “ordinary,” Democratic activists are going to pick different selections out than people who are trained oppo-researchers. What might seem like standard fair might sound more egregious to “jes folk,” and vice-versa. It potentially gives a broader range of what could be brought to light.
<
p>Finally, it’s not just about accountability and getting the other side. Whether it’s on the blogs, youtube, whatever, campaigns are increasingly at the very least paying lip-service to the idea that the people control the campaign, not the candidate/campaign. (See: Obama’s myspace flap, the Clinton/Obama mac ad, CNN youtube debates, et. al.) I know, I know, campaigns are still by definition top-down, and I’ll agree that they (for the most party) ought to be. But increasingly people want to feel like they’re running the campaign, that the research, the online work, and so on, that we all do makes a difference. This is another good way to put all that effort to good use.
I do think that horse has already left the barn long ago!
http://www.usalone.com/stop_me…
<
p>Plus even a devotee, an activist, a website owner reveals his disgust at something which has become a self serving industry unto itself.
http://www.bushflash.com/ipdi….
<
p>I know what to expect having been galactically let down last Nov 7 so 2008 will prove out the very same way. We are going to be a third world country no matter how or even if you vote.
We all know that there will be campaign worker “plants” who are fools and someone will talk them into wearing a wire and whatever the candidate du jour says will be on the net in two hours. Illegal—of course. So what. The candidate is destroyed, the plant pleads out and gets two years and a big payoff down the road. Or you go the plausible deniability route. The candidate knew they were being taped, even they they didn’t and it turns into a he said, she said.
<
p>Can you imagine soneone stalking the Clintons- as I bet they are doing as we speak, with sensitive recording equipment and putting it on the web via Tehran. There are IR sensors that detect the vibration of windows from several city blocks.
<
p>Remember —when this all blows up—who started it.
<
p>You will have candidates that will have all appearances 100% scripted. Since everyone will be under the same threat, everyone will play ball and you now have what—? A make believe campaign We have met the enemy and it is—look in a mirror.
In short, just slice and dice – context be damned – and create whatever misleading crap you’d like to see go viral on the Internet.
<
p>Progressives. I’m sure your very proud, because your ends justify your means, don’t they?
I’ve actually been thinking about that a bit. What’s to ensure the quality of viral videos? Presumably, these particular videos would have to be approved by the Democratic Party which is an entity which can be called out on its BS, just like the Republican Party so often ought to be.
<
p>But, more generally, I’m having a hard time thinking of a truly popular viral video that isn’t in context. Macaca moment? Really, I can’t imagine what more context you’d need. I’m really curious – what major viral youtube videos have there been that you feel drastically take things out of context?
to deep six any democrat. Once the damage has been done and the election lost—what will be the hue and cry?
<
p>We did it, but we were legit? The sword has two edges. Whatever you come up with as a weapon will be used on you in time.
Haven’t happened via youtube, as far as I’ve found. Kerry’s “for the 87 billion before he was against it,” certainly wasn’t, nor was most other gaffes that took politicians down. And even if it had, I’m not sure the medium matters as much as the content. And context is a pretty easy problem to fix – politicians and other public figures are misquoted all the time. All they have to do is release the entire video and show how the words were misconstrued, and then clarify what they meant. So, I’m not really sure what your point is.
…exactly HOW would they get that ‘entire video and show how the words were misconstrued and then clarify what they meant’?
<
p>…intelligence than I should have.
<
p>If a person is being taped at an event without knowing it by the opposing party for slice ‘n dice purposes.exactly HOW would they get that ‘entire video and show how the words were misconstrued and then clarify what they meant’?
<
p>It strikes me that it should be obvious. By the candidates recording the entire events themselves. Which I suspect, but cannot prove that they do, anyway, for their own soundbites. They get the whole thing, in context, and they can make of it what they wish.
<
p>That was the purpose for my example of the German police videotaping the protests at the Group of Seven meeting in Munich in 1972.
I’m sory I’m not more au courant with current post-Gestapo tactics by the German poliz.
… what ‘means’ you object to.
<
p>Near as I can tell, what you have here is people holding politicians more accountable for what they say in public. I think that, in itself, is a demonstrable ‘good’. So what ‘means’ are being utilized that are objectionable in service of this ‘good’?
You’re not serious, are you Peter? This is feigned indignation. Please tell me it is. You’re not this naive.
“I voted for it before I voted against it”?
<
p>I don’t recall any explanation in all those attack ads that he was actually referring to separate bills with separate funding mechanisms and actual principles of good government, budget management etc. Or did I just miss that part.
<
p>I’m sure your very proud, because your ends justify your means, don’t they?
<
p>Ends always justify some means, otherwise nobody would ever be able to achieve his or her ends. (Parse it, I’m sure that Ms. Porc is capable)
<
p>Now, let’s examine the subject matter of the post, in relation to Ms. Porc’s implicit complaint. Opponents (who may or not be members of the opposition party) attend open campaign appearances, and record them. It strikes me that, if the campaigner wants the appearances to be private, there are suitable mechanisms for that to occur (tickets, invitations); but they obviously don’t.
<
p>Let’s go a bit further. It is true that people who have recorded campaign appearances can edit them, and post the edited versions over the Internet. It is also true that people who are supporters can record versions of entire appearances, and post them over the Internet as well. If the supporters did that, it should be easy for them to, for example, identify when and where segments of the opponents videos have been taken out of context. “He said this 35 years ago, but he’s saying this now” (to channel my criticizum of Ed O’Reilly’s campaign elsewhere on this site).
<
p>From the post Nobody has ever done anything quite like this before maybe that’s because the technology was not available to do it. As George Allen and Michael Richards learned, the technology is now available to do it. In point of fact, the technology has long been available to do it. In 1992, we were in the center of Munich when the Group of Seven meeting was going on there. It was something of a nightmare, what with the (irrelevant) protesters and the cordoned off sections of the city. The police were videotaping the protests, and the police reaction to them, probably to ensure that there was no police brutality claim that could be mounted. The technology was available (and we did not observe any police brutality), but it was not available in cell phones at the time.