Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /nfs/c01/h14/mnt/9829/domains/prezvid.com/html/wp-settings.php on line 472

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /nfs/c01/h14/mnt/9829/domains/prezvid.com/html/wp-settings.php on line 487

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /nfs/c01/h14/mnt/9829/domains/prezvid.com/html/wp-settings.php on line 494

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /nfs/c01/h14/mnt/9829/domains/prezvid.com/html/wp-settings.php on line 530

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /nfs/c01/h14/mnt/9829/domains/prezvid.com/html/wp-includes/cache.php on line 103

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /nfs/c01/h14/mnt/9829/domains/prezvid.com/html/wp-includes/query.php on line 21

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /nfs/c01/h14/mnt/9829/domains/prezvid.com/html/wp-includes/theme.php on line 623
internetTag Archive for internet archive at Sibutramine Prices - FDA Checked Pharmacy

Tag Archive for 'internet'

Wired Obama

CNN online correspondent Abbi Tatton gives points to Obama for his online organizing tools.

Obama, the internet victor?

I wonder whether, quietly, Barack Obama is to become the first candidate elected by the internet. It's not as if he has been all that aggressive in his internet strategy. That is, he has been no more and probably less disruptive in his online tactics than Howard Dean was. But I wonder whether it is the internet that has brought together the factors that are making him victorious. First, the higher turnout among young people in Iowa -- and, it appears, New Hampshire -- is being credited as a key factor in his win(s). It has been said plenty of times that young people may get excited about a candidate but they don't show up. Now they're showing up, not only to vote but to jam public events that show the mo'. What's different this time? It could be some magic potion of Obama as Pied Piper, but I think the change may well be the internet. He spoke to young people on their turf and they responded. They made it a point to befriend the bejesus out of him on MySpace and Facebook -- they made that their own crusade -- and I think media and political strategists thought that was cute but didn't understand the full power and impact of that. It's significant that one of Obama's advisers is a founder of Facebook, Chris Hughes. This leads to the second factor: the organizing power of the internet. To hell with the phone bank and campaign office downtown. And to heck with rallies, for that matter. The internet is the greatest organizational tool ever and both the campaign -- and, importantly, the citizens themselves -- used it to organize supporters to get out and support. Third, of course, is money: It's not just that Obama raised a helluva lot of money. It's far more important, of course, that he raised it from a helluva lot of people. But what's really important in that is that those people felt invested in Obama and his campaign. Yes, he got lots of money to pay for commercials. But what he really got was citizens with an equity stake in his victory. That wasn't being done before Howard Dean showed how to raise money online and Obama made brilliant use of it. There are, of course, other factors. The fact that older voters -- like me -- are the ones favoring Clinton shows that we hold nostalgia for the Clinton years, but young people have no fond memories of the era; they're too young. I thought that Clinton ran a flawless campaign at the start but now it turns out to be flawed. I do think the media have from the start made Obama their darling and the mo' was there for him to grab. See my post in April showing how the coverage of him was out of proportion to the polls. You could argue that the media were merely more in touch than the polls but I don't think so; I believe Obama's rise became a self-fulfilling prophecy that only he could screw up -- and he didn't. It would be unwise to count Clinton out yet. She is smart and experienced and tenacious. And Obama is inexperienced and can mess this up. But as a Clinton supporter, I'll concede the trajectory here. My point is that as we analyze this fairly incredible and rabid shift in power between the two candidates, I haven't heard the internet being given the credit I think it may deserve. And that's not because he ran the campaign on the internet; no one will call him the internet candidate. It's because he used it to speak to the right people and in ways that weren't noticed or understood by big media. What do you think? (Crossposted from Comment is Free)

Romney’s V-chip for the internet

Mitt Romney, who continues to believe that our children are swimming in a cesspool of perversion, now proposes that every computer sold in America should be sold with a filter on it to trap pornography that parents could turn on. How he would make that magic clean-your-mouth-out-with-soap button work is beyond me. Romney continues to be befuddled by the internet. He also confused MySpace and YouTube:
"YouTube is a website that allows kids to network with one another and make friends and contact each other," Romney explained. "YouTube looked to see if they had any convicted sex offenders on their web site. They had 29,000." Actually, YouTube is the popular site that allows Internet users to upload and watch a variety of videos. The web site, which is owned by search-engine behemoth Google, also was a co-sponsor of the Democratic presidential debate held on Monday night. The web site MySpace is the one to which Romney actually was referring. MySpace, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., said this week it had found 29,000 registered sex offenders who had submitted profiles to its site and removed them.
The GOP is turning out to be not only scared of the internet but clueless about it. Log on and come on in, boys. The water's fine.

My question for the YouTube debate

Here is my question for the YouTube/CNN Democrats' debate on U.S. broadband internet strategy: I say I'm worried about the digital divide -- between America and the world. The U.S. has fallen to 25th place in broadband penetration worldwide. Our broadband access costs, on average, 12 times more than Japan's and 7 times more than South Koreas, yet Japan's is 12 times faster than ours and Korea's 9.5 times faster. So I ask the candidates: Will you pledge today to assure all Americans affordable -- open -- high-speed internet access and how will you do it? This is a necessity for our economy, education, culture, and future.

Cyberman

A PBS feature on online campaigning, featuring Mitt Romney:

PrezConference: Two more questions

Two more questions for the candidates. The first on Iraq and what happens when the candidates (well, except for John McCain) get us out of there:
The second on whether the candidates will continue to blog, vlog, MySpace, and YouTube once in the White House:
Here, again, is my invitation to all of you to post your questions under the tag PREZCONFERENCE.

Can the internet unseat King Money?

I've found quite considerable interest in the election here in London and just spoke with an editor who said it is higher than he has ever seen it. Tie this with a recent Pew survey that found that 20 percent of people who followed the election online went to foreign sources. So it's no surprise that we're seeing incisive coverage of the election coming from over here. See, for example, Gary Younge's column in the Guardian arguing that money is still king in our elections and wondering whether the internet can or would unseat that. For more, click the link...
We have no idea yet what role the internet will play in next year's presidential election. First, it is too early in the process. Second, the pace at which the medium is developing means that the campaigning tool of choice probably has not been invented yet. Back in 2003 it took Howard Dean six months to compile an email list of 139,000. But that was before networking sites such as MySpace. In less than two months Barack Obama has gathered more than 310,000 supporters on Facebook.com. What is certain is that the internet will play a vital, possibly decisive, role; and in all likelihood that role will come into conflict with the established kingmakers. Neither trend is new. But the power of money and the modem are both driven by different and, arguably, contradictory forces. At some stage something will have to give. . . . While these tensions may play out as a battle between left and right, or doves and hawks, they will in essence represent a far more fundamental shift in the relationship of the professional political class with the politically engaged public - a struggle between the popular and the oligarchic, between the bespoke message of the paid consultant and the chaos of freewheeling public opinion. Sadly, it won't change the centrality of money in American politics - the internet is a crucial fundraising tool. But by enabling thousands of small donors to contribute, it has already proved its potential to provide an alternative funding base. . . . We should have no illusions about who has the upper hand in this battle between big money and burgeoning activism. At a meeting in New York to support Hillary Clinton last week, organised through Meetup.com, the host told us that since Hillary had the votes of New Yorkers sewn up, all she really needed the town for was money. . . . It suits the mythology of meritocracy that remains so central to American identity to have young children walking around in T-shirts saying "Future president of America". But the truth is if your kid really does stand a chance at the top office, he'll already be wearing more expensive attire. America's class system is now more rigid than most in Europe, and that sclerosis is given full expression at the highest levels of politics. Teamsters leader Jimmy Hoffa, Chicago mayor Richard Daley and Southern Christian Leadership Conference head Martin Luther King all carry the names and job titles of their fathers. Each year the richest quarter per cent make 80% of all political donations. The last time there was not a Clinton or a Bush on the presidential ticket was 1976. This is not democracy, it is dynasty.
A brick at a time. A brick at a time.



About

You are currently browsing the PrezVid weblog archives for 'internet' tag.

Longer entries are truncated. Click the headline of an entry to read it in its entirety.

Categories