Arkris
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 161
I was reading the newspaper yesterday and there was an article about Youtube's contribution to the 2008 Presidential election, it was titled "Candidates are competing with amateurs for online video hits", by Jocelyn Noveck. She talked in great length about how campaign supporters and amateur movie makers are basically taking over the online campaigns from the political strategists. She mentioned videos about Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Jonathan Edwards, Mitt Romney, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel... but guess who they failed to mention.
There was absolutely no mention about which Presidential candidate had the most subscriptions. And, according to her, "Obama, whose fundraising success has wowed observers, is also getting more Internet buzz than his rivals." I assume she means Democratic rivals, but I think it's misleading none the less.
It's just plain ridiculous that they wouldn't even mention him at all, when he's basically the most popular candidate on, not only youtube, but the internet.
I suppose it really wasn't really that much of a loss to us though, the article didn't have any political substance whatsoever and was basically about gaffes and other things that candidates didn't want to be seen that Youtube had dredged up. But still you'd think they would mention something about Ron Paul.
But, here's a good qoute that gives me a little hope: "Three years later, people are calling this the 'YouTube Election'- in which anyone with a minicam or even a mere cell phone can conceivably affect the outcome.".
There was absolutely no mention about which Presidential candidate had the most subscriptions. And, according to her, "Obama, whose fundraising success has wowed observers, is also getting more Internet buzz than his rivals." I assume she means Democratic rivals, but I think it's misleading none the less.
It's just plain ridiculous that they wouldn't even mention him at all, when he's basically the most popular candidate on, not only youtube, but the internet.
I suppose it really wasn't really that much of a loss to us though, the article didn't have any political substance whatsoever and was basically about gaffes and other things that candidates didn't want to be seen that Youtube had dredged up. But still you'd think they would mention something about Ron Paul.
But, here's a good qoute that gives me a little hope: "Three years later, people are calling this the 'YouTube Election'- in which anyone with a minicam or even a mere cell phone can conceivably affect the outcome.".
