Anti-McCain Videos

I feel like this one should probably be shorter:

I kind of wonder on some level what the point of producing tons of McCain-bashing web videos is, since it seems like a foregone conclusion that pretty much the entire cohort of people inclined to watch web videos isn't going to vote for McCain in the first place. It's interesting, though, that we're seeing the emergence of a bifurcated media landscape and political conversation. People over a certain age exist in a universe where it's almost as if the web doesn't exist and things like the nightly news, the daily paper, and the cable networks are utterly dominant. For people below a certain age, the nightly news is totally irrelevant, the daily paper is primarily a website, and things like blogs and web videos matter a great deal.

This is one thing people forget when discussing the much-remember points that people who watched Nixon debate Kennedy on television liked Kennedy, but those who listened on the radio liked Nixon. In 1960 television was still a relatively new technology, and an older, late-adopter segment of the population didn't have it and listened to debates on the radio. That was a Nixon-friendly demographic, just as early-adopters of web technology today are Obama-friendly.

Comments

"I kind of wonder on some level what the point of producing tons of McCain-bashing web videos is, since it seems like a foregone conclusion that pretty much the entire cohort of people inclined to watch web videos isn't going to vote for McCain in the first place."

This is an exaggeration, of course, and I also think it implies that Matt is making a common mistake. Specifically, it doesn't really matter if Obama is likely to "win" a particular cohort already. Rather, the question is whether those who support him can add any more marginal voters to his column from within this cohort with these (low-cost) efforts. In that sense, moving this cohort from something like 80% for Obama to 90% for Obama is just as useful as moving some other similar-sized cohort from 45% for Obama to 50% for Obama, since you get no bonus point for "winning" a cohort.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 10:32 AM

I think a major point of doing web videos like this is to influence the MSM. The Internet is the left's version of talk radio, meant to both stir up the faithful and set a narrative intended to make its way to cable and the network news.

Posted by NHCt | May 19, 2008 10:35 AM

In addition to what DTM says, remember that well put together and popular videos will break-through to the MSM from time to time. Jed Report's Tuzla stuff is the prime example.

Posted by Leo | May 19, 2008 10:35 AM

The proliferation of these videos and the associated blogospheric commentary could attract the attention of the traditional media, particularly if opinion leaders pointedly criticized the traditional media for its biased decision to ignore them. The blogs have driven mainstream coverage of other issues and could do so here as well.

Posted by Jim Clark | May 19, 2008 10:36 AM

If one of these videos gets McCain to freak out it will then get played continuously by the MSM asking whether he should have freaked out.

Posted by crack | May 19, 2008 10:37 AM

The argument could be made that the Internet-video demographic is not bound to electoral college votes, whereas those reached by local newspapers or events are subject to a distinct pre-existing political set.

That, of course, cuts both ways.

Posted by Paddy | May 19, 2008 10:37 AM

DTM is right, Matt is wildly exagerating. There may be a lot of older people that don't spend there day surfing the web, reading blogs, posting to myspace, etc. But they probably do have email. And when videos go viral they do so because someone sent another person the link via email. The people Matt is talking about may miss much of what is going on on the intertubes (I know I do) but they are still reachable. As others have pointed out as well, some of this stuff can easily cross over to the MSM.

Posted by Cap and Gown | May 19, 2008 10:45 AM

Certainly the funniest content on television is a local newscast. My "dirty fucking hippy" days are long in the rear view mirror. However, were I so inclined a couple hits of window pane and the 6 o'clock news would likely rival anything William S. Burroughs set to paper. I can just imagine the streaking bulldog on a skateboard causing the old lady to crash her car into a garage, setting it ablaze, the fire leaping to a nearby tree, necessitating the rescue of a cat in the branches by the fire department, and of course Timmy the terminal cancer kid is riding along on his make-a-wish adventure and gets to keep the kitty for company until he dies. And after the break Bob will tell us what to pack in our home emergency kit in case of a sudden sandstorm or an unexpected sinking in a tar pit! Don't forget, before we sign off tonight a return appearance by the water skiing squirrel!

Posted by steve duncan | May 19, 2008 10:47 AM

And you're forgetting the grandparents of the world. Speaking anecdotally, a lot of my cohort have kids and have parents that live far away. Their parents end up becoming familiar with web-video as a way of keeping up with their grandkids.

The exception, of course, is grandparents in rural areas, because they're mostly still stuck on dial up. Which is one of the reasons why Barack's broadband initiative is important.

Posted by MikeT | May 19, 2008 10:48 AM

I just want to note others are making a good point about potential "mainstream" crossover--and you never really know in advance what web videos will achieve that crossover effect, so again with the costs being negligible you might as well throw it all out there and see what happens.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 10:48 AM

Specifically, it doesn't really matter if Obama is likely to "win" a particular cohort already. Rather, the question is whether those who support him can add any more marginal voters to his column from within this cohort with these (low-cost) efforts. In that sense, moving this cohort from something like 80% for Obama to 90% for Obama is just as useful as moving some other similar-sized cohort from 45% for Obama to 50% for Obama, since you get no bonus point for "winning" a cohort.

This really is an excellent point that can't be repeated enough. I see people make similar errors all the time and it's exasperating.

Posted by WillieStyle | May 19, 2008 11:22 AM

In 1960 television was still a relatively new technology, and an older, late-adopter segment of the population didn't have it and listened to debates on the radio. That was a Nixon-friendly demographic, just as early-adopters of web technology today are Obama-friendly.

Nope--I was around in 1960, and television was ubiquitous by then, at least in reasonably densely populated areas [Coverage in rural/mountainous areas may have been trickier]. I'm old enough to remember when radio still had dramas, sitcoms, westerns, etc.; by 1960 those days were gone. The big technological divide by then was between black-and-white and color, not between TV and radio. Furthermore, what's your evidence that older and late-adopting voters were more inclined toward Nixon in 1960? The Republicans I knew had TVs long before my family did, because they were the people who could afford them first [Those were the days when white working-class voters were considered the bedrock of the Democratic Party, not an embarrassing inconvenience]. People by no means naturally inclined to support Nixon found him more impressive on the radio. Nixon, for all his sliminess, had a real mastery of public policy substance--and he was, after all, running against a guy one of whose major selling points was the bogus "missile gap." Appearance was JFK's big advantage on the tube.

Posted by David in Nashville | May 19, 2008 11:24 AM

The other thing that people forget about the Nixon/Kennedy debate is, as the Daily Show's "America: The Book" pointed out, that history went on to prove the superficial judgement of tv watchers, that Nixon couldn't be trusted, utterly correct.

Posted by RaggedRichard | May 19, 2008 11:28 AM

I also think MY overestimates how many young internet viewers are going to vote for Obama. Yes the demographic is dominated by Obama partisans, but that still leaves a substantial portion who aren't. 80-20 sounds like a huge edge in politics, but those 20 still count.

Anyone who talks to people entirely outside a political or educated context, will find some very very uninformed people. Ie, there really are some thoughtless brats who will be swayed by this video (whether they bother to vote is a different question).

Posted by Shock Mouse | May 19, 2008 11:36 AM

a few weeks ago, matthew was virtually apoplectic with his insistence that if only that awful hillary clinton would get out of the race, then and only then would negative advertising be able to stick it to john mccain.

luckily, matthew is young and able to learn from his errors: it's still mid-may and there's plenty of anti-mccain opportunities, as i think he now is starting to realize.

and since nothing will change the opinions of mccain's base supporters in journalism, it will never matter with that crowd.

PS. now, as other commenters have noted, young matthew can learn about the foolishness of loose generalizations about internet use that had currency 10 years ago but much less now. not using twitter isn't the same as not using the internet.

Posted by howard | May 19, 2008 11:36 AM

People over a certain age exist in a universe where it's almost as if the web doesn't exist and things like the nightly news, the daily paper, and the cable networks are utterly dominant. For people below a certain age, the nightly news is totally irrelevant, the daily paper is primarily a website, and things like blogs and web videos matter a great deal.

Is the first part of this accurate? I genuinely have to ask because, well, the second part is true of me. But I do occasionally catch the evening news like when I'm having dinner at my parents' house or something, and it does seem like there's a fair amount of crossover with "new media." At least a few prominent bloggers, like Sullivan and Huffington, started out in print or TV, and several digital media people went the other way, like Ezra Klein. I recall seeing the Florida Flophouse in the New York Times, even if only the Style section. Bloggers get cited (although not always by name, as Atrios or something was complaining about recently) and responded to and stuff. "Matt Drudge rules their world."

Posted by Cyrus | May 19, 2008 11:37 AM

I don't doubt that the radio audience was better suited for Nixon, then Kennedy, but Nixon really did seem smarter and better informed during those debates.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | May 19, 2008 11:41 AM

I wouldn't say MY's larger points are wrong, but it is hard to generalize. I know lots of people of different political stripes in their 50s who have pretty much exchanged televison for the intertubz as their primary way to get news (including myself, btw). The difference is the passive conditioning some of them/us have been subject to, having grown up in the teevee era; they may not watch, or believe what they see if they do watch, tv, but there is an enduring sense that if it's 'as seen on tv', it must, at the very least matter to other people, and therefore it matters in an absolute sense. I don't think younger people have nearly so much awe of tv, and well they shouldn't.

'Television News' is an oxymoron. TV (or film) is not well suited to informing people - it never was and still isn't. That doesn't mean it *can't* do so, but moving pictures' natural strength is to make you feel something. Videos which use candidates' own words to skewer them can be effective, of course. But I have never found Greenwald's videos to be effective (and I speak as someone who is in his choir, politically); they are humorless, a little long, and have somewhat muddled objectives. If you're going to do a straight polemical spot, do it well! If you are trying to do a supposedly 'dispassionate', fact-finding program, do THAT well. Absolutely no disrespect meant for Mr Greenwald, but I think it's his videos which are not going to convince anybody who doesn't already agree with them, not web video in general.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 19, 2008 11:43 AM

Another fine post from MattY! Meanwhile, Youtube kindly provides demo data to vid owners, and I was interested to learn that most of the viewers of this were 35-45 males but every single viewer of this was 18 or under: youtube.com/watch?v=PYmQsMqCul8 and every single viewer of this was male: tinyurl.com/66cqmw

Now, certainly, YT isn't exactly known for their accuracy, but those would seem to indicate a wider variation in viewership than MattY - in his infinite wisdom and life experience - would have you believe.

Thankfully I see that others have made that point, so I'll just point out that a new type of video will have a far greater impact than things like the one above. That new type of vid will consist of regular citizens going to campaign appearances and asking the candidates the questions that hacks like MattY or Ambinder don't have the guts to ask.

Here's an example:

youtube.com/watch?v=tIK9ZawRMlg

Now, imagine if a better questioner had asked him a better question:

youtube.com/watch?v=YRWRzZ_yPnk

Posted by TLB | May 19, 2008 12:51 PM

A few of my textbooks on American politics from college mentioned the Kennedy/Nixon TV/radio divide (Kennedy even privately credited TV with his win) and I'm pretty sure those claims were footnoted, but I haven't read those in three years and the books are half a world away now.

"In that sense, moving this cohort from something like 80% for Obama to 90% for Obama is just as useful as moving some other similar-sized cohort from 45% for Obama to 50% for Obama, since you get no bonus point for "winning" a cohort."

I want to second how good this is. It may have seemed funny when Bush tried to get up his African-American support up marginally in Ohio, but getting just a few more votes in his column (pulling random numbers for arguments sake, going from 7% support to 10% support) makes it easier to win and helps cover your ass if fewer than expected of your core demographics turn out.

Posted by Reality Man | May 19, 2008 1:04 PM

McCain appeared (as Clinton and Obama have before him) on SNL this past Saturday night.

The jokes weren't too bad, and McCain's timing could have been better (he stumbled a bit, as I've noticed he does with teleprompters when delivering a speech) -- but his bit centered around spoofing his age. He was, he said, the only candidate with the "oldness" necessary to be president.

This is the way McCain's campaign brands his age as a positive. It creates a thread that equates Age with Trust and Wisdom: I'm proud of my age; I can joke about it. I'm the dad or grandfather you could have a beer and talk things over with. It also plays into McCain's other dominant campaign theme: I have more experience than junior Senator Obama.

Nixon showed up on Laugh-In in 1968 ("Sock it to me?") as part of the rebranding of 'The New Nixon'. He wasn't elected because of a four-second appearance on a new, hip teevee show, and more than McCain would be elected because of appearing on SNL. But reframing McCain's age as a positive can't be dismissed as a joke. Obama's people probably don't need to be reminded that in 1960, Kennedy won by the narrowest popular-vote margin in modern history... but they shouldn't forget it, either.

The Republicans' may be in disarray because of the effects of their own hubris and greed, but the stakes are high enough in this election that nothing, even something as trivial as what appears to be a joke, should be allowed to go by. Any attempt to reframe the Old McCain as The New should be shot down -- not because he's older, but because his record shows clearly who and what he is -- and that record is no laughing matter.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | May 19, 2008 1:07 PM

It isn't AGE, you child.

I'm 58, and the last time I watched a TV news show (local or network) was years ago. I read 3 daily newspapers, 2 on the net. I watch some cable shouters because it keeps my outrage honed. I read a lot and contribute a little to blogs.

JC

Posted by john casey | May 19, 2008 4:48 PM

In 1960 television was still a relatively new technology, and an older, late-adopter segment of the population didn't have it and listened to debates on the radio.

Less than a minute of googling showed me that 87% of US households had a TV in 1960. Why didn't you spend that minute before posting? Don't force your readers to protect themselves by fact-checking you ... you're better than that.

http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/mediatrendstrack/tvbasics/02_TVHouseholds.asp

Posted by pireader | May 19, 2008 6:03 PM

Yeah, but then there are those, like me, stuck in the middle. Grew up with my local paper, local TV news, and CBS, NBC, and ABC news. That was it.

Now, network news is co-opted. Local news is an hour and a half of shootings and car accidents. Cable news is a circus, and by the time I read my local paper, it's old news because of the net.

Us 50-somethings rely on the net, whippersnapper.

Posted by paul in nc | May 19, 2008 7:33 PM

I really have to protest this. I'm 57. I read your blog, Sullivan's blog, The Huffington Post, talkingpointsmemo and a number of other blogs every day. I haven't seen a network newscast start to finish in years (excepting BBC News-America) I am by no means alone amongst the long-in-the-tooth crowd. My generation has been obnoxious enough forever riding our high moral horse. Suddenly, your generation believes we think Tivo is a cartoon character on Gumby. Can we lay off the generalizations, Matt?

Posted by Gordon Greisman | May 19, 2008 9:41 PM

Another thing people forget when discussing how people who watched Nixon debate Kennedy on television liked Kennedy, but those who listened on the radio liked Nixon is that there is almost no factual basis for this story at all.

I would not say "none" but it's almost none. A single study done by a Philadelphia advertising firm with clients in the radio industry and zero transparency on the data. It wasn't really a study--like an exit poll-but a marketing stunt, a PR project for this local ad agency. I'm betting that Matt and most who cite this "fact" think it was social scientists who discovered that, as popular belief has it, "Nixon won on radio."

I think the study has almost no validity, but it's a classic case of an over-determined result. The idea that Nixon won on radio but Kennedy won on television makes us feel in a McLuhan-esque way, and this is primarily what people are responding to in it. It's the perfect story for illustrating how the medium is the message, and that is how it's become one of those "too good to trace" facts that everyone discusses.

Posted by Jay Rosen | May 20, 2008 12:43 AM

Well, in fact, that was supposed to be:

The idea that Nixon won on radio but Kennedy won on television makes us feel smart in a McLuhan-esque way, and this is primarily what people are responding to in it.

Posted by Jay Rosen | May 20, 2008 12:47 AM

>pretty much the entire cohort of people inclined to watch web videos isn't going to vote for McCain in the first place

True, but it feels good to reply back a link to those videos for wingers who send emails re: Obama is teh muslim.

Posted by bartkid | May 21, 2008 10:10 AM

Jay Rosen has it right; see here for more on Nixon-Kennedy.

Posted by andrew | May 21, 2008 3:24 PM