Following up to my previous post about online campaigning , there was a panel at last week’s Politics Online Conference that discussed the broader topic of how Web 2.0 is changing the media. What the panel ended up talking about would have been more fitting under the title of how Web 2.0 is changing campaigns and campaign coverage… but that really doesn’t matter – it’s still great topic with lots of room for what seemed to be everyone’s favorite subject at the conference: Macaca. Jeff Jarvis (BuzzMachine , PrezVid ) moderating, and participants Jay Rosen (PressThink.org , AssignmentZero.com ), Jim Brady (Executive Editor, WashingtonPost.com ), and David Plotz (Deputy Editor, Slate ). Here are my (once again completely personally biased) highlights and thoughts:

• All candidates are going to have a Macaca moment.
  Understandably, Macaca was a big buzz word around the conference. The consensus of the panel was that campaigns are much more exposed in this election cycle that they ever were before and that all of the candidates will inevitably have at least one Macaca moment.
  My thoughts: Agree.

• Macaca-stalking.
  Jay Rosen suggested that Gawker / paparazzi-type coverage of candidate slipups is the new order of this cycle and that there will be at least one person covering every move and word a candidate says this time around. They’ll all be in a position when they think they’re off the record speaking to one person while another is quietly taping the moment for us all to enjoy.
  My thoughts: I love it.

• Candidates’ reaction to possible Macaca moments.
  There was disagreement on how candidates will react to the possibility of Macaca moments: Rosen suggested that candidates will have no choice but to embrace this and be more “authentic” or at least put on more authentic “performances”. Jim Brady suggested the opposite would happen and that campaigns will end up being more scripted and less spontaneous as a result. Everyone laughed when he suggested that these “conversations” are going to prove to be more like a job interview than an authentic conversation.
  My thoughts: I think they’re both right and we’ll see two types of candidate emerge. Which style will prevail? Probably both.
   
  
• Will Macaca moments lose importance over time?
  All panelists seemed to agree that the voting public will get more and more used to Macaca moments over time and that their political effect on a candidate will subsequently diminish, that people will ultimately be more forgiving of a candidate’s Macacaesque slip-ups.
  My thoughts: I disagree - shocking off-the-record statements by a candidate will never cease to have political consequences.
   
• Negative tactics will increase due to web anonymity.
  Jim Brady – YouTube anonymity allows for posting of anonymous videos to slamming or praising a candidate.
  My thoughts: Campaigns can now go incognito and create anonymous praise and attack ads. The anonymous public can too. The 1984 Hillary Clinton video is was a good example of that.
   
• Conversations will become more personal.
  Jay Rosen suggested that candidates will begin to speak more about how they personally feel about issues. He used the example of JetBlue’s CEO apology about the winter plane problems they had. He insisted on how much the mistakes devastated him personally, and the whole thing worked for them – because it seemed like a genuine apology.
  My thoughts: Al Gore coming out of his political-consultant prefab shell is another example of genuineness being the new measure of success (and lenience).

| Trackback URL |