Internet and Political Censorship

     According to an article at GalesburgPlanet.com, the internet has gained the more traffic as a source of political news than any other category of mass media. Cable television is still the most prevalent, but the internet has grown the most in popularity, by a significant margin. A great majority of adult Americans has access to an internet connection in this day and age, so it makes a great deal of sense that it would become more convenient to get notified of political goings-on via internet. Indeed, there are a lot of subscription programs that an internet user can utilize to be notified of anything new that happens on a site they frequent. Content is available at any time you look for it, unlike cable television where a viewer is required to tune in at a certain time. The internet is capable of providing media of varying formats as well, from articles to videos, that pertain to a wider selection of topics than television is capable of portraying. For reasons like this, the internet is becoming a very attractive conquest for various political interest groups to target. Especially in this most recent presidential campaign, presidential candidates have been heavily using internet to get their points across, gain favor, and attempt to win more votes than the other guys. But also for reasons like this, politicians are having trouble with the lack of censorship on the internet. 

Media format article here: http://galesburgplanet.com/posts/19870

     One of the most striking examples of this was a campaign slogan Ron Paul ran under during the primaries this year. He had TV ads and banners and bumper stickers made that said "Google: Ron Paul." He recognized the fact that most of the modern political information available to the general public was available via the internet, and he wanted to get his name out there in people's minds. He knew that the easiest way to get the average person to learn more about him and his stances was to have them simply do a web search. And he was right. Most people spend more time on the internet daily, reading political articles, than they do channel surfing and looking for political news programs. And even if they do prefer to use television as a source of news, political news isn't constantly being aired. Usually, because there are multiple news blocks in a day, you can spend hours on end watching the news and get repeated stories. They often repeat the same popular story for each news block, because usually a person only watches one news block a day, if they watch any. In short, there's a very limited amount of political news one can gain from watching television, even if they spend a long time watching. Ron Paul made a pretty strategic move by turning the attention of his potential supporters to the internet. It made it easier for him to educate them about his actions and plans, and made it more convenient for them to educate themselves about it all. I can imagine how much more willing they were to get news this way, especially considering the fact that Ron Paul just told them to look at everything that existed about him, instead of directing their attention to certain chosen aspects through a televised speech or some other focused media outreach. I think it was a good move, even if it didn't exactly pan out for him. 

     The internet has also been a distinct target for the political interests that try to bring out younger voters, namely the Democratic Party. President Obama recently did an Ask Me Anything on the popular forum website, Reddit. Members of the forum could comment and ask him questions and he would answer them in subsequent posts. This was really the first political move of its kind, and it definitely brought Obama to the forefront of many internet-goers' attention. But as he found out the hard way, the internet isn't necessarily a gateway to popularity. Just like any other media outlet, it's subject to the judgement of the viewers. Admittedly, there are a great deal more viewers to be had on the internet than nearly anything else, and they have the opportunity to be interactive, unlike most other mediums, but most people were annoyed as a result of the AMA. They said that Obama dodged the questions that people most wanted answered, and planted questions that were convenient for him to talk about. So while it was a good way to get publicity, turning to the internet doesn't automatically result in good publicity. 

Reddit response article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/obama-reddit-ask-me-anything_n_1843568.html

     This, I think, is more related to censorship than the internet itself. While Ron Paul used the internet to share everything available about him and his stances, and received fairly positive feedback on this move, Obama tried a similar approach, but tweaked it to his own advantage. That goes so fundamentally against what everyone expects the internet to stand for that he was met with a pretty negative response. It's going to be interesting to see how politics continues to use the internet in future campaigns, because historically many aspects of politics have become a little less than truthful. It's common practice now for politicians to avoid topics that would make them unpopular and hype others far beyond where they need to be. The internet has come to be known as a frontier for uncensored information sharing. Any politician who tries to censor the information available on the internet is going to damage their popularity by doing so. It'll be interesting to see how they handle that fact in future.

Additional Sources:

Bettina Fabos, Christopher R. Martin, and Richard Campbell. Media & Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication, 8th Edition. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. Print.