Blog P.I.

I was a bit grumpy when Slate’s John Dickerson covered the rising prominence of YouTube in political campaigns as if he was the first person to think of it, but now that it’s Ryan Lizza’s turn to remark upon same for the New York Times, I think it’s time to accept that it’s conventional wisdom already (fast, maybe even faster than YouTube’s own meteoric rise). After all, the Times is nothing if not a lagging indicator.

Lizza doesn’t add a whole lot to the discussion, though he does wring his hands in a manner of which previous commentators have declined:

Some political analysts say that YouTube could force candidates to stop being so artificial, since they know their true personalities will come out anyway. “It will favor a kind of authenticity and directness and honesty that is frankly going to be good,” said Carter Eskew, a media consultant who worked for Senator Lieberman’s primary campaign. “People will say what they really think rather than what they think people want to hear.” But others see a future where politicians are more vapid and risk averse than ever. Matthew Dowd, a longtime strategist for President Bush who is now a partner in a social networking Internet venture, Hot Soup, looks at the YouTube-ization of politics, and sees the death of spontaneity.

I don’t know the answer to this question; my fallback response is: Some of both. More interesting, I think, is why the two consultants split on the question. Some might guess that Democrats are quicker to embrace new campaign techniques whereas Republicans are slower to deem them necessary, and there may be some truth to that. The GOP had no GOTV strategy to speak of until 2002, although they’ve more than caught up since.

But I think it has less to do with party ideology than recent party (or factional) fortunes, and you’re more likely to embrace (and talk up) a new technology if you need it to deliver for you. In 2004, Dowd helped fend off an unprecedented new media assault on President Bush, so he’s got all the more reason to downplay its positive effects. But there’s also iconoclasts like John McCain, who face uphill battles inside the Republican party, and as of late has been courting conservative online activists to that end.

What interesting things Lizza does have to say about YouTube’s impact is arguably just as true about mere text-based blogging:

These days journalists are concerned not just about being cut out, but about being part of the show. Reporters often suffer the wrath of bloggers in the same way politicians do. At a recent conference of political bloggers in Las Vegas, reporters more than once reminded one another to be discreet in their conversations because anything overheard was fair game for bloggers to post. Now, as the campaign trail turns into a 24-hour live set, members of the press corps may find themselves starring on YouTube. “At least one big-time journalist will have their career or life ruined because some element of their behavior that was heretofore private will be exposed publicly,” predicted a senior adviser to a potential 2008 presidential candidate.

If you think YouTube is necessary for that, well, tell that to Dan Rather.

And Lizza’s “to be sure” section is particularly weak:

Then again, YouTube’s impact on politics may be exaggerated. For one, the site’s users are generally young and not highly engaged politically. “Most social networking sites cater to younger audiences, 18 to 24,” says Michael Bassik, vice president of Internet advertising at MSHC Partners, which advises candidates on media strategies. “For the most part, it’s not political conversations taking place there.” And maybe the Allen video wasn’t all that shocking after all. Jeff Jarvis, author of the BuzzMachine blog and an Internet consultant to The New York Times Company, doesn’t think all that much has changed. “Is it news that politicians say stupid things?” he asks. “Of course not.”

As for the former point, arguing that just because political videos don’t draw the same traffic as, say, that especially compelling video where a young woman took one picture of herself each day for three years is a straw man if I’ve ever seen one (and I suspect Lizza has quoted Bassik out of context). All such a video has to do is be “out there,” and YouTube undoubtedly accomplishes that.

As for the latter, well, tell that to Senator Allen.

P.S. Ohio’s Psychobilly Democrat makes a similar argument to that of my penultimate paragraph, noting: “The networked natured of blogs, that one links to another’s content, makes the blunders more accessible to more people across greater ranges of space.” To which I would add, it’s more evidence that all politics is national.