At the beginning of Kreiss’s piece his made a few points that I had already touched on in a few of my previous posts, which was quite encouraging to read. Kreiss says that social media did provide votes, in 2008, with more opportunities to get involved in the election. He also said that these platforms also allowed candidates to better target particular groups. However, Kreiss takes his research further and looks at indirect communication methods. These type of communication can be characterized by bloggers who communicate between the campaign itself and the voters. They make up what Kreiss calls the “networked public sphere” which is a digital public space.
Allison Slotnick opens up her piece in a similar way, by pointing out the fact that web offers interactivity and therefore, an “unprecedented opportunity” to connect with voters. Slotnick then goes on to focus on the proper use of the media. She says that use should authentic, which is hard to do because of the skeptical generation that lives online. Slotnick also pointed out that after the Dean campaign candidates became worried about relying so heavily on the internet. However, Kreiss’s discussion of Obama’s efforts on the internet show that candidates have since lost this sense of worry. The Obama campaign purposely targeted progressive bloggers and looked to build their network online. I assert that candidates have learned from the mistakes that candidates have made in the past, like Dean, but they now know that they need to embrace the internet in order to win any election.
Traffic is now larger online than it is for broadcast TV outlets. Candidates know they need to succeed online, so they do things like give bloggers informational exclusives. Concentration of coverage continues to build online. With a big shift of coverage now being concentrated online I wonder what traditional media like TV offers that the internet mediums do not. Why do we still need broadcast media? What advantages does this medium have over the internet?