YouTube and the election

[Bootstrap]

I've been fascinated by the role that YouTube has been playing in this election.

In the old days, it took a lot of work to read up on what candidates were saying, to compare what they said one day with what they said on another day, or to compare what they said with their opponents. Carefully edited YouTube clips and shows like The Daily Show make all of this much more accessible to a broader audience - is still mostly politic wonks who watch this stuff?

At the same time, careful editing can be very misleading, taking quotes out of context, focusing on what is silly and mundane without showing the core of what was said on a given occasion, or inserting content from the editor as though it had something to do with the candidate who is being portrayed.

How is this changing the way we perceive our candidates?

Are there good guidelines for knowing when we should trust what a YouTube clip portrays?

Jonathan

 

[Staccato]

I've been fascinated by the role that YouTube has been playing in this election.

In the old days, it took a lot of work to read up on what candidates were saying, to compare what they said one day with what they said on another day, or to compare what they said with their opponents. Carefully edited YouTube clips and shows like The Daily Show make all of this much more accessible to a broader audience - is still mostly politic wonks who watch this stuff?

At the same time, careful editing can be very misleading, taking quotes out of context, focusing on what is silly and mundane without showing the core of what was said on a given occasion, or inserting content from the editor as though it had something to do with the candidate who is being portrayed.

How is this changing the way we perceive our candidates?

Are there good guidelines for knowing when we should trust what a YouTube clip portrays?

Jonathan

Most of the YouTube videos that get posted on this site are so edited and sewn together that even Dr Frankenstein would be proud. I take anything that they say with a pinch of salt, no matter how initially convincing they might be. They tend to be robbed of context and outside explanation, relying on quotemines or dramatic text overlays to tell us how we should be feeling.

So yeah, I personally don't have much time for them, although I know others think differently. All I think they've done is encourage the promulgation of mud-slinging, not enable people to engage with the issues.

 

[joebudda]

The internet and sites like youtube give people a way to see news that otherwise would be suppressed by the main stream media.

Because the main stream media dictates what is "news" from the top. The internet allows what is news to bubble up from a grassroots level. And don't think for a second that the main stream media doesn't manipulate by editing, taking quotes out of context, ignoring, and flat out lies. There is countless examples that the main stream media can't be trusted.

Without the internet the 3rd party candidates might as well not even exist. And if anyone has paid any attention to Ron Paul during this run knows the main stream media does indeed manipulate by editing, taking quotes out of context, ignoring, and flat out lies, to use an example that is both recent and blatant. Or how many people really know about the "3rd convention" that when on last week?

Yes you will find disingenuousness on the internet as well. But don't forget that the main stream media is nothing more then a propaganda machine today that doesn't do much real "investigative reporting" anymore, favoring parroting "press releases" from the governments and corporations and treating it as "gospel". The best "investigative reporting" can really only been found on the internet by independent reporters.

 

[Staccato]

I'm in the UK at the moment, the country that has the Daily Mail as one of its most read newspapers. Believe me, I for one am labouring under no delusions when it comes to recognising the existence of inaccuracies and flat out lies in the media. Whilst watching the news I'm sometimes a bit shocked at the fact that some of the people behind the scenes simply haven't done their homework. One news report claimed that Sarah Palin was currently a member of that Alaskan Independence Party or whatever the storm in a teacup was called. If I hadn't known better, I might have actually believed them, and no doubt others actually did.

But still, the MSM has to report on a veneer of the truth, whilst videos on the internet are under no such obligation. So yes, treat everything with skepticism but if I'm inclined to believe the MSM more as opposed to shopped-up YouTube videos you'll have to forgive me