The next Presidency has a face, but it isn't listening to you.
On Saturday, President-elect Barack Obama delivered the first of what will become weekly addresses – on YouTube. His first 3 ½ minute address touched on the grim future of the economy and urged Congress to take quick action to kickstart it.
Using YouTube to deliver weekly addresses like this is a great step forward. More people are likely to watch these addresses if they're sitting on the front page of YouTube – a site they likely already visit – rather than on that dusty, boring other site: WhiteHouse.gov.
But Obama's first address is missing out on the most important feature of YouTube: interaction. Comments and ratings are not allowed on the video, and video responses cannot be posted. By barring interaction with his addresses, Obama is using YouTube more like a buzzword rather than a new type of openness.
Members of his “transition team” have been treating policies like the weekly YouTube addresses as great leaps forward in transparency, under the assumption that when people hear earnest, frequent messages from the government, they will trust it more.
Well, it worked for FDR.
The last time a president made such a radical shift in the way he communicated with the public was during the first term of Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he began a series of informal evening radio addresses – the fireside chats.
Obama's promised weekly addresses have already drawn many comparisons to Roosevelt's, and with good reason. The first of Roosevelt's fireside chats started, “I want to talk for a few minutes with the people of the United States about banking . . .”
That was 1933, and the country was buried in economic turmoil. Now, as the country again faces deep economic problems, Obama is hoping to use a similar approach to communicate with the public, but there's a problem – Obama is using a 1933 approach to a 2008 medium.
Roosevelt's fireside chats were over the radio. Radios only work one way. Obama's weekly addresses will be broadcast around the world via YouTube. YouTube is a social media website – it is at its best when videos are accompanied by thoughtful comments and intelligent response videos.
But wait – that's not the YouTube you or I know. The real-world YouTube is full of trolls, comments begging for viewers to take a peek at someone else's video, and responses luring viewers to unrelated videos with screenshots of plump, barely covered breasts.
Maybe there just aren't enough people in the “transition team” to filter out all the noise created by the more juvenile members of YouTube. Maybe Obama doesn't want his weekly addresses to be bombarded with video responses that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. That's only natural, right?
Well, there's only one way to find out – and so far, the team behind Change.gov seems willing to dip its toe into the waters of new media, but it's not ready for the full plunge into – (gasp!) – allowing comments.
Obama has always been a master of controlling his message and not allowing too much open conversation, according to Chris Parsons, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. He told NPR that a perfect example of this was Obama's carefully prepared response to the fiery remarks of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
"Part of the power of it, I think, was that he hadn't spoken to that issue over and over again, every time a reporter showed up with a microphone," Parsons told NPR. "He saved it for a moment where he could craft it and tell it in his way, without being interrupted or filtered."
Obama is a powerful orator, and waiting for the right moment to speak allows his words to have maximum effect on all of us. But without embracing the true strengths of Web 2.0 technologies and encouraging open dialogue, Obama is simply continuing age-old strategies for delivering a message down a one-way pipeline.
Mr. President-elect, we need dialogue. It's 2008 – we don't need a 1933 message in HD. We need a message that will spur conversation and debate – the kinds of debate that should be shaping your policies to begin with.
6 comments:
Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google) is on the Obama transition team. Tonight on one of the talking head shows he said viewers could comment and even rate the Obama messages. I sent him email saying viewers can't. I'll let you know if he responds.
Haha send him a link to my column!
Maybe they're planning on changing it for future addresses or something. That'd be fine by me.
Cody! Well done column! I kind of understand why comments and interaction through YouTube would be a problem. If they opened up those gates, we would see a flood of those troll people and other nonsense messages. But I also understand how someone like you, who is interested in YouTube, who is a smart and interested participant in these kind of forums, would like to see that happen. :)
FIRST!
Lawl, 0b@ma syvkz.
STFU, NUB.
- these are the overwhelming majority of comments that every Youtube video gets. And lord knows that something as popular as a weekly Obama videoblog would get hundreds - if not thousands - of them. Sifting through all that garbage might be a bit much just to search for the nuggets of honest-to-god commentary on our President's feelings.
But that being said, I would dig it if he allowed video responses to his stuff - since Trolls don't usually pick up a webcam to do their vile deeds.
And, as for things pertinent to the writing of the blog, I felt it smoothly ran through each paragraph....
and you linked my site in the e-mail, which boosts your rating by 20 stars...
that is, if they had star ratings on this.
I agree with David. I guess a way for people to comment on the issues talked about on his videos is to go to Change.gov and fill out the "Share your vision" or "Share your story" forms there (but do a lot of people know about that?).
yeah that is wack.. response are usually filled with play-hungry non-sense but they can actually use the comments to their advantage
Post a Comment