ad info




CNN.com
 MAIN PAGE
 WORLD
 ASIANOW
 U.S.
 LOCAL
 POLITICS
 WEATHER
 BUSINESS
 SPORTS
 TECHNOLOGY
   computing
   personal technology
   space
 NATURE
 ENTERTAINMENT
 BOOKS
 TRAVEL
 FOOD
 HEALTH
 STYLE
 IN-DEPTH

 custom news
 Headline News brief
 daily almanac
 CNN networks
 CNN programs
 on-air transcripts
 news quiz

  CNN WEB SITES:
CNN Websites
 TIME INC. SITES:
 MORE SERVICES:
 video on demand
 video archive
 audio on demand
 news email services
 free email accounts
 desktop headlines
 pointcast
 pagenet

 DISCUSSION:
 message boards
 chat
 feedback

 SITE GUIDES:
 help
 contents
 search

 FASTER ACCESS:
 europe
 japan

 WEB SERVICES:
COMPUTING

From...
Industry Standard

Will Net politics explode in 2000?

September 24, 1999
Web posted at: 11:08 a.m. EDT (1508 GMT)

by Jacob Weisberg

(IDG) -- The last time a new medium transformed American politics was 1960. The medium was, of course, television, and the signal event was the Kennedy-Nixon presidential debate, the first to be broadcast live to a national audience. Radio listeners polled afterward gave the victory to Nixon. But Kennedy won the debate – and arguably the election – because he came off better on television. Kennedy looked cooler, more confident, and more handsome. He knew something Nixon didn't – how to project oneself through the new technology. In office, JFK took further advantage of the medium, using television to shape the public perception of his administration. After press conferences, he would replay his films in private, critiquing the lighting and camera angles.

It is already a cliche that the 2000 election signals the advent of another new medium: the Internet. As is often the case with the Web, predictions of dominance come in two flavors: utopian and apocalyptic. Utopians think the Net has the power to undo the damage television has wrought upon American politics. In their view, the Net will increase the power of ideas and diminish the importance of 30-second attack ads. It will reduce the power of money. It will disenfranchise unelected elites and give democratic power back to the people. Doom-and-gloomsters, on the other hand, assert just the opposite. They say the Net will reduce genuine participation, threaten personal privacy and lend itself to new forms of manipulation by amoral operatives and moneyed interests.

My prediction: This election will be more important to the Net than the Net will be to the election. Just as 1960 conferred legitimacy on TV journalism, Campaign 2000 promises to put the Net on the political map. It's less likely, though, that the Net will actually affect the campaign. In terms of the TV analogy, 2000 may be 1956 or 1948 rather than 1960. Television existed during those elections, and it was spreading rapidly into millions of homes. For a variety of reasons, though, it had yet to become decisive.

MORE COMPUTING INTELLIGENCE
IDG.net   IDG.net home page
  Industry Standard home page
  Industry Standard email newsletters
  Industry Standard daily Media Grok
  Industry Standard financial news
 Reviews & in-depth info at IDG.net
  IDG.net's personal news page
  Year 2000 World
  Questions about computers? Let IDG.net's editors help you
  Subscribe to IDG.net's free daily newsletter for computer industry cognoscenti
  Search IDG.net in 12 languages
 News Radio
 * Fusion audio primers
 * Computerworld Minute
   

So, how can we know how important the Web is this time around? Only by casting a skeptical eye on the ambitious claims being made on its behalf in order to evaluate them against reality. Slate and The Industry Standard have joined forces for a continuing real-time examination of the 2000 campaign as it happens on the Web. In this column, we'll follow the topic where it takes us. But to start out, here are some of the subjects "Net Election" is likely to consider and reconsider over the next 14 months.

Net Fund Raising

One way those goofy candidate Web sites can quickly establish their value is by raising gobs of money. So far, they've helped a bit. According to its most recent filing with the Federal Election Commission, Bill Bradley's campaign so far has received $330,000 from its Web site. That's only about 3 percent of what Bradley has collected overall. Nonetheless, Bradley and his rivals may come to prefer Web money to other kinds. One reason for that is that the cost of raising money on the Net is very low compared with that of sending out direct mail or throwing a gala. A Web site is basically an electronic collection plate; it consumes few of a candidate's resources. For this reason, Net-based political fund-raising is destined to grow – probably about as quickly as other forms of e-commerce.

Web fund-raising may also point the way toward campaign finance reform. Last week, George W. Bush's campaign initiated a practice that will surely become the norm: declaring contributions immediately online, instead of waiting for quarterly FEC deadlines. You could do worse than the system of campaign finance that is evolving on the Web, where contributions limited to the less-than-influential amount of $1,000 – approximately one-50,000th of what Bush has raised so far – are immediately disclosed. To be sure, we still have the problem of the many-times-larger soft-money donations. But thanks to the Web, it's at least easy to discover which special interests are supporting which candidates. The best disclosure site, FECInfo, puts at everyone's fingertips information that used to require trips to the FEC office in Washington and hours of poring over microfiche.

Net Organizing

Another advantage of Web contributions is that they often come with a promise of volunteer time. The grass-roots group MoveOn.org, which was formed last year to oppose the impeachment of President Clinton, quickly gathered pledges of $13 million and 500,000 signatures on a petition, just by pinging e-mail back and forth. What's more, 30,000 people pledged 750,000 hours of volunteer time to defeat pro-impeachment legislators in the 2000 election. You can't trust politician-haters, but if the volunteers live up to their promises, they stand to become significant factors in the contest for control of the House.

Republicans targeted for defeat may harness the same techniques in self-defense. The Senate campaign of New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani reports that he has already signed up 11,000 volunteers on the twin Web sites RudyYes.com and HillaryNo.com. Those with little inclination to hand out leaflets at rainy commuter stations at rush hour can become "e-volunteers." By using the Web in this way, a campaign can drum up grass-roots support. Steve Forbes' Internet guru, Rick Segal, tried to work the Iowa straw poll this way. He set up a national e-mail tree designed to get people to send their friends in Iowa to Ames as Forbes supporters. How great an effect it had is hard to say; Forbes placed second in the contest.

Net Advertising

Like Net fund-raising, Net advertising isn't about to replace the older method (i.e., television) overnight – if ever. But it is certain to grow as a share of the total. TV ads are dumb, both in the sense that they tend to be crudely demagogic appeals, and in the sense that they can't target segments of the electorate with any degree of accuracy. Web advertising is smart, in the sense that it can be far more detailed and specific and because it can reach a target with surgical precision. Already, Vice President Al Gore has plans to focus on sites oriented toward women. Steve Forbes intends to advertise on day-trading and investment sites, where people who might vote for him are likely to be found. One possibility is that these ads will develop into a new form of micro-pandering, but the process will be interesting no matter where it leads. Techniques and conventions that will come to seem eternal and inevitable will actually be invented in the coming months.

Net Issues

In 1998, several congressional candidates campaigned against Internet pornography – an issue of greater interest to people offline than to those online. This time, you're more likely to hear candidates vowing to protect electronic privacy or block taxes on e-commerce. One way to gauge the importance of the Web in 2000 is to watch how seriously candidates take the Net's own special-interest issues. What we have yet to see, but can expect fairly soon, are politicians who fit the computer industry's political profile. Internet politics are basically soft libertarian-liberal on social issues, anti-tax, and anti-regulation (but pro-environment and pro-gun control). The tech industry's dream candidate would combine Bill Bradley's views on abortion, gay rights, and guns with Steve Forbes' dedication to lowering taxes. That person doesn't seem to be running in this campaign, but he or she may emerge in the course of it (possibly occupying the body of a current candidate expressing somewhat different views).

Net Coverage

The campaign news cycle has grown shorter with each successive election.

Thanks to the Web, it may be entirely repealed in 2000. These days, everyone has a Web site, and an established news organization can drop an election-transforming scoop into the mix at any hour of the day or night, just as Matt Drudge can. And candidates won't have much luck with the traditional stratagem of dampening a story by waiting to respond until after the evening news deadlines. Rapid response will become more rapid than ever, with several volleys being fired in the course of a campaign day.

There's a lot more that we intend to chew over here, including Web voting, Net gossip, and cybersquatting. Perhaps the most interesting question will be the extent to which the 2000 campaign will happen in cyberspace as well as in meat space. One role model may be Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, who integrated the real and the virtual to an impressive degree in his Web-savvy 1998 campaign. Ventura organized his original effort by e-mail, tracked his bus tour with digital pictures, and encouraged a lively bulletin board discussion of it. To a considerable degree, his Web site was where his third-party campaign actually happened. As bandwidth increases, more candidates will be able to bypass the press by producing C-SPAN-style coverage of their own races. Whether anyone will watch is another question.


RELATED STORIES:
Presidential candidates flunk online-privacy test
September 7, 1999
Utah Republican Party offers Internet access to donors
August 20, 1999
Make electronic democracy work with email
August 4, 1999

RELATED IDG.net STORIES:
Washington's Strategists Spin the Web
(The Industry Standard)
Bush Campaign Parries Net Attacks
(PC World Online)
Jesse Ventura and the Politics of IT
(Civic.com)
Washington Tackles Internet Law
(PC World Online)
Year 2000 World
(IDG.net)
Note: Pages will open in a new browser window
External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.

RELATED SITES:
HillaryNo.com
RudyYes.com
Note: Pages will open in a new browser window
External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.
 LATEST HEADLINES:
SEARCH CNN.com
Enter keyword(s)   go    help

Back to the top   © 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.