<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Spencer Overton's blog</title>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/spencer_overton"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/1946/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/1946/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2007-04-05T08:59:15-04:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>Obama &quot;New Hampshire at War&quot; Video</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/8976/obama_new_hampshire_at_war_video" />
    <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/8976/obama_new_hampshire_at_war_video</id>
    <published>2007-10-03T20:21:59-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-10-03T20:31:16-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Spencer Overton</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Iraq" />
    <category term="Local politics" />
    <category term="Obama" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Increasingly, new tools are empowering local "amateur" campaign staffers to produce quality content centered around local people.</p>
<p><embed src="http://services.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/353515028" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=1222916893&amp;playerId=353515028&amp;viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://services.brightcove.com/services/amfgateway&amp;servicesURL=http://services.brightcove.com/services&amp;cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&amp;domain=embed&amp;autoStart=false&amp;" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Upfront disclosure—I'm supporting Barack.  I'm familiar with a variety of things the campaign does online, but I was particularly interested in a nine-minute video featuring Iraq veterans from New Hampshire.  </p>
<p><embed src="http://services.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/353515028" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=1222916893&amp;playerId=353515028&amp;viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://services.brightcove.com/services/amfgateway&amp;servicesURL=http://services.brightcove.com/services&amp;cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&amp;domain=embed&amp;autoStart=false&amp;" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></p>
<p>The video, "New Hampshire at War," starts with Will Dumukes, an Air Force Sergeant from Newbury, New Hampshire, who talks about his service in Afganistan in the aftermath of 9/11, the success of missions against terrorism there, and then the shift to Iraq.  Senator Obama appears about a minute into the video for about 20 seconds, but the bulk of the first seven minutes focuses squarely on New Hampshire military people, who talk about the problems with shifting from Afghanistan to Iraq, as they lived and experienced it.  The last two minutes focus on Senator Obama's opposition to the Iraq War, with testimony from the New Hampshire military members about their confidence in Senator Obama's judgment. </p>
<p>We talk a lot about how new tools empower individuals like Phil de Vellis to create and distribute videos that have a national impact, like the 1984 video.  Perhaps a more subtle but significant phenomenon is illustrated by the Obama "New Hampshire at War" video:  new tools enable local arms of campaigns to grapple with important issues in a very local way at minimal expense.  The video looks professional, but was created by local campaign staffers.  This video is the <a href="http://nh.barackobama.com">latest in a series</a> of videos created by New Hampshire staff featuring local voters.  </p>
<p>Increasingly, new tools are empowering local "amateur" campaign staffers to produce and distribute quality, local content centered on real people. </p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>YearlyKos and Voting Rights</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/4427/yearlykos_and_voting_rights" />
    <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/4427/yearlykos_and_voting_rights</id>
    <published>2007-08-03T06:42:35-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-08-03T06:42:35-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Spencer Overton</name>
    </author>
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>I'm happy that the YearlyKos folks have made a place at the table for voting rights.  Donna Brazile, the NAACP LDF's Debo Adegbile, the Brennan Center's Justin Levitt, TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt, and I will be on the "Ensuring Every Vote is Counted" panel at 4 pm today (Friday), in 100a-c.  I'll also be peddling my book <a href="http://www.stealingdemocracy.com"> Stealing Democracy:  The New Politics of Voter Suppression</a> from 2-2:30 in the bookstall at S 103.</p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>I'm happy that the YearlyKos folks have made a place at the table for voting rights.  Donna Brazile, the NAACP LDF's Debo Adegbile, the Brennan Center's Justin Levitt, TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt, and I will be on the "Ensuring Every Vote is Counted" panel at 4 pm today (Friday), in 100a-c.  I'll also be peddling my book <a href="http://www.stealingdemocracy.com"> Stealing Democracy:  The New Politics of Voter Suppression</a> from 2-2:30 in the bookstall at S 103.</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>YouTube VIII:  Race</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3576/youtube_viii_race" />
    <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3576/youtube_viii_race</id>
    <published>2007-07-23T21:17:32-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-07-23T21:18:09-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Spencer Overton</name>
    </author>
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>A significant number of questioners were people of color and/or addressed issues of race and class, and I was pleasantly surprised.  Perhaps because of the digital divide, one might have assumed that this debate would have overlooked issues critical to people of color.  That was not the case.</p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>A significant number of questioners were people of color and/or addressed issues of race and class, and I was pleasantly surprised.  Perhaps because of the digital divide, one might have assumed that this debate would have overlooked issues critical to people of color.  That was not the case.</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>YouTube VII: Powerful Health Care Questions</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3575/youtube_vii_powerful_health_care_questions" />
    <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3575/youtube_vii_powerful_health_care_questions</id>
    <published>2007-07-23T20:56:38-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-07-23T21:02:57-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Spencer Overton</name>
    </author>
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>The health care videos were an outstanding and meaningful use of the YouTube debate medium.  The health care videos showed that this medium is not just a gimmick--but can add nuance and substance to dry policy debates.  The health care questions alone would have made this debate, and suggest that videos posted online should be at least one component of every debate.</p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>The health care videos were an outstanding and meaningful use of the YouTube debate medium.  The health care videos showed that this medium is not just a gimmick--but can add nuance and substance to dry policy debates.  The health care questions alone would have made this debate, and suggest that videos posted online should be at least one component of every debate.</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>YouTube VI: Talking to the questioner</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3574/youtube_vi_talking_to_the_questioner" />
    <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3574/youtube_vi_talking_to_the_questioner</id>
    <published>2007-07-23T20:31:41-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-07-23T20:33:26-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Spencer Overton</name>
    </author>
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>When Hillary Clinton and other candidates look at the screen and say "Thank You XXXX, for the question," I'm split.  On one hand, these are not live feeds, and it seems a bit artificial to talk back to the screen.  Would any of us talk to the screen at home after watching a YouTube video?   On the other hand, talking to the screen errs on the side of being respectful, and unlike those of us at home these candidates are watching videos of people who are probably watching the candidates on CNN.  What is the proper protocol in this new context?</p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>When Hillary Clinton and other candidates look at the screen and say "Thank You XXXX, for the question," I'm split.  On one hand, these are not live feeds, and it seems a bit artificial to talk back to the screen.  Would any of us talk to the screen at home after watching a YouTube video?   On the other hand, talking to the screen errs on the side of being respectful, and unlike those of us at home these candidates are watching videos of people who are probably watching the candidates on CNN.  What is the proper protocol in this new context?</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>YouTube V: May Allow for &quot;Cleaner&quot; Citizen Participation</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3573/youtube_v_may_allow_for_cleaner_citizen_participation" />
    <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3573/youtube_v_may_allow_for_cleaner_citizen_participation</id>
    <published>2007-07-23T20:10:21-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-07-23T21:50:13-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Spencer Overton</name>
    </author>
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>The gentleman with military flags from funerals of relatives used the medium in a powerful way. </p>
<p>On another note, a YouTube debate may be "cleaner" than a townhall debate with audience questions.  Citizens who submit questions on YouTube do so in a comfortable area (often home), and can edit or reshoot their clips if they make mistakes.  It is also possible that YouTube questioners are less intimidated by the celebrity of the candidates than live questioners.  </p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>The gentleman with military flags from funerals of relatives used the medium in a powerful way. </p>
<p>On another note, a YouTube debate may be "cleaner" than a townhall debate with audience questions.  Citizens who submit questions on YouTube do so in a comfortable area (often home), and can edit or reshoot their clips if they make mistakes.  It is also possible that YouTube questioners are less intimidated by the celebrity of the candidates than live questioners.     </p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>YouTube IV: Network Control, Candidate Unease</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3572/youtube_iv_network_control_candidate_unease" />
    <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3572/youtube_iv_network_control_candidate_unease</id>
    <published>2007-07-23T20:02:45-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-07-23T21:50:58-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Spencer Overton</name>
    </author>
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Two quick observations:</p>
<p>1)  More control by networks:  Open Source politics is about more control for average people, and less control for traditional "gatekeepers."  I wonder, however, if this format actually gives gatekeepers more control because producers get to pre-select questions among a library of 3000 questions.  Granted, producers don't write the questions.  But this debate, arguably, allows for more gatekeeper control than a townhall debate in which questions are asked by audience members.     </p>
<p>2)  Unease of candidates:  A debate, I would imagine, is never easy for a candidate, because the candidate doesn't know what will happen, and what comments other candidates will make that require a response.  That unease is good because it probably leads to some honesty.  The new YouTube debate format probably prevented the candidates from knowing exactly what to to expect, which may have allowed for a little more unease.  The question is whether more truth came out, or if the unease caused candidates to lean on talking points even more.   </p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Two quick observations:</p>
<p>1)  More control by networks:  Open Source politics is about more control for average people, and less control for traditional "gatekeepers."  I wonder, however, if this format actually gives gatekeepers more control because producers get to pre-select questions among a library of 3000 questions.  Granted, producers don't write the questions.  But this debate, arguably, allows for more gatekeeper control than a townhall debate in which questions are asked by audience members.     </p>
<p>2)  Unease of candidates:  A debate, I would imagine, is never easy for a candidate, because the candidate doesn't know what will happen, and what comments other candidates will make that require a response.  That unease is good because it probably leads to some honesty.  The new YouTube debate format probably prevented the candidates from knowing exactly what to to expect, which may have allowed for a little more unease.  The question is whether more truth came out, or if the unease caused candidates to lean on talking points even more.   </p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>YouTube III: Taking Advantage of the Medium</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3571/youtube_iii_taking_advantage_of_the_medium" />
    <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3571/youtube_iii_taking_advantage_of_the_medium</id>
    <published>2007-07-23T19:45:44-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-07-23T21:49:05-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Spencer Overton</name>
    </author>
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>A question about Africa featuring African children is perhaps the first question that takes advantage of the medium--when you have to face an image of a person whose life is directly shaped by the policy.  </p>
<p>On another issue, I'm watching on a big screen television, and the debate camera pans up to a large screen, about one-sixth of which is the YouTube screen.  I can read the detail on the YouTube screen.  I wonder if someone on a smaller television set can pick up the YouTube screen details.  Perhaps CNN is opting for the smaller screen so as to dim any resolution/quality issues of the smaller image.  </p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>A question about Africa featuring African children is perhaps the first question that takes advantage of the medium--when you have to face an image of a person whose life is directly shaped by the policy.  </p>
<p>On another issue, I'm watching on a big screen television, and the debate camera pans up to a large screen, about one-sixth of which is the YouTube screen.  I can read the detail on the YouTube screen.  I wonder if someone on a smaller television set can pick up the YouTube screen details.  Perhaps CNN is opting for the smaller screen so as to dim any resolution/quality issues of the smaller image.</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Live Blogging II: Failed In-Person Follow Up</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3570/live_blogging_ii_failed_in_person_follow_up" />
    <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3570/live_blogging_ii_failed_in_person_follow_up</id>
    <published>2007-07-23T19:38:59-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-07-23T21:48:17-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Spencer Overton</name>
    </author>
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>The pastor shows up!  The pastor featured in one of the questions was actually in the audience, and was asked whether John Edwards answered his question.  Unfortunately, the pastor didn't do the best follow up (he said he didn't hear all of Edwards's answer).  However, having the questioner show up to speak is a neat way to make up for the lack of follow up that is inherent in YouTube postings. </p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>The pastor shows up!  The pastor featured in one of the questions was actually in the audience, and was asked whether John Edwards answered his question.  Unfortunately, the pastor didn't do the best follow up (he said he didn't hear all of Edwards's answer).  However, having the questioner show up to speak is a neat way to make up for the lack of follow up that is inherent in YouTube postings. </p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>YouTube Debate: Live Blogging Entry 1</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3569/youtube_debate_live_blogging_entry_1" />
    <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/3569/youtube_debate_live_blogging_entry_1</id>
    <published>2007-07-23T19:31:59-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-07-23T20:40:12-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Spencer Overton</name>
    </author>
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>I'm not in SC--but in front of my TV.  I'm surprised that CNN/YouTube chose videos that seem rather typical--they don't seem to take full advantage of the medium (e.g., people asking questions about Katrina from NOLA).  Granted, the lesbian couple asking about marriage and the African American man asking about reparations are interesting.  The Anderson Cooper followups are valuable, and make up for the limitations of the medium (the inability to ask follow ups).   </p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>I'm not in SC--but in front of my TV.  I'm surprised that CNN/YouTube chose videos that seem rather typical--they don't seem to take full advantage of the medium (e.g., people asking questions about Katrina from NOLA).  Granted, the lesbian couple asking about marriage and the African American man asking about reparations are interesting.  The Anderson Cooper followups are valuable, and make up for the limitations of the medium (the inability to ask follow ups).   </p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>A Significant Development for the Blackroots</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/300/a_significant_development_for_the_blackroots" />
    <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/300/a_significant_development_for_the_blackroots</id>
    <published>2007-05-01T12:21:03-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-05-03T17:28:46-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Spencer Overton</name>
    </author>
    <category term="cbc" />
    <category term="colorofchange" />
    <category term="fox" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>The past couple of months have produced a significant development among Black blogs.&nbsp; Many are working together to challenge conventional Black leadership.&nbsp;</p>
<p>With <a href="http://colorofchange.org/cbci/index.html">ColorOfChange.org</a>&rsquo;s James Rucker as a catalyst, several Black blogs have opposed the Congressional Black Caucus Institute&rsquo;s decision to partner with Fox News to air a Democratic Presidential Debate, which is scheduled to be held in CBC Chair&rsquo;s hometown of Detroit (my hometown as well).&nbsp;</p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p><em>[Cross-posted at <a href="http://www.blackprof.com/archives/2007/05/a_significant_development_for.html">blackprof.com</a>]</em></p>
<p>The past couple of months have produced a significant development among Black blogs.&nbsp; Many are working together to challenge conventional Black leadership.&nbsp;
<p><img src="http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/fox_news-753140.jpg" border="0" alt=" " hspace="5" vspace="5" width="190" height="150" align="right" />With <a href="http://colorofchange.org/cbci/index.html">ColorOfChange.org</a>&rsquo;s James Rucker as a catalyst, several Black blogs have opposed the Congressional Black Caucus Institute&rsquo;s decision to partner with Fox News to air a Democratic Presidential Debate, which is scheduled to be held in CBC Chair&rsquo;s hometown of Detroit (my hometown as well).&nbsp;</p>
<p>The CBCI has not fared well.&nbsp; Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have dropped out of the CBC/Fox debate.&nbsp; The DNC has denounced the CBC/Fox debate.&nbsp;&nbsp;Several CBC Members have articulated their opposition to the debate.&nbsp; Tavis Smiley has announced his own presidential debates on PBS that give the presidential candidates an opportunity to address issues of importance to people of color.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>This collaborative project of Black blogs may not seem big, but it is powerful for a number of reasons.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>
<p><strong><img src="http://www.newyorkpress.com/images/sharpton_al_headshot.jpg" border="0" alt=" " hspace="5" vspace="5" width="200" height="156" align="right" />1)&nbsp; A Generational Shift:&nbsp; </strong>While the &ldquo;grassroots&rdquo; are romanticized, in the past couple of decades Black politics has been hierarchical and limited by orthodoxy that constrains debate.&nbsp; An MLK/Malcolm model has defined the leadership styles and political philosophy of Black elected officials, non-elected figures like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, organizations like the NAACP, and neo-Black Nationalist commentators and figures.&nbsp; Those not with the program essentially had the option of becoming Black Republicans.&nbsp; Older Black folks often complain about complacent black youth who don&rsquo;t vote, march, or otherwise live up to their model.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>Black blogs offer not only an opportunity to break from old orthodoxy, but to do so in a way that is flatter, and allows for more engagement through comments from readers (which are often more provocative than the posts). &nbsp;Younger people are creating their own innovative models on sites like <a href="http://store.uppitynegro.com/imge.html">Uppity Negro</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>While the older generations purport to &ldquo;teach&rdquo; activism to younger generations, the Blackroots is developing its own original &ldquo;Post-Soul&rdquo; voice (as Prof. Eddie Glaude may say).&nbsp; As <a href="http://www.thesuperspade.com/fox-news-sets-debates-with-congressional-black-caucus-institute/">Superspade</a> has noted, </p>
<p>&ldquo;I don&rsquo;t think the explicit bias of Fox News is in line with the mission of the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, which if you are wondering, &lsquo;is to provide political education and training to the next generation of African American leadership&rsquo;...&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>2)&nbsp; Transparency that Holds Black Elected Officials More Accountable:</strong>&nbsp; Many Black folks know the feeling of humiliation and opportunism, and don&rsquo;t like to unnecessarily embarrass other Black folks, especially in front of White folks.&nbsp;&nbsp; We&rsquo;re especially suspicious of the &ldquo;House Negro&rdquo; mentality of some Black folks who try to opportunistically constrain other Black folks, and we don&rsquo;t want to be used as tools to &ldquo;knock down&rdquo; a black person who has accomplished something.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>
<p>At the same time, however, we need transparency, honesty, and accountability in our politics.&nbsp; There needs to be space for alternative voices&mdash;for someone to break the silence and say what everyone is thinking.&nbsp; Many of these people are our heroes&mdash;we admire them, their courage, and their personal sacrifices.&nbsp; We don&rsquo;t mean to insult or disrespect them.&nbsp; But to the extent that they choose to remain in public life as black leaders, their decisions are subject to critical and good faith analysis, especially by the people they purport to represent.&nbsp; </p>
<p><img src="http://www.notablebiographies.com/images/uewb_02_img0097.jpg" border="0" alt=" " hspace="5" vspace="5" width="150" height="184" align="right" />This is nothing new.&nbsp; During the 1960s, Julian Bond and John Lewis had different opinions and approaches than established civil rights leaders.&nbsp; In younger generations (and I mean that not primarily in age, but in ideological mindset), the Blackroots is providing a platform for transparency and good faith analysis to occur.&nbsp; </p>
<p><a href="http://www.afro-netizen.com/2007/04/is_jesse_jackso.html">Afro-Netizen</a> and <a href="ttp://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/04/jesse-jackson-flip-flops-on-cbcfox.html">Jack &amp; Jill Politics</a>, for example, separately criticized Jesse Jackson for speaking out against the Fox/CBC debate, and then deferring to the CBC the next week.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/03/cbc-makes-wrong-choice-on-fox-debates.html">Jack&nbsp;&amp; Jill Politics</a>&nbsp;disclosed to its audience that from 2003 to 2005, Fox News gave the CBC Foundation between $47,000 and $99,000, with 2006 numbers unavailable.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Blackroots movement on the Fox/CBC Issue has also exposed the potential of Black blogs.&nbsp; As <a href="http://www.afro-netizen.com/2007/04/fox_attacks_oba.html">Afro-Netizen</a> noted:<img src="http://image1.frappr.com/pics3/i/20051121/2/e/4/2e4ed27a1296c30810bc4a3b35814c430_small.jpg" border="0" alt=" " hspace="5" vspace="5" width="100" height="100" align="right" />&quot;<br />
<blockquote>Do these folks know what the &#3<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netroots">netroots</a> is? Do they think it&#39;s just made up of by young, white college-educated geeks far removed from their own congressional districts? Do they know that the vast majority of Black voters who elected them are accounted for in the much larger population of African Americans who regularly access the Internet, <a href="http://www.internetretailer.com/dailyNews.asp?id=16675">approximately 20 million strong</a>? Will they come to understand that the Black netroots community is presently a slumbering giant who, it seems, only the likes of a Fox News Channel can begin to awaken? &nbsp;</p>
<p>Need we remind any indifferent CBC member that incumbency is a privilege, not a right, as the November elections should have made quite clear to all -- but especially to the arrogant, out-of-step and complacent?&quot;&nbsp; </p></blockquote></p>
<p><strong><img src="http://opengardensblog.futuretext.com/archives/networkeffect.bmp" border="0" alt=" " hspace="5" vspace="5" width="175" height="181" align="right" />3)&nbsp; The Power of Collaboration:&nbsp; </strong>Despite the interactive and collaborative nature of the Internet, many Black blogs have remained relatively autonomous.&nbsp; We&rsquo;ve provided links to occassional posts on other sites and included other black blog sites on our blogrolls, but our interaction has been limited, at least with regard to action.&nbsp; And autonomy is important&mdash;the wisdom of crowds comes not through parroting, but through autonomous decisionmaking.&nbsp; And we all have different interests.&nbsp; But the CBC/Fox Issue is an important step in the evolution of network effects&mdash;the power of a broad, flat, and well-connected blackosphere.&nbsp;<br />
a</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>The Case Against Detailed Candidate Platforms on Websites</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/282/the_case_against_detailed_candidate_platforms_on_websites" />
    <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/282/the_case_against_detailed_candidate_platforms_on_websites</id>
    <published>2007-04-24T08:14:35-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-04-24T08:14:35-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Spencer Overton</name>
    </author>
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Why don't candidates articulate detailed platforms on the web?  Platforms put forth by candidates are very top-down.  At best, they are based on the thoughts of a handful of experts, and "the people" vote up or down all of the issues collectively when they select a candidate at the polls.  Detailed platforms don't harbor the collaborative intelligence of the populace as a whole, and they don't engage people very deeply in solving our nation's problems.  The model of the stereotypical paternal figure who comes up with four or five "ideas" and has the confidence to convince voters that he can solve the nation's problems might be coming to an end.  It is very possible that the "new candidate" will build the network that allows people to work together to solve hundreds of the nation's detailed problems, and do so in a very niche, Long Tail way.  The new candidate might not be Schwinn Bikes . . . she might be eBay.</p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Alan Rosenblatt and Tom Belford have blogged about the lack of ideas on candidate websites.  I agree with them that substance is important, and that sites should not simply be a tool to raise money.   I would also agree that we don't want the next election to be based on pure personality.  We want substance and ideas.</p>
<p>In developing this a bit more, I think that sites should serve as a "platform" for voters interested in the candidate to discuss and work through issues, rather than a traditional "platform" that merely describes a politician's prefabricated opinions.</p>
<p>We preach about open source politics, and the fact that the Net allows for a new type of non-hierarchical network that harnesses collaborative intelligence.  But traditional platforms put forth by candidates are very top-down.  At best, they are based on the thoughts of a handful of experts, and "the people" vote up or down all of the issues collectively when they select a candidate at the polls.<br />
Detailed traditional platforms don't harbor the collaborative intelligence of the populace as a whole, and they don't engage people very deeply in solving this nation's problems.  Further, the world will change dramatically over the next 18 months and over the next 9.5 years, and do we really want a traditional platform that seems to limit our thought, rather than a more flexible conversation that allows us to evolve to address emerging problems?</p>
<p>Obviously, these concerns about traditional platforms should not serve as an excuse for a lack of rigor or thought by the candidate.  But the model of the stereotypical paternal figure who comes up with four or five "ideas" and has the confidence to convince voters that he can solve the nation's problems might be coming to an end.  It is very possible that the "new candidate" will build the network that allows people to work together to solve an array of the nation's detailed problems, and do so in a very niche, Long Tail way.  The new candidate might not be Schwinn Bikes, she might be eBay.  It may not happen instantaneously in 2008, but I think we will eventually move in that direction.</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>The &quot;Grassroots&quot; Money Race</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/263/the_grassroots_money_race" />
    <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/263/the_grassroots_money_race</id>
    <published>2007-04-17T09:41:35-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-04-18T10:23:04-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Spencer Overton</name>
    </author>
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Smaller contributors look more like America.  One study showed that American households earning under $100,000 make up 86.6% of the general population, account for 66.1% of contributions of $200 or less, but give only 14.3% of contributions over $200.</p>
<p><strong>Grassroots Fundraising in 1st Quarter 2007</strong><br />
 (amount of money received from $200 or less contributions)</p>
<p>$5.77 M -- Obama (D)<br />
$2.54 M -- McCain (R)<br />
$2.27 M -- Clinton (D)<br />
$2.04 M -- Edwards (D)<br />
$1.23 M -- Romney (R)<br />
$1.09 M -- Guiliani (R)<br />
$0.92 M -- Tancredo (R)<br />
$0.75 M -- Brownback (R)<br />
$0.60 M -- Richardson (D)<br />
$0.25 M -- Kucinich (D) 	</p>
<p>Obama raised 22% of his funds from contributors of $200 or less, McCain 19%, Edwards 15%, Clinton 9%, Guiliani 7%, and Romney 6%.  </p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>There's been a lot of discussion about the term "Internet Fundraising."  Many assume—perhaps based on past elections—that money raised on the Internet is somehow more reflective of the general public as a whole.  </p>
<p>But the online world changes quickly, and other variables may exist.  Some cost-conscious small donors may opt for an offline check to avoid online processing fees.  Barack Obama has likely attracted first-time contributors from diverse backgrounds to the process, and we don't know the extent to which these participants are giving online (indeed, the digital divide may mean that the much of the true "grassroots" giving is offline).  And regardless of the vehicle of soliciting or submitting the money, most of us would agree that flatter, retail engagement that encourages friends to give and be a part of a movement (personalized telephone calls, conversations, notes, or emails) is preferable to wholesale, generic, hierarchical solicitation from the campaign (telemarketing calls, generic form bulk snail mail or email).</p>
<p>I agree with those who define "grassroots" fundraising as the funds that a candidate receives from smaller contributions of $200 or less.  </p>
<p>The resources that a campaign collects from smaller contributors is important because smaller contributions are much more likely to reflect the economic diversity of America.  A study from the 2000 election showed that American households earning less than $100,000 made up 86.6% of the general population.  This group accounted for 66.1% of contributions of $200 or less, but for only 14.3% of the contributions over $200.</p>
<p>Grassroots fundraising is also an important marker because it may be reflective of: a) the amount of popular support a candidate enjoys among the electorate as a whole (not just upper income people); and/or b) the number of people who are vested in a campaign and are willing to be active in the future (e.g., organize events, raise and contribute additional money).  </p>
<p><strong>Grassroots Fundraising in 1st Quarter 2007</strong><br />
(amount of money received from $200 or less contributions, from candidates who raised at least $100,000 from small contributors)</p>
<p>$5.77 M -- Obama (D)<br />
$2.54 M -- McCain (R)<br />
$2.27 M -- Clinton (D)<br />
$2.04 M -- Edwards (D)<br />
$1.23 M -- Romney (R)<br />
$1.09 M -- Guiliani (R)<br />
$0.92 M -- Tancredo (R)<br />
$0.75 M -- Brownback (R)<br />
$0.60 M -- Richardson (D)<br />
$0.25 M -- Kucinich (D) 	</p>
<p>A few interesting notes . . . </p>
<p>*Of the top tier candidates, Obama raised 22% of his funds from contributors of $200 or less, McCain 19%, Edwards 15%, Clinton 9%, Guiliani 7%, and Romney 6%. </p>
<p>*Conventional wisdom is that the first quarter was a fundraising failure for McCain because he raised only $14.8 M total.  But McCain beat all but one candidate (Obama) in the amount raised and percentage of money raised from contributors of $200 or less--people who are most likely to reflect the economic status of most Americans.  In essence, pundits are suggesting that McCain's presidential campaign may be doomed (which may become a self-fulfilling prophecy) because he has not spent enough time reaching out, organizing, and appealing to wealthier, $1000+ donors.</p>
<p>*Many of the Republican candidates outside of the top tier received a large percentage of their funds from contributors of $200 or less:  Tancredo 78%, Brownback 61%, and Paul 39%.</p>
<p>*Of the Democratic candidates outside of the top tier, Kucinich raised 68% of his funds from contributors at $200 or less, while Biden was only at 4% and Dodd at 2%.</p>
<p>*A study of the 2000 election showed that American households earning more than $100,000 made up 13.4% of the general population, but accounted for 92.6% of $1000 contributions (in 2002 the maximum contribution limit was raised from $1000 to $2000 and an inflationary adjustment was added, so that in the 2007-08 cycle the limit is $2300).</p>
<p>*Of the top tier candidates in the first quarter 2007, Romney raised 89% of his money from contributors of $1000 or more, Guiliani 87%, Clinton 86%, Edwards 77%, McCain 74%, and Obama 68%. </p>
<p>Much more detailed analysis of this data is available at the <a href="http://www.cfinst.org/president/Q1_SummaryTable.pdf">Campaign Finance Institute</a>.</p>
<p>The benefits to democracy of increasing the number and percentage of smaller contributions relative to larger contributions are detailed in my University of Pennsylvania Law Review Article <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=569021">The Donor Class</a>.</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Black Political Bloggers Study</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/248/black_political_bloggers_study" />
    <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/248/black_political_bloggers_study</id>
    <published>2007-04-12T11:55:17-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-04-12T11:56:36-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Spencer Overton</name>
    </author>
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>A Brown University scholar, Antoinette Pole, has completed a study of black bloggers.  She estimates that less than 1 percent of political bloggers are black, but found that authors often use blogs for political mobilization.  A summary is <a href="http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2006-07/06-130.html">here</a>, and the full study ($8.25 from an academic journal) is <a href="http://ijt.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.42/prod.261">here</a>. </p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>A Brown University scholar, Antoinette Pole, has completed a study of black bloggers.  She estimates that less than 1 percent of political bloggers are black, but found that authors often use blogs for political mobilization.  A summary is <a href="http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2006-07/06-130.html">here</a>, and the full study ($8.25 from an academic journal) is <a href="http://ijt.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.42/prod.261">here</a>. </p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>The Shortcomings of Traditional Media in Covering Presidential Politics</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/221/the_shortcomings_of_traditional_media_in_covering_presidential_politics" />
    <id>http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/221/the_shortcomings_of_traditional_media_in_covering_presidential_politics</id>
    <published>2007-04-05T07:52:47-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-04-05T08:59:15-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Spencer Overton</name>
    </author>
    <category term="fundraising" />
    <category term="primaries" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Much has been said about the inaccuracies of blogs, Wikipedia, and other forms of collaborative intelligence.  But traditional centralized institutions also have shortcomings.  Earlier this week, for example, many traditional corporate media outlets suggested that Hillary Clinton was the fundraising leader without having complete information.  And mainstream media has been more than twice as likely to cover the Iowa and New Hampshire contests as to cover the South Carolina and Nevada contests.</p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Much has been said about the inaccuracies of blogs, Wikipedia, and other forms of collaborative intelligence.  But traditional centralized institutions also have shortcomings.  For example, a <a href=" http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html">Nature magazine</a> story reported that Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica are almost equally inaccurate.</p>
<p>We see similar shortcomings in coverage of the presidential race by centralized, conventional media outlets.  I'll give two illustrations.</p>
<p><strong>Presidential Fundraising Coverage</strong>:  On Monday, April 2, 2007 the Washington Post ran a headline entitled, <a href=" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/01/AR2007040101143.html">"Clinton Shatters Record for Fundraising,"</a> and described her totals as "record-setting."  On Wednesday morning, April 4, American Public Media’s Marketplace (heard on many NPR stations) listed several candidates' totals so far, and reported Obama at $20 million (the <a href="http://marketplace.publicradio.org/am.html">7:50 am show</a>, at 6:26 into the program).  Other traditional outlets made similar assumptions.  Granted, many traditional media outlets noted that Obama had not released his numbers when they reported these stories (Marketplace failed to do so), and now many outlets are reporting that Obama may have raised over $25 million from twice as many people as Clinton without accepting money from lobbyists, and that his contributions for the primary may be higher than Clinton's.  But Monday, April 2, the media didn't have the information to make sweeping claims.    </p>
<p><strong>Presidential Primary Coverage</strong>:  Iowa and New Hampshire have led the schedule in past elections, but Nevada and South Carolina were added for 2008 to allow the schedule to better reflect the diversity of America.  The new states have about the same number of delegates up for grabs as the old states (in 2004 NV &amp; SC collectively had 69 delegates, and Iowa and NH had 67).  The new states have also been integrated into the schedule.  The new order is Iowa (1/14/08), Nevada (1/19), New Hampshire (1/22), South Carolina (1/29), and the "window opens" and other states may have contests (2/5).  </p>
<p>But the traditional, centralized media seems to give much greater attention to the traditional states of Iowa and New Hampshire.  I did a search in the "All News" Lexis/Nexis database for the name of the state and “(Edwards and Obama and Clinton) or (Giuliani and McCain and Romney) and date aft 12/31/06 and date bef 4/1/07.”   The traditional states collectively had over twice as many stories as the new states (Iowa turned up in 2735 stories, New Hampshire 1947, South Carolina 1239, and Nevada 812).  </p>
<p>I understand that the coverage disparity might not be caused exclusively by complacent, traditional campaign reporters who don't feel the need to look beyond their 2004 Rolodex of people, places, and political factions in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Indeed, the schedules of the candidates could be facilitating the coverage disparity.  But we've got a chicken-and-egg problem.  The candidates are going to go to the states they think will be covered by the national media.  </p>
<p>I'm not saying that reporters should stop covering Iowa and New Hampshire, and I'm not suggesting that reporters are intentionally discriminating against Nevada and South Carolina (or Southerners, Westerners, African Americans, or Latinos).  And as an Obama supporter and a former member of the presidential primary commission that initiated the promotion of South Carolina and Nevada to the beginning of the schedule, I probably pay attention to these issues more than most Americans. </p>
<p>But it is important that traditional, centralized media outlets consiously make efforts to cover the money game and the primary process fairly and accurately.  The money game and the early primary states both carry the potential for information cascades.  In other words, primary contributors and voters around the nation base their opinions, in part, on the success of the candidates in fundraising cycles and in the early primary states.  Perception of "success" is still largely framed by the traditional, centralized media.    </p>
<p>Granted, centralized media outlets (as well as doctors and other professionals) are squeezed by corporate owners to cut costs, which can sometimes conflict with high professional standards.  I also understand that traditional centralized media feel the competitive pressures of decentralized entities like blogs and You Tube that have minimal overhead and provide instantaneous, 24-hour, comprehensive, and customized "Long Tail" information.  </p>
<p>But centralized media undermines its own future if it publishes misleading stories, relies not on facts but on conventional assumptions and information cascades (monkey see, monkey print), and props up status quo political forces.  </p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
</feed>
