Politics and the Internet - We're Not There Yet

The internet will overtake traditional media in terms of its impact on elections, it just hasn't happened yet.

The netroots impact has been greater in each of the election cycles that you have described.

In the latest example with Ron Paul it took someone with no money and no name recognition from total obscurity to fourth place in percentage of votes cast. At this point he is well ahead of Rudy Giuliani, this cycle's traditional media poster child.

My personal opinion is that unconsciously or not, the traditional media outlets have been resistant to Ron Paul specifically because he has been propelled to the national stage through non-traditional sources, and to acknowledge his success is to acknowledge the impending demise of traditional media's control over the electoral process.

Sent by Joel | 6:19 PM ET | 01-18-2008

You have made a couple of fatal oversights

1. It's not that the internet is ineffectual as a tool in a campaign, it is that the establishment media is ineffectual and actually destructive to public information.

2. It seems that the majority Americans' are idiots. Which is terrifying.

We're being led to the figurative slaughter like cattle, and the media is our leash.

Sent by Jody Sol | 6:36 PM ET | 01-18-2008

First time on and a fascinating view of the subject. I wonder if the title is a take off on Ellison's "Invisible man". I am old enough to have read it in high school. I think the most obvious and overlooked point is the way the blogs on the internet preach to the choir. I just looked at my browser and anyone who saw it would know my politics in a second.

Thanks and I intend to be back.

Sent by Mark Stackhouse | 7:31 AM ET | 01-19-2008

I contribute to three NPR affiliated Public Radio stations and am regular listener to NPR because of in-depth reporting, interesting programs, etc. etc. however regarding Ron Paul NPR is like all the others ---unfair.

I noticed this acutely while listening to a report about the outcome of the Michigan primary. Of course Romney, Huckabee, and McCain where named as they should have been but then as an afterthought the reporter said that she had almost forgotton to mention Thompson WHO PLACED FIFTH AFTER RON PAUL. Of course no mention was made of Ron Paul.

Just now while writing this and listening to the NPR hourly news update the results of the Nevada primary were announced. The reporter said that it was a close race between McCain and Huckabee and that Romney had won easily.

What was not mentioned is that McCain and Huckabee were close for THIRD PLACE; RON PAUL PLACED SECOND but of course no mention was made of him.

Imagine how well Dr. Paul would be doing if he got half as much attention as the other candidates enjoy.

What is the bottom line here? I think there is much more to this that most of us know.

I don't know, you may feel as our dear President Bush; that our conctitution is nothing more than . "a GD piece of paper." In that case, go ahead and think of Snakes on a Plane and throw away the Constitution. You have the right to do that.... Well, you do NOW anyway.

Sent by Capt. Jas | 7:55 PM ET | 01-19-2008

Ron Paul got 14% in Nevada. That's more than either McCain or Huckabee.

Sent by Neil Fazel | 9:09 AM ET | 01-20-2008

Of course Ron Paul just took second place in Nevada, and continues increasing support as time goes along. So I still think he has a long-shot chance. And then there is always that independent run if he doesn't get the Republican nomination.

Sent by Tom Gilleland | 2:11 PM ET | 01-20-2008

Very true about preaching to the choir. However it is intresting that in all of the primary contest the first second and at times third pace finishers are announced. However in Nevada only the first place finisher for the republican party was announced. Who was second place?

I hate conspiracy theories about the main stream media, but I am begining to believe that the "big-boy playing field" does not appreciate the encroachment of the free wheeling internet on its territory.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
~ John Quincy Adams~

Sent by G. Wilhelm | 10:01 AM ET | 01-21-2008

I wonder if Ron Paul would be falling short if the mainstream media actually covered him as something more than an obscure long-shot. After all, he has captured more delegates than former 'front-runner' Rudy Guiliani, but gets only a fraction of the press Rudy still garners.

Sent by Patrick Ferris | 11:28 AM ET | 01-21-2008

My observation is this: Before each party has selected a nominee, the whole thing is supposed to be undecided and wide open to all candidates. And supposedly, all should be getting equal
treatment by the media and given equal time to make themselves known.

Unfortunately, the reality has been that only the "top three" on each side, decided way ahead of time by the media have been given nearly equal time. I have been very unhappy with that. From
what I observed Ron Paul has had to fight for inclusion in presenting his message, and Bill Moyers was one who gave him an opportunity to present himself - that and the debates he was
allowed to fairly participate in. (And he presented himself well.) The same is true for Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich. I have had to see them on shows like Charlie Rose, while the rest of the media mostly ignored them or did their best to.

Also, I don't like the media making assumptions such as Mike Huckabee only appealing to religeous conservatives and Evangelicals. I am neither religeous nor Evangelical, and I like
him too.

The best part about this stage of the race for a new president is that it is wide open, and we have a number of pretty good choices on both sides. (Better than we've had.) It would be really nice if the mass media would register this fact and do its part to allow the public to get to know all of the candidates instead of taking it upon themselves to decide for us which few we should be allowed to hear from. Very limited information does not allow people to make better chioces, and that can be pretty disastrous in the long run.

And this is where the Internet comes in. With it, there is an equal opportunity for all candidates to be heard regardless of their financial or viability status. It's a beautiful thing.

As for myself, because my state moved its Primaries earlier, this is the first time that I will be able to vote an opinion and have it mean something. Usually, its all been long decided.

Sent by Lilly T. | 9:43 PM ET | 01-21-2008

While renewing my PennDot driving license recently just prior to my 50th birthday, I did something that probably caused my father to "roll over in his grave!" I switched political parties from Democrat to Republican. Me, a "die-hard" Democrat ( my Dad was always a conservative Republican ). Why? I'll tell you why! To do as much as I can to support Dr. Ron Paul's run for Chief Executive Officer of the U.S.A. He is the only one running that stricly obeys our U.S. Constitution.

Sent by Ricardo Caruso | 2:53 AM ET | 01-22-2008

I stopped listening to NPR when I realized they are part of the corporate controlled media as well. Their election coverage is skewed to the top tier establishment candidates. They don't ask the questions. They go along with the movie that is being presented to us and titled REALITY...

The internet is the last frontier of TRUTH!

Sent by NWO HUNTER | 9:49 AM ET | 01-22-2008

We all know if Ron Paul got some or any press for that matter he would be a serious front runner. I can not believe the media still talks about Guilliani, he was a Mayor, that it nothing important. A man with no votes! The media in this country is a joke. You get more honest news from Comedy Central.

Sent by Neil | 12:42 PM ET | 01-22-2008

I think there is one last oversight you have made here. And that is young people, and non-voters.

Frankly, we think this whole electoral system is stupid. These individual states, voting for the candidates who will then have a chance of being nominated. It makes no sense except to those indoctrinated into this arcane practice. By the time the two parties candidates have been chosen, we are well aware that they are both unfit for the job.

So someone like Ron Paul, who has A LOT of support (regardless of media coverage) has little chance of surviving the nomination process, simply because we choose not to participate in a ridiculous electoral system.

Sent by Jody Sol | 2:04 PM ET | 01-22-2008

It is totally beyond me and increasingly frustrating why the mainstream media doesn't treat Ron Paul like the great story that he is. I thought journalist lived and died for stories like Ron Paul. The underdog doing better than expected type stories. I don't know what to believe anymore from ABC, NBC, Fox & CBS. It's very dishearting. Where does one go for reliable news?

Sent by amanda farnum | 4:53 PM ET | 01-22-2008

Ron has captured both Money & Hearts in his bid for the presidency. You and your colleagues have shown a fundamental bias against reporting on his budding and building success usually thru the simple act of ommission. I have been a staunch supporter of NPR and Public Television for my entire adult life thinking that you offered an honest view of the news. But, you've lost me with this election cycle. Perhaps, you are afraid that he will cut your budgets, and, that is certainly a possibility, but, the honorable thing would be to cover him and report these views and let the American People decide. NPR has become so much Faux news.

Sent by Todd Chapple | 11:11 PM ET | 01-22-2008

"So someone like Ron Paul, who has A LOT of support (regardless of media coverage) has little chance of surviving the nomination process, simply because we choose not to participate in a ridiculous electoral system."

well, to be fair, if this is how you view the current election process, then you shouldn't be complaining that he's not doing better. not voting simply because you don't like the system isn't going to fix it. if all these Paul supporters who hate the electoral college so much would just vote instead of complaining about the system, they might have a chance at changing it. nobody's going to let you change the rules of the game if you're not playing the game.

Sent by Nate | 8:49 AM ET | 01-23-2008

Hey John,
I think you're mistaken here. You failed to look at the design of the Barack Obama website, which mates social networking and event planning. It's the single reason for the Senator's amazing fund-raising performance. By contrast, no other candidate has such a system.

See http://zennie2005.blogspot.com

Sent by Zenophon Abraham | 9:24 AM ET | 02-10-2008