Print 56 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Jan 28 at 4:46 PM

President Obama plans to use YouTube, Twitter, email, and texts to organize his supporters to push legislation and get public feedback. Some are fearful that his efforts will create a government-controlled news channel, which will supplant independent journalism, though.  (Source: YouTube)
Obama tries to create a direct news network to citizens, but is it overreaching?

President Barack Obama, once a community organizer, swayed the public largely via a heavily funded grass-roots campaign, which saw tremendous presence on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and other online outlets.

Now as he begins to push many ambitious and challenging legislative initiatives, he's turning to these same internet outlets, retooling from election mode into a means of garnering public support.  In doing so he's setting an archetype likely to be followed by Presidents and policy makers to come.

The new group, Organizing for America, housed at the Democratic National Committee, (rather than the White House) will help Obama direct his campaigns.  It will communicate with an army of volunteers and supporters via text message, email, and internet sites.

The move in some ways echoes President Bush's numerous public addresses and news conferences, which saw him trying to skip by the press and take his message directly to the people.  Likewise, President Obama plans to try to skip the media, while delivering his message directly to the public, albeit via a more high tech mode.

Where past Presidents recorded a weekly radio address, President Obama records a weekly YouTube video.  The videos are also posted to the White House website.  His video last week discussing the bailout package garnered 600,000 hits in a single day.

One major obstacle that President Obama faces in communicating via the internet is restrictions on his list of 13 million supporters' email addresses, which he previously compiled.  He is unable to use this list, due to restrictions on such data compiled for political (election-related) purposes.  The DNC is starting from scratch a new list, which will be valid as it’s created solely to help convey President Obama's message.  To help jump start it, the DNC has been allowed by law to email a message to the previous listing inviting them to join the new list.

The organizers, determination, vigor, and a solid plan face big challenges in accomplishing their goals of reaching the masses via technology.  Describes David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager and one of the organizers of this effort, "This has obviously never been undertaken before.  So it’s going to be a little trial and error."

That might be an understatement, considering the group has yet to feature a fully developed website, reach funding agreements with the DNC, and start its own fund-raising.  One thing the organization does have going for it is a clever reference to the name of his former campaign organization with the organization's initials, O.F.A., conveniently also applying to the prior Obama for America campaign.

As well as organizational challenges, President Obama's organizers face division within his own party.  Some in Congress fear that he will use the new organization as a means to lobby the public to pressure members of Congress on legislation.  Mr. Plouffe tries to mollify these critics, stating, "This is not a political campaign.  This is not a ‘call or e-mail your member of Congress’ organization."

Rather he and President Obama view the organization as a two-way street, to both offer information on the President's message, and to get feedback from the public on issues.

Some see the new efforts as a result of a public DIY spirit when it comes to journalism.  Says Macon Phillips, the “new media” director for Mr. Obama’s administration, "Historically the media has been able to draw out a lot of information and characterize it for people.  And there’s a growing appetite from people to do it themselves."

However, others in the journalistic community, on both sides of the political aisle, are fearful that the new initiative is an attempt to create a government-controlled news outlet to supplant independent news outlets, and further that it could indeed succeed in doing so.  Bill Kovach, the chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, "They’re beginning to create their own journalism, their own description of events of the day, but it’s not an independent voice making that description.  It’s troublesome until we know how it’s going to be used and the degree to which it can be used on behalf of the people, and not on behalf of only one point of view."

Thus the organizational, social, and political challenges have only just begun as President Obama tries to continue to use the internet to further his message.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: what?
By therealnickdanger on 1/28/2009 9:39:38 AM , Rating: 2
Don't be fooled, Pelosi is running our government right now, not Obama...

RE: what?
By mdogs444 on 1/28/2009 9:42:52 AM , Rating: 2
Pelosi is running our government right now

That's even scarier. $300M in contraceptives to states to help boost the economy! C'mon Nancy, don't think we see through this?

And while she wants Gitmo closed, lets send those terrorist to San Francisco and see how she likes it?

RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 9:46:47 AM , Rating: 2
Glad to see you caught yesterday's "talking points"

RE: what?
By mdogs444 on 1/28/2009 10:10:47 AM , Rating: 1
These have been known for over 7 days now. If you just found this out yesterday...then I think you need to catch up a bit libby...

RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 10:44:04 AM , Rating: 4
Sorry, my bad.

I haven't had time to watch Fox News or listen to Rush as of late. You know how it goes... been busy forcing people into homosexual marriages, abortions, subverting the economy and burning American flags all while defecating on pictures of GWB and jesus as I smoke pot.

Yeah, us crazy libertarians... hardly any time to get my head filled with propaganda as of late.

RE: what?
By Dreifort on 1/28/2009 10:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
It wasn't covered by Rush or Fox.

RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 10:55:47 AM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't know.

Which story are we talking about here, the Pelosi crusade against bastard children or the Obama letting terrorists loose in the heartland (and likely arming them as well).

RE: what?
By Dreifort on 1/28/2009 11:25:47 AM , Rating: 3
Pelosi crusade.

RE: what?
By Suntan on 1/28/2009 10:59:30 AM , Rating: 2
I heard about it the other day from reading an article on a subsidiary of CNN.

In any case, what does it matter where the news came from? If it is factual, that is what matters.


RE: what?
By Moishe on 1/28/2009 11:33:12 AM , Rating: 5
I see how it is... someone says "hey what about..." and it's gotta be slanted and wrong?

No thanks.
I read daily and I've seen some pretty good data on what the bailout bill provides funds for. Some of it is absolutely absurd and it's chock full of earmarks and pork. This from the President who is *supposedly* against pork and earmarks.

But I realize that by me reading and thinking for myself and actually wanting more information... well I'm just a righty who hates Obama. God-forbid I question where my money is going. God-forbid I ask the elected officials to be accountable for their actions and their spending.

What we need is more informed citizens who will ask for the data and question the power grabs and political tactics of our government.

If you're supporting this enormous government growth and loss of private sector... don't call yourself a libertarian.

RE: what?
By MrBungle123 on 1/28/2009 11:38:00 AM , Rating: 2
+1 Moishe, I would love to vote you up but unfortunately I posted already.

RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 11:40:04 AM , Rating: 1
Yep, I totally said that I support the bailout, enormous federal growth, and loss of private sector. I totally said all of that...

RE: what?
By Moishe on 1/28/2009 11:45:46 AM , Rating: 3
Don't play dumb. Every post you've made in this thread makes fun of others who either oppose or question the bailout bill.

You don't have to explicitly say you agree with it. Why not have a logical debate instead of throwing rocks? What about this bailout bill is good and how can you answer the questions that we have that are based on facts?

This is how adults debate.

RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 11:58:29 AM , Rating: 2
Aren't adults also supposed to possess at least elementary reading comprehension skills? How can any adult debate you when you won't be able to understand the meaning of their posts?

I said nothing about the bailout, and I happen to think it was a terrible idea when Bush did it, and it is a terrible idea now. I was merely commenting on how some people think that Obama is going to release terrorists in the US .

As I said earlier, there are a lot of REAL things to criticize Obama for, so why make up things to criticize him about?

RE: what?
By Moishe on 1/28/2009 12:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
OK I'll bite.
"...except sign a document that could release a 100 or so terrorist bent on blowing up the US." -Dreifort

He didn't say "releasing into" the U.S. at all.

What are the possibilities for the Gitmo closing?
1.) Prisoners incarcerated inside the U.S. (not released)
2.) Released to their home country (in which case many will return to terrorism bent on blowing up the U.S.)
3.) Place them into another prison outside the U.S.

Obama isn't stupid. I honestly don't believe you can even get into the Presidential office without some reasonable amount of smarts. On the other hand, this Gitmo closing action looks like a PR move without serious thought for what will happen after it's close, which just happens to be the most important thing to think about.

RE: what?
By sgw2n5 on 1/28/2009 12:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
No need to "bite", I'm not trolling.

And yes, you are correct, Dreifort did not say that Obama was going to release them into the US, that was bunghole123.

I agree that Obama closing Gitmo was a PR move, pure and simple. I also think that there isn't a chance in hell that any of the terrorists will live out their lives outside of a jail cell.

RE: what?
By Moishe on 1/28/2009 12:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ahhh I see that post... and actually he has a good point.

IF the detainees are put into U.S. prisons with U.S. rights they could easily (maybe likely) get released into the U.S.

So... based on his reasoning, I think he's god a point. If this happens though it wouldn't be directly the fault of the Obama administration because the judge, jury, lawyers, etc would be the ones making the decision to let these guys out and the decision on where they are placed when then get out.

Frankly, I think we have enough of a problem with regular illegal aliens without importing the ones who fought against us in a war. These people should be shipped back home IF they get out. They fought and they should deal with the consequences.

RE: what?
By Screwballl on 1/28/2009 10:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
Time to open up and use Alcatraz again!

"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki