What's the Meta?

It always amuses me when the main stream media tries to get a handle on the internet and blogs because they almost invariably get it wrong. Either the press denigrates netizens as wild-eyed, rabid lambs (or hawks) or it whines about the power now being wielded by those rank amateurs who get to publish the wildest stories with foul language and without editors or fact checkers. An article in today's on-line edition of the Los Angeles Times tends to fall into the latter category.

Ostensibly about Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's use of the web to announce their presidential candidacies, the article then seems to veer towards the notion that the internet is now a prime focus in electioneering.

Clinton's online declaration that she is forming a presidential exploratory committee came less than a week after similar news delivered online by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill).

It also follows even more elaborate use of the Internet by the third major presidential contender in the Democratic ranks, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. ...

The Internet's power both to make and break politicians has been vividly demonstrated in recent years.

...Barely a factor in campaigning 11 years ago when Clinton's husband won reelection as president, the Internet has become an integral part of the political landscape, with every major candidate fielding a website and seeking to create a virtual community around his — or her — campaign.

But with the recent advent of YouTube and other video-sharing sites, analysts said the most intriguing aspect of the evolving use of the Web may be as part of an immense game of political "gotcha," in which campaigns seek to catch opposing candidates off-guard and off-message, as happened to Allen.

Yes, Howard Dean showed how using the internet to raise funds quickly added a new dimension to campaigning, and, yes, video of Senator Allen's "Macaca" incident played a huge role in his defeat. However, the internet is nothing more than a tool, albeit potentially a very powerful one.

Millions of people have access to the internet and candidate's web sites, but many millions of people don't have that access, or, if they do, don't use the internet to inform themselves about the election. A blog reader in Iowa might decide to send a campaign contribution to a candidate in Pennsylvania, but that Iowan can't actually vote for the Pennsylvania candidate. Candidates still have to show up in the flesh and talk to voters and still have to field an effective team of campaign workers to get people to actually vote.

Having a web site with all sorts of bells and whistles may help a candidate, but if that candidate's record is filled with all sorts of inconsistencies or sell-out votes, that web site won't help. Perhaps the main stream press might consider that part of the equation and do their jobs.