He writes:
"Fascinating back-and-forth over Mitt Romney’s positions happening in YouTube. First came a video from a 1994 debate between Romney and Ted Kennedy in which Romney issues a number of positions that are different from those he holds today on abortion and gays. Now Romney appears on the Glenn and Helen Show, the Instapundit podcast, to say that he has changed his mind on those issues, that he was “wrong” in ‘94. The Romney campaign taped him talking on the phone G & H and put it up on YouTube. (See also a CBSNews.com story here.) This is amazing on so many levels: YouTube allows an opponent to find a candidate’s words and play them again. But Romney chose to use podcasts and YouTube to respond. And big media has to pick that up."
What do I think will be the next step here in terms of political messaging?
- War rooms will become expert at finding inconsistencies and getting them YouTubed;
- Inconsistencies will be torqued and played with by selective clipping;
- So many inconsistencies will be found and so many will be torqued that voters will become confused by them, immunized against them, and possibly more apathetic than before (if that's possible)
- Services like the excellent Annenberg Political Factcheck will become even more indispensable for media and voters alike.
_____________________________________________
UPDATE, January 13: David All has blogged in detail (and commented below) on some of the questions and issues that this whole topic brings up. I think this is part of the key tactical advice that the political communications types need to be thinking of :
I imagine most campaigns will address YouTube videos on an individual basis, determine if a response is needed, and go from there. But it doesn’t hurt to dream up a few videos that the other side will sling at you....Capture a few taped responses now based on possible hits. Timing and a prompt response are more important than getting the message perfect. At worst, you’ll never use the footage. At best, you’ll have a response that only needs minor editing.
Excellent advice_________________________________________
On a related topic: why hasn't anyone in Canada come up with a maple-leaf version of Factcheck? God knows I've moaned about how we need one for long enough...
Ciao,Bob.
2 comments:
Hey Bob -
Greetings from Washington, DC.
I saw Jarvis' link to your blog and I wanted to point out five points that I blogged for US Presidential campaigns to think about immediately which I thought you'd find interesting:
1. Which YouTube videos will we respond to?
2. Will the candidate respond directly every time? Will we use a spokesblogger? Will we take the original video and edit it with “fact check” type frames to discredit the video?
3. How can we develop our own team of tech-savvy supporters who are probably better at this stuff than we are?
4. Will we embrace our modern task-force of volunteers and ask them to create a video responding to the clip?
5. Who is monitoring and helping “bury” unsavory digg, reddit, and del.icio.us links which would draw attention to the attack?
Stay warm,
David
there are many political videos being posted on youtube as well as on motiono
Post a Comment