Some clever “Liberal Party source” thought that the opposition might be galvanised into better e-campaigning through leaking this gem:
Christopher Pyne, Malcolm Turnbull and Joe Hockey were the only senior former Howard government ministers who could use a computer, a Liberal party source said.
Rachel Hills has made some savvy comments on this story (which also provided much comedic fare for the SMH leader writer yesterday.) She argues:
I agree that Howard’s YouTube videos were an abject failure, but I don’t agree that the election was lost online (despite writing a weekly column on the subject throughout the 2007 campaign). That the Libs failed to make much of an impact online was a symptom rather than the cause of their broader out-of-touchness.
I’d add that their other big mistake was their attempt to use YouTube and other social media to manipulate mainstream media coverage, rather than actually sway or engage a target demographic, as I noted a number of times last year in the lead up to the campaign. 14% of the voting population may well be on Facebook, but that doesn’t mean that getting in their Face(book)s is going to provide a magic wand to wish away the Libs’ woes. They might spend their time more profitably reflecting on why their messages and policies don’t engage better with the folks who are in that 14%. But, then, that wouldn’t be the easy way out, would it?
Ps: Here’s the background to the post title, and the image is reproduced from here courtesy of a Creative Commons licence.
I’d argue that the Libs lost because they failed to deliver on election promises, lied about the War in Iraq, the children overboard affair and a series of other incidents, as well as failing to apologise to the Stolen generation, failing to maintain interest rates, failing to hand over leadership, failing to listen to voters and finally annoying the hell out of pretty much everyone.
The internet campaign, with all due respect, was not even remotely relevant.
Hilarious:
I wonder what they think a router is for?
(Lifted from various “inter-tube” sources)
Computer users are divided into three types: novice, intermediate and expert.
Novice Users. Afraid that simply pressing a key might break their computer.
Intermediate Users. Those who don’t know how to fix their computer after they’ve just pressed a key that broke it.
Expert Users. Those who break other people’s computers.
Some terminology/jargon explained for politicians:
CPU–Central Propulsion Unit
Beta software–better software for illiterates
Gigs–internet porn
Hard drive–4WD without functioning shock absorbers
Blog–internet snot
OMGBBQ–Iraqi military report.
Boot ROM version–RM Williams cowboy boots
Desktop Mac–Fast food at work.
I think jj is on to something.
Moreover I have to say that even though Kevin07 was my MySpace friend and I put him in my top 8, I didn’t vote for him.
Oh, ‘router’: When lightning hits the telephone lines, it’s f***ed.
Exactly! It’s not a truck, it’s a series of tubes. Tubes that get blocked when you attempt to stuff outmoded sausage like ideas and policies into it, which then requires a digital enema to free them.
But are Pyne, Hockey and Turnbull the right men to snap on the rubber gloves and perform the task?If those guys are the answer then they are asking the wrong questions.
The funny thing is that when the Libs finally catch up to the “web” we’ll all have moved on in usage both conceptually. literally and probably technically – it’s a fast moving space that demands a serious organisation stay connected to it 24/7, the other assumption is that you can control the message which is of course bollocks, you can only participate in the message, you are just one actor or player in a multifaceted conversation.
True web success comes in letting go. Cynically devising a strategy to reach us will prove useless, they need to participate fully and equally in any online political process with us.
jj forgot the one that’s been in the news this week, the Waterfront Dispute. Quoting the SMH:
“I’d add that their other big mistake was their attempt to use YouTube and other social media to manipulate mainstream media coverage, rather than actually sway or engage a target demographic…”
But of course, the MSM is itself also a target demographic; indeed, it is a demographic with such maddeningly predictable and counterproductive behavior patterns, that it has unwittingly fostered the creation of its own oppositional counterforce, which would be, um… well, us, I guess.
The MSM, rather than acting as an interpreter and researcher illuminating the interactions amongst various interested parties, has itself become an interested party (well it probably always was, but there’s limits), which necessitates that new social organisms arise to fulfull its original (and now largely abandoned) purposes.
the other assumption is that you can control the message which is of course bollocks, you can only participate in the message, you are just one actor or player in a multifaceted conversation.
Well said Phil.
I think China’s just beginning to find that out.
No doubt that the Web was a very marginal influence on th election result. Who can tell, no one measured anything at the time. When Poll Bludger was receiving over 1000 comments per post during the last week, were they all committed voters? Did they influence anyone else? Was the spread of news like Lindsaygate enhanced by informal Web-related networks? Can we just dismiss the impact of Getup?
The political parties were and are still afraid of the Web. The coalition’s internet ineptitude reflected how out of touch they had become across the board. The mass media’s coverage of Kevin07 reinforced that perception. At least the ruddites were not luddites.
Inevitably we will follow the US trends to online electioneering. We will see more CitJ (citizen journalism) and user generated participation in the political processes. The video satire was stunning at times. The power of images online cannot be overestimated.
Anyway it kept some of us off the streets.
I think JJ just about hit the nail on the head. I’d add failing to act on climate change and trying to take advantage of low-paid workers to that list of factors that caused voters to send them packing.
Liberals/Nationals failed to understand that their plans for broadband were to put bluntly ‘too little too late and too slow’. And the media companies knew this, take for example New Corp, they see the internet generating more revenue then their papers in four years time.
There was no way that Media companies would allow their future revenue streams be harmed by a Government or opposition that a policy that would put Australia even further behind the rest of the world.
Agree with JJ, Kevin Tennie and Fozzy. The only internet commentaty I participated on at the time was LP and its links. I had no inclination to watch Howard on You Tube. It was bad enough having him on TV, though I did think the moment of his debate with Keven Rudd on Ch, 9 where hne tried to exceed equal time and the audience booed him him down was one of the highlights for the election for me. Somolatly I didn’t watch any ALP stuff on the net. In fact, not even LP influenced my vote, as I knew how I was going to vote. It was just a delight to talk to people who more or less felt and spoke the same way I did. Still is.
Good article on Blogging here Mark.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/technology/06sweat.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp
Their best electronic punch was a video featuring ear wax. This turned out to be NOT an issue that had much impact on the daily lives of your average Aussie voter.
I’m an intermediate user, but what the hey, isn’t that what computer dudes are for?
And too bloody dear Craig!
There seem to be quite a few people who talk about the influence the internet has on politics as though its just another extension of the mass media, to be lumped in with papers, radio and tv with only a few minor peculiarities in how it operates. They look for the “one big thing”, like a scandal that made the front page on all major newspapers, to prove that the net can have an impact. In a way it does act our this role through official youtube videos, facebook groups, etc but I think the total impact is more subtle and diverse than this.
The internet makes political discussions much more accessible, from something that is a traditional polite conversation taboo into something readily available at the click of a button. The user generated content nature of Web 2.0 will influence politics not only through the impact of popularised content but also through the way it will draw in those seeking to contribute. The increased socialisation through social network sites and blog connections that enable people to be a part of the Lefty Issue “X” Blog or the Bob’s Rightwing Facebook group has the potential to create a sense of ownership or belonging within politics that influences the way people vote. In addition to the social factor, politically biased internet constructs will generate a stream of filtered and pre-spun news that, while individually may have only a small impact, could have a significant impact if totaled across all sites.
That’s sorta my point, Desipis, though I think Phil put it better than me!