In The Blogs

YouTube

| Tue Aug. 26, 2008 9:52 AM PDT

YOUTUBE....Jason Zengerle on John McCain's recent spate of attack ads:

Eve asks whether the McCain campaign will release a new Hillary ad every day this week. Of course it will — so long as we in the media keep linking to the ads and doing news segments about them on TV. I'd love to know from our readers in these "key battleground states" where the ads are supposed to air whether they've actually seen any of them on TV, other than the times they've seen reports about them on CNN and Fox and MSNBC.

I'll go a little further. The majority of these "YouTube ads" are designed solely to get media attention, not to be seriously used as part of the campaign. If they were podcasts, or blog posts, or flyers, or email blasts, the media would ignore them if their purpose were so transparent. I mean, who cares about a flyer produced in small quantities and handed out only to the media?

But if it's video, it's news! I couldn't really say why, aside from the fact that the media is convinced that YouTube is a transformative election medium even though there's precious little evidence to back this up. So I'd say this: cable news stations need to stop being played for suckers. Unless a campaign says it's committed to a serious ad buy for the video in question, it's time to quit playing the game. Wise up and treat 'em the same way you treat attack email blasts.

Continues Below

Continued From Above

Comments

Submitted by cleek (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 10:01 AM PDT.

Wise up and treat 'em the same way you treat attack email blasts.

they are

Submitted by mb (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 10:27 AM PDT.

Kev--the problem with your blog format isn't so much the whiteness. It is the lack of any separation of the three columns (such as boxes or color change like WaMo). The eye doesn't quite know when to start and stop reading when moving from left to right, then back across to the left. Also, I prefer serif fonts but that is not universal. I understand that MoJo has a standard format, but I seriously think you will lose potential readership on this issue alone. Please talk to the MoJo web monkeys about this. PLEASE!

Submitted by jerry (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 10:36 AM PDT.

I think you're 3/4ths correct, but if a youtube video gets major hits (and yes media exposure may drive that) well it IS important.

Don't most major blogs have circulation that is greater than the news "magazines?"

I get 99% of my news off the web, and a significant bit of that is from YouTube videos. This is one reason I think Dramatic Chipmunk would make for a good political video.

Submitted by Kyle (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 10:37 AM PDT.

Cable news runs stories about the ads because the ads are fun and take up airtime. The ads aren't news; they're content.

McCain's people are smart enough to know that any cable channel is in the content business, no matter what the channel's label says.

Submitted by robert (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 10:55 AM PDT.

This summer I heard Republicans complain that Barack Obama was getting more media coverage than John McCain. This mau-mauing by Republicans of the media always seems to work.

I see more Republican ads played for free than Democratic ads.

Submitted by owenz (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 10:58 AM PDT.

"I mean, who cares about a flyer produced in small quantities and handed out only to the media? ... But if it's video, it's news! I couldn't really say why ... "

Because the television medium is driven by moving images with sound that we call "video."

This has been another addition of simple answers to simple questions.

Submitted by Steve in Sacto (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 11:36 AM PDT.

Or the Dems/Obama could, you know, do the same thing and exploit the opportunity for free media message delivery...

...of course, that would require political messaging professionals capable of conceiving bold, clever ads with hooks that attract/capture the attention of free media. Err, never mind...

Submitted by bob in fla (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 11:41 AM PDT.

"So I'd say this: cable news stations need to stop being played for suckers. Unless a campaign says it's committed to a serious ad buy for the video in question, it's time to quit playing the game. Wise up and treat 'em the same way you treat attack email blasts."

It isn't the media being played for suckers; it's us. What else would you expect of a media whose CEOs & Boards of Directors are made up of mostly Republicans? Of corse they are going to save their candidate's money by running his ads for free as news.

Duh...

Submitted by John McCain (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 12:17 PM PDT.

My friends, "the media" is owned by big corporations who, in turn, are owned by my real friends, rich people. I'll be your next president because my real friends want it that way. God Bless America!

Submitted by Ranger Jay (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 12:56 PM PDT.

McSame's crew are not stupid. They can spew out videos at record pace (it costs little with a decent computer and source footage), and to get them on the air, all they have to do is put up on YouTube.

To put an ad "on the air" would cost a pretty penny if they had to buy air time. This way, they get the best of both worlds. They can always say, "Well, we can't be responsible for every little video out there that's pro-McCain." All the while, the constant negative chatter is getting louder in the background.

Quite clever actually. Surely you don't think that this is gonna stop any time soon? They probably haven't even pulled out the big guns, yet.

It's gonna get a lot nastier, you can be sure.

Submitted by CJ Cregg (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 12:57 PM PDT.

Steve in Sacto: I would rather we not encourage more of the same. Aren't we just saying then "We hate the GOP tactics. Let's do the same thing, though, since they are getting press." I'd much rather we try Kevin's idea first.

Submitted by jrw (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 2:12 PM PDT.

"...cable news stations need to stop being played for suckers..." As long as we're stuck with 24/7 television news channels, there will be this insatiable maw to be fed. And when it can be fed cheap, easy-to-cover, novelty stories, it'll snap them up. Cats in trees, tornadoes, house fires, attack ads...it's all content that doesn't require any thought, effort or real money. They've got 24 hours to fill every day and they'll fit it with something.

Submitted by Steve in Sacto (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 2:31 PM PDT.

CJ: No, actually I think Kevin's idea -- that we lobby for and hope the media stop giving free media to McCain's ads -- is naive and silly. While we're sitting around playing nice and 'doing the right thing,' hoping for the media to act responsibly (ha!), McCain will continue hammering out new attacks every day.

Frankly, and I mean no disrespect to you personally CJ, it's high-minded crap like this that makes me think we deserve to lose.

...Adding, McCain's discovered that sensational, 30-second sound bite ads/video clips get more media attention -- it's better TV, better for ratings and easier for lazy reporters -- than campaign rallies and town halls. They're feeding the press compelling, usable video/content for free. They're exploiting the opportunity as a way to drive their message and control the dialog. It's clever and smart -- and it's working for them. I'd rather be clever, smart and win, than be right and lose.

Submitted by Royko (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 3:31 PM PDT.

There's one other aspect to this. The ads also let the pundits talk about what the pundits (annoyingly) want to talk about -- in this case, the drama of Hillary.

They play along because they need to fill that 24 hour news cycle, and if a tantalizingly juicy ad pops up, so much the better.

It's expensive and difficult to report real news and insightful commentary. It's cheap and easy to gossip about prefab stories with nice tasty video provided by interested parties. Of course they go with the latter.

Submitted by Royko (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 3:50 PM PDT.

OT -

Kevin, I know you're probably sick about comments complaining about the new site design, but can you talk to MJ about tweaking it a bit? (Personally, I think their whole site could use a design review. It's not bad, but magazine-like sprawl doesn't work so well online.)

The "Leave a comment" button annoys me, because it's more prominent than anything else in the posts, and you've already got a comment link. Tone it down or make the post titles bigger. And I don't see any advantage of having post titles twice, once as a link and the second in bold. I'd prefer borders between the columns, but if they won't go for that, more padding would help. I don't like the ad after the first post, but that might be a financial reality we just have to live with. But having "Recent comments" after the first post and at the bottom isn't much help. Can't that go at the side?

Just get them to tone it down a little. I'm trying to read here! It's just too busy. If they don't change it, I'm going to have to finally try using an RSS reader.

Also, can we get an email link? I'd rather email you my complaints (or the web designer. Or MJ) rather than muck up your comment threads.

Anyway, see what you can do. You have a good eye for this sort of thing and you're even more crotchety than I am. I'm sure over the next few months you and us commenters can whip Mother Jones into shape.

Submitted by joeis (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 5:52 PM PDT.

+1 for Kyle.
The videos are cheap, as in free, content.

I'm with many others in asking for a site redesign. We deserve it and so do you.

Submitted by Grumpy (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 6:26 PM PDT.

This is hardly new. The "Daisy" ad aired exactly once during the 1965 campaign, and it's one of the most famous political TV ads ever.

Submitted by Grumpy (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 6:27 PM PDT.

Er, 1964 campaign.

Submitted by CJ Cregg (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 7:44 PM PDT.

Yes, naive. I get that a lot. When Howard Dean calls me to ask my opinion on what the party should do, I'll try to be more realistic. In the meantime, can we work on a solution that doesn't reduce the Dems to the addled ideas McCain has?