Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Sunday December 07 2014, @03:43AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the 140-chair-actors dept.

On 30 August 2012, Hollywood star Clint Eastwood took the stage to lambast President Obama. What ensued was an odd, 11-minute monologue where Eastwood conversed with an empty chair upon which an imaginary Barack Obama sat. The evening of Eastwood’s speech the official campaign Twitter account @MittRomney did not mention the actor, while the Obama campaign deftly tweeted out from @BarackObama a picture of the president sitting in his chair with the words “This Seat’s Taken”. The picture was retweeted 59,663 times, favorited 23,887 times, and, as importantly, was featured in news articles across the country. According to Daniel Kress both campaigns sought to influence journalists in direct and indirect ways, and planned their strategic communication efforts around political events such as debates well in advance. Despite these similarities, staffers say that Obama’s campaign had much greater ability to respond in real time to unfolding commentary around political events (PDF) given an organizational structure that provided digital staffers with a high degree of autonomy.

Romney's social media team did well when it practiced its strategy carefully before big events like the debates. But Obama's social media team was often quicker to respond to things and more creative. According to Kress, at extraordinary moments campaigns can exercise what Isaac Reed calls “performative power,” influence over other actors’ definitions of the situation and their consequent actions through well-timed, resonant, and rhetorically effective communicative action and interaction. During the Romney campaign as many as 22 staffers screened posts for Romeny's social media accounts before they could go out. As Romney’s digital director Zac Moffatt told Kreiss, the campaign had “the best tweets ever written by 17 people. ... It was the best they all could agree on every single time.”

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @05:41AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @05:41AM (#123400)

    So one group takes time to think thru what to say because words mean things.

    The other quips things out but comes out funny and snarky.

    Ah yeah I can see how the second way works so much better for us... /sarc

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @05:47AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @05:47AM (#123402)

      Committee (or hierarchy of micro-managers) versus experts. The former works if you've got lots of time but never punches above their weight. The later will fly high but in the hands of someone who isn't really an expert it will crash and burn.

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday December 07 2014, @08:52PM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday December 07 2014, @08:52PM (#123541) Journal

      I honestly cannot tell from your comment which group is which.

      --
      You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
    • (Score: 1) by lizardloop on Monday December 08 2014, @08:44AM

      by lizardloop (4716) on Monday December 08 2014, @08:44AM (#123678) Journal

      Unfortunately the audience both are playing to tend to respond better to snarky humour than they do to well thought out policy.

  • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday December 07 2014, @09:35AM

    by isostatic (365) on Sunday December 07 2014, @09:35AM (#123435) Journal

    I and American political drivel is what ran slashdot into the ground.

    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday December 07 2014, @12:49PM

      by Tork (3914) on Sunday December 07 2014, @12:49PM (#123461)
      No, it isn't.
      --
      Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday December 08 2014, @05:19PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday December 08 2014, @05:19PM (#123781)

        That isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!

        --
        The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday December 08 2014, @05:52PM

          by Tork (3914) on Monday December 08 2014, @05:52PM (#123796)
          If he was the sort to seek clarification he wouldn't have made that sort of statement in the first place. Frankly I saved us both time.
          --
          Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday December 07 2014, @08:17PM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday December 07 2014, @08:17PM (#123534) Journal

      I and American political drivel is what ran slashdot into the ground.

      I am happy to see you finally realize your role in the fiasco. Taking responsibility is the first step on the road to recovery. We can't do much about the drivel, but together we can work to prevent you from doing the same thing to SN. Thank you, and good luck!

      --
      You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
      • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday December 08 2014, @11:27AM

        by isostatic (365) on Monday December 08 2014, @11:27AM (#123690) Journal

        Setting aside the typo, it's true. This sort of political crap winds people (including me) up, attracting many rants, and thus high page views, and then gives the impression that's what people want. The Daily Mail sells a lot of newspapers using the same method. "Reality" TV is more popular than good drama. "News" programs like OReilly or Stewart attract more viewers than real news.

        However SN does not need to rely on high hit rates, it should be aiming for the quality end of the market rather than the popular tat that other sites do. If there aren't any submissions, don't post anything. I'd like to see a few rejected posts on SN, I don't recall seeing anything in the queue not appearing.

  • (Score: 1) by quixote on Sunday December 07 2014, @04:12PM

    by quixote (4355) on Sunday December 07 2014, @04:12PM (#123492)

    Obama had cared as much about governing as campaigning. The administration could have reacted to Syria before it was a disaster. The Obamacare website and backend might have worked. Maybe they could have even passed a jobs bill and done something to help people with fraudulent banks holding their mortgages. You know, in the first two years, when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress.

    • (Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Sunday December 07 2014, @05:20PM

      by cmn32480 (443) <{cmn32480} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Sunday December 07 2014, @05:20PM (#123502) Journal

      You mean that if he cared about governing, I would have some hope to have more than the change in my pocket when he leaves office?

      Somehow I doubt it will happen, and I am not so certain the Republicans will be much better.

      --
      "It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
      • (Score: 1) by PartTimeZombie on Monday December 08 2014, @12:37AM

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 08 2014, @12:37AM (#123602)

        Of course the Republicans will not be any better, they're just the other side of the same coin.