The Virtual Body Politic

The fallout surrounding the recent Republican candidate's debate on Fox News provides good examples of the power -- and the impotence -- of the Internet.

Texas congressman Ron Paul has an active following, who have repreatedly called Fox News (and the other big media) to task for what they see as attempts to marginalize their candidate. Now, this post isn't about Ron Paul per se, but rather the Internet has changed the dynamics of public political discourse.

Immediately after the second round of debates on Fox news, the network held a text message straw poll, which Ron Paul won by 33%. Hannity and Combs immediately dismissed the results as skewed, joking that Ron Paul fanboys were repeatedly speed dialing and stuffing the ballot box.

In the pre-Internet days, the general public's impression of the debate and its outcome would have relied on two basic sources of information:

1. Viewing the debate itself (something only a minority of people ever do)
2. Relying on news reports and analysis in the days following the event for a summary recap and highlights.

And if a candidate's supporters cried "Fowl!" then it would be their obviously biased word against the soundbites playing on air.

Now, however, those supporters can do more than just complain. Paul supporters have outlined their mistreatment of their candidate -- and supported their arguments with video from the debate illustrating their points.

Without any evidence, a claim that the moderator deliberately mocked one candidate while fawning over another sounds like sour grapes. When one produces the video documenting the behavior, the case becomes more compelling.

Fox News claimed their poll results were skewed by a minority voting repeatedly. Paul supporters supply images and video documenting their assertion that repeat voting was impossible, and therefore the results are valid.



The important point here isn't what happened at the debate. It's that you can view the evidence (here's but one source) and judge for yourself. You don't have to rely on either the soundbites of the mainstream media, nor the claims of a candidates supporters. The information sources are being made freely available for you to examine and decide.

This is one of the real strengths of the Internet.

In order to access all of this information, though, you have to be online.

And that's the real weakness of the Internet.

Folks who never go online will form their opinions as they have in the past, relying on the two options mentioned above. And those within the digital subdivision who only marginally use the Internet (the ones just use email to forward jokes and urban legends) will be completely oblivious to this as well.

If you're on the right side of the digital subdivision, the source information's pretty easy to find.

If you're not, then somebody else will report and decide for you.

- Ralph

The Virtual Body Politic

Someone who only follows the presidential election through mainstream media (primarily TV news) will form an impression radically different than someone who uses the Internet as their primary news source. I've been looking at election coverage both online and off, and sometimes it seems as if I'm reading about events in two parallel universes. And perhaps I am.

The differences have been most striking on the Republican side. Those who follow mainstream news saw Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee battle it out, with John McCain eventually coming up from behind (as of this writing). Rudi Guiliani always seemed like a credible candidate, as did Fred Thompson.

Following the process online yielded a different impression -- especially through sites such as Digg, where the candidates' supporters can raise awareness by submitting and voting for stories to get them to the top of the list.

In the online world, it's all been about Ron Paul. His supporters, in addition to being very vocal, have also been very active. And they've had to be. Mainstream media often ignored Paul. His supporters continually post documentation of deliberate marginalization, both among reporters and the Republican party itself.

Ron Paul leads the pack in terms of MySpace and Facebook friends, as well as the Digg the Candidates site. None of the other Republican candidates come close to Paul. Guiliani and Thompson were always at the bottom of the heap.

On the Democratic side, the mainstream media has Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a dead heat. Online, it's no contest -- it's Obama by a wide margin. He has ten times the friends on Digg, and wide leads over Clinton on Facebook and MySpace.

Obama is the candidate that "gets' the Internet. He supported net neutrality, which made him hugely popular with the online community. The announcement went almost unreported in the mainstream media -- which is hardly surprising as they have yet to really report on the issue of net neutrality itself. The average person watching TV news has never heard of one of the Internet's major hot button issues.

Of course, what matters are votes. If Ron Paul is so popular (according to the web), then why isn't he leading in delegates? If Obama's the clear choice online, then why hasn't he put this contest away?

I think it's because 50% of the people still live on the other side of the digital divide. And a good many of those on this side use the Internet only to forward ancient jokes and urban myths to their friends -- not as a source of information.

And therein lies the difficulty. While the Internet has made the political process transparent in many ways and leveled the playing field for the candidates, this has only come to pass online. There's been little spillover into the non-digital world.

To get out the vote, campaigners still have to connect with the electorate. In the real world. Face to face. Not just pixel to pixel. Can these new political bases rising online make the transition? This will be an interesting election.

- Ralph

The FISA Fallout

By now most Americans have formed an opinion about the Senate's vote on the Foreign Intelligence Service Act (FISA) amendments yesterday.

The particulars of the bill itself have been greatly discussed elsewhere (and you can also read the original for yourself). There were three different amendments on the floor.

The first would have removed immunity for the telecom who voluntarily participated with the warrantless wiretapping.

The second would have removed the immunity with the stipulation that if a federal court determined the warrantless wiretaps were constitutional the telecoms were safe from prosecution.

The third would have delayed decision on immunity until 90 days after Congress received the Inpector General's report on his investigation of the wiretapping activity.

All three failed.

Republicans were expected to vote down the amendments to protect the administration -- which they did. Democrats -- especially those recently sent to Washington to counter the Administration -- overwhelmingly did as well, to the surprise and consternation of many.

Now in the old days (I.E. just a few years ago), there would have been a great deal of hue and cry, but if the congresscritters hung tough, they could have ridden out the storm. And come the next election cycle, all would have been forgotten.

But that was before this current presidential campaign and the increased usage of the Internet to generate and organise political action. In reaction to this controversial vote, a new organisation has come to the fore.

The Accountability Now PAC (or Strange Bedfellows) is concerned with the rights of American citizens, especially those that have taken a backseat in the wake of anti-terrorist legislation (or in the case of the FISA flap, activities that circumvent the legislation).

It's an organisation that's pulling from both sides of the political spectrum, and number both Republicans and Democrats among its founders. The idea's pretty simple. Freedom and civil rights are pretty nebulous concepts that normally don't generate much interest. But Strange Bedfellows intends to be a large, organised, well-funded group that is interested, and will hold legislators accountable -- especially at election time.

So what's the first step? An old tactic from the Ron Paul campaign, the money bomb. Everyone who wants to donate does so on a designated day. If it's true that we have the best government money can buy, then the overnight appearance of, say, 10 million dollars in a PAC's war chest should make those in power sit up and take notice.

This is a new kind of response to politics as usual. And as practitioners of social science can tell you, the most effective way to change a system is to change how you react to the system.

- Ralph

Day 26 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Political Pushback

Yesterday I offered up an example of how one can make a reasoned case for a candidate with supporting documentation using the Internet.

There's another use for this new media as well -- it can provide an opportunity for rebuttal.

(I'm deliberately not commenting on the current state of the campaign -- my goal isn't to support a particular candidate, but to look at how new technology is impacting the process)

Ron Paul's supporters early on started populating the web with video documentation supporting their claims that mainstream media marginalized their candidate.

In today's example, "Cameron," a lawyer from California strongly disagreed with assertions Representative Jack Kingston made about Barack Obama on Bill Maher's "Real Time" TV show.

Now in the olden days, Cameron might have talked to friends and coworkers about how Kingston's allegations were wrong, and perhaps he might have persuaded a few folks with his rhetoric.

More people would have heard the senator on the television show than Cameron, though, and Kingston's allegations would have just spread through the political zeitgeist as fact -- or perhaps almost-fact, for who could prove otherwise?

Thanks to the Internet, Cameron could. In his blog Cameron addresses each of Kingston's points and provides solid documentation to refute each claim.

Obama doesn't say the Pledge of Allegiance? Here's a clip from C-Span showing him leading the Senate in a recitation. Obama lacks bipartisan credentials? Here're links to two bipartisan legislation he's worked on.

Cameron, like GM, offers source material for the reader to support their position. You don't have to take Cameron's word about what Obama did or didn't say about Pakistan. You can watch the clip and judge for yourself. You can look up the legislation Cameron points to and decide for yourself if these are good examples of bipartisan cooperation.

The point here isn't about Obama and what he is or isn't.

The point is this: in this new world of the Internet political discourse is not only open to debate, it's open to fact-checking. For every politician or supporter that tries to spin the facts, there's someone who's more than willing to post the documentation that proves otherwise.

Mainstream media won't report it, but thanks to linking and reposting, Cameron's rebuttal reached many more people than the immediate friends and family it would have pre-Internet. And Cameron's rebuttal is not that hard to find.

A private citizen, voicing his opinion and offering facts to support it in a public forum? Now that's democracy in action!

- Ralph

Fake Bands, Reel Music Part 1 - Mockumentaries

Thursday, April 16, 2020, at 4 pm I'll be hosting a special program for the WTJU Rock Marathon. I'll be featuring music -- and the artists that perform it -- specifically for movies and TV shows.

Fictional musicians were a staple of the movie industry since the introduction of sound. Al Jolson played Jakie Rabinowitz, a fictionalized version of himself in 1927's "The Jazz Singer." But with the advent of rock and roll, the concept of fictional artists grew and expanded.

"Fake Bands, Reel Music" takes a look at how fictional groups really rocked.

Mockumentary Movies

When asked to name a mockumentary about music, many people respond, "Spinal Tap." And rightly so. What made Carl Reiner's 1984 film such a masterwork is the obsessive attention to detail. The movie features songs by the band from the early 60s, the Summer of Love, and into heavy metal. And each track is stylistically correct, sound exactly like the era its meant to invoke.



Guest, McKean, and Shearer would become part of a repertoire company who collaborated on a number of successful documentaries, such as "For Your Consideration" and "Best in Show."

One of their films, "A Mighty Wind" (2003) follows three folk music groups as they gather for a tribute concert. The Folksmen (McKean, Guest, and Shearer) are based on the Kingston Trio. Their misguided attempt to go electric couples the Byrd's jangly guitar with earnestly flawed lyrics.


Also featured are Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara as Mick and Mickey, an Ian and Sylvia soundalike.

John C. Reilly starred in 2007's "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story." The film is a comedic take on documentaries about Johnny Cash, Roy Oberson, and other early sixties stars. The film's unusual in that it mixes real celebrities (played by others) with the fictional musicians. Marshall Crenshaw and Van Dyke Parks contributed to the ostensively decade-spanning score.

The Rutles began as a skit created by Eric Idle (Monty Python) and Neil Innes (Bonzo Dog Band). This Beatles pastiche, with songs written by Innes, soon took on a life of its own. The group toured and had two UK hits.

Their 1978 TV movie "All You Need is Cash" is a satirical mockumentary of the Beatle's career. Included in the cast was George Harrison as the interview, Ron Wood, John Belushi, and Dan Aykroyd. Mick Jagger, Paul Simon, and Roger McGough appear as themselves.

Small Screen Mockumentaries

"Documentary Now!" is a half-hour mockumentary series starring Fred Armisen and Bill Hader. Each episode parodies a famous documentary film, with a keen eye to detail.

"Gentle & Soft: The Story of the Blue Jean Committee" mirrors "History of the Eagles." Armisen and Hader's Blue Jean Committee is a perfect amalgam of the Eagles, America, Steely Dan, and the 70s So-Cal sound.



"Final Transmission" was based on the Talking Heads documentary "Stop Making Sense." Armisen and Hade, with help from Maya Rudolph, nail the New Wave sound of their inspirations.

John Mulaney plays a version of Stephen Sondheim for "Original Cast Album: Co-Op." It's based on the documentary of the recordings sessions for "Company." The episode features several Sondheim-like numbers that all ring true -- and explain why "Co-Op" was canceled (according to the story) after one performance.

At the height of the boy band craze, MTV produced "2Gether," a mockumentary TV movie. The title group was a by-the-numbers boy band, each member selected to fill an archetype; the heartthrob, the shy one, the cute one, the older brother, and the bad boy. 2Gether became a TV series, running on MTV for two seasons. They also released two albums.


All of the actors sang for the recordings.

Their single "The Hardest Part of Breaking Up (Is Getting Back Your Stuff)" charted on the Billboard Hot 100, and in 2000 they opened for Britany Spears on her summer tour.

Next: Fictional groups as characters