Skewz.com Predicts Top 5 Trends for 2009
-By Warner Todd Huston
Skewz.com has put together its top 5 predictions for how political communications under the Obama presidency will be changed in 2009.
Now, in some ways, I can see where the Skewz team is coming from seeing as how they are in that Internet bubble, but I think that their assumptions of Internet domination of politics is a bit overblown. Still, I think in many ways the predictions are right if not quite as strong as presented nor as immediate.
Here are their predictions and my replies to them:
1. Blogging Gets Issue-Specific : The 2008 election re-enforced and validated the need for candidates to have a strong outreach program to the blogosphere to amplify their message. While it’s apparent that bloggers are becoming more important and tightly linked to campaigns, the increasing number of blogs is pushing many bloggers to become “issue specific” as a way to differentiate themselves. For example, rather than being just a “right” or “left” blog, specific topics such as crime, the housing crisis, government bailouts, poverty, etc. will dominate. In addition, day-to-day issues such as crime and poverty will become more relevant to larger portions of the electorate.
I think this is less a reaction to “differentiation” among bloggers, more an act of going with what one knows based on the growing legitimacy of the medium. Over the year 2008, Blogs have become a legitimate news source and this has spurred even more people with specific fields of knowledge to feel confident that they won’t merely be laughed off with their blogging efforts. Smart people with detailed knowledge and a passion to debate the issues have migrated to blogs in great numbers over the year. And with the growth of social networking sites like Twitter and FaceBook — all of which rely heavily on linking to stories on news media and blogs — the Internet has really come into its own as an “official” news source. Witness the recent survey that shows a far grater number of people than ever before saying the Internet is their news source.
2. Political Media Must Differentiate: As traditional political media sources will work to differentiate themselves from blogs, viewers and readers will see sharper distinctions between media content and formats. For example, Olbermann/O’Reilly style editorial shows will be the hallmarks of partisan editorial content. David Gregory/Chris Wallace will be hallmarks of the objective news desk. News outlets will need to “court” their target markets while maintaining news credibility and a positive image, much of which was suffered during the 2008 election.
I think this is off base. I think that the Old Media will see its lines blur even more between the “partisan editorial content” and the so-called “objective news” as opposed to them becoming more distinct. We may wish they’d become more distinct, but I see the opposite happening. Witness the recent shift by the Associated Press from a facts based service to one that offers more editorial content even within its supposedly straight newswire stories. I think the Old Media will see the success of the more polemical style mounting on radio and in the blogosphere and mistakenly believe it needs to go that way to succeed in the modern media environment.
3. The Year-Round Campaign: As election cycles get longer and longer, there is a greater need to maintain ongoing enthusiasm among voters. Now, with increased communications via the Internet, political parties will use the online channels even during non-election years to manage their message. With the rise in unemployment, the housing crisis and general economic concern, the campaign style of “selling” solutions will become a constant in political life. This trend will extend from the national level down to the state and local levels in order to muster coordinated support for big policy proposals.
I predict that Barack Obama will go the opposite way, here. I think he’ll become more secretive, far less open and transparent than the claimed he’d be and will not use his Internet machine as the left imagines he is supposed to. I think both parties are a bit too hidebound for the veil to be lifted before 2009 is up.
On top of that, we American politicians still have not yet figured out how instant communication fits in with our representative republic. I personally do not want to see the swiftly changing mood of the crowds heavily influencing our government via the Internet. We are not a direct Democracy and for good reason!
4. Grassroots Returns to Its Roots: With the power of grass roots movements established in the 2008 election with the Obama campaign, political candidates understand the importance of campaigning and getting a message across on a local level. In the coming years, candidates will work to highlight their ability to make a positive impact on people’s lives at the municipal, county, and state levels, and local media will respond with a greater emphasis on local issues.
This one seems a good prediction. But, I don’t think we’ll see it grow more slowly with candidates for a few more years to come. Not enough young candidates that have grow up with this Internet world are yet ready to begin running for office. We won’t see candidates fully accept the Internet until the old guard is fairly gone.
5. The Electoral Map Loses Relevance: With the economy likely to impact people’s lives for years to come, the electorate will become less rigid. Issues such as crime, poverty, economic change, etc. will dominate, but also facilitate the rise of greater issue specific blogging along with the need to differentiate. With voter turnout being critical, parties that can pull together the most convincing and coherent solutions for these day-to-day challenges will command greater success at the ballot box.
I don’t think I see much dispute with that one.
All in all, I see these predictions as eventuals, but not all occurring right away in 2009. I think politics will be a little more resistant to any change wrought by the Internet than the Old Media or the new or society in general has been thus far.
We still have to invent the concrete way that the connectivity and instantaneous manner of the Internet will integrate with government. We will see more and more the push for transparency, of course. More government actions will be trackable on the Internet than ever. But, how do we integrate an instant communication with actual governing in a representative republic without breaking down that necessary wall that by design stands between instant action and deliberation? And, even more pointedly, will people understand the need for that wall to stand? And will Internet mavens get cynical quicker than the relationship between instant access and governing will be figured out?
Let’s face it here, our system is completely incompatible with instant gratification — purposefully so. Will too many people that don’t fully understand how slowly our system works by design become disillusioned because they are not having instant gratification from Internet to the passage of bills? Could cynicism deepen because the ill informed on the Internet (such as your MoveOn.org types) don’t understand that what they immediately want is NOT how our system operates? People seem to too easily forget that what ever we do on the Internet has to both live up to our system and our Constitution.
And will philosophers of Internet ethics and ideals and government theorists bring this debate to the fore well enough that people can grasp it, or are we to just blunder ahead into a murky future that might end up materially damaging the shaky faith in our government that so many Americans already have?
Naturally, only time will tell. But one thing is sure, while changes are coming fast, they will not wholly alter government as fast as they are altering the rest of society. At least, not just in 2009. Perhaps in a few years hence, but not just the next one.
| More from Warner Todd Huston
Stumble It!
January 15th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Interesting predictions. See "Future Savvy," Adam Gordon, 
American Management Association Press, 2009… Nobody can predict the future, but some forecasts are clearly better than others. Foresight is important – all decisions we make today will play out in the future – so wouldn't it be useful to be able to tell a good forecast from a bad one? "Future Savvy" shows readers how to discern quality in future thinking, with examples and case studies of interest to business and policy/govt decision-makers. It views expert foresight as a crucial resource, but it puts sharp tools in the hands of forecast users.