Comments on: The Obama Transition As Reality TV

By: » More on Naked Presidency Stuff

» More on Naked Presidency Stuff — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:52:00 +0000

[...] has a Youtube channel where it posts videos from different offices about what they are working on. Donkelephant says it’s like Obama and his team are a reality show playing out in front of the nation via [...]

By: Obama’s PoliticoRealityTV « Burroughs Adding Machine

Obama’s PoliticoRealityTV « Burroughs Adding Machine — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:56:47 +0000

[...] analysis of Obama’s Change.gov website and the new President-Elect’s use of YouTube. “Itâ€™s as if nearly everybody can have a seat at the table if they want to be included. All [...]

By: Doug Mataconis

Doug Mataconis — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:49:36 +0000

Justin,

Sorry, but what about that “meeting” makes you think that it wasn’t staged for the camera ?

By: blackoutyears

blackoutyears — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:40:57 +0000

Justin, you can’t convince a cynic, much less a cynic whose ideology predisposes them against a candidate. Just remember that they’re all crooks and liars and you’ll be fine.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:15:38 +0000

Now wait a second, EI…there’s a big difference between a politician pushing talking points through a pundit show and this. These are people who would usually stay exclusively behind the scenes, but we’re seeing a more unvarnished view. Yes, of course it’s still tape and people understand that they’re being taped, but it doesn’t make it false.

And nobody is saying that just because it’s social media it’s honest. Still, tell me how it’s dishonest. Until you can prove that, giving these people the benefit of the doubt is appropriate.

By: Doug Mataconis

Doug Mataconis — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:12:58 +0000

[T]his isnâ€™t transparency. Itâ€™s simply a politician using some newer channels of communication to promote an image. Social media is still media, and itâ€™s as susceptible to manipulation as any other communication channel.

Exactly.

By: ExiledIndependent

ExiledIndependent — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:19:23 +0000

This is hysterical. Folks, this isn’t transparency. It’s simply a politician using some newer channels of communication to promote an image. Social media is still media, and it’s as susceptible to manipulation as any other communication channel. But because it “feels” more truthy, we react differently to it than we would, say, a TV commercial. We assume that social media is honest. Careful with that.

By: Donklephant » Blog Archive » President 2.0

Donklephant » Blog Archive » President 2.0 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:51:17 +0000

[...] I highlighted this yesterday, and today NBC takes a look at how Obama is using the internet to get his message out as the President elect. [...]

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:27:23 +0000

Mike, your first comment was about the idea that there’s no difference between what Obama’s team is saying and what Rove and the blogosphere have said…just that I’m characterizing them differently. Well, if you watch the video, they’re talking specifically about bi-partisanship, while Rove and the wingnut/moonbat blogosphere were never talking about those things. So that’s not a matter of opinion nor semantics.

Also, your definition of “walk” is much more narrow and limiting then I think is appropriate, but this is obviously a personal preference. However, I’d argue that what you see here should count since they’re actively posting their meetings online and answering Americans questions. That’s transparency in action, and we haven’t seen that before from any President.

By: mw

mw — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:05:35 +0000

“Thereâ€™s a difference between partisan talking points meant to make the other side look like the enemy and consistent messaging about bi-partisanship and pragmatic policy.” – jg

Indeed. The difference is almost completely attributable to whether the person doing the listening agrees with the person doing the talking.

We’ll see the walk when we see the bills in Congress and the executive orders out of the Oval Office. Until then, it’s talk.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:44:18 +0000

There’s a difference between partisan talking points meant to make the other side look like the enemy and consistent messaging about bi-partisanship and pragmatic policy.

Also, by showcasing their meetings on YouTube and answering questions submitted by Americans, this is putting Obama’s “talk” of unity into action. So what you’re seeing is “walk.”

By: 24AheadDotCom's take on it

24AheadDotCom's take on it — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:28:16 +0000

My name’s link is a quick satire on the reality TV aspects of things like this.

Itâ€™s as if nearly everybody can have a seat at the table if they want to be included. All they have to do is add their voice at Change.gov and they can be part of the conversation.

No one can be that delusional, right? Of course, the weasel word there is “almost”; those who would point out all the ways BHO is incredibly wrong would either be ignored, investigated, or shouted down via the megaphone BHO has but his opponents don’t have.

Expect a lot of “honest conversations” ahead:

http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007603.html

By: mw

mw — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:05:32 +0000

“And this consistent messaging makes me believe that it isnâ€™t just lip service.” – jg

As I recall, the consistent messaging coming from the Bush administration was referred to as Rove’s “Talking Points.” The mindless repetition of the same repeated phrases coming from the blogosphere was the “wingnut echo chamber”. But this is different now. It’s on YouTube.

As always when dealing with politicians – it’s not the talk, it’s the walk.

Even if the talk is on YouTube.