Here’s an interesting take on how the Clintons missed the New Media machine and couldn’t get their message out. It’s written by Joe Garofoli, a terrific Old School journalist I went to college with. He’s all about New Media now. I’m going to shoot him a note and see how this happened. He stayed in reporting during the time I’ve been teaching. I’m eager to hear from him about his experiences in the news trenches.

San Francisco Chronicle online:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/06/06/MNJQ113P8K.DTL

 ———————————————————————
Friday, June 6, 2008 (SF Chronicle)
How new media affected Clinton campaign
Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer  
 The rise and fall of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign can be
traced through video – from her first announcement to the apparent
suspension of the campaign. Some of the video was scripted fare, much of
it wasn’t. Some of it aired on network TV, much of it spread virally
online.
   And each of the videos was viewed enough to dominate the news for at least
a day. Collectively, they helped shape the narrative of her campaign.
   What hurt Clinton most, political analysts say, is that she couldn’t
consistently use the newfound ubiquity of video to soften her image with
voters. Or, as George Washington University Professor and new-media
analyst Michael Cornfeld said, “It’s like the Clintons, both of them, had
sort of a ‘Sunset Boulevard’ thing going on. They were silent screen stars
who couldn’t make the transition to talkies.”
  
Advertisements