The First Video Election
By Chuck Hyde, Editor of StandBesideHer.com
The 1960 presidential election of John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon is considered to be the first “TV election” because of the televised debate between the candidates. Infamous in that Richard Nixon was seen to be sweating on camera and the speculation is that this is one of the things that may have cost him the election. Since this election we have come to take TV for granted in every day life let alone presidential elections. We may be on the verge of a new revolution in presidential election media, the internet video, and it may not be an entirely good thing.
On the plus side, it could prove to be an inexpensive way to reach a lot of people. Furthermore, it may eventually be our salvation from the constant barrage of TV commercials we receive during the campaign season. It may possibly get to where it will be safe to turn our TV on again in September and October during even numbered years. The likelihood is that internet political advertising can be an invaluable resource in that voters can research which candidate they want at leisure by searching out the advertising they want to view.
The down side is much more worrisome though. The chief problem is the potential for mischief. While the internet is an incredible invention that has changed our lives with the information we are now able to access readily (obviously you are reading this on line for instance), it is also mostly unregulated. While you will not very often read an argument for regulation here, the fact remains that there is no policing the internet. What this means is that anyone can put virtually anything they want online and beyond the recourse of suing for libel, there is not a lot the target of that information can do. The problem is not outright lies, because this, no mater where it is published, is libel and there is recourse for it. The concern is what can be done with the truth. We have seen in political discourse that the truth is often in the eye of the beholder. Statements can be twisted or taken out of context and in the 24 hour world of the internet and the speed at which information spreads it is likely that a half-truth will become fact in the eyes of the public before the target has time to respond. We have all seen what can happen when a rumor takes hold. It is often a lot easier to spread a sensational lie than to try to clean it up with the truth later.
There is an even more sinister possibility with internet videos, out and out forgery. Computer technology becomes more advanced everyday and it is getting incredibly easy to make a passable forged video or photograph of a candidate. This can place the candidate in any manner of compromising situations that are purely fictional. This along with the technological advances that enable savvy computer users the ability to hide their identity adds up to a very significant potential for devastating results. It is not very hard to imagine a forged video in which a candidate is shown with a fictional mistress or at a KKK rally for instance. The difficulty with something like this is that the faked scenario may not be implausible and it is difficult to prove a negative. In other words, it is hard to prove that you are not having an illicit affair because the obvious response is to deny it which is exactly what a guilty person would do. It is like the old saw about “When did you stop beating your wife?” A person who would never consider doing such a thing would be horrified by the question and answer indignantly, “I didn’t stop beating my wife” and therefore fall into the trap set for him. The potential is here for not only ruining a candidacy but also possibly a life and a family.
The reality is that the internet video is upon us and it is only going to become more prevalent. The bottom line is that as both consumers of this media and voters, it is our responsibility to be very diligent in knowing the source and making ourselves more informed to be able to differentiate between fact and fiction. Gone are the days when we could trust everything a candidate said, right? That’s what’s on my mind.
About The Author: Chuck Hyde is editor of StandBesideHer.com. He is also a husband and father of two teenage boys and a younger daughter. His family lives in the northern Midwestern rural United States, where they enjoy camping, fishing, and other outdoor activities together. Chuck is a Registered Nurse in an inner city emergency room and has had a lifelong addiction to politics.
COMMENTS: Do you have a comment about this editorial?
Email Chuck here to share it.
