(cross-posted from making MediaCommons)
No doubt like many of you, I spent much of my evening last night glued to my television set, flipping between CNN and the networks, trying to keep apprised of developments in the election as best I could. I also kept my laptop nearby, in order to keep an eye my favorite political media blogs (such as Crooks and Liars), in order to get a sense not just of their reaction to the events, but of their reaction to the coverage of the events.
I’m a bit dazed by it all as yet, and what thoughts I have are obviously pretty unprocessed. But I’m interested this morning in the impact that the internet has clearly had on the outcome of this election. This is nothing terrifically new; the last few election cycles have all been affected by the presence of the blogosphere. What’s new, for me, is the circulation and discussion of political ads via the network. Ads that were once tied to local or regional television markets — unless something went very wrong, and they got picked up by the network news departments — have suddenly become visible across the country, via YouTube and other video-sharing systems. Of the ten best political ads of this season (according to Salon’s Video Dog), most, like Michael J. Fox’s ad for Missouri senator-elect Claire McCaskill, which took top honors, came to the attention of a much wider audience through their wide online distribution and discussion.
One of the truisms of recent political life has held that “all politics are local”; I’ve got to wonder whether this will continue to be so in an age in which media products are so widely dispersed — and, even more, in an age in which those who consume such products are able to respond.