Social Media Use in the 2008 Presidential Campaign

After my conference yesterday with Prof. Carroll-Adler on my final paper topic, I'd like to blog about how I'm going to attack my topic which is (drumroll please)...

The use of social media during the 2008 presidential campaign.

And let's not forget these guys (and girl):

After all, with another presidential election coming up in under two weeks, I've spent the majority of my news consumption this fall on the election. And, as Prof. Carroll-Adler pointed out in our meeting yesterday, scholarly journals will not yet have articles published about media use in this election, so I will focus on the last election. Fortunately, the 2008 election marked both a peak (at the time) and turning point in politicians' use of social media, so there will be much to explore when it comes to the topic at that specific point in time.

So now I am to figure out just what the focus and thesis of my paper will be. As I begin to research and peruse several sources for the literature review due early next month, I am getting a better idea of what the impact of social media from that election cycle. Below is a video I found online from CBC news which affirms and is in line with many of the conclusions I've made from reading both media and political journal articles.

Basically, what I'm finding is that the 2008 election was the first time many forms of social media made their debut as a part of campaigns' strategy. I'm also finding that then-candidate Barack Obama's social media presence and following was far-and-away greater than that of his opponents, both in the democratic primaries and the presidential election. I think that I want to explore the relationship between this mastery of social media and the election's outcome. To make sure the paper embodies an interdisciplinary approach, I want to examine the effect of social media through the lens of political theory on what wins elections.

Brainstorming for A4

For the A4 paper, we must discuss a problem from a multidisciplinary standpoint. Right now, I'm in the planning stage, trying to decide what two disciplines I'd like to use to solve a problem or answer a question.

I read a "conversation" online a while back published by TED (as in the series of lectures by scholars and thinkers on a huge spectrum of issues and topics) about inter-disciplinary study. The thread is used be many collaborators to discuss the importance of solving problems and making changes through an inter-disciplinary approach, and was good in thinking about what I want to accomplish with this paper. I really recommend it to anyone trying to think fundamentally about inter-discipline.

As far as my paper, specifically, some disciplines that I'm interested in writing about include media, technology, forensics, psychology, politics and history. More specifically, events or issues that I'm intrigued by include the 2008 presidential campaign, education reform, the JFK assassination, political conspiracy theories, graphic design and commercial art and typography. I'm fairly certain I'd like to research and write about something at least vaguely tied to media, as I'm a journalism major and my primary course of study concerns media.

Below are some ideas for potential problems/questions:

How have changes in technology contributed to investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? (technology + forensics)

What could be better about the way reporters cover war and conflict, from a psychological standpoint? (media + psychology)

How have presidential campaigns been affected by the rise in social media? (media + politics)

How does media coverage affect how a national problem like education reform can be solved? (media + education reform)

How can a political campaign's use of graphic design affect a race's outcome? (graphic design + political campaigns)

How does an audience's perception of a graphic design campaign (political, corporate, advertising) affect the success of such a campaign? (psychology + graphic design)

Helvetica

For most people, who aren't typography nerds like myself, the name Helvetica may be unfamiliar. But it's probably the world's most popular and most recognized font, used to brand everything from American Apparel to Target to the New York Subway system.

This is Helvetica, for those of you who don't know:

The documentary about which I will write my A2 paper is named for the font and tells the typeface's story as well as its impact on the world.

I originally saw the documentary a few years ago, and was taken with the way the film exposed the deeper impact of the font, discussing a number of designers' takes on both the positive and negative impressions Helvetica inspired.

As I write this paper, I want to decipher what makes the film convincing and why it's effective.

At first thought, the documentary seems to be pretty unbiased, telling both sides of a story that isn't terribly polarizing. But, I watched it again and realized that the effects of Helvetica go much deeper than like or dislike. The typeface changed mainstream design and corporate branding, and did so several times over Helvetica's lifespan.

In the earliest stages of my research, I've read two different movie reviews about the film, from The Village Voice and The New York Times.

This is my first post. I am so excited.