Posted at 8:45 AM on October 29, 2008
by Julia Schrenkler
Gather member Ralph J. posed a simple poll-type question: Do you think 'new' media has changed presidential campaigns? Out of 15 comments, there's only one "no" reply. Some of the reasons are interesting:
"Yes. There are positive and negative benefits. More underhanded things can now be instantly exposed and passed along online and a ton of misinformation can also spread like wildfire." - Robin D.I have to wonder if it has changed candidate and marketing strategy as much as it has changed the way we - the voters - engage with the campaign and the candidates themselves. What is your take?
"Yes, it shows the good, bad and the ugly." - Katherine W.
"The media is less relevant than ever. Youtube and blogs have changed the election. Traditional media is so slow. Who waits until the next day to read it on paper? Who waits for the evening news. It's all about youtube and the blogs." - Christos G.
* Share your thoughts on Ralph's discussion: Do you think 'new' media has changed presidential campaigns?
* Discuss the campaign on mnpolitics.gather.com
Posted at 1:49 PM on October 29, 2008
by Julia Schrenkler
hosts hosted a live online debate. From their debate description:
The Detroit auto industry is in deep trouble. Sales are plummeting and General Motors is looking for taxpayer money to finance a merger with Chrysler. But should the government help a declining industry that has created some of its own problems?
You can watch the archived debate here:
The debate panel included:
Dan Mitchell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a free-market economist who argues that economic forces not special interest deal-making (subsidies and handouts) should determine whether industries succeed or fail.
David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich., who is in favor of government intervention.
Maryann Keller, independent consultant and author of Rude Awakening: The Rise, Fall and Struggle for Recovery at General Motors.