In all the hubub surrounding Tuesday night's presidential debate and the continuing election campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain, I came across this article earlier today that I think merits mentioning. Popular Mechanics undertook a report to look into how the two candidates view the neutrality of the internet. The differences couldn't be more clear. As the article states, "McCain believes in a lightly regulated Internet, while Obama believes in more government involvement," while at the same time, each candidates campaign "can make a credible case that they're the ones defending freedom of innovation and open communication." The issues at stake revolve around the changing of the method of connection to the internet, from the phone-line based dial up services of the 1990's to a more cable/wireless/bluetooth/3G network society. With all these different possibilities, there is the possibility for a variety of different opinions.
When you look at both of the candidate's positions, it is not actually the data flow that they are interested in, rather the regulation over ISP's and internet access. These both follow their respective political philosophies, where Obama believes it is the government's mission to provide free and available internet, especially broadband, to communities where it is lacking, while McCain sides with the free market approach, with the private market promoting broadband access. What they can agree on, though, is that the internet access should be universal to all Americans.
With this, I agree completely. For better or worse, there is no more convenient, easy, and generally reliable source of information in such a quick fashion. Gone are the days when students use encyclopedias and other reference works to find books and articles for their research, now most subjects are a quick Wikipedia or Google search away. Access to information is key in having a well informed, well educated, and free society, and of all methods for information conveyance, the internet is the most universal, and if left unregulated for the most part, unbiased source for information. That's not to say that there is bias on the internet, as their certainly is; however it is easy enough for one to find opposing viewpoints of view, and with little effort to form their own opinions of the facts. Thus, while I think that given the current economic situation we'll have to wait and see how feasible either candidate's plan is, they are both pointed in the right direction in this aspect
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Political Technology at it's best
New Scientist today had an article about a new software system that measures the amount of "spin" in a politician's speech. It's definately an interesting concept.
In brief, what the software does is analyze the content of the speech for use of certain pronouns, as well as looking at the use of positive vs. negative verbs. Another aspect they look at is the inflection of the voice. My favorite line there is what they say about John McCain: "The voice analysis profile for McCain looks very much like someone who is clinically depressed." Too true. But I digress. What I find most interesting about this article is the method of analysis of "spin".
The creator of the software, Canadian David Sillicorn, arbitrarily defines "spin" as an increased use of third person pronouns, "we", over first person pronouns, "I", and an increased use of action verbs and strong negatively charged words. Sillicorn makes a lot of assumptions about a politician's use of words, and many of these I feel are unfounded. If a politician is talking about the country doing something, they should rightly use the third person; it would be construed as pompous of them to do otherwise. While I can understand the increased use of negative words as trying to define an enemy, which could be one aspect of "spin", using an increased use of action verbs to define spin makes no sense. Politicians running for election are all about the future; for them to use passive voice or present or past tense verbs only makes sense when paired with action verbs: the plan that this person has for the future.
The article opens with an interesting vignette, the "expression of disgust on former US president Bill Clinton's face during his speech to the Democratic National Convention as he says 'Obama'." I was in hopes that the software they were describing would be a frame by frame analysis of a politician's facial features or vocal inflection while they gave a speech. That, I think, would be more telling than an analysis of the content of the speech. Speeches are specifically tailored to a target audience, and I don't think that simply by analyzing the use of certain words can significantly quantify any sort of "spin" content. Leave that decision to the voters.
In brief, what the software does is analyze the content of the speech for use of certain pronouns, as well as looking at the use of positive vs. negative verbs. Another aspect they look at is the inflection of the voice. My favorite line there is what they say about John McCain: "The voice analysis profile for McCain looks very much like someone who is clinically depressed." Too true. But I digress. What I find most interesting about this article is the method of analysis of "spin".
The creator of the software, Canadian David Sillicorn, arbitrarily defines "spin" as an increased use of third person pronouns, "we", over first person pronouns, "I", and an increased use of action verbs and strong negatively charged words. Sillicorn makes a lot of assumptions about a politician's use of words, and many of these I feel are unfounded. If a politician is talking about the country doing something, they should rightly use the third person; it would be construed as pompous of them to do otherwise. While I can understand the increased use of negative words as trying to define an enemy, which could be one aspect of "spin", using an increased use of action verbs to define spin makes no sense. Politicians running for election are all about the future; for them to use passive voice or present or past tense verbs only makes sense when paired with action verbs: the plan that this person has for the future.
The article opens with an interesting vignette, the "expression of disgust on former US president Bill Clinton's face during his speech to the Democratic National Convention as he says 'Obama'." I was in hopes that the software they were describing would be a frame by frame analysis of a politician's facial features or vocal inflection while they gave a speech. That, I think, would be more telling than an analysis of the content of the speech. Speeches are specifically tailored to a target audience, and I don't think that simply by analyzing the use of certain words can significantly quantify any sort of "spin" content. Leave that decision to the voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
