BOSTON—Over a million Americans will be able to tell their children exactly where they were when the first black man became President—on Facebook. Just before Barack Obama gave his inaugural address, more than 1.3 million users tuned-in to CNN’s coverage on Facebook.com.
The presence on Facebook was more than half the number of visitors who filled the streets, fields and bars of the capital that day. Although live video broadcasts of a presidential inauguration have been available online since 1997, this year could be the first time the entire world has been asked to do more than just hear it or watch it.
Social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter teamed up with media outlets CNN and Current TV to experiment with this year’s coverage. Both of the social networks allowed online members to comment alongside a streaming broadcast of the inauguration, making each site a digital living room where anyone on the Internet could watch and chat about presidential politics.
“Everyone is usually in their secluded little [space],” said media analyst Steve Garfield, “just consuming, versus leaning forward and participating.” A multimedia journalist himself, Garfield said that he was impressed by the service provided by Facebook and CNN. He predicted that the success of the digital broadcast is only the start of good things to come from the interactive feature.
“I think that with technology like this, you might see more people interested in participating in [politics] when it becomes as easy as Facebook just made it,” Garfield said.
Until recently, online conversations were typically restricted to chat rooms, said Garfield. A less popular method of conversing is through Internet relay chats (IRC), which let multiple people share and discuss content through a web browser. The inaugural coverage, suggested Garfield, was a culmination of these past innovations that made Facebook and Twitter a place where people could watch and listen together.
“It’s not essential,” Garfield said, hesitantly, “but it adds value to certain people who are interested in community.”
According to a statement released by CNN, the online community at CNN.com Live totaled over 18.8 million people between the hours of 6 a.m. and 1 p.m., breaking a record of 5.3 million viewers that was set on Election Day.
Prior to the inauguration, Tobe Berkovitz, a media analyst and professor of communication at Boston University, said he expected fewer people to rely on the web for inaugural coverage.
“I think when you have an event like the inauguration,” Berkovitz began, “the mainstream media becomes more significant.” He argued that this inauguration emphasized new media strategies more than tech innovations, and he predicted that media networks would rely mostly on television as their main outlet.
“People would rather watch [the inauguration] on a flat screen television than on their computer, iPhone or Blackberry,” said Berkovitz.
In an article from NewTeeVee.com, a corporate social network for developers of video hosting sites, writer Stacey Higginbotham recommended “ditching” the online version of the inauguration and simply watching it on television. According to Higginbotham, CNN, ABC and C-SPAN all malfunctioned at least once during their broadcasts. To her, missing even a second of the inauguration was not worth chatting online during the event. Higginbotham’s article attracted several comments from people who experienced interruptions and delays in their own broadcasts. Others wrote that their computer screens were just too small to allow them to fully enjoy the historic moment.
When asked how he watched the event, Garfield admitted that he opted to watch the inauguration on television. “But just before the swearing in, I was watching the CNN.com Live coverage with Facebook,” Garfield said with a laugh.
Read more!
BOSTON—While election results trickled out and America tuned in, window shoppers from Gloucester Street to Clarendon Street found something else to do than watch the election. At the Ben & Jerry's ice cream shop on Newbury Street, voters and non-voters settled in for free ice cream.
In the line that wrapped along the sidewalk and on the steps at nearby boutiques, there were few serious words said about politics. The most common utterance of Barack Obama or John McCain was frequently followed up by a John Stuart, Stephen Colbert or Saturday Night Live reference.
Four students from Berklee were of the few outside Ben & Jerry’s who engaged in conversation about the debate. The group, two from New Hampshire and two from New York, were split about their presidential candidates (Obama, McCain and Barr) and had volumes to say about each one. They didn't come to mingle with other voters, they came for the free ice cream and later went on in search of free coffee (at Starbucks).
“I just want [the election] to be over already,” said Berklee sophomore Stephanie Barker. “How long have we been doing this and still something goes wrong?”
Exhausted, aggravated and apathetic, the four friends could not help but reflect on the flaws of the election process and the hype the media has given it, they said. Free ice cream and coffee were more outlets for them to unwind rather than a way to celebrate and be praised for voting — the way Ben & Jerry’s and Starbucks intended.
"I guarantee you that many of these people did not vote," said Greg Arney, also a sophomore at Berklee. Like Arney, it seemed that the voting process was on the mind of few people at the ice cream shop. Popular line-waiting-conversation topics cycled between what flavor of ice cream was best, the length of the line and the weather.
Some people had no idea that the store was giving free ice cream to just anyone. In fact, one girl went in with the intention of buying ice cream and made a surprised comment when she noticed that people weren't paying.
“If I were a parent, I’d bring my kids to Free Ice Cream day too,” said another girl in line as a mother and child walked out of the ice cream shop.
The actual name of the promotion was, “Free Ice Cream for Voters,” from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. according to a poster hanging behind the dessert bar. A smaller 8.5”x11” display located on the counter said that even non-voters could get coffee with “no complainin’” from the Ben & Jerry’s staff. That add-on is strikingly reminiscent of the fate of Starbucks’ “It’s Bigger Than Coffee” promotion, which was forced to extend its offer of free coffee to non-voters to avoid violating laws that prohibit giving rewards in exchange for voting.
Read more!
“I am a firm believer in the notion that you can do good and do well at the same time,” Mass. State Senator Diane Wilkerson told undercover agents. Five weeks prior to that conversation, FBI agents witnessed, recorded and photographed Wilkerson stuffing a $1,000 bribe up her shirt, according to an affidavit released Monday.
The 32-page document accuses Wilkerson of accepting $23,500 in cash from civilian and undercover agents, as well as of delaying legislation to leverage a personal agenda. The affidavit follows Wilkerson from Dec. 2006 until the present and claims that she had illegally accepted money in return for legislative favors as early as May 2007. The details of the allegation are prefaced by a history of Wilkerson’s prior infractions, which include tax evasion, failure to adhere to campaign filing laws and for providing false testimony in a state court.
The case made against Wilkerson circles around political bullying to acquire a liquor license and real estate in Roxbury called “Parcel 8.” Earlier this month, Wilkerson filed legislation to lease the property to developer TrinMA Development and Management LLC.
Senate President Therese Murray told reporters today that Wilkerson should resign if she "values the integrity of the Senate."
Wilkerson was not at the Senate Caucus today, but instead, sent a letter to Murray regarding the allegations against her.
“I apologize to you and the members [of the senate] for being drawn into the madness that has become my life,” Wilkerson wrote. “But I can say that there is much more to the story than you have been told.”
Wilkerson has not announced whether she will continue her plan to run for reelection through a “sticker campaign” against Democratic nominee Sonia Chang-Diaz -- the underdog who unseated the senator in mid-September.
Read more!
BOSTON—John Kerry faced his first Democratic challenger for state senator this morning in a closed debate at WBZ headquarters.
Kerry's opposition is first-time candidate Edward O'Reilly, a defense attorney who joined the race to combat Kerry's position on the Iraq war. O'Reilly became Kerry's first in-house opponent in his 24 years as a Massachusetts senator — a challenge that, according to O'Reilly, Kerry has yet to take seriously.
"Democracy is not a spectator sport, it's a participatory sport... John Kerry is avoiding that," said O'Reilly after the debate. "[Kerry] would not have any debates... I sent two letters to him and he wouldn't respond to them — not at all."
That statement was refuted by Kerry's campaign manager, Roger Lau, who organized a roadside rally outside of the WBZ headquarters that morning. "We're debating today," responded Lau, "and it's only because we reached out to them, and we called and called and called, and we got it together." Lau said that the Kerry campaign was not avoiding O'Reilly and added that rumors of Kerry refusing to hold a primary debate were untrue.
In contrast to Lau's claims, some of Kerry's supporters outside the WBZ headquarters did not view O'Reilly as a legitimate threat to Kerry's reelection.
"Ed O'Reilly is a fucking joke," said Rhick Bose, a Boston College student and intern with the Kerry campaign. "He has like, 15 percent, 17 percent [of the vote]," continued Bose, "he's not a viable candidate."
Bose and two of his B.C. colleagues were among the estimated 165 people who showed up to support Kerry, some of whom skipped work or class to attend the event. Grossly outnumbered were O'Reilly's six supporters who showed up despite O'Reilly's requests otherwise. The 30 minute debate was closed to all members of the public, and only available live to reporters on closed circuit television. The debate will be broadcast at 8:30 a.m. Sunday morning on WBZ-TV.
"My supporters are working; it's a weekday," remarked O'Reilly. "It's basically a photo opportunity for Senator Kerry... and maybe to feed his ego, I'm not sure."
Read more!
