Todd Mundt - Latest Comments in Thinking “Bigger” about the Election

Re: Thinking “Bigger” about the Election

Jeff from Cedar Falls — Sat, 12 May 2007 23:01:50 -0000

I find it interesting that public radio wants to chase around these topics and new terms like "social media". They could also be termed coorperate smoke screens from the real issues.

The numerous ways politicians avoid having frank discussion of the issues should be the focus of your campaign, and how to get to the core of it, not beliving politicians are providing any more closeness on My Space sites.

Public radio has a real opportunity to ask real questions about pressing issues that effect us all. Thus far no one is asking those questions.

Jeff

Re: Thinking “Bigger” about the Election

John Barth — Tue, 08 May 2007 21:17:27 -0000

Good summary. It's important that what happens be more than a top-down set of content and feeds, though. That would replicate the existing media to audience structure and the existing network to station construct.

The most distinctive opportunity in this next election is the engagement of listeners -- as contributors, participants, shapers of coverage, debate, discussion and we hope the tone of the campaign.

Can public broadcasting move audience-based material beyond the gotcha-videos that have so far rattled campaigns (that's not to say they are not valuable, but...) ? Will we see more citizens as front-row questioners of candidates, putting issues, ideas and simple questions to candidates, advertising consultants and others in addition to queries from the press?

What opportunities can we create to encourage stations and producers to work with listeners to bridge the transition from passive media consumer to active contributor of meaningful perspective, informed insight, idea generator.

All told public radio does have about 1,000 'producer-reporters.' But think bigger than traditional roles of information PROVIDER: we have millions of listener/viewers who could be increasing 'coverage' a thousand fold; with guidance and editorial engagement, we could increase the meaningful coverage perhaps 100 fold; and if we are daring enough to step back and listen to what listeners and viewers tell us, we might re-shape how a campaign gets covered. By removing the bubble where candidates are protected, and freeing the media from its constrained kabuki dance, there's a chance we can make 2008 sound and look a lot more meaningful than previous election rounds.

Let's not just change the coverage. Let's change the entire tenor of campaigns and act to bridge people with the politics, the voter with the politicians, the individual with the issue.

Try this on for size: campaigns sell candidates to voters. Why don't we ask voters to 'sell' themselves to the candidates: here's what I stand for as a citizen, here's what I want in a leader; here is what I hope for in a country...will you be my president?

Call it an "anti-campaign ad" campaign. Have voters create the messages that frame the debate the candidates should enter.

We actualy have a chance to think really big and we should push ourselves to intensely focus on what listeners and viewers feel in their gut. Because behind the closed curtain of the voting booth, that's where real democracy happens. And we have a chance to understand what drives the private decisions that change a nation.

I suspect traditonal issues coverage is only the beginning: we need to get to the passionate and frequently irrational responses to issues and conditions; the hidden dimensions that shape why people vote and don't vote. How do we uncover distrust, apathy, fear, the hunger for hope? They are not policy issues. Voters have to be given the genuine chance to tell us those stories.

Re: Thinking “Bigger” about the Election

Rob Paterson — Tue, 08 May 2007 08:33:13 -0000

I am so glad that you are part of this Todd.

Sounds like the conversation needs to stay at the objectives and some core principles - such as we will use stuff that we have and that then with an objective plus a principle empower small groups with a leader to get it done.

General Groves built the Penatagon after only 3 weeks of planning m- all on paper

I also wonder how people who don't use social mnedia can be part of that conversation? Would it be easier if a small group whom knew their way around social media were given the space to act in that part of the deal?

Re: Thinking “Bigger” about the Election

Jevon — Mon, 07 May 2007 22:57:17 -0000

It's so great to see some of this conversation getting blogged finally Todd -- hopefully more will follow in your footsteps.

There are so many projects I can see for the election -- my mind races. Can't wait!