The founder of Tiscali has lost the election because he has not properly used the network to counter the excessive power of television Mediaset. Watch videos of Renato Soru on its website , After the defeat in Sardinia, and I wonder what's missing for the Italian Obama. Despite the recent setback, in fact, I think still the best person to pull the country out of the cave cathode. There is something strong in him, in his way of being left, a moderate leftist and radical together. And there is something weak. The question is what.
rally in Sardinia Soru
Strong is a kind of humanity. The fact that a person is simple and good. With that weakness that does not hide the baldness without regrowth, that voice that occasionally shakes but does not stop. Then there are the ideas which are clear and clean, reasonable and acute, sometimes difficult, because it's phony, however ambitious and generous. Protect the landscape and economy for traditional Sardinian tourist development as part of a system of social guarantees, is what any sensible person would want to Sardinia. Finally there is a strong coherence, the fact that he wanted sfanculare clumsy and myopic part of the PD (the electorate has rewarded him by giving 5% more votes for the list). All this is all that is strong and new: a simple person, intelligent, courageous, honest.
E cosa c’è di debole? Di debole c’è il lamento per il fatto che Berlusconi faccia campagna con tutti i media a sua disposizione, con una “incredibile volontà di conquista” (Cappellacci ha preso il 5% in meno della sua lista). E allora? Anzitutto Berlusconi è sempre quello: lo conosciamo da tempo. E poi la politica è proprio questo: sfidare e battere l’avversario con tutti i mezzi disponibili. Che cosa c’è di strano? C’è che Berlusconi è proprietario di Mediaset e utilizza le televisioni per vincere. Mentre Soru, che è fondatore di Tiscali, non utilizza in alcun modo la rete. Questo è strano. Fare politica alla D’Alema, come se la bicamerale contasse più Retequattro, was improvident in 1997, but today is inexcusable. Especially counting that as an entrepreneur, Soru is half a century ahead of Berlusconi.
Now, how should it use the network, one that still has 20% of Tiscali? Of course, not limited to obtaining the sorry excuse for a television, to post their videos and speeches (although sometimes unforgettable, such as those reported here in Sardinian campidanese). That is, not merely use it as do the staffs of the Democratic Party, which for an antidote to television regime propose two new television networks ( YouDem.tv and Red.tv ). I pass on the idea of \u200b\u200bdemocracy behind it and that there is little foresight front. But even assuming that they were to share equally with the Knights control the media on public opinion, the fact remains that the resources are totally inadequate. Think of the Internet as a television and think of it as a tool to respond to the cannon with a bow and arrow. While it is a means to respond with fighter bombers, provided that the pilots are prepared to bet a bold democratic.
Browse videos on the site Soru - the last is a bit 'down, the polls go wrong - and I say, sure, you will see it and not two thousand, one hundredth of those who have seen the monologue Berlusconi on Italy 1. Used well, the network is irrelevant. And it is wasted. Because we, as we look at - unlike those who look at Italy 1 - could also act. What would happen if, for example, properly organized, spedissimo each video to our hundred friends on Facebook? Would happen in that short of two thousand two hundred thousand of those who become Soru Berlusconi. And if you send more than we did even a video on Facebook phone calls, hold meetings, talk to the neighbors, printing of flyers from distrbuire intersection? Happen that the contacts would rapidly become two to four times those of Italy 1. So, while watching videos of Soru, I get to whisper, you lost because you've wasted. Have you applied to us as it would Berlusconi any one. But we are not the voters of Berlusconi.
The Obama campaign taught us: the network should be used to recruit, motivate and organize militants occasional multiply the initiatives of the proposed territory. The people you connect to the internet "for information", in reality he does so to inform and to act. How many people will gladly help a good candidate, if they really trust him and if they could concentrate their efforts in the short duration of a campaign (without knowing necessarily those of the PD section of Porto Torres)? I am confident that thousands would be ready. But to use them, the candidate and the party should be ready a Copernican revolution in the management of power, which limited their choice and take the literal words in the Constitution: "The sovereignty belongs to the people ..." (Art. 1 ).
A closer look, is precisely in this use participatory and activist network - certainly not in video streaming - it is clear that the advantage of a sincere and intelligent candidate, rather than smart, spectacular, and the bearer of true discourses and ideas, rather than commercials. In fact, the spots can convince someone to go vote, but then hardly be enough to convince someone else to turn. By their nature, the commercials are effective in communication star the mainstream (one to all), work well in the short term, the single bar, nell'univocità unanswered. But they lack the joint enough to allow their listeners to build new arguments in turn. It's very difficult for a voter Berlusconi, if unpaid, is then able to make a militant followers (the speech is different, of course, for AN and the League).
In most cases (except in those aware of connivance with the manipulator), this type of voter is one that has drunk an ocean of crap, often contradictory, with no cognitive content. If so try to repeat is unable to respond to any objection. For this reason, the proselytes, Berlusconi should have them vertically one by one. Can not count on their active cooperation. It must also renew the message so insistent, because its not a speech that "holds" is not something to remember and to say, that you enjoy because it makes you understand things, and therefore can not live on life of its own movement in language. If you repeat it and why there is a bit ', you know immediately who is a bullshit useless. Only if you listen again on television every day, backed by a one jaunty jingle, and next quarter of a nice ass, then you do not realize that it is meaningless. Questo significa che il Cavaliere non può sfruttare la reazione a catena a crescita esponenziale che è tipica del passaparola (e che per esempio vediamo funzionare su Facebook nelle Causes).
Viceversa, un messaggio come quello di Soru, senz’altro meno efficace nella dinamica dello spot, potrebbe esserlo molto di più in quella virale “di bocca in bocca”, proprio perché non è fatto di slogan, ma di argomentazioni circostanziate, riflessioni informate e ben costruite. Insomma, non folgorerà forse gli analfabeti nei primi 15 secondi di ascolto, ma fornirà agli ascoltatori mediamente colti, nei successivi 15 giorni, tutto il necessario per argomentare a loro volta, e per convincere qualcun altro. In other words, discourses are more suitable for one use participatory and activist network, instead of vertically indoctrinate every voter to "reactivate a social network of proselytism" horizontal ", which propagates the chain reaction following an exponential growth.
For these reasons, it seems to me that the Obama campaign participatory, with the network used in advanced mode to recruit, motivate and organize militants could make a difference in elections where there was a credible leader, who endow a bold strategy and generous. And I think it would be a difference also inherently difficult for professionals to fill the marketing of Publitalia, because they cease to be just marketing.
[ Rate this article OKNOtizie Circulation. ]
0 comments:
Post a Comment