Recently, I did a story about changes in Congressional rules, giving members of Congress more leeway to post online content. Now they can have their own Facebook pages, and Youtube has recently created channels specifically for the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Members of Congress aren't the only ones taking advantage of those opportunities. President Barack Obama, Queen Elizabeth II and even Pope Benedict XVI have recently created channels on Youtube. (Queen Elizabeth's is mostly footage of her playing "Guitar Hero." OK, I just made that up.)
Personally, I'm all for that -- simply as a matter of free speech. But as an added side benefit, I think it's going to be a boon for journalists.
That may seem counterintuitive. Members of Congress who led the initiative to allow for Youtube channels spoke of their desire to communicate directly with their constituents, bypassing "traditional media" such as newspapers.
A lot of the analysis I've been reading about this trend harps on the further marginalization of traditional media, and the way that new technology such as Youtube channels makes newspapers and TV stations increasingly irrelevant.
I emphatically disagree. Frankly, I think all this will just give us more to work with.
Now, I'm about to use an analogy that could be easily -- and disastrously -- misinterpreted. So let me give this caveat right up front.
I AM NOT IMPLYING THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE SERIAL KILLERS!
Got that? OK, then. A few years back, I read the book "Mind Hunter" by John Douglas. Douglas is an influential FBI profiler who was instrumental in capturing several serial killers. He's probably best known as the real-life inspiration for the character of Jack Crawford in "Silence of the Lambs."
In one part of the book, Douglas writes about how serial killers, and criminals in general, will sometimes try to fake out investigators. They'll do this with communications, either directly to law enforcement or through the press, designed to throw them off the trail with misleading information.
According to Douglas, those attempts invariably fail. The reason is because an experienced profiler can derive insights about the criminal even when he or she is attempting to be misleading. Bottom line -- any information whatsoever is useful to people who know what they're doing.
So on a (generally) far less malevolent level, I can see the same dynamic existing with elected officials trying to present certain images of themselves via Youtube channels.
Members of Congress already frequently trip themselves up with ill-advised comments on-camera. One problem with being a newspaper reporter is that our information-gathering process traditionally doesn't involve recorded statements. It's always been easier for politicians to divorce themselves from comments made to us, rather than to TV and radio reporters, by simply stating: "I was misquoted. I didn't say what they claim I did."
But as any celebrity who's been drunk around a camera during the past couple of years can tell you, videos that show up online take on a life of their own.
It's going to be a lot harder for a member of Congress to claim that he or she never supported an unpopular position if a video from his or her own video channel shows otherwise. And it's going to be a lot harder for them to claim that they were misquoted by a newspaper when we can post those videos on our Websites or blogs.
Don't get me wrong. Yes, there are some reporters out there who believe they're not doing their jobs properly unless they're nailing someone to the wall. I've never been one of them. I'll even risk being derided as a Pollyanna by my peers with the following statement: Most of the elected officials I've dealt with have been ethical and capable.
But I'm confident in stating that all of the elected officials to whom those adjectives apply would agree with me on one point. Accountability is a good thing.
So bring on the Youtube videos. I'll be watching.
Leave a comment