Did TV ads ever get the same response the "netroots" do now?

[LynzM]

I've been reading (and fuming) about the accusations of all of Lamont's supporters being wacky, super-left nutjobs. I happen to be one of those supporters, and I resent being called a Nazi for supporting Ned. Go figure.

After reading about the analysis of the "netroots" label as a derogatory term, I wondered... anyone know if candidates were first accosted for the media they used to communicate, when radio and TV first became available as means of communication with citizens?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. I'm reminded of the Nixon-Kennedy debates.

[LynzM]

2. That was my first thought about it

And really, the only example I can come up with... that those who watched thought Kennedy won, and those who listened thought Nixon, right?

That to me says more about the affects of appearance on perception of a candidate, though. :shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. No, it's not just appearance.

but intelligence to recognize the potential of a new medium.

This was actually a fairly big deal in the fifties. TV was seen as a gimmick and only radio news was the only "real" news in the eyes of the media and politicians. That ended up coming back to haunt a lot of politicians, I'm thinking of the 1956 conventions here, and the media looked abit foolish by pretending that TV was a gimmick. It's very much like these horrible 24 news stations write off blogs.

[LynzM]

4. Gotcha, that makes sense....

I hope that online networking and news soon gains the same credibility as other media. Personally, with the flexibility, immediate feedback and ability to incorporate other media, I think it shouldn't be long. But I guess we'll see!