February 22, 2004, The New York Times
By JIM
RUTENBERG
IT was a sharp
video attack, jarring in a political season
that has been unusually short on negative advertising. A
woman, sitting at a keyboard, seeks information about
Senator John Kerry on the Internet. She unearths all sorts
of scandalizing tidbits.
³More special interest money than any other senator. How
much?² she says.
The answer flashes on the screen: $640,000. ³Ooh, for
what?² she says, ³typing out Paybacks?²and then reading
aloud from the screen, she says, ³Millions from executives
at HMOıs, telecoms, drug companies.² She add,
"Ka-Ching!"
She can only come to one damning conclusion: Mr. Kerry,
she says, is ³Unprincipled.²
The one-minute spot, introduced a week ago, did not appear
on television, but on President Bushıs campaign Web site.
And so a new bare-knuckled political use of the World Wide
Web showed its head: the Internet attack ad.
When the Web was in its infancy, Internet utopians
envisioned a political revolution, predicting that the new
medium would engage and empower voters as never before.
Much of what they envisioned has come to pass, with the
Internet facilitating vigorous debate this year, most
dramatically, giving Howard Deanıs campaign the ability to
raise millions.
But part of the Webıs appeal has been its unbridled nature,
and it is showing that it can act as a back alley - where
punches can be thrown and things can be said that might be
deemed out of place, even if just at a particular moment,
in the full light of the mainstream media.
³The principals themselves feel like they can act out there
in a way that they wouldnıt dare to do in the mainstream
media,² said Jonathan Zittrain, a director of the Berkman
Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.
Mr. Bushıs campaign, for instance, has not been ready to
launch a confrontational television ad, let alone a
positive one, because it is trying to cling to the
transcendent trappings of the Rose Garden for as long as
possible.
But it wanted to rob Mr. Kerry of his claim to be a
reformer - by pointing out his support from special
interests - without wading too deeply into real campaign
waters, said Mark McKinnon, Mr. Bushıs chief media
strategist.
³Senator Kerry was getting a free ride from a lot of the
Democrats, and we felt it was important to point out what
he was saying was inconsistent with his record, but we were
not prepared to engage that fully yet,² he said. ³The Web
offered a modulated way of engaging.²
The Democrat candidates have not aggressively used attack
ads on the Web, although they have used Mr. Bush as a
target on television instead of confronting each other,
which could risk weakening the partyıs chances of gaining
the White House.
The Bush Web ad offered all of the emotional impact of a
television commercial without all of the political impact.
For one, a Web ad, unlike a television commercial, does
not fall under new election rules requiring candidates to
appear in their own advertisements to voice approval of
them. By not having to take direct responsibility for his
anti-Kerry spot, Mr. Bush got some distance from it - even
though it is on his Web site.
But perhaps most significantly, the Web has evolved as a
relatively permissive environment. A negative advertisement
that might rub viewers the wrong way in their living rooms
is apparently less likely to do so when they are at their
computers.
The tension between the different strata of media was
evident when The Drudge Report, the news Web site, recently
reported that several major news organizations were
investigating a rumor that Mr. Kerry may have had an
extramarital affair.
Unlike the Monica Lewinsky scandal, news of which The
Drudge Report also broke, the Kerry rumor had no
accompanying criminal investigation, which could justify
coverage by itself, and newsrooms across the country found
themselves in a state of paralysis - caught between
ignoring a story millions already knew about or validating
a charge without independent confirmation.
The pressure mounted as The Drudge Report posted follow-up
articles, effectively fanning the flames. Those watching
from the sidelines saw the situation as a test of just how
far the major newspapers, magazines and television networks
would allow themselves to be pushed.
³Clearly the Internet is accelerating the pace at which
politics move,² said Jim Jordan, Mr. Kerryıs former
campaign manager. ³And, increasingly, it seems to allow the
mainstream media to rationalize editorial decisions that
wouldnıt have been made in the past.²
Ultimately, most news organizations, however, did not take
the bait, with some ignoring the story entirely and others,
including The New York Times, reporting denials from Mr.
Kerry and the woman in question deep within their news
pages.
³There was no proof of anything,² said Tom Hannon, the CNN
political director. He said the network buried the denials
in other campaign reports. Mickey Kaus, who had discussed
the ethics of reporting the rumor on his Web blog,
kausfiles.com, agreed that two different journalism worlds
exist and he said that itıs a good thing.
³Clearly we seem to be settling into an equilibrium where
standards on the Web are different, and people can live
with that as long as the mainstream press behaves the way
it behaved during this latest scandal, which is to say they
stick to their own standards,² Mr. Kaus said.
On the Internet, he said, a large number of people can get
wind of the sorts of conversations taking place in the
proverbial smoke-filled rooms.
³Now everybody can know what the political pros know,² he
said. ³So if youıre a voter concerned about electability,
you want to know Kerryıs potential problems down the road.
Now you have a vague idea, and you can discount them or
take them into account depending on what you think.²
Mr. Zittrain of Harvard said: ³The question now is, will
the mainstream media be the tail of the Internet dog? Or,
as the Internet itself continues to go mainstream, will the
discourse there smooth around the edges?²