Having spent the last nearly 15 years in the graphics, branding and technology fields, I tend to have - in some cases - a somewhat different analytical perspective regarding how we are viewed externally. By that I mean those unfamiliar with the movement, language and idiosyncrasies of the progressive culture, which constitutes roughly the majority of the American population. To most people news is nothing more than a brand, and they focus on headlines that quantify issues for them, not granularities that - although vitally important - are hard to digest and understand without the all-important and increasingly fleeting investment of time. In contrast, the vast majority of KOSSACKS understand the terminology, focus on the granularities and revel in the stimulation deriviative of such intellectual pursuits. For most, however, this is too complicated. They need Coke, iPods and neat packages.
I'll try to keep this as short as possible. Given my penchant for <irony>granularities</irony> I could go on forever, but I'll try not to. Just commit to reading the next paragraph. I promise I'll get to the point...
Yesterday I was explaining to my girlfriend what a Podcast is. I explained that the name itself is representative of the application of exisiting technologies in a given context, in this case client machines or devices that can either stream or play back digitized audio. She remarked "Why the name Podcast?" From a branding perspective it's simple: by calling it a Podcast, one automatically attaches the technology to a term and product that has inserted itself into popular American culture - probably for some time - the iPod. It becomes a derivative of a tried, true and trusted product who's name has come to completely represent the personal digital music player. In fact, the term "Podcast" has already made it into the Oxford English Dictionary, and Adam Curry is in the new Time Magazine having been dubbed "The Podfather." This, despite the fact that most resources applying the technology are confusing, poorly presented, only understood by the technology-savvy and can only truly come to fruition when broadband WIFI is on every bridge and subway tunnel. However, although the technology itself is still abstract and confusing to most Americans, the brand is already in place, venture capitalists are dolling out money and the term is virtually insured to continue its march into the American consciousness. The simple power of a name. Just like many of us refer to a soft drink as a Coke, many now refer to a portable music player as an iPod, and the off-shoots are poised to utilize that influence.
Whew! OK. So, on to the point. My point is not in the specific context above, which is simply meant to illustrate bradning power. Rather it is relevant to the power of presentation and how it applies to something like Kos. Although Kos is clean, concise, well presented and by virtue of its existence on the web available to the masses, it really isn't - available to the masses, that is - and here's some of why I think that's true:
Comfortable Constructs
As progressives in a hostile poltitical environment, we tend to retreat into the constructs with which we are familiar and give us comfort, just like the average American might do with a completely different set of constructs. Where we retreat into discussions on Kos that keep us from going insane when reading GOP talking points masquerading as news headlines, someone else might watch a football game, read their local newspaper or even The New York Lies Times. The problem is, the more hostile the environment, the more we retreat into those constructs. The message becomes more cryptic, culturally isolated and difficult to decipher for someone potentially on the cusp of progressivism. We tend to appear embittered and combative, and the terminology becomes more internal to the movement, potentially alienating those on the cusp or approaching it. As testament to our furthering isolation, The New York Times has now taken the content most worth reading on their site and hidden it behind a monetary firewall. Who's going to pay for Frank Rich's editorials? We are! And where is that money going to go? It's going to go to more shilling for the Republican party on the front page of that stinking newspaper. The Judy Miller Defense Fund, perhaps? So...
Terminology
We can never hope that the majority of the population will choose to become as informed as we like to be, or think we are. They don't have the time to become acquainted with the political terminology and legal terms often repeated on this site. Our postings are almost always in opinion form, and while the place for Kos is undeniable and it should not change, terms like "KOSSACK," "Liberal Blogosphere," "Repug," and even "blog" - so on and so forth - are undecipherable code to large portions of the masses. In some cases, this can hurt us in terms of perception. I still have people that do not know what a blog is visit one of my blog sites. Before someone brands me a troll, I am not suggesting that the terminology be changed, at least not in the context of something like Kos. That said, even the term liberal presents us with a potential disadvantage due to its demonization, and the average person coming to this site has a learning curve that they are more than likely unwilling to navigate.
Presentation
Like I said, Kos is clean, well presented and concise. But the majority of the liberal blogs are not. Most of them are messy, difficult to navigate, break across different browsers and do not appear to be "official" in any way. For one to come to the conclusion that they trust the content, they must come to trust the opinion of the authors which requires navigation of that learning curve. In many cases, well written blogs do not even have their own domain, but rather are subdomains of Blogger or another free online journal service. Brilliant, well informed writers compose stories on sites that look like nothing more than isolated liberal venting on the internet, to the average person. Given that it seems like there is some money coming in to this "network" via advertising, why aren't people helping each other with hosting? Liquidweb offers an excellent shared hosting service for $14.95/mo. It occurs to me that the cost could be footed by other, larger blogs, and would only serve to strenghten the network. Aside from the fact that the presentation of these sites is often cryptic and messy, they sometimes feel like "clubs." Exclusive ones that seem to require intellectual membership that a lot of people tend to resent. One can click through the blog roll and dive deeper and deeper into a confusing, disjointed hierarchy of sites that appear as if they are a part of some "murky underworld" and can be branded as such by the MSM. They appear to be innaccessible, and perception-wise that makes them such. I read many stories on this site concerning framing. In my opinion the presentation is a huge part of that, and can serve to brand the movement in a more positive, accessible, professional light. Often we do not look the part, and if you don't look the part, many times you are not taken seriously.
Format and some kind of conclusion: Kos as news?
As I mentioned above, most of the time the stories on these blogs are presented in opinion format. They are filled with political and legal terminology that most people do not understand or are unwilling to learn. We are fighting an uphill battle against the MSM while allowing - even contributing - to the framed image of us as a fringe portion of society. So, instead of wallowing in that assesment, compounding our anger and isolating ourselves as a result, why not present the truths written here on a daily basis in a format with which American consumers are more familiar? Why not Kos as news? Couldn't the network pool its resources to create a news source that reports truths in an understandable format? Couldn't every single story on this website be repackaged - slightly more objectively - and constitute a trustworthy news source? One that looks like The New York Times Online, emulates a newspaper format where credit is given in the traditional style, and face sto associate the author's name with. A news source that has headlines like:
Bush Administration Nixes Prevailing Wage For Disaster Workers
or:
Republcians Vote Down Independent Katrina Commission
or:
Economy Can't Sustain More Borrowing, Say Economists
Ironically I just read a post on the front page that is reflective of much that I am saying here. We are fighting the MSM, but what does it take to appear legitimate to the masses ourselves? Nothing more than a well branded format and presentation with fair, true and relatively objective content. Granted print would require vast sums of money, but it could be done on the web first. One wouldn't even need to hide behind the headlines because they'd only be telling the truth, albeit in a non-inflamatory manner. I see absolutely no reason why the "netroots" can't remain overtly partisan but at the same time develop a true news source in the traditional mold. We Liberals can push news sources like The Nation all we want, but they have already been branded as heavily partisan elitist intelligentsia, and will therefore have a really hard time swaying general opinion. We need a medium for headlines, not terminology. Headlines that are not ripped from the body of a Presidnetial Address, but ones that report the direct effect of policy on the average American. Headlines that expose the damage being inflicted to this country by the Bush Administration presented in simple, digestable, bold text. I could build something comparable to NYT Online by myself in a very short amount of time.
I build all kinds of websites, including content managed ones. To the extent that I can personally manage it, I'm willing to help if anyone needs it.
This is all just opinion, and is not meant to offend or criticze anyone. Maybe I have no idea what I am talking about. I just think we need better overall strategy, one in which branding and presentation are important, and format is used strategically. We need Coke and iPods. Onward into the American consciousness!
Man, am I fried.