08
Video games and the 1st Amendment
Kristin Gossel
On Tuesday, while Americans were at the polls, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that caused the Justices to ponder what the Founding Fathers would have thought about video games. In Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association/Entertainment Software Association (ESA), lawyers for Powell Tate’s client the ESA, urged the high court to strike down a 2005 California statute that would regulate the sale and rental of violent video games.
During the lively discussion, several justices seemed skeptical of the measure, questioning its necessity, enforcement and, most importantly, its constitutionality. They also wondered if upholding the California law would lead to regulations of other forms of media. Justices Scalia, Ginsburg and Sotomayor asked about the violent content found in Grimm’s fairytales, Bugs Bunny and rap music.
The Polipulse snapshot of the online conversation around the case shows that many share the Justices’ concerns. About 40 percent of those blogging and Tweeting about the issue noted the need to protect the 1st Amendment, more than 20 percent expressed that this an issue for parents and one that government shouldn’t be involved in and about 15 percent mentioned the Entertainment Software Rating Board system already in place to help keep games intended for adults out of the hands of children.
Later this session, the court will announce its decision and we will learn whether or not the Justices feel this modern form of entertainment is entitled to the same First Amendment protections as books and movies.
02
On the Pulse
Jenna Langer
Powell Tate is on the pulse (pun intended) of sentiment analysis. That is, now we’re measuring not only how many people are talking about a given issue online, but their attitude and pivot points within actual conversations. Last week we launched PoliPulse, a tool that visualizes this data and creates a unique daily graphic summary of the policy issues driving online conversation.
But don’t take our word for it. Crimson Hexagon, our PoliPulse development partner, has demonstrated that they know a thing or two about sentiment analysis. In fact, they were recently quoted in both The New York Times and Fast Company on how we’re figuring out how to use the (literally) billions of tweets, blog posts and Facebook updates typed every day. The articles highlight one of the significant benefits of sentiment analysis: the ability to provide data on public opinion in real time – and not only that, but the ability to passively monitor conversations, tracking issues as they develop organically (vs. having respondents reply to specific questions presented by a pollster).
We use PoliPulse to monitor eruptions (and latencies) in a given set of conversation topics and analyze the impetus behind the fluctuations, the sentiment behind them and, most importantly, how best to engage (or not engage) in the issue. Our colleague Eric Hoffman last week used PoliPusle to analyze the Tea Party movement, suggesting that although the Tea Party consists of loose-knit organizations, their concerns are cohesive – and that typically leads to large voter turnout.
As you can see, the significance of sentiment analysis is catching on, and you can expect to see it in media coverage of the midterm elections today. The New York Times recently launched an online tool that measures Twitter traffic for candidates running for Senate or governor. And as part of its famed election coverage tonight, CNN will use sentiment analysis to identify issues that gain traction online. Can you say the new iteration of the Election 2008 Interactive Map?
28
With the Tea Party, motivated supporters could mean motivated voters
Eric Hoffman
The PoliPulse snapshot into the online conversation around the Tea Party movement offers some interesting insights into both the motivations of the grassroots movement as well as the polarization it is stirring.
Motivation
Days away from an election, pollsters and campaigns are asking how motivated will voters self-identified as Tea Partiers be? The PoliPulse snapshot indicates the answer is very motivated. A full 41 percent of the Tea Party conversation are anti-Obama (11 percent), protesting Democrats (17 percent) or protesting taxes or government (13 percent). Having more than four in 10 conversations, especially among members of loose-knit organizations, unified around essentially the same message — a protest against incumbent Democrats — points to cohesion. And cohesion among voting blocs typically leads to large turn-out numbers.
Polarization
There has been a significant amount of news coverage around racist acts at Tea Party rallies. The online dialogue gives some depth to how this coverage has seeped into the public’s consciousness. Of all the rationale given by those who say they oppose the Tea Party, one-fifth of the discussion says the Tea Party is about racism and hate. Interestingly, 9 percent of the online chatter seems to try to push back against that notion with a declaration that they aren’t racists. Any way you slice it, having 24 percent of the entire online conversation center on racism is strikingly high.
The contrasts in the online dialogue around tea parties are stark. Those supporting the Tea Party indicate they are protesting Democrats and government while many of those opposing it say it’s rooted in racism.
We clearly are witnessing a “Mad as Hell” electorate.
