Sunday, July 17, 2011

Social Media and Politics


Politicians are constantly seeking to communicate with the American people; not only to assert their positions on the important issues of the day, but also to connect on a deeper level and prove to them that they are just "one of the boys," or "the average joe."Political advertising has proven the most advantageous and feasible way to do this, most prominently by the use of massive funds to spur advertising campaigns on the most potent technological mediums of the time. The colossal amount of political advertising as well as its importance is illustrated by the fact that campaign spending in the United States grew fifteen-fold since 1952 from $140 million to nearly $2 billion in 1988, largely because of media expenditures. The technology used to access the American public has evolved with the ages, from newspapers in the 19th century, to radio in the early to mid 20th century, television in the latter 20th century and the 21st and now the up and coming political tool has been the Internet. An even more recent trend has been the use of Facebook and Twitter in order to better reach their constituents, especially young people who may not be as politically involved. With each change in technological medium that has been used by politicians to reach constituents it not only reflects the values of a society, but also has larger societal impacts. 

It is obvious why politicians would choose to advertise via mediums such as Facebook. In the month of June according to the Neilson advertising group Facebook amassed 87 million US users who each spent an average of four hours and thirty-seven minutes on the site. In order to be successful in the current political climate it is essential that politicians have a successful media campaign that incorporates the use of such mass mediums such as Facebook and Twitter. It is even say that Obama won in a large part because of his brilliant online media campaign. He swarmed the Internet with his campaign strategy including Facebook, twitter, myspace, youtube and flicker. Through these mediums they rallied supporters and organized communities, registering 1.5 million volunteers through myBarackObama.com and raising $600m from 3 million people. The benefits of online political advertising especially through social media extends beyond the masses of people reached, in that it changes the nature of politics. Instead of the didactic speeches seen over television social media creates a network of supporters and makes issues a personal, relevant two way conversation that inspired and empowered a generation that has rejected political apathy. Social media represents a direct engagement by users and politicians that leads to a sharing of ideas, opinions and information; essentially people are taking control of their own politics. Now it is not as much about the politicians views or issues, but rather about the fact that they take the effort to reach out to constituents on a more personal level. Social media is in effect taking politics back to the people. Politicians have always been obsessed with this idea of being portrayed as a “regular person” and have achieved this through a variety of ways, for example knowing how much a carton of milk costs, or going to five guys and getting a burger. Social media is yet another way of proving that a politician is in touch with the American people and up to date with current societal trends rather than being removed from the reality of the modern society we live in. If a politician knows how to “tweet” effectively or post on Facebook it validates their connection to the American people.

While I believe that the more personal politics fostered by the new social media is all well and good, it does irk me that social media has really sensationalized politics and has led to the creation of extreme factions because of the superficial nature of the issues presented. Whereas previously, Americans would read articles and articles about candidates view on an issue in the newspaper, now people will read a 400-character tweet on twitter and rapidly form their opinion from a miniscule amount of information. It is a reflection on modern culture that we won’t take the time to delve into the complexities of an issue and would rather be fed a small sound-byte to avoid thinking about the deeper issues at stake. Catchy headlines have become infinitely more important than substantial stories taking media away from both the more potent issues of the day as well as the multi-faceted nature of many issues.

Additionally, Internet allows any political figure to more easily create a façade while hiding who they truly are. The fact that any well established political official has a qualified media team posting on behalf of the politician, thus exemplifying the issue; it is not even the candidate creating this image it is a team who in effect create a artificial image that caters to the desires of the American people.

Furthermore, is a grasp of effectively using social media really necessary for the work of a politician? Should a public figure really be punished because they can’t effectively condense their views on an issue into a post under 50 words? It can be seen that this is a retrogressive trend in society with politicians becoming only concerned with how to market an opinion rather than the opinion itself. They too, rather than worrying about the depth of an issue are being rewarded for thinking on a superficial level in order to get elected. For example currently the first three posts on President Obama’s Facebook page are about the world cup women’s soccer game. This is clearly to create the image that the President is a down to Earth American just sitting around the television with his family watching the game, but shouldn’t the President be more than that? The time we live in is wrought with political issues threatening the very existence of our nation as we know it, from the war on terrorism, the underfunded social security program, healthcare and most currently the debt ceiling crisis. Sadly, I don’t see one post on the page about the crisis yet again exemplifying the superficial nature of social media and political advertising.

Social Media could be a chance to raise the level of politics in that it gives almost every American access to enormous resources to educate themselves about the issues and thus engage and form more well thought out opinions. However it turns out that many use the Facebook pages to see whom their favorite celebrities are voting for rather than for a higher purpose. In the words of Alice Cooper “If you’re listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you’re a bigger moron than they are.” It is up to the American public hold politicians to a higher standard and stop the trivialization of issues to elevate the level of politics in America and thus the nation as a whole. 




3 comments:

  1. Nisha -

    I really enjoyed your post this week! Among other things, I thought it was important to bring up the fact that social media is used by politicians to effectively take the political world out of the beltway and "back to the people" - I think at best this is what the convergence of social media and politics can achieve. Also, in terms of the brevity of constituents' focus and willingness to engage with the issues, it seems that social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter are an effective transmitter of sound-bites and stump speech moments, although I agree with you that the decreasing attention span of many citizens is watering down the issues to the point that politicians may feel they need to be so brief as to be quite uninspired.

    I do wonder though if those visiting Obama's Facebook page, to take your example, are actually interested in seeing news on the debt ceiling debates in general, or if this may just be your interest - as an astute and admittedly more interested and intellectual Facebook friend than many of his others. I guess I would say that such in depth reporting and considerations on the actual issues are best left to genuine media and journalists (as opposed to social media), or even a government agency or website like whitehouse.gov. Perhaps cynically, I have given up hope that a politician's Facebook page can be much more than a resource in some ongoing cult of personality. Maybe that's just me.

    d.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nisha - your post about the sound-byte nature of social network updates and personalized facades in politics is very interesting. One thing I noticed while browsing Obama’s Facebook page is the relative objectivity of the posts on his wall, which were mostly links to his campaign material or random news he picked up from places. For example, he posted the video “Compromise Isn't A Dirty Word” on July 17 that detailed Obama’s visit to some students in Massachusetts discussing the issue of compromise in democracy. The post itself was pretty objective, but the real politics of the issue starts in the comments section where people started discussing their own views on everything from the debt to Medicare. I think that social media sites like Twitter and Facebook do not paint a very distinct picture of the public figure at hand, because their posts online cannot be too skewed to either end. However, they do seem to serve as a good discussion board for those followers who want to discuss their opinions with other followers. Back to the Obama example – even in posts which are not political, such as the one on July 22 advertising Obama 2012 shirts, people started discussing politics. It doesn’t really matter, I guess, what the politician is putting on their page – social network pages end up being an outlet for supporters and opponents alike to share their views with the party involved.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nisha,
    You clearly conveyed the role of social media in shaping today's political races by mobilizing (mainly young) voters and generating the perception that candidates can relate to their demographics. You brought up an interesting point about how Obama raised $600 million from 3 million people during his 2008 campaign. The great sum of money that individuals contributed to his campaign online begs questions about the future of campaign finance. If candidates can garner extensive funding from individuals, what is the future for interest group contributions? Because lobbying groups currently play a great role in molding policy due to their campaign contributions to political candidates, would the government be able to ban interest groups' contributions to allay their influence in Washington? Social media provides great potential for grassroots political initiatives and a national push for campaign finance reform would pressure politicians to listen to their constituents rather than lobbyists. If campaign finance reform were successful, individuals' online donations may suffice for candidates to run effective campaigns.

    ReplyDelete