Social media could prove to be a powerful tool during the upcoming election. While it’s obvious that the news media will continue to use their sites to keep the viewers up to date, this type of communication continues to be a one-way flow of controlled information. Savvy politicians not only use main stream news, but also other types of social media to get their message out. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are examples of interactive social media that will be used for both positive and negative politicking by campaigners and as well as interested individuals to get their messages across to others. But studies show that “social networking use was a negative predictor of political cynicism” (Hanson, Haridakis, Wagstaff Cunningham, Sharma & Ponder ,2010) in the last election. While I thought that the Facebook posts, tweets, and blogging would do a great job of educating the voters on candidate qualities, it seems like this is not the case.
The internet social tools are a wonderful way to have cyber conversations and quickly spread ideas. But what typically happens is that people that are interested in following a blogger or tweet will probably have a similar opinion to the author, so the message stays within the social groups of similar interests. Tweets will be sent to the followers, like minded groups will follow bloggers and specific Facebook personalities. So, while the messages will go around the world in a flash and can stimulate a lot of conversation, the odds of swaying a vote are low since it is likely that the information will stay within groups of people with similar opinions.
In Today’s Election game, Anyone can play
The politicians also see interactive social tools as a way to get their message to their followers. Obama used this successfully in the 2008 election. His campaign team was able to get information out incredibly quick to their followers. The Obama campaign was more successful than McCain’s in using interactive social media to keep voter interest and momentum. This helped him win the votes of the younger people. Just like in the mainstream news, however, the message was controlled information. All is not perfect in the cyberworld, since control of the message content can be lost or manipulated in the use various types of social media. People posting to sites such as Facebook and YouTube provide the path “for ordinary citizens to create their own political content, distribute it online, and comment on the content created by others” (Hanson, et al, 2010). It’s easy for someone to pull a quote out of context, do a little photo manipulation, and create a message to serve a personal crusade. Sometimes the messages go “viral”, and are seen by a large public. For bad or good, no longer will the campaign offices of the candidates be in full control of what goes out into the public eye. For the most part these messages, while offensive to some and humorous to others, will have little effect on voter opinion. For me, I'm going to enjoy the mud slinging on YouTube, while trying to sort out the real information in order to make my election choices.
References
Gary Hanson, Paul Michael Haridakis, Audrey Wagstaff Cunningham, Rekha Sharma & J. D. Ponder (2010): The 2008 Presidential Campaign: Political Cynicism in the Age of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube, Mass Communication and Society, 13:5, 584-607
By Larry S.
No comments:
Post a Comment