The Role of the Internet - September 23rd
Discuss at least two advantages and two
challenges/problems that can result from a politician’s use of social media.
Use examples from the social media accounts of at least two different political
figures to support your response.
ReplyDeleteTimes have virtually changed. Originally politicians would have pamphlets handed out in the streets. Shortly after there were newspapers to spread the word of candidates, then came radio and television. Each new invention made it simpler for politicians to advertise themselves. The newest technology is Internet, although Internet originally only allowed candidates to send emails or chat in chat rooms it was still a large advantage. Now candidates can spread their message via email or advertisements on webpages as well as social media. “The Obama campaign utilized new media, providing the blueprint for future campaigns.” (Trent, 368). Social media has changed the way politicians are viewed. Social media makes it much easier to feel connected to the candidates. Regular people can easily click “like” or “follow” on many social media outlets to get all their favorite politicians updates.
Social media is now at our fingertips; it’s on our phones, our laptops and our tablets. It can be accessed anywhere at any time. Advantages of using social media are endless. Politicians can easily connect to their “followers” on a more personal level as well as share information much quicker then ever before. Social media also reaches a different age group than any other outlet. Social media reaches the new voters and the next generation. From personal experience I could tell you that I would know nothing about politics or the election if it weren’t for social media. Although I didn’t vote in the past election because I wasn’t registered, I still knew quite a bit about the election because of applications like Twitter and Facebook.
I think some of the disadvantages of using social media are that it doesn’t reach many in the older generations because they don’t use it or understand how to use it. I also think that social media is so quick that a politician can post something and immediately take it down but someone may have seen it and shared it with their friends already. It’s also sometimes hard to feel personable through social media since you can’t share emotions without the use of emoticons.
I personally do not follow any politicians on Twitter or Facebook but I have seen my friends often retweet Governor Chris Christie. I decided to look at his twitter, I think he uses it rather well although not all the tweets are him personally he shares information about conferences as well as videos and interviews. Christie also had a few tweets that were a bit more personable such as: “Today Gov McGreevey & I are together to announce plans to continue our belief that no life is disposable & everyone deserves a second chance Together we'll end the stigma & change the conversation in NJ so that just when you think you're down doesn't mean you're out #secondchances” (@GovChristie). Christie also cheered on a NJ resident in the recent Miss America pageant via twitter.
A politician that could use social media better is Mark Sanford. We looked a little bit on his Facebook page in class and I found it very interesting. Although Sanford was trying to be personable he went a little overboard. Sanford gave a ridiculous amount of information about his marital problems from 2009. I think that he could have easily not posted anything considering it’s been 5 years. He doesn’t need to let people in to his personal life, as much as he has, a simple “I’m sorry” would have sufficed.
When used properly social media is a great thing for candidates and as generations change they will continue to use social media so I think it will be a great tool for all politicians to get ahold of. Not only will it make their message heard but also it will make it heard much faster and by many more people.
Work Cited:
Christie, Chris. Weblog post. Twitter. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2014. .
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
Social media has forever changed the lines of communication from politicians and candidates to their supporters and potential voters. In the past, political figures just had access to cable television, phone lines, and mailing lists as a means of mass communication while now they have access to the internet. There are many advantages to the use of the internet such as reaching a broader audience, being able to better target their audience with specific ads, and using social media as a free form of advertisement. With all the advantages there are disadvantages to the social media platform as well. In this case we will look at the twitter account of Senator John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) and the Instagram account for the White House (@whitehouse).
ReplyDeleteSenator John McCain has 1.9 million followers of his twitter account. In a moment notice, Senator McCain can send a message to almost 2 million people, as long as it is 140 characters or less. Nevertheless that is still impressive. For instance on September 19th, @SenJohnMcCain tweeted, “ Stmt on Obama Admins refusal to provide military assistance to #Ukraine in face of #Russia invasion and occupation.” At the end of the tweet there was a link that led to McCain’s website where you would be directed to a statement made by the Senator on the Obama administration’s refusal to provide military assistance to Ukraine. This was an excellent use of social media by the Senator to promote his foreign policy platform in regards to the current Ukraine situation. Reading this tweet, a follower will understand Senator McCain’s stance on the issue, that the United States should supply military assistance to the Ukrainian government and if you wanted further information, you could follow the link to read his full statement. Judith Trent believes, “The primary function of Twitter is ‘authentic personal communication’” (Trent, 375). Following @SenJohnMcCain gives an individual a belief they have a connection with the Senator because they can favorite or retweet his tweet regarding Ukraine, or they can tweet back at the Senator directly giving their personal insight on the situation. That is an advantage of twitter, informing your followers where you stand on an issue and giving your followers the ability to start communicating and debating about the topic.
Of Senator McCain’s 1.9 million followers however, how many of them are Republicans? How many of his followers voted for him in the 2008 presidential election? How many voted for him in his Senate race? The point here is, of McCain’s 1.9 million followers, if a majority of them agree on his stance on issues and would vote for him anyway solely based on his political party, there isn’t a chance for the Senator to gain anything from twitter. If all his followers are die-hard McCain supporters, they will support him anyway and he is just preaching to the choir on his twitter account. An advantage of social media is that you have an ability to reach great and broad audiences, but if your followers have been your supporters from the start, in essence, the Senator would be plateauing in his following, and hurting him at the polls in the
Thompson continued...
ReplyDeletefuture.
The White House’s Instagram account, @whitehouse, has 457K followers. This account is there to support the platform of whoever is in office. Since 2008, the account has posted photos and videos of President Obama at various events promoting policy initiatives. For example, 25 weeks ago, the White House account posted a photo with a message that reads, “Thanks to the The Affordable Healthcare Act, More Than 6 Million Americans have signed up for private healthcare coverage”. In the caption, there is a link to healthcare.gov, where people could go and signup for Obamacare. There are also multiple hashtags that people can search that would direct them to this post. Using Instagram to guide people to the healthcare website is an effective and efficient use of social media. Also with the hashtags, the post can reach Americans all over the country with a simple search. Michael Turk believes hashtags give politicians an advantage because searching “for these tags yields a nearly endless flow of information, discussion, and debate” (Turk, 58). By using hashtags on this post, people can get healthcare information from the White House and other Instagram users by clicking on the hashtag.
Although social media is a great outlet to get politician’s platforms out to the public, show the public what they are doing in Washington, and stay connected to their voters, social media should not take away from the importance of face to face interaction with politicians. Bills, foreign policy, and economic strategy are not done through social media, but through personal meetings and connections. A politician can look great on social media, but in person if they are an awkward, not personal type of guy, they will have a hard time getting things done in Washington. Trent writes it best, claiming that citizen knowledge and participation are critical to a working democracy, and voters shouldn’t let social media become, “highly sophisticated tools of social manipulation” (Trent, 377).
Works Cited:
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
Turk, Michael. "Social and New Media--An Evolving Future." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. By Richard J. Semiatin. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. N. pag. Print.
Social media can be particularly useful for a political figure that is campaigning or maintain web presence. One of the advantages of social media is that it can quickly reach a large number of people and target new demographics. With more people on social media than ever before it is vital that politicians and campaigns implement digital strategies. While traditional mediums are still used, there can be many benefits to new media. Political figures can now reach other groups they may otherwise have no contact with. For example, politicians can now potentially reach larger amounts of young people who predominately use social and new age media as opposed to traditional. If a politician during a campaign focused only on television, print and radio advertising they could miss an entire demographic. In chapter 11 of Judith Trent’s text, she makes it clear that a major reason for Barack Obama’s success in the 2008 campaign can be attributed to his massive expenditure social media. Today Obama has one of the most followed Twitter accounts, demonstrating how extensive his reach is via new media.
ReplyDeleteIn the Trent text it states: “The assumption is that internet users are not easily categorized. They skim many topics and hit many sites. The key is to target “persuasive” messages for the right niche” (368-369). This is important since social media is advantageous because it can also be beneficial for reaching very specific groups of people. For example, a mailing campaign can reach large masses; however, its effectiveness can be unclear. Politicians can now use social media to focus in on groups that they want to appeal to. Social media is much more calculated and specific. Using social media management and reach programs, politicians can more accurately track how much attention is being paid to their ads and determine where they would like to focus promotion. In chapter 4 of Richard Seminate’s book he describes how traditional media can only go so far: “While television advertising can tell you the number of viewers turned to a program or channel at any point in time, it cannot tell you if the voter you are trying to reach actually saw the ad.” (51) Now with social media, campaigns and political firms can track every view and click on a social media post. Therefore it is essential that politicians maintain and gauge their social media.
Social media, however, can also be harmful to a political figure’s image. If implemented improperly social media can reflect detrimentally on a political figure. In last week’s class we looked at the governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford’s Facebook account. He wrote an extensive post delving into details about his scandal from several years ago. The post was eventually taken down and replaced but the damage had already been done; in this instance his social media presence made him look foolish.
Another potentially troubling problem social media can pose to politicians is their level of transparency. This can be a positive thing; a well-crafted social media image can create the perception of who a politician really is by “revealing” details about their life and day-to-day activities. However, this transparency and connectivity with the audience can also be negative. It appears that politicians try and craft a transparent image to stay good standings with the population because they have to for public relations reasons.
Trent describes the new phenomenon: “The growth of civic participation and the opening of the media market to new voices leads to increased transparency. It means that individual citizens have greater autonomy as political actors.” (370). Considering the Sanford case again it seems apparent that the connectivity between citizen and politician can be a precarious situation. Sanford’s Facebook letter is an example of a very large amount of transparency into a politician’s life through the new “media market”, yet clearly in this situation it was not positive.
• Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Second ed. Print.
ReplyDelete• Trent, Judith S.; Friedenberg, Robert V.; Denton, Robert E., Jr.. Political Campaign Communication : Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011. Ebook Library. Web. 22 Sep. 2014.
Lindsay Goldstein
ReplyDeleteSocial media, especially platforms like Twitter and Facebook, can be extremely beneficial for politicians, as they are effective, efficient, and extremely inexpensive to run. Social media use has grown tremendously in recent years, as most of the population, at least in the United States, seems to have some online presence. As a result, political figures are relying on the advancements in technology more and more. As Trent et al. write in the text, “As society and technology change, so do the ways politicians campaign and govern” (365), thus the increased activity of important figures online. The increase of social media use becomes important to note when discussing it’s political use, as it contributes to the effectiveness and efficiency when trying to reach the public.
The Trent et al. text focuses a lot of attention on the Internet, noting that “For the first time during the midterm elections of 2006, the Internet ranked among the top sources of campaign information,” (368), and mentions specific forms of social media, such as blogs, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, which are among the most popular platforms today. YouTube, for example, became a way for candidates to address a mass group of people. Trent et al. write, “In 2008, YouTube was used by candidates to attack opponents, introduce response ads, and to encourage less-than-flattering ‘creative’ works posted about opponents, or flattering works supporting a campaign,” (373). The ability to do all of these things really benefitted the political figures that chose to incorporate the tactic into their campaign.
There are many advantages for politicians who choose to use social media. For one, these political figures are able to disseminate news extremely quickly and to a very wide audience. This becomes extremely important, especially during times of crisis. Governor Chris Christie, for example, relied heavily on social media, mainly Twitter and YouTube, to give messages to the people of New Jersey and beyond during Hurricane Sandy. These Tweets, sent from Governor Christie’s official Twitter account, @GovChristie, contained messages like, “Don’t Be Stupid, Get Out,” along with a link to a YouTube video in which he addressed the media, alerting the public of the danger that was imminent. By urging citizens to evacuate via social media, he and his team were able to reach a large portion of the population who were able to make it out of their homes safely and in time, before the storm hit and would have made it impossible to leave.
Social media became extremely important during the hurricane, as well as during other natural disasters and emergency situations. In a New York Times article titled “How Government Officials Are Using Twitter for Hurricane Sandy,” Jennifer Preston and Brian Stelter write that “More than 20 million tweets were sent about the storm between Saturday and Thursday,” (1), a sign of just how many people relied on the social network for important information.
Lindsay Goldstein, Continued
ReplyDeleteAnother major advantage of politicians using social media is their ability to interact with their constituents, creating a sense of community and unity, making the public feel as if their opinions actually matter. This allows them to put more of their trust in their elected officials, as they feel like their thoughts and concerns are personally being taken care of. Whether the politician actually sits on their numerous social media platforms and personally interacts with the public, which many won’t even pretend they do, seeing as they have more important responsibilities, engagement is extremely important in politics. Through social media, political figures can keep their citizens in the know, providing behind-the-scenes photos to make the politician seem more relatable and approachable. Furthermore, Turk writes that social media can “make the sharing of political news easier,” (58), which is another huge advantage in politics.
That is not to say that social media use by politicians is without its disadvantages and that all politicians use it well. The problem tends to arise when campaigns become more about the YouTube videos and Facebook posts and less about the actual politics. Becoming a political figure comes with great responsibility and is a 24/7 job. If the public sees their elected officials spending all of their time posting pictures and videos, especially if their not necessarily important or seem silly, then the public has to wonder if they’re successfully doing their job. There’s a fine line between Tweeting too much and not Tweeting enough, and until the politician figures out a healthy balance, it can affect the way the public sees them. Also, like any public figure, politicians are subject to scandals that involve social media. Anthony Weiner and “Weinergate” is a great example of this. The politician used his official Twitter account, @AnthonyWeiner, to send a provocative image to a young woman, later denying his actions. As a result of the social media blunder, he was forced to resign. If politicians are not properly monitored, they can get themselves into trouble, and it ultimately affects their image.
Social media has become essential in politics. As Michael Turk writes, “Technology has changed the way voters get information as well as the way campaigns provide it,” (52), so it is more important than ever for politicians to take advantage of social media to ensure that their messages get across to as many people as possible.
Works Cited:
Preston, Jennifer and Brian Stelter. “How Government Officials Are Using Twitter for
Hurricane Sandy.” The New York Times, 2 Nov. 2012. Web. 22. Sept. 2014.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign
Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.
Print.
Turk, Michael. “Social and New Media – An Evolving Future.” Campaigns on the
Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Emily Fagan
ReplyDeleteSocial media can be a make or break medium. “Technology has changed the way voters get information as well as the way campaigns provide it” (Turk 52). A politician needs to find the right balance so they do not expose too much and get themselves caught up in a scandal.
One advantage of politicians using social media is that it reaches out to a large scale of people very quickly. “Sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube bring friends together and make the sharing of political news easier. User of Facebook, for instance, can create events, allowing supporters to organize themselves to conduct offline events or even just to repeat important news” (Turk 58). Twitter is especially helpful in campaigning because it allows politicians to send out quick updates on their campaign. With the growing technology, our attention spans are decreasing so being able to read something quick is better then reading a long article.
Another advantage of using social media is that it makes it easy for the voter to get involved. Voters want to feel like can be apart of the campaign, and want to say that they contributed to something, and with the increasing technologies mobilization is becoming easier. “Applications like Foursquare allow campaign supporters to check in from campaign events—sharing their location, involvement with the campaign, and current activities with friends” (Turk 60). Something else that is helping is QR codes; they are read through the camera on smartphones and by taking a picture of it you can instantly be brought to a politicians campaign website. This helps politicians get their word out, and collect more supporters.
A politician who does a good job at using social media is Obama. “The Obama campaign hired web specialist to plot strategies of contact to include the social networks of Facebook and MySpace, as well as YouTube videos” (Trent 368). He utilized new media, providing the blueprint for future campaigns. 2008 was a time when social media was still new, so it was a good idea to use it. He made it a point to be able to reach out to everyone.
Fagan contin...
ReplyDeleteOne problem with politicians using social media is that even though they are campaigning a lot through it, it doesn’t technically mean that voters are well informed. It is a well-known fact that people like to jump on the bandwagon, so does the use of this technology make voters better informed? “The web has the potential to encourage civic deliberation and participation. But, a word of caution is needed… Sadly, despite all the new communication technologies, citizen political awareness, knowledge, and understanding continue to decline” (Trent 377). Even though there is a lot more information online now, that doesn’t mean that the voters are well informed; they read one thing and they think that’s all they need to hear, but there is a lot more to take into consideration.
Another problem that can be caused when politicians use social media is sex scandals. Nothing is safe on the Internet; anything you put online will stay online forever. Since media is growing so much it is not uncommon for a politician to get caught up in a scandal. With the ability to talk to anyone, from anywhere, at anytime, the possibilities of getting caught up in some trouble are very high.
For example, Anthony Weiner got caught up in a scandal over twitter. He sent explicit pictures of himself to women who he found on twitter. With social media, politicians can do, or write whatever they want; they have no filter. Weiner made the mistake of not letting someone else handle his social media, and if he did, he wouldn’t have taken those pictures and the women wouldn’t have exposed them.
Social media has its advantages and its disadvantages. It is a good way to reach out to people at a different level, but if you use it the wrong way it can end up hurting a candidates chances.
Cited Work
Turk, Michael . “Social and New Media- An Evolving Future”.” Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Washington,
D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Trent, Judith. Political Campaign Communication. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2011. Print.
In the modern world of politics, a politician’s strongest tool, or biggest weakness, is their use of social media. Politicians now have the capability to reach the American public with the click of a button, where as politicians of old could only reach their public with television, radio, newspapers, or public events. It is not only an advantage now for politicians to utilize social media and the Internet, but a necessity. “The internet, broadly defined, offers numerous “tools” and opportunities for campaigns to reach specific audiences. Granted, some trend toward younger audiences, but with each election cycle, more middle-aged and older people are using the internet” (Trent 368). Social media is the most glaring tool that the Internet offers, allowing for various advantages and disadvantages for a politician while in office or on the campaign trail.
ReplyDeleteThe utilization of social media offers a plethora of advantages to a politician who knows how to use it effectively. A tremendous advantage that social media offers is the ability to create ones self image. An elected official has the ability to choose their colors, font, and many things that while they may seem insignificant, bolster their public image and promote the person they want to be. Hillary Clinton’s twitter account is a good example of a social media platform that utilizes this aspect well. She does not post frequently, only tweeting 95 times. It is her bio that is what really drives her point home of how she wants to be portrayed. Hillary Clinton’s twitter bio reads, “Wife, mom, lawyer, women & kids advocate, FLOAR, FLOTUS, US Senator, SecState, author, dog owner, hair icon, pantsuit aficionado, glass ceiling cracker, TBD...” (@HillaryClinton). She notes her personal successes first followed by her political successes, showing that she in fact wants to be portrayed as a woman first, politician second. Another tremendous advantage of social media is the ability to reach a great deal of people of many different demographics almost instantly. This allows for not only for elected officials to promote ideas quickly and effectively, but also for candidates to garner a mass amount of voters with ease. “The very nature of the voter is changing as campaign platforms and the Internet have become open platforms through which voters can direct their own activities” (Turk 56). With the constant changing in the voter system, social media is rapidly becoming the most effective way to reach the undecided voter.
While I personally believe there are many more pros than cons to social media, there absolutely are some disadvantages to this tool. The first and quite frankly most obvious is that it is visible to the entire world, forever. If there is one misstep in a Facebook post, a tweet, anything that is made public will always be accessible and can be used against a politician for the remainder of the their career. A prime example of this would be the Anthony Weiner case, or should I call him Carlos Danger. He was amidst a great scandal when he sent naked photos of himself under the alias Carlos Danger to a younger woman. When those photos leaked to the public, they took social media by storm and essentially ended Weiner’s political career. Another disadvantage to social media is that if you are not good at it, you will suffer from another success. While that may seem simple, it is true. The world of technology is evolving at such a rapid rate that if a politician does not keep up with the use of social media effectively, they will lose the respect of the public and essentially lose votes.
Works Cited
Turk, Michael . “Social and New Media- An Evolving Future”.” Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Washington,
D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Trent, Judith. Political Campaign Communication. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2011. Print.
Works Cited
ReplyDeleteCook, John. "Update: Only 92% of Newt Gingrich's Twitter Followers Are Fake." Gawker. 2 Aug. 2011. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.
Stern, Mark J. "Oklahoma Tea Party Candidate Supports Stoning Gay People to Death." Slate Magazine. 11 June 2014. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.
Thompson, Krissah. "Newark Mayor Using Robust Twitter Presence to Reach Snowed-under Residents." The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 29 Dec. 2010. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.
Turk, Michael. "Social and New Media - An Evolving Future." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ, 2013. 48-63. Print.
The success of a politician rests largely in their ability to maintain a positive connection with the American people, from campaign to office. Throughout the history of U.S. democracy this connection has taken on a variety of forms, but none more difficult than that of today’s digital age. As social media continues to evolve into the everyday lives of citizens, politicians have quickly adapted to utilizing entities such as Facebook and Twitter as tools for their image. While they provide an efficient and effective means of communication, social media can be both detrimental and beneficial to campaign efforts and image construction.
ReplyDeleteWith the Internet and society now so interconnected, there has become what Trent says is a “greater convergence between online and offline activities” (Trent 376) By taking advantage of this, politicians can humanize themselves more than ever before, as well as demonstrate their wealth of knowledge on current issues. Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is a prime example of how social media can be advantageous to a politician in that respect.
Specifically, Pelosi is able to humanize herself through her Twitter page, while still reporting her stance on the issues. It is this balance that is pivotal to a politician’s success in any form of media. For example, she tweeted an image with the caption “If too much #girlpower can break the Internet, we might be in trouble. #progress4women #womensucceed.” The photo was an informal selfie alongside Hillary Clinton and other women in power, which with the caption demonstrated a more personal side and still addressed the issue of women’s rights, or better, #girlpower.
Continued...
ReplyDeleteThe negative aspect of politicians using social media is that it can become too easy to craft a message, and lose control over the balance of humanization and competence. Turk acknowledged that, “As social networks like Facebook continue to connect audiences on platforms...candidates will have to decide whether they should even bother investing money in a website of their own.” (Kurk 62). This laziness can have a poor impact on a campaign. A formal website, is a well-constructed illustration of the candidate, whereas social media sometimes cannot be.
Maine Governor Paul LePage demonstrates a failure to properly use social media in order to control image and strength in a campaign. While his account is very personalized, and managed by him directly, it has its shortcomings. LePage’s twitter account has been more active as he tours the state seeking reelection as governor. Although he is regularly sharing content, it is tweets such as, “My apologies, that tweet should read 50th anniversary, not 59. Buttons too close together!” that should be censored. This is a minor infraction, compared to some of the greater scandals that have played out on the Twitter stage, but that does not make it less influential. It could potentially make him appear unintelligent and out of touch, or otherwise just dilute the true message he is trying to get across. With his past history, furthering an image of being out of touch and lacking intellect could be truly crippling to his efforts.
While Kurk acknowledges that “campaigns can spend less time and money trying to attract supporters and more time working with supporters on centralized platforms” it does not mean that it is always effective (Kurk 62). The balance is not easy to achieve between one’s personal life and political knowledge. Politicians crafting their own message can seem beneficial in theory, but with those like LePage in full control, it can be problematic. However, the progression from an easily controlled image to a fast-paced every day image is not going to stop. Turk expects that, “distinctions between new media and old will disappear, and we will be left with just media, and the desire to use them effectively to reach an audience” (Kurk 63). Whether or not politicians choose to do so is an entirely different story.
Works Cited
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
Turk, Michael. "Social and New Media - An Evolving Future." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. SAGE Publications, 2013. Kindle Edition.
Thomas Chamoun
ReplyDeleteThe Internet has changed the landscape of politics dramatically over the past 15-20 years. In the Trent book, many reasons including informing, fundraising and researching are mentioned. In my short discourse I will be discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the Internet in regards to social media.
One advantage of social media for politicians is the ability for cheap, quick and efficient means of organizing a following. Websites like Facebook allow for targeting potential voters by geography, interests, and demographics. Once the following is organized the candidate can send tailored messages to his base either apologizing, informing, embarrassing or asking for money.
The quote below can be applied to Facebook and other social media, not just blogs. It buttresses my point by stating that political texts can be targeted to specific audiences:
Blogs allow campaigns to bypass traditional media to reach a specific audience. They also help candidates win, especially in lower-level races. Bloggers have also helped to recruit challengers. Blogs provide talking points to activists on issues and campaigns. Finally, bloggers expose and embarrass candidates,(Trent, 384).
Traditional media has a gatekeeper that might not allow the politician, especially in smaller districts to disclose his carefully crafted message to the public. Also traditional media doesn’t allow for the public to interact back with the politician the way social media does.
The second advantage of social media is that it allows for the citizen to participate in the political process allowing them to get more involved voting and recommending public policy that the politician can reference when he needs some help.
The first disadvantage of social media for politicians is that it is increasingly easier for sunlight to be shown on a situation and for that situation to be disclosed to a large following of people. Especially the non political citizens. Social media is a place where the non political comes across political material. Then the scandal becomes magnified even more. Example the Anthony Weiner case was followed by political and non political because they were bombarded by a semi interesting story.
The quote below acknowledges the fact that politicians are covering activity up everyday. Considering that social media helps the dissemination of information about these scandals it serves as a disadvantage to the politician:
One can understand how organizations like the ‘plumbers’ and ‘CREEP’ could emerge, and how they could operate in a clandestine or semi-clandestine fashion: these were organizations which were set up to further the aims of executive power, and their activities – in some cases plainly criminal – were shielded by the complexity of the ever expanding White House bureaucracy,(Thompson, 216).
The second disadvantage of the social media is a human flaw that probably can’t be proven by statistics or anything like that. It can be proven by observation of Mark Sanford and Anthony Weiner. When the politician is in direct contact with his following like Facebook and Twitter allow for. There is room for the politician to do embarrassing things. In the Anthony Weiner example he used social media message boards to disguise him and do perverted things. In the Mark Sanford he not only networked over email to cheat on his wife, but he then put out long embarrassing statements about the situation.
Thompson, John B. (2013). Political Scandal : Power and Visability in the Media Age. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
As social media has become immensely popular, particularly in the past few years, politicians have been among the masses to hop on board. For the most part, this has been a very intelligent more on their part. While social media can certainly present unexpected challenges, it has numerous benefits that can be catered to the specific needs of politicians.
ReplyDeleteOne particular advantage that stood out in the Trent reading was the statement that the Internet and social media in particular provide, “…an increasingly useful, attractive platform for those who are predisposed to be active in civic life. In effect, it provides the tools for direct participation in the formal political process” (Trent 370). Something that comes as no surprise is the number of constituents who do not participate in the political process. Many citizens hold no interest or they feel they are disconnected and do not have access to adequate resources. Social media is able to partially bridge this gap between politicians and constituents alike. The “tools” that Trent mentioned included platforms such as blogs, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, cell phones and text messaging, and more. As a “digital native”, a term used by John Palfrey and Urs Gasser to describe those born after 1980 who, “…have grown up with the ever-evolving new technologies” (Trent 369), I am fairly capable of using most of the online services. When politicians connect with the constituents through these resources it allows citizens to feel more connected to the campaign, to be empowered, and likely to provide insight and influence to those around them.
Another benefit to using social media is that because there is such a multitude of platforms out there, a wide base of potential voters can be contacted with its use. For example, in the chapter written by Michael Turk, he mentioned that the use of Facebook can allow users to, “…create events, allowing supporters to organize themselves to conduct offline events or even just repeat important news. Twitter…provides a platform for rapid distribution of short-form news” (Semiatin 58). Different demographics frequent the various platforms, for instance social media is frequented by younger constituents, so by utilizing a variety politicians are ensuring the breadth of their reach. When politicians reach younger voters as well they stand more of a chance of recruiting them to vote, and hence engaging a larger portion of the population.
President Obama is an example of a politician who has utilized social media to his immense benefit. The texts had numerous mentions of the various facets he encompassed during both his campaign and tenure in office, but I think even a simplistic example will be able to demonstrate. During his campaigns Obama utilized social media to connect with voters and get them engaged with the campaign. This is obviously an effective strategy, seeing as he won both elections. However, I personally feel his best efforts continued once he was in office. Generally, President Obama’s staff are the ones who tweet from his account or post to Facebook, but occasionally he does post personally and signs “BO”. I think this is an effective strategy because it gives constituents the realization that he is a person as well, and makes him see more approachable.
Mackenzie Rowe continued:
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side, there are definite disadvantages to social media. One problem is that with the rise of social media, there has also been a rise in “trackers”, who are essentially, “…young staffers with video cameras… in the hopes of catching an unguarded moment” (Semiatin 57). This isn’t a partisan effort either, direct mentions in the text referenced staffers from both parties participating in this activity. In the instance that these “trackers” were successful, social media has allowed for almost instantaneous sharing online. As a result, news is spread within a matter of minutes. The Internet is extremely effective in this aspect. As the text mentioned, “breaking stories today routinely pop first on the Internet, and get the attention of television and radio shortly thereafter” (Semiatin 48). Additionally, the intentions of those using social media are not always admirable. Especially in recent years, social media has become an outlet used to try and embarrass or out candidates for office, whether it be from another politician or an ordinary citizen who stumbled upon a hidden gem. This is referenced a few times in the text, and in particular when discussing YouTube, which was used, “…by candidates to attack opponents, introduce response ads, and to encourage less-than-flattering “creative” works posted about opponents” (Trent 373). Additionally, with the widespread use of social media, it is an effective outlet to proliferate the spread of trending news or particular articles that may try to be concealed from the public.
An example of this is Anthony Weiner, who just can’t seem to stay out the spotlight. The entire premise of his scandal was based on Twitter, beginning with the link sent to the young woman containing the lewd images. This particular scandal spread like wildfire across all social media, and regardless of the deletion of the actual posts, created by “hackers”, it was duplicated and redistributed by many social media users ensuring the continued demise of Congressman Weiner at the time.
Social media is certainly something that is here to stay, and will only continue to evolve and become more immersed in campaigns than ever before. Politicians will need to ensure that they are utilizing social media in order to connect with constituents, but also maintain a positive appearance online. As we’ve seen time and again, scandals can be made into much larger issues now with the explosion of social media users.
Sources:
Semiatin, Richard J. "Political Parties -- Beyond Revitalization." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Trent, Judith. Political Campaign Communication. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2011. Print.
Social media continues to grow in popularity and size and become more advanced everyday. With social media becoming so big it has lead to a change in the way political campaigns are run. Politicians have no other choice than to join social media websites in order to get their message out to most number of people as possible. “For the first time during the midterm elections of 2006, the Internet ranked among the top sources of campaign information,” (Trent 367). The use of social media has become so important to candidates that, “Today, most campaigns spend between 5 to 10 percent of their budget on new media,” (Trent 368).
ReplyDelete“Social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace allow campaigns to target younger voters and to stay connected in a variety of ways throughout a campaign,” (Trent 371). It allows voters to learn about what is going on without having to specially seek out the information by looking it up. This is an advantage for politicians because it allows them to spread their ideas to a much larger number of people.
Another way social media can be used as a way to help a candidate is because it allows them to be able to respond to the attacks of their opponents quickly. They are also able to attack their opponents in an effort to try and create a lack of faith in them by the voters. Social media allows candidates and political figures to have 24hour access to the public, which is unlike any other tool used before.
President Obama has done an excellent job of using social media to it’s full potential. In both the Trent reading, as well as, the Turk reading President Obama was used as a model to show how to use social media in way that was engaging for young voters but still professional and informative about the messages and goals that were trying to be accomplished. President Obama’s twitter account, @BarackObama, uses short, 140 character, quotes to inform the public about what he is doing, in terms of welfare of the country, as well as, bring them up to speed on current events. His twitter page is a perfect example of how social media can be used in a positive way in order to help his campaign and overall ratings while in office.
However, this new way of communication can have its problems and challenges as well. With the expansions and growth in technology there has been an increase in the amount of personal information that the public has been exposed to about politicians. This information has often been the subject to scandal and controversy for many politicians. These scandals have often cost many political figures their careers. Politicians need to learn the balance the personal information that they share on social media with the more important things that will ultimately be the reasoning why they get elected, their political ideas.
Going off the last point, the way a politician handles themselves in the midst of a scandal on social media has become an increasing problem. If a politician responds correctly, with the guidance of advisors, social media can help tremendously with smoothing over a scandal with public. However, this seems rarely seems to be the case. The best infamous example of a politician who failed to use social media correctly is Anthony Weiner. After all of his twitter followers gained access to photos of his private parts he immediately began to deny that they were of him. He went on to insist they weren’t him for a while until he confused that it was him and he had been sending sexual pictures to a number of different women over a three year period. This incident, and the way he handled it, ruined his career. His use of social media was inappropriate and cost him his career.
Works Cited
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Malden: Blackwell, 2000. Kindle file.
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger, 1991. Kindle file.
The way in which politician’s reach out to their potential voters and supporters has changed immensely over the years. From pamphlets and phone calls too Facebook posts and tweets, a new era of political campaigning has ascended to the top in ways of politicians getting their names and opinions heard. Whenever discussing social media one can almost always declare that there are major advantages and disadvantages that come into play.
ReplyDeleteAs we’ve discussed in class, image is a major component for any politician looking to run a campaign. I’ve looked at the twitter accounts of three politicians: Chris Christie, Barack Obama, and John McCain. Prior to looking at the accounts, I ranked the three politicians in order from most appealing and favorable to the least. My order was Barack Obama, Chris Christie, and finally John McCain. After I looked at their twitter accounts my rankings changed to: John McCain, Barack Obama, and then Chris Christie. Why? When I looked at John McCain’s account I saw a welcoming page with “the people” as his cover photo. His tweets are not private so anyone could read them even if you do not follow him. The most important thing I noticed was that his tweets were not all based on politics. One tweet read, “Headed to the #AZCardinals game vs #49ers in #Glendale - let's go Cards! #Arizona”. Implying he’s a fan of the NFL and not just someone who constantly is buried up to his head in politics. I didn’t see any tweets like that from Obama or Christie and for an unexplainable reason I started to like McCain more than I used to. “Twitter provides a broad network of connections and real-time insights” (Trent 374). Because of the image that McCain’s twitter account portrays he automatically became more appealing to me.
Another advantage of the utilization of social media for a campaign is the ability to advertise and reach out to numerous demographics. One can tweet a message with a specific hash tag or word that is directed toward a certain group of people. “Twitter may also allow campaigns to listen to supporters. Campaigns can monitor responses, note those who respond, and address specific inquiries” (Trent 375). This allows for politicians to possibly gain more followers, which eventually could turn into more supporters and voters.
As much as social media can help politicians it could very well also contribute to their demise. The only scenario I really know about in where social media backfired on a politician was a few years back during Anthony Weiner’s incident. Weiner used his official twitter account to send pictures of himself to a woman. Later on when word (and the picture) got out, Weiner still denied. Eventually, he was forced to resign and he has no one to blame but himself and his poor use of social media. Scandals that take place on social media are disadvantages in themselves but what people tend to forget is that once something goes on the Internet, it’s there forever. Poor utilization of social media could be devastating to a politicians campaign.
Works Cited Turk, Michael . “Social and New Media- An Evolving Future”.” Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Trent, Judith. Political Campaign Communication. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2011. Print.
For a long time, politicians got their messages out the old fashion way, either through a speech, newspapers, or utilizing fliers. This was standard for a long time, until technology changed all of that. Back then you’d have to seek out information if you wanted it, but now in 2014 its almost impossible to go a day without reading or seeing some kind of political agenda. The internet changed the way politicians communicate and reach their audiences. However, this technology is still relatively new, and as good as it may be, it could also be disastrous to a campaign.
ReplyDeleteArguably the first politician to effectively use social media to win a campaign was Barack Obama. As Trent put it, “The Obama campaign utilized new media, providing the blueprint for future campaigns.” (Trent, 368). The Obama administration was very good at utilizing social media to his advantage, constantly tweeting, posting messages on Facebook and even pictures on instagram, which would gather hundreds and thousands of likes. This is one of the best ways to campaign, because not only is it free, but you can do so much more than just post a message. “Sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube bring friends together and make the sharing of political news easier. Users of Facebook for instance, can create events allowing supporters to organize themselves to conduct offline events or even just to repeat important news” (Turk 58). This all allows politicians to cover much more ground much quicker than it would if they stuck strictly to their campaign trail. In his 2008 election, Obama was the popular candidate for young adults, which can definitely be linked to his social media usage. It allowed him to capture and hold on to an entire demographic which felt completely detached to his opponent McCain, who was very “social media deaf”. As big of a positive as that is, the opposite proves to be a negative, as the older adult demographic is not seen very often on social media, making it harder to reach them through those means. I believe in time, more adults over the age of 40-50 will get on social media and politicians will be able to more efficiently use the internet to reach voters, but as of 2008, it was mostly the young adults who were targeted.
Another positive of social media is how easy it is to send a message to thousands
Cont.
ReplyDeleteof people instantly. If Obama were to log onto twitter right now and send out a tweet, thousands of Americans would read it in less than a minute. With 46.9 million followers, Obama is always under close watch. This brings me to the second negative, how easy it is for thousands of people to see the wrong message. Social media makes it incredibly easy to post whatever’s on your mind, but in the world of politics, that’s not always a good thing. Take Congressman Mark Sanford. Sanford was in the spotlight a few years ago when he mysteriously disappeared after telling his family he went on a hiking trip. Long story short, rather than hiking, the congressman decided to visit his mistress in Argentina. End of his political career you might say? Well apparently not, as he won an election to be a representative in 2013. Regretfully, Congressman Sanford uses his Facebook account to post very personal “rants” about his custody battle and divorce with his now ex wife. On Sept 3rd, he added a post, which was several, paragraphs long talking about just this, however his staff had taken it down a few hours later and condensed it. He now falls under critique of his supporters for continuously using his professional Facebook page to talk about ongoing social problems that have nothing to do with his job or position. This has been followed by comments such as “Just….Shut….Up!!!” or “ Im struck that these endless ramblings about things which are entirely personal are posted on the official page of “Congressman Mark Sanford”’. So as you can see, social media can actually cost you supporters if used incorrectly, such as using your page to post personal custody battles.
Works Cited:
Turk, Michael . “Social and New Media- An Evolving Future”.” Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Trent, Judith. Political Campaign Communication. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2011. Print.
Sarah Faidell
ReplyDeleteSocial media can be a politician’s best asset or worst enemy. People today seem to be always plugged in to something, and smartphones can be seen in hand nearly everywhere. If a candidate wants to energize the young vote, he better know how to conduct himself properly and effectively on social media. One advantage of social media is that a candidate can be connected to the youth vote. With a properly run Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, young people can follow and join in on the movement. However, I think it shows how quickly these social media platforms can go out of style as both the Trent book and Campaigns mentioned MySpace, which is virtually obsolete now. Being able to connect with the youth is a huge advantage because with youth comes a lot of volunteers. In chapter 4 of Campaigns, it says “risking everything on the effectiveness of volunteers, then risking everything again by relying on volunteer masses to lead those teams,” (Turk 53). This shows how much can be done by volunteers, but also how much there is to lose. I think that the best example of this is President Obama’s 2008 campaign when he was able to directly communicate with his supporters about how many volunteers he needed. Yes it is a risk to rely on the volunteers, but Turk points out in Campaigns that instead of spending money on managers, a candidate could groom one through the volunteer program.
However I feel like a disadvantage of social media style campaign is the inability to control what shows up online. In the hiring of new people to deal with new media campaigns, Trackers have been hired to follow candidates around and wait for a slip-up. When a Tracker was confronted in 2006 and a racial slur was captured on video by the then-governor and candidate, that ruined his chances of getting reelected. As Trent points out, there is a huge uncontrollably impact of these “candid camera moments” (Trent 373). When looking “oops” moments on politicians Facebook pages, I like to use the example of Mark Sanford that we discussed on class. He takes to social media to vent out his problems about his ex-wife and goes on for paragraphs during a post. You need professionals to manage this “candid moments” and know what to post and what to leave alone, because they can do more harm than good.
Another disadvantage is that although it might be true that a candidate can reach more people, they will still be reaching the opinion leaders. For example, Barack Obama has a Facebook page that he manages well as he uses it to promote things that are on his agenda. However, the people who “follow” Barack Obama on Facebook are the opinion leaders. It does not matter what format campaigns take, it might still be that a candidate will reach the same people regardless.
ReplyDeleteSarah Faidell, Works Cited
Turk, Michael . “Social and New Media- An Evolving Future”.” Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Trent, Judith. Political Campaign Communication. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2011. Print.
Jack Holiver
ReplyDeleteBlog 4
In the recent years, particularly the last decade, politicians have begun to use social media more and more to communicate with their constituents. Twitter and Facebook are the two obvious ones that come everyone’s mind. Some of the most powerful figures in the world have a Twitter account, including Pope Francis, President Obama, and Prime Minister David Cameron. As we’ve learned in the past, public figures must exercise extreme caution when using these media outputs that the public has complete access to. On several occasions politicians have had their reputation ruined as a result of poor activity on social media. Two examples come to mind when on this subject. Former Republican Governor of South Carolina Mark Sanford and former Democratic Representative and Presidential candidate Anthony Weiner.
In 2009, Governor Sanford entered the national spotlight when he decided to go AWOL, lied about his actions, and had an affair with his wife. Five years later, media outlets and news sources have long subsided on the subject. Ironically, the only individual who is persistent in reminding the people of the bizarre events is the former Governor, himself. He has vented through his official Facebook page with details that are far more in depth than any reasonable advisor would consent posting.
“I am sorry for the way I handled the events of 2009, but no degree of acrimony will fix nor change its history…I'm sure you're well aware by now, my former wife Jenny has moved forward with another legal claim…I felt it important to respond” (Mark Sanford).
This would be borderline acceptable if he released this statement while the story was still fresh, and not five years after the fact. Although, former Governor Sanford isn’t alone in tainting his reputation through social media.
Anthony Weiner, former New York Representative and Presidential candidate, barely received a second chance after he was exposed for a sexting scandal over text messages and Twitter. After announcing his bid for President, various secrets came forth in the form of mistresses and explicit photographs of Weiner, no pun intended. After suspending his campaign and falling out of the spotlight to do some damage control, he decided to run for Mayor of New York. This sparked a new wave of more recent bad behavior, which resulted in Weiner receiving less than 5% of the vote, and giving the middle finger to reporters as he left this campaign headquarters. It was found that he even went under the code name Carlos Danger during his sexting brigade, which was the punchline of most jokes and the most popular NFL fantasy football team name of the 2013 season.
In essence, while there are many benefits tied with social media involvement, there are also negative consequences that can be a result. Despite the all the bad news we hear about this media output, we cannot ignore the many instances in which social media has been key in helping politicians. One example of a person who has benefitted is President Obama during the 2008 election. With utilizing sources such as Facebook and Twitter, the President was able to successfully obtain the votes of the younger generations. “Obama had more than two million ‘friends’ on Facebook, compared to McCain’s 600,000” (Trent et el 372). Therefore, social media is not a bad tool for politicians. However, it must be regarded as potentially dangerous if used inappropriately.
Bibliography:
- Sanford, Mark. “As I’ve expressed countless times…” Facebook. September 3rd, 2014. September 22nd, 2014 https://www.facebook.com/RepSanfordSC
- Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
Although the media evolution of American campaigns has progressed immensely over the past decades in an attempt to incorporate new platforms, the television campaign ad still trumps the rest. From a production standpoint, the quality may be better with improvements in technology, but the messages and tactics have remained the same. Comparing Bill Clinton’s 1992 ad entitled Second, with Obama’s 2012 ad Determination, one can see how similar the message is, while noticing the clear improvements in effectiveness from two decades prior.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1992 election, Clinton’s campaign created this simple, more posed, ad to show that he had a plan for the country in regards to welfare reform. Choosing to place him in what appears to be his home living room, he is positioned comfortably in an effort to be relatable. Yet his clothing and the backdrop of the windows and elegant curtains, show both a sense of professionalism and down-to-business attitude. The ad’s simplicity, focused on one single issue that impacted the entire population, presenting Clinton’s true political values. This is the opposite of what Trent defines as the “benevolent leader ads” that instead “focus on candidates personality traits rather than programmatic actions, policy, positions, or politic values” (Trent 153). Such an ad would have been crafted with the intention of balancing the ads that tended to be more like the “benevolent leader,” in order to show a more well-rounded candidate. The ad could have been more effective with music, and other video. However, it may have been the creator’s intent to keep it simple, and to the point with the time allotted. However, the lower third used to outline his key points was effective, and further demonstrated that he had the plan thought out.