I found an article that goes along with Jackie’s blog “The Whitehouse Invited Me!” With the Presidential campaign underway, many candidates are turning to social media to get out the vote. “The candidates and contenders have embraced the Internet to far greater degrees than previous White House campaigns, communicating directly with voters on platforms where they work and play.” Candidates are learning they need to meet the people where they are and what’s easiest for them to gain information. The article states that “next year's race will be the first to reflect the broad cultural migration to the digital world.”
The three main social networks the candidates feel are the most influential are YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. I believe out of all the website Facebook is the most influential to the American people. Facebook has about 500 million users. A person can upload videos, post statuses, create events, and create groups. President Obama is meeting with Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, this week to answer Facebook user’s questions that were posted on the site. Just a commercial on Television does not reach people as it used to. Social Media is on the rise.
Last Wednesday, after President Obama’s speech on the budget, politicians took to Twitter to express their opinion on the tax raises. “In the past, candidates would have pointed supporters to their websites for such a response. Now, as [Romney's online director, Zac] Moffatt puts it, “the campaign site may be headquarters, but it needs digital embassies across the web.”’ The article goes on to state that during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Sen. John McCain, was quoted as saying he did not even use e-mail.
With the younger generation’s internet savvy ways that we sometimes get criticized for, it seems that even the older generations are now using our source of communication. The rise of Social Media is forcing candidates to meet us on our ground instead of simply showing us to their websites or watching them on TV. I say great job Presidential candidates! Hopefully, this will force people who would not normally take the time to search through the candidates’ takes on the issues to get out and vote!
Click here for more information about the article
5 comments:
Unfortunately, I don't believe that people will actually take the time to comb through their mud-slinging and actually find their platforms. If anything, at least in my opinion, the addition of internet options to candidates just makes the job of bashing the opposing candidates even easier. They're not actually being informational or productive when they "reach out" to the generation that's technologically savvy.
Twitter, for example, although I personally don't know a thing about it, I have heard that it's just a place for stars, politicians and other public figures to vent and get in trouble for it later. I just don't see it as an actual step towards encouraging our generation to vote; there needs to be much more than just spouting off on Twitter.
I think that the social network use by candidates brings them closer to their constituents and will hopefully increase the GOTV. I feel like this is similar to the Nixon and Kennedy TV debate that brought candidates closer to their constituents homes.
I agree with Nicole in saying that the social media outlets only further the mudslinging andnegativity. I think that the internet as it is a public space, does not have the personal face to face aspect as do meetings, rallys, forums or debates do. If someone "tweets" something, it is harder to understand what exactly was said, and like Nicole said, they usually end up getting in trouble for it later. The more people on facebook or Twitter that follow these politicians, the more someone will be "offended" and we just cant have that now can we?
I do believe Facebook is a force for good in the campaign realm. Although, I will say that some candidates don’t use it as much as I would like. I linked to Annie Kuster’s page and found some good articles to read. However, her team doesn’t really give me timely updates on upcoming events or where to procure a bumpersticker, etc. Also, I think the point was made in class that those who are in favor of candidates already are the ones who seek them out online. Supporters go in search of information online. And this is a way to avoid some of the mudslinging, because you can just choose not to go to the opposition’s page. The beauty of an online page harkens back to the time of letter writing. It used to be that you could think about what you wanted to say and finely craft it before you released it into the world. This is an option on Facebook for the mindful. But you are all correct that Twitter and more of-the-moment conversational sites leave room for mistakes and comments you wish you could take back. Personally, I prefer donating to candidates online as I find it easier, quicker and cleaner than writing an old fashioned check and sending it snail mail. Obama set the bar highest with his last campaign, in terms of online fundraising. It will be interesting to see what happens in ’12. Though, as Dr. Fistek pointed-out, we won’t know what is the influence of the Internet and what is the influence of corporate money now freed from constraint as corporations are legally regarded as “people.”
Post a Comment