Political leaders have a love/hate relationship with the media in general and the internet offers some particular opportunities and pitfalls. Politicians love getting support, and the ability to speak to their constituents and set the agenda, they hate being scrutinized, investigated, and antagonized in public. As a result many have used used technology to circumvent the media in order to talk directly to the people. This strategy is generally referred to as "Going Public." All politicians in the modern era do this to one degree or another and some do it much more effectively than others. The internet has offered countless new oppotunities to go public by reaching out directly to constituents and potential supporters.
One modern version of going public occurs everyday on Twitter. To take a look at how members of congress tweet take a look at this great site: tweetcongress.org. Take a look at who is active on Twitter and who is not. You can also take a look at how politicians use good old facebook here and here along with going to individual politicians sites. You can also explore the various ways that the president goes public by exploring the White House website (scan the whole website but focus particularly on the photos & videos section at the top).
All of these tools help politicians go public, but at the same time they are open to increasing levels of criticism as new media exposes more gaffes (see Romney, Mitt: 47 percent, and Weiner, Anthony), and politicians have a harder time avoiding controversy.
How would you evaluate the overall changes to the way that politicians communicate via the Internet and its value for them versus the potential hazards it also presents?
I believe that the changes in communication for politicians has made it basically easier for them to connect with their peers and the people they represent. Instead of going through press conferences, or making "official statements," they can simply make a Facebook status or post a twitter comment. Instead of conventional ways of responding to any kind of subject, they can tell the people exactly what the want, quicker than ever by just logging into their accounts and posting. A lot of politicians and public figures also engage in dialogue through these sites, allowing them to answer questions and even debate fellow Americans over subjects and events that take place daily. I think this is a good thing, because I believe that politicians need to be constantly connecting with the people they represent, and even their opposition, so that we're always having a constructive dialogue about public policy and legislation. Its also easier than ever before to raise money and awareness for specific causes, organizations, and political campaigns. There are websites that you can go donate money to almost any cause, with the click of a button, and you can feel as you have aided in that campaign.
ReplyDeleteWhile these sites do provide an excellent way to communicate and progress ideas, it is also extreme dangerous for many public figures. As we've seen with Romney, Weiner, etc. just the slightest thing can go viral over social media sites and ruin a political career. I personally believe the Anthony Weiner situation was pure nonsense, and that somebody's private sexual life is their own business, but unfortunately we have a society of gossip - where the average American LOVES drama and any kind of petty news to gossip about. Because hacking has become so much easier in the past few years, politicians need to be constantly protecting themselves from the possibility of someone publicly embarrassing them, similar to what happened to Weiner.
Ultimately, I think that the Internet has provided an incredibly useful and beneficial avenue for politicians to communicate with their constituents. One of the biggest advantages that comes to mind is the fact that direct communication from a politician is more pure – by that, I mean that the mass media hasn’t had a chance to twist their words or put some sort of spin on whatever the politician in question is trying to communicate. Granted, politicians themselves say things that may not exactly be in line with the truth, but at least it’s coming directly from them, providing a greater sense of accountability, as opposed to being filtered through numerous outlets within the mass media.
ReplyDeleteClearly, there are hazards with this new level of communication between politicians and the general public, but to me, this just appears as a cultural problem that won’t go away any time soon (what Jonathan was referring to with Americans’ thirst for scandal and drama of any kind), and a greater opportunity for transparency. Government transparency is another thing that Americans hold near and dear to their hearts, and I firmly believe that we have the right to know what kind of a person we’ve elected to represent us. Obviously, there are boundaries – I don’t really agree with hacking to find out more about a politician’s personal life that has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to effectively govern. The whole Anthony Weiner debacle was, as Jonathan pointed out, complete nonsense. I simply think that if a politician wants to communicate with the public via the Internet, they should do so in the name of transparency and more effective communication. With the exception of scandals that arise from information found online about politicians, I think that the Internet is a wonderful tool that can enhance political conversation in this country.
Of course, the internet is a great help to politicians in order to effectively campaign by allowing them to gain more general support, raise funds, directly communicate with constituents, and more. These are obvious benefits that are already being taken advantage of by politicians and have been for a few years now.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the drawbacks of such a giant media infiltration are severe. Besides the fact that the American public now has unfiltered access to "scandalous" or harmful information as well as insignificant information regarding candidates personal habits and lifestyles (I am reminded of how unlikely it was at the time to find an American who knew FDR had polio since it was never reported and since he came before the advent of television - this could never happen now!), the sheer volume of politics and political controversy the public is exposed to on a nearly daily basis is an overall detriment to society. The constant barrage of political news and information can lead to a kind of desensitization towards the entire political world. Desensitization in its biological definition is when a receptor decreases its response to a stimulant occurring in high concentration. The psychological definition states it is a decreased emotional response to an event or action after repeated exposure, especially if the action instigated by the event or action is deemed irrelevant or unnecessary.
It used to be that one could watch the evening news, or read the morning paper, or go to one or two political debates, and that was the extent of one’s political involvement. It was easy to keep up with, easy to manage, easy to renew energy and vitality for the subject. Nowadays, the average American spends near three hours on the internet a day, much of it social networking, which politicians have successfully, skillfully, and fully been integrated into.
Personally speaking, I won’t even watch the inauguration today, since I had enough of politics off of Twitter last night. In other words, I don’t care much for this political event. And this is just one, what’s next?
The internet is fairly new and its massive effect on society is still unforeseen, however, I think it’s important to put this idea out there. Past the initial spike in interest, people will inevitably get bored with what they are over-exposed to. There is nothing worse for a democracy than having a populace uninterested in it. America already has a low voter-turnout rate, and this could drag it even lower in the future. There are ways to counteract such a development (make actions brought on by political exposure not be deemed irrelevant or unnecessary) but they must be actively worked at and the issue must be raised from now.
Over the years the politicians’ use of the Internet has evolved into every little aspect of their careers. Overall, the transformation from politicians’ implementing the Internet into their careers is hazardous in and of itself. Just like there might be negatives, positives also result from this big change. The good part is the consistent updates on our government and its leaders especially when concerning a pressing issue. Secondly, the convenience of reaching out to the public since mostly everyone connects to the Internet on a constant bases. But though it might be convenient and consistent and could help to enhance the politicians’ career, there can also be downfalls. For starters, the Internet is a two way portal from which no one can control the information that is published; which might be the reason why many politicians are having trouble with using sites such as Twitter or Facebook. Some might rather play it safe then suffer consequences afterwards especially with the vagueness and risk that the Internet provides.
ReplyDeletePoliticians are and always have been trying to target their constituents and attract new ones. The internet has certainly made this process much easier for a politician to gain and sustain a following. It is the one medium in which there is direct and instant communication from a politician to the public. With the potential to raise funds, awareness, transparency, and an open forum for dissent/consent, the internet has the ability to improve the political sphere. However, I am not convinced that the value a politician receives out of the internet surpasses the potential hazards of a pseudo-political atmosphere it can (and often times does) create.
ReplyDeleteWhile tools like facebook and twitter are great for politicians to use to keep in contact with their constituents and non-supporters, they only offer brief updates about large, usually detailed issues. The average internet user probably reads the quick blurb and does not investigate the situation further, taking whatever is said by a politician for face value-I know at times I have been guilty of doing this. Likewise, the internet can also distract the public from the real issues, focusing on drama of the political arena, the personal life of a politician, or a slip up of words rather than the real issues at hand. I believe that if used responsibly, the internet has the potential to change politics and political dialogue as we know it. Yet, I do not know if culturally, the American people are ready to accept this use of the internet.
The internet is a useful tool for politicians. This has been noted in the above posts with references to the internets capability to provide limitless access to constituents and an ability to spread a campaign message efficiently. However, this is viewing the internet solely as a tool for the politician. The internet also is the people's tool. A tool in which users can quickly expose skeletons, spread the unsavory (the Anthony Weiner scandal and Mitt Romney "47 Percent" clip), and petition. This contrast represents the best part about the internet: it is dominated by no interest in terms of production. For every post by a presidential campaign there are connections to resources online verifying, condeming, and applauding those claims. The consumer interacts with much less limitations on the internet than they do in the tangible world. In this sense, the power is given to the 'people' with much greater responsbility online than is comprehensible in print. So, while the internet is a useful tool for poltiicians and their interests all should be reminded that it is not just theirs.
ReplyDeleteAs many people previously mentioned in earlier posts, the internet provides an easy and effective way for political officials to communicate with their constituents and get their message to as many people as possible. The internet provides political figures the ability to bypass the media, and present an intended message rather than one that is embellished and altered by mass media outlets. The use of Twitter and Facebook by politicians allows them to remain current and relevant in today’s growing society and access to the internet. It is only logical for politicians to try and reach out to one of the largest voting demographics in the United States. As was seen in Obama’s use of the internet, he was able to garner great support from college students which ultimately lead to his successful election to office. The internet provides an easy access point for politicians, as well as the American people. Citizens are able to communicate with elected officials and find out information about them in several easy ways.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the internet seems like a great tool for politicians to capitalize on, it can also lead to miscues and gaffes like in the noted videos. The Mitt Romney campaign lost a large amount of momentum from that video and may or may not have influenced the final results of the election. Candidates must be careful in what they do because in the age of the internet, anything can be discovered. Like the Weiner scandal and plenty other scandals involving political figures, the internet exposes the truths about everyone. While this allows the American people to know exactly who they are voting for, it can instantly ruin a political career.
I like to follow politics but there so many different ways to get your new coverage now a days that when you find one you like you stick with it. I’ve never visited the White House web site, so I thought that is was pretty interesting to see the president release a weekly address. I believe that these are a good idea because they give the President an opportunity to tell the American people what’s going on and what needs to be changed. I agree with my fellow classmates that “Going Public” is good for most candidates as many people are relatively ignorant of information, so it is much easier to manipulate opinions by appearing in public. At the same time they are open to increasing levels of criticism as new media exposes a good example was Mitt Romney notorious 47% comment from a video recorded on hidden camera were he spoke at a private $50,000-a-plate fundraiser saying that “47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.” This became a huge debate during the campaign negatively affecting Romney.
ReplyDeleteAs for twitter I don’t personal use it so politicians voicing their opinions on Twitter won’t affect me because I don’t use, but as for Facebook I have been closely following politics since the 2008 election. I’ve checked out the US politics Facebook page in the past but I think it’s more beneficial to use the candidates Facebook page for hard-hitting facts. I think that because technology is so important nowadays that candidates have to use it as a way to get out there in the public eye. It’s also cheaper to maintain a Facebook and Twitter page than make a 30sec commercial about how there the best one for the job.
If I were to evaluate the overall changes in the way that politicians communicate via the Internet and its value for them versus the potential hazards it also presents. I would have to say that for the most part it is helping younger voters get to know the politicians better then the generation before them. The older generations really only hear about them during an election year because of all the money that they spend on TV/newspaper ads.
The combination of the internet and the political realm has brought about a revolution that has increased youth participation and allowed for greater transparency in the political process.
ReplyDeleteData from previous elections indicate that the rise of the internet era has brought about an increasing number of young voters taking to the polls and casting their vote for the person they feel is best fit to run the country. This fact is exciting for those who advocate for increased youth participation in the election process, but it changes campaign styles and strategy all together. Politicians must adapt to the changing landscape of their electorate and more young voters means that personal image and a “hip” style are more important than ever. This may seem obvious to those voters between the ages of 18-24 that rushed to the polls in record numbers to vote for President Obama, but the reality of the situation is that the internet has turned the presidential race into a reality show rather than an ideological fight to win over the hearts and minds of the American people. The internet allows us to uncover only the facts that we wish to see and ignore those that we dislike. Just as 24/7 news networks (MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc.) corrupted the political minds of the generation before us; the internet is doing the same to the current generation. The internet has enabled us to choose who we think is the better of the two candidates based on superficial attributes and then live in a content bubble until the election without really looking at the grand scheme of each candidate’s plan. It is important for us to step out of the isolation of our own ideals and try to at least understand the position of the opposite site or we are doomed to continue the current path of separation between the Left and Right.
The internet has also done a lot to help the political process such as instant fact checking and the ability of politicians to communicate with their constituents. Debates during the 2012 election were instantly fact checked by various online sites which allows the electorate to clear out the facts that may be deceiving while absorbing the facts that are useful to making their decision. Politicians love to stretch the truth, but with improved fact checking and instant results the general public and debunk their lies with ease. The ability to contact your congressman with the click of a button has also helped to improve the political process. Tweeting or e-mailing your congressman has allowed constituents to let their congressman know how they feel on a particular issue while also allowing the congressman to response and explain their stance on a particular issue. Only time will tell how the internet will ultimately affect the political process but we can only hope that the change will be for the better.
The internet I would think is more negative to politics then beneficial. The positives of the internet might seem numerous removing the reliance of local media by creating databases that allow you too personally to connect to those people that might be persuaded to change their minds. It Allows people who are passionate but otherwise might never be able to access the campaign help you in a targeted persuasion. But all of this comes with down sides. Knowing which voters might shift in your favor may be helpful but with the national campaigns being run this can often lead to bombardment of these all so important voters, dissuading the participation. This also takes away much of the human element allowing for people that might be passionate individuals to be overwhelmed by the shear amount of knowledge campaigns put at their disposal. When I was working for the Obama campaign many people were shocked when given access how much we knew about individual people and how closely we kept track of individual traits. For the politician in particular the internet age has made privacy irrelevant when any and all personal conflicts decades old are made available to press and voters.
ReplyDeleteNo one is perfect and all have some scandal that can be devastating to their campaign. The internet has expanded minds to be more accepting to personal flaws but the media has evolved to the point where breakfast is not a private affair. Much of politics is based on games of chicken and when the initial originally private bets are added to the public domain it is hard to compromise. The opening of the political sphere has created a political system were compromise is almost impossible and stances decades old can haunt current political debate.
Gabe Tharp
I feel that the internet has made life for the citizens easier, this being said it has in my opinion made life for the politician more stressful. It has allowed citizens for easier access to politicians voting records and where they stand on some issues. We have access to great amounts of information.
ReplyDeleteHowever for politicians the internet is a double edged sword. In one case they have direct access to their constituents via twitter, Facebook, email...etc However the internet has caused an enormous headache for politicians. From my personal experience interning with the ILGOP I saw this. We had a tracker on every democrat candidate that was going for congress. The tracker would go to ever public event the candidate was at and recording them (Via audio or video recorder). When the individual would mess up and say something they didn't mean or didn't mean to say it was all over youtube.
I think it would seem that overall, Politicians think that the internet is a good tool for them because it does keep you connected to a much wider and broader base. You see this especially when there are elections going on. Politicians use it to keep people updated on what is going on with them and what their stance on issues are. I also think things like Facebook and Twitter are supposed to show you that these political figures are just normal people as well. When you see a politician with something like a Facebook or Twitter it kind of shows that he/she is just a regular person trying to communicate with as many people as possible. Being able to use the internet as a political tool seems like something that is necessary if you want to have a shot at winning an election.
ReplyDeleteThe internet also provides for maybe a little too much public access because as we have seen with cases similar to Anthony Weiner's it can create controversy and ultimately show you in a negative light. Things like this not only go viral, but several news stations also see what has gone viral and they post that on their daily news broadcast. It seems nowadays politicians don't really have the private life they would maybe want because people can search things about their past history with a click of the mouse.
When evaluating the way the internet has been used by politicians, I would have to say it has been effective. It seems if you communicate in the wrong way, if you're a politician, it could cost you an election. Although I personally don't have a Facebook account or a Twitter account, I know several friends and family members that seem to use those two as primary sources for political information. As far as using the internet for websites and interviews, I think is has been incredibly useful to really get to know where a politician stands on certain issues.
The internet is a new tool that allows political leaders to instantly voice their opinions and beliefs. One can quickly jump on twitter or Facebook and find out exactly what a particular politician thinks. Politicians can connect easier and faster with their constituents just by logging in to any social media site. Constituents can voice concerns about a piece of legislation or an issue occurring in their district instantly, knowing that their voice will be heard much sooner. This can perhaps help politicians understand and stay in touch more with their district, because they no longer have to go through piles of letters to know what is going on back home. The internet is also becoming the most popular way to find information, bypassing any other forms of media. The line of communication between politicians and the people has become a lot stronger and faster thanks to the internet.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there also comes some sort of responsibility, when on the internet. The internet is beneficial for politicians, but also just as dangerous. The web is an open forum, where anyone can find or extract information. Just like many of you have mentioned, politicians are susceptible to scandals because of the internet. There can be leaks of politicians behaving inappropriately in video or photos, or perhaps a misunderstood comment posted by a leader or their associates. There is also a bigger possibility for fact checking, making anything a politician said open for scrutiny. Politicians today must effectively use the internet to their advantage. Opening a twitter or Facebook to post comments about their district or campaigns can have a positive effect. There must also be monitoring, being careful of what gets posted. There is also another avenue for scrutiny and criticism, making politicians even bigger figures in the spotlight because anyone can find out what you are doing and post information about it.
I think this idea of "going public" is an important trend in the way we receive information as actively engaged citizens. Going public is in a sense removing the middle man. Media, and I mean all media, possesses a certain amount of bias regardless of it's subject matter and or its importance. Ultimately the media is a corporation, and like any corporation it's goal is to maximize it's profits. To report objectively may not yield the desired results in drawing in numbers, and this goal is often reached by inciting a reaction from readers. I think that eliminating this concept to the highest possible degree is progress, and instead of some journalist reporting the news to you in the way in which he/she deems appropriate, we are beginning to gather our information without having to sift through several agendas and varying degrees of bias.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand I think that this "middle man" concept also provides advantages too. These advantages come in the form of fact checking and other means of validating a statement, news story etc. It also has the ability to put an event into perspective, which may also translate into a bad thing when these perspectives are based on agendas such as that of a media outlet profiteering.
Ultimately I think these changes have made it possible for politicians and public figures to communicate with their audiences and constituencies in a more direct and personal way, without having to look through the veil of the media who may choose, or not choose, to report a given story.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly to quite a few of my peers, I agree that "going public" offers politicians a more hands-on approach to interact with constituents. Instead of having to issue public statements on a broadcast, politicians can simply tweet or post something on Facebook to update their constituencies on what issue he or she is currently wrestling with. By making these matters public, politicians can open these political maneuvers up to criticism in order to satisfy as much of their constituency as possible. In addition, this method allows for an almost instantaneous response to current issues by eliminating the need for press coverage. In a sense, these politicians create their own press coverage through these social media websites.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, going public can be quite a risk. By making political agendas public on the internet, it increases the amount of possible pressure these politicians can receive from critics due to the increased access of this information. This pressure is created by the enhanced availability of this information in conjunction with addition of more public spectators watching every little move of the politician. If a politician makes a blunder, you can be sure that the whole world will know about it within moments. The internet allows for an easy dispersion of news through the instantaneous exchange of information at high rates of speed. Regardless of whether or not the news is positive or negative, you can be sure that the general public will find out about it.
While the internet has changed political communication I am not sure that it is for the better. Staffers are able to craft the message more and while they have always crafted much of the message the politician has been the one that normally has to say it in to the camera or at least a high level staffer. Having to speak into the camera makes a big difference. You can tell a lot from someones body language. Something that is lost with the internet whether it be posting on Twitter or on Facebook. It is also so much less personal to post to the internet. One has no idea who is actually doing the posting to a website or posting on a social media website.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I do not believe that the internet is yet at a place where it can replace things like television. The majority of people still receive their news from TV. Often statements politicians post on the internet do not receive mass attention until it starts to be covered by major television networks.
I believe when politicians communicate via facebook and twitter they have a more positive role with their constituents and in the medias eyes. this offers a first hand perspective and them to avoid the agenda setting of the media. as we discussed in class the media tends to "dig up dirt" on current and future politicians so a acting as middle ground twitter can offer the politician a chance to directly speak to an issue. although everything said is personally coming from a politican it does leave them subject to critisicm and what they say would have to be clearly phrased to avoid ridicule.
ReplyDelete