Social Media as an Alternative Sources of Information - Literature review Example

CRITICALLY ASSESS THE IMPACT THAT SOCIAL MEDIA HAS HAD ON POLITICAL COMMUNICATION, PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRACY By of the Name of the Professor Name of the School City, State 11 April 2015 Introduction Social media is a modern technological tool that continues to influence change in the social, economic and political aspects of the every country in this age of globalisation. In the past, directed media were the major platforms used for political communication, but with little effects of reciprocal accessibility. Social media brought with it capabilities of reciprocity and the tinge of personal connection, to introduce new ways of how politicians interact and relate with the public (UiO, 2014). The twitter and Facebook, blogs, websites and you tube platforms among other online media channels facilitate exchange of information, acting as alternative sources to traditional media by conveying news or information to the outside world at high speeds. In return, the audience can get to react to the news and information they receive, offering their opinion and criticising the issues, politicians or policies concerned in real time. Political campaigns and elections The ability to influence members of the public to support a given course in governance and politics is a challenging yet rewarding task for policy makers and consultant politicians. At times when public decisions are required among a variety of choices, politicians have often utilised social media channels to defend their stand and demonstrate to their supporters, the benefits or merits of supporting a policy. In the contemporary times, it’s common to hear political parties devise social media strategies to reach out and engage the greater public, if they have to be effective in their campaigns (Gilmore and Howard, 2013). Openness of the social media platforms allows politicians to post their criticisms over bills and policies, passing them to the public and soliciting support towards their claims. Political parties compete in garnering support through mobilisation of the public. In the case of the United States, democrats and republicans debate on policies does not rest in the legislative houses alone. Rather, it is taken out to the public via social media platforms, which allows citizens to monitor their representatives’ stance and leave their comments. Since President Obama took office, the gay marriage, legal abortion and healthcare issues did attract intense and massive debates online and in traditional media. Political opponents and supporters utilised the social media either to rebuke the propositions or clarify to the public, what the bills implied. For such sensitive social policies, they pulled majority of the public to participate in the online forums. The debate over democrats and republicans support for abortion policy has in the recent months appeared critical for opposing politicians such as Paul Rand and Debbie Wasserman, needing those on social media to voice up their thoughts (Sarlin, 2015; Enloe, 2015). Their defensive statements on their political stance in regard to the policy continue to elicit more information to the public, while massive followers respond in support and criticism to the issue. Election campaigns have also relied on social networking sites for candidates to communicate to the wider group of voters. Political parties and contestants in elections find social media to be speedy and as good alternative channels to market themselves and sell their agendas to the public. According to Davies of EPRS, “candidates communicate directly with citizens on social media, by passing media filters, keeping control of the content, distribution and timing of their messages, as well as reducing their dependence on traditional intermediaries” (2014, p.3). Apparently, contestants have used twitter and Facebook platforms to respond to the groups of followers on pertinent issues, which consist of the rich content of information that journalists collect on key issues to report back on traditional media, and prime issues for the public’s political evaluation. Elections held in the 21st century, especially in the developed and emerging nations such as USA, UK, the European region and Brazil have demonstrated extensive use of social media to mobilise voters. The last two major United States elections saw senatorial and presidential candidates conduct dialogues with the electorate via social media. Live streaming of the candidates debates played a major impact in reaching most voters across the United States and the rest of the world. It was highly efficient in targeting political campaigns based on voter segmentations. Examples are the young adults to individuals aged 40 years, who are considered as the most active online and on social networking sites. Social media use in the United States elections did yield what came to be termed as ‘social media president and elections.’ Dugan points that approximately “39 percent of US adults often use social media to discuss politics, where 1.8 million individuals tweet in every 6 minutes, which influence at least 4 out of 10 individuals to be decisive on election” (2012). President Obama managed to project a techno-demographic appeal to the wider electorate by allowing his strategy to connect sites as Facebook with ABC and you tube with CNN, to encourage citizens’ participation on debates held on online forums and live streaming (Dutta and Fraser, 2008). This gave opportunity for individuals to offer their opinion through web.2, mobile texting and email technologies as well as ask about and address issues raised on debates. More politicians are accessing Instagram and Myspace, twitter and Facebook accounts where they dialogue with and respond to their supporters. Mobilization for political activism and movements The struggle for democracy, freedom and change in national policies are not just offline activities in the modern world. They extend to exploit the social media platforms and raise people’s concerns. As more controversial policies are enacted by the legislature, the affected societies come out to challenge the governments and the policy makers, to obtain fair grounds in policy consideration. Political activists hence rely on the strong social ties established via social networking sites to mobilize people to support their courses of actions. Most political analysts today appreciate the impacts of social networks in strengthening of social ties and influencing protests and participation in social movements (Kitts, 2000). Ties can be formed through connecting with other members of certain organizations with similar objectives and invitations by friends via social media, which end up joining numerous activists towards a given course. Mobilization and recruitment of individuals for socio-political actions now occurs online and in real time compared to traditional documentation methods. According to Christopoulos, through use of social media platforms such as twitter and Facebook, activists can influence supporters’ decisions to engage in demonstrations, but it is the strength of their social ties that determines their commitment to invest for the action (2013). Students’ protests and activisms in response to politically influenced education policies have effectively utilized Facebook and twitter platforms passing across messages for mobilization. In most cases, social media is used to solicit attention and organize for offline engagement in an action to promote change (Essig, 2014). From the last decade, most protesters showed their solidarity with the Arab uprising in MENA region via social media. Egypt’s 2010 political revolution intensively grew through Facebook social platform, attracting many young political activists to spread information over the corruption of Mubarak’s regime, and organizing for the January 25 protests against the government (Eltantawy and Wiest, 2011; El-Nawawy and Khamis, 2012). Similarly, the 2009 Iran and Moldova’s uprising highly utilized twitter social platform among others to spread messages over protests and bring demonstrators together, in pursuit of democracy against the oppressive governments (Comninos, 2011; Gladwell, 2010). Hence, the society is enabled to correct a social-political wrong without necessarily forming organizational structures, as individuals connect via social media. This is because they create a community that can virtually and physically come out to protest and address politicians and governments in movements. Political analysis and commentary Social media participations have become an essential measure for politicians’ popularity in political analysis. Although not every citizen in a nation has access to the internet or SNS, majority of those who access and follow respective politicians categorically project the reality on the ground. For several competing candidates, the two most competitive ones tend to garner many followers, which indicate to the public, the possibility of the winner. Social media has become a priority in election analysis, as a “prediction and analysis tool during and after elections” to earlier reveal voters’ intentions (Jones, 2015). Political analysts and journalists often become key interpreters of the directions politicians take and support during legislative decision making and public elections. Most audience listens to such analysis to make conclusive decisions, such as whom to support and where to cast their ballot before the elections. During the elections, live streaming of election’s progress and the results in constituencies, at the gubernatorial and national levels enable the political analysts to reveal to the public, where the winning weight is inclined for most positions and the reasons, before even elections conclude. By utilization of social media, political scientists, analysts and journalists get to comment on government and political issues. They offer their opinions freely and allow the audience or public to have access to their published commentaries. Most politicians own blog pages and as the authors, they offer information, their analysis and comments on pertinent issues, the government initiated policies and progress among other things, while allowing the readers to leave comments or participate in the discussions. Stevenson associates the year 2004 with the emergence of blogs in the “mainstream when political consultants, news services and candidates began using them as tools for outreach and opinion formation,” as remarkably used by Howard Dean to publicly comment on ongoing Iraq war, which openly boosted blogs as additional sources for news (2007, p.9). Political parties affiliated weblogs still have room for growth and improving their credibility, but continue to attract attention from the active participants of political discussions. Politicians’ actions are criticized through social media political commentaries, as the opponents’ civil societies’ offer alternatives to what should be adopted. Politicians and individual bloggers get to comment on the development of issues in the public realm to drive their points. Political commentaries either sent via twitter, blogs or streaming videos can attract positive or negative remarks from the followers. Social media facilitates numerous followers with opportunities to monitor and offer criticism to the governing institution and political figures, and promote pluralism in political debates (Clarke, 2010). The risks of free political commentaries involve creation of scandals through un-clarified pieces of stories put together by some people in the public domain, or escalated political arguments that result to politicians damaging each other’s image in the public. Scandals often result from half-baked truths, admonishing politicians or institution’s credibility, while attracting serious public interest on the issues. Social media monitoring of political associated conducts The press has historically been known to protect and monitor public interest from corrupt governments, as well as political and individual actions. The use of social media in public and private organizations by employees has facilitated social networking, accessing public offices and officials for enquiries, and authoritative clarification on issues. Freedom of the media use in the society and public offices calls for officials to be cautious for their actions, else they risk damaging their reputation in the public. Considering that freedom of speech and expression has actively been promoted in the democratic world, social media users have multiple channels to voice up and report the issues they perceive in the society. Citizens are constantly on the lookout, and through social media, they get to expose any concealed illegal or wrong actions and statements of the government and political officials (Eijaz et al., 2014). In the modern age where nations struggle with development, social media is used to track and report on any existing anomalies among politicians that prevent progress. They are channels of investigative reporting used to expose misconducts in public offices and call for change. More often, online ambushes of public officials caught red handed on camera committing violations are posted on social media platforms as evidence to the public. The exposure of Egyptian police violation through Facebook photos following the death of the 28-year-old Khaled Mohammed Said alleged to have occurred from drug abuse reveal social media’s extensive role as a watchdog (AEPAC, 2013). The photos which spread online showed the world the violence perpetrated by the Egyptian law enforcement under Mubarak’s regime to prevent democracy. In turn, they raised alarm for change in governance. Online video streaming of most political violations such as corruptions and citizen’s intimidation by those in power puts things in the open. Social media no doubt serves as a whistle blower for citizens to complain and inform the public of spotted illegalities in government. That makes it possible to promote development, end impunity and bring offensive politicians and leaders to justice, while protecting the public and its interests. Disseminating government information The modern governments have used multiple traditional and social media platforms to offer information to the governed citizens. With social media, previous limitations to TVs and radio broadcasting of news to the greater public are erased, providing consistent and reliable catalogues of information and postings in real time, anywhere, anytime in the world. Social media avails multiple communications across the numerous platforms. Currently, numerous governments are utilising social media approved by communication directors to share and distribute government authorized information and contents to the public consumers (Graham and Johnson 2013; GSA 2012). Today, local and state government social media websites such as twitter and Facebook accounts used by officials to disseminate information to the public are common. These social media sites are operated by authorized staff, who monitor and offer content and respond to issues on behalf of the government officials as directed (New Foundland Labrador Communications, n.d.). Government officials elaborately roll out their policies and strategies on their government sites allowing both citizens and the world access to the information. There are reliable government websites (.gov sites) offering different official released policies and developments in respective countries, where the public can follow up on recent developments and expected plans without having to rely on news reports and traditional media. Promoting transparency of government affairs Where most government affairs and policies were discussed away from the public scope, live streaming of videos for parliamentary discussions and even vetting procedures allow transparency in conducting government business. The public hence stays aware of the current issues and decisions taken by the legislatures in parliaments and judicially in courts in real time, before they are reported on traditional media. Social media is an important tool in promoting transparency and accountability for governments, as a platform for critical dissemination of information, tracking progress on governments’ initiatives, and questioning them for any deviations from the original plan (Bertort, Jaeger and Grimes, 2012). The openness of the government, public access to information and educative materials support democracy and enhance the governed parties’ trust to their governments. Social media works closely to support governments and public relations and expand library guides for accessible information. Most unclassified government affairs become open check books for public scrutiny, starting from government budgets, fiscal transactions and actual spending, to publications of bills, laws and courts’ decisions on politically relevant cases online for greater transparency (mass.gov, 2015). Through social media, governments can support corporate dialogue, offer answers to public enquiries and encourage electronic participation. Similarly, they support e-government activities for effective public management and offer advisories in line with service delivery (UN, 2014). Conclusion The use of social media has had numerous effects in politics, facilitating spread of information and collaborative exchange of visual, audio and textual information. Although there are negative effects, the positive ones outweigh them in support for democracy, political engagement and sharing across the social media platforms. Social media has been extensively involved in political campaigns for policies across western nations and in elections to mobilize support for candidates and their political stands. Second, it has allowed mobilization of people to organize for protests in their struggle for given courses of action such as democracy. Third, it serves to monitor and protect the public interests by exposing and reporting on politician or governments’ anomalies. Fourth, it provides alternative sources of information dissemination to the public other than traditional media, reaching out to distant and greater audience, while promoting transparency and accountability. Lastly, it is a powerful tool for political analysis and commentary. References AEPAC. 2013. Khaled Mohamed Saeed. [online] Available at: < http://www.aepac.org/khaled-saeed//>[Accessed 11 May 2015] Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T. and Grimes, J. M., 2012. Promoting Transparency and Accountability Through ICTs, Social Media, and Collaborative-Government. Transforming Government, People Process and Policy 6(1): pp. 78-91. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 May 2015]. Christopoulos, D., 2013. Does Social Media Impact Campaigns? Volatility and Salience in Political Discourses. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 May2015]. Clarke, A., 2010. Social Media: 4. Political Uses and Implications for Representative Democracy. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 May 2015]. Comninos, A., 2011. Twitter Revolutions and Cyber Crackdowns User-Generated Content and Social Networking in the Arab Spring and Beyond. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 May 2015]. Davies, R., 2014. Social Media in Election Campaigning. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 May 2015]. Dugan, L., 2012. How Will Social Media Impact The Presidential Election? [INFOGRAPHIC]. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 May 2015]. Dutta, S. and Fraser M., 2008. Barack Obama and the Facebook Election. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 May 2015]. Eijaz, A., Rahman, B. H., Ahmad, R.E. and Butt, J. A., 2014. Challenges and Options for Pakistani Media in the 21century. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 May 2015]. El-Nawawy, M. and Khamis, S. Political Activism 2.0: Comparing the Role of Social Media in Egypt’s “Facebook Revolution” and Iran’s “Twitter Uprising.” [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 May 2015]. Eltantawy, N. and Wiest, J. B., 2011. Social Media in the Egyptian Revolution: Reconsidering Resource Mobilization Theory. International Journal of Communication 5, pp. 1207–1224. Enloe, C., 2015.Megyn Kelly Won’t Let Debbie Wasserman Schultz Wiggle Away From Clarifying Abortion Views. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 May 2015]. Essig, K., 2014. Activism or Slacktivism? How Social Media Hurts and Helps Student Activism. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 May 2015] Gilmore, J. and Howard, P. N., 2013. Does Social Media Make a Difference in Political Campaigns? Digital Dividends in Brazil’s 2010 National Elections. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 May 2015]. Gladwell, M., 2010. Small Change: Why the Revolution will not be Tweeted. [online] Available at:[Accessed 13 May 2015]. Graham, M. and Johnson, E., 2013. Government Public Relations and Social Media: An Analysis of the Perceptions and Trends of Social Media Use at the Local Government Level. Public relations Journal 7 (4): p. 1-21. GSA, 2012. The Social media Navigator: GSA’s guide to official use of social media. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 May 2015]. Jones, G., 2015. What role will social media play in this years election? [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 May2015]. Kitts, J. A., 2000. Mobilizing in Black Boxes: Social Networks and Participation in Social Movement Organizations. Mobilization: An International Journal, 5(2 ), pp. 241-257. mass.gov, n.d. Promoting Transparency and Open Government. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 May 2015]. New Foundland Labrador Communications, n.d. Social Media Policy and Guidelines. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 May 2015]. Sarlin, B., 2015. Debbie Wasserman Schultz hits back at Rand Paul in abortion fight. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 May 2015] Stevenson, D., 2007. A Presumption against Regulation: Why Political Blogs Should be (Mostly) Left Alone. B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L 13(1): pp. 1-35. UiO, 2014. Social Media and Elections Campaign. [online] Available at: [Accessed 11 May 2015]. UN, 2014. United Nations E-Government Survey 2014: E-Government for the Future we want. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 May 2015]. Read More