Social Media and Political Discourse - Term Paper Example

Table of Contents Table of Contents Introduction 2 Roles played by Social Media 2 Politicians using Social Media 3 Social Media and Political Change 5 Criticisms against Social Media as Platforms for Political Discourse and Potential Risks 6 Conclusion 7 Works Cited 9 Name: Course: Instructor: Date: Social Media and Political Discourse Introduction For better or worse, social media has virtually eliminated the spatial and temporal barriers between people to connect individuals around the world in real time as never before. Recent events such as the five day long riots in London, England and dangerous flash mobs in U.S. cities like Philadelphia highlight a downside of social media: the ability to mobilize huge numbers of people to incite destruction and violence. Yes, elections in Iran in 2009 and Egypt in 2011 commanded world attention and breathed life into youth activists in large part due to Twitter and other social media outlets. Social media has the capacity to unify and organize large and disparate populations more efficiently than ever before; despite the harmful ends in service of which such power is on occasion harnessed, social medias ability to inform and engage vast peoples across difference has revolutionized politics in such a way as to justify the risk. This paper looks at how social media affects politics and political discourse in particular, and how the benefits of the influence of social media on political discourse outweigh the risks involved. Roles played by Social Media Since the development of social media tools, there has been considerable change in how people communicate and access information. New media, and especially social media has greatly influenced political processes in the recent past, and it continues to do so more than ever, in many parts of the globe. No wonder “the number of those using social networking sites has nearly doubled since 2008 and the population of SNS users has gotten older” (Hampton, Keith, Goulet, and Lee 3). Some examples of social media applications used for political discourse include Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, LinkedIn, Orkut, Netvibes, ExpressionEngine, OpenDiary, LiveJournal, Blogger, Digg, YouTube and Drupal. Social media does play several roles in politics in countries throughout the world considering that through it many voters can find an avenue through which to express themselves, or to reach out to their political leaders. Furthermore, social media are also ideal platforms which can be used by politicians to disseminate information to the general public. More importantly, social media has transformed politics in that it provides a convenient platform for political discourse among different individuals. According to Kushin (2), these social media platforms are used by “politically active individuals of all ages and ideologies to get news, connect with others, and offer their thoughts on the issues that are important to them”. Many players in the political arena have claimed with the benefit of hindsight that “(social media) would bring democracy to autocratic states the world over” (Baumann 1). Politicians using Social Media The use of social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter has become very popular among politicians and revolutionaries according to Bauman (52). Most of the politicians in the United States, as a matter of fact, use one or more of these social media tools to initiate political discourse. For example, in 2008, President Obama launched MyBarackObama.com, a personal social network to help him stay active and politically successful on the local political front (Howard 11). His political counterpart Howard Dean had launched his meetup.com before him. McCain also launched his McCainSpace for similar purposes (Kushin 3). According to Smith (1), “social media has become a regular part of the political environment for voters in the 2010 midyear elections”. In fact, politicians who use social media and especially social networking tools in the Western World are seen to be more in touch with the public than those who have decided to take a back seat and concentrate on the old way of dealing with politics. Players in the political field use social media to sell their ideas and to get the public’s views about those ideas. Using social media to engage with constituents is a cheap and convenient option for many a politician who would not want to lose their grip on their supporters. Smith (par 3) states that “The social networking population as a whole has grown larger and demographically more diverse in recent years, and the same is true when it comes to political activity on social networking sites.” During the last four years or so, American citizens have been able to air their opinions about what congress should pas in terms of legislations. For instance, before the healthcare and economic stimulus plan bills were enacted, million of people used social media to discuss how the two bills would affect them; many people, both critics and proposers were given a chance to talk about why they disagreed or agreed with the contents of the two bills. The views of the American citizens on these key issues that affected their lives did not go unnoticed by politicians and policy makers who used the arguments presented by the masses to either support or shoot down the bills. The kind of platform for political discourse made possible by the presence of social media has led to some people to term it as a form of direct democracy. Such participation in political decision making made possible through social media underpin the fact that political discourse is quickly changing as more and more people adopt social networking as a venue to express themselves. Social media outlets also give the vocal minority to become relevant in the vibrant political field. Members from minority groups who would like to take part in political discussions have a fair chance to be heard on social media platforms more as compared to through other means. This is quite relevant in countries where citizens are from different cultural, ethnic, religious and political backgrounds; gone are the days when it was only those who controlled the politics of the day could make their voices heard. Social media does not discriminate and anyone can take part in any political discourse that he or she feels affects them in one way or another. When there is no fear of reprisal for self expression, social media is effective in giving the voiceless a voice and making what matters to them matter to their political leaders as well. Social Media and Political Change Social networking sites including Facebook and Twitter have been very instrumental in the organization of political activities including campaigns, protests and revolutions. In fact, social media has been used in the establishment and organization of national and international civic movements. Although in some cases the power of these sites has been overstated, their overall impact in bringing political change cannot be undermined. For example, the use of Twitter and other social sites as an organizational tool during the Iranian and Ukranian revolutions cannot be ignored. Yet again, social sites have proved to be powerful in so far as media attention is concerned. In many countries, especially those in the Middle East and North Africa, digital media has resulted in widespread civil disobedience with majority of citizens opting to brave the risk of being hit by bullets and tear gas. In Iran, for example, international media focused its attention on the revolution following the Tweets that were aired online by Iranians and interested parties across the globe. A similar situation occurred in Egypt with nationals using social sites to discuss the fate of their country under the leadership of Hosni Mubarak. Eventually, Mubarak’s regime came tumbling and the political environment witnessed an unprecedented change. Criticisms against Social Media as Platforms for Political Discourse and Potential Risks Online political discourse, especially on the social media scene has been criticized for allegedly isolating people who disagree with the specific topic being discussed. The discussions have also been criticized for sometimes being quite uncivil (Kushin par 28). In many instances, political discourse within a single social website is largely one sided. The disagreeing participants make up a very small percentage of those who are participating. This means that most discussions or political discourse topics on social media lack the fiery character of conventional discourses which pit opposing sides equally. It is normally quite hard to regulate what goes on in many of the political discussion forums in the social media. Sometimes the discussions can become quite heated and some participants normally loose their tempers. Since everyone is free to state anything they want to, it can lead to a situation where the language used is considered uncivil for such discussions (Kushin par 28). One of the main risk factors associated with the use of social media for political discourse is that it may make it difficult to control one’s public image. If there is an attack on the individual reputation of a politician, it would be hard to control it. There are many proxy political bloggers whose main intention has not been to engage in healthy political discourse with other members of the public, but to tarnish a particular politician’s name (Lotan, Graeff and Ananny par 13). Synthetic lobbying is also a common risk associated with political discourse on social media. This happens when some special interest groups craft social media campaigns in such a way that they are able to dominate discussions so as to a specific outcome. Another risk is that there are many individuals, groups and political institutions which lack the appropriate resources to effectively utilize social media for the purposes of political discourse. However, this is not a real risk since there are endless options available that can be used to make the use of social media for political discussions effective and low cost. In a bid to control or prevent access to certain online information by the public, certain quarters have opted transform their Internet into intranets while in other cases, allowing public access to Twitter and Facebook has been deliberately done with an aim of identifying and fishing out malcontents. The Iranian security agents, for example, employed the latter measure to protect the powers that be during a recent revolution (Baumann 54). In such cases, those advocating for change have ended up being arrested by the government of the day even as some perceive social sites to be tools for spying on other people, often for the government. Although there are instances where uncivil discussion or behavior may be present or where the discussion may tend not to favor the opposing voice, many social media platforms offer healthy discussion forums. The unwanted behavior normally occurs very rarely. Social media has given both the public and politicians a new avenue to discuss issues that are important to them. Many researchers concur that technology has propelled the world of political discourse to a greater level: “social media have opened up possibilities for rich, online human-to-human interaction unprecedented in the history of internet communication” (Kushin par 1). The best thing is that they can participate in any kind of political discourse from the comfort of wherever they are and at whatever time they want to. This kind of convenience and freedom lacks in many conventional political discourse platforms. Conclusion Social media has changed the way political discourse is conducted. Technology has made it possible for people to dictate the terms of how politics is discussed. Social media as a platform for political discourse is beneficial to both the public and to politicians. People get to participate in any of the discussions that they think is relevant, sometimes using the sites to organize civic demonstrations, protests or even revolutions as witnessed in the case of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. They also get to make contributions to political debates among themselves and with their political leaders. On the other hand, politicians use social media to interact politically with the masses. However, some people have in the past argued that social media does not present the best platform for political discourse. One of the main arguments they give has to do with the lack of proper regulation that makes it hard to filter the kind of language used. They also claim that many there are some social media platforms which do not allow people with opposing opinions to air their views. However, despite these criticisms, the popularity of social media as a platform for political discourse is quickly gaining popularity. Members of the public and their political leaders can both take part in discussions that affect them at their own convenience which is part of what good communication is all about. Indeed in spite of the associated risks, the benefits of social unification through networking sites far exceed the risks as seen from past experiences in various countries. Works Cited Baumann, Michael. “A Political Revolution Goes Viral ... Not So Fast.” Information Today [Medford, N.J.] Oct. 2009: 1, 52, 54. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 Oct. 2010. Hampton, Keith, Lauren Sessions Goulet, and Lee Rainie. "Social networking sites and our lives." Pew Research Centers Internet & American Life Project. 16 June 2011. Web. 16 Oct. 2011. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP%20-%20Social%20networking%20sites%20and%20our%20lives.pdf Howard, Philip. "The Arab Springs Cascading Effects - Miller-McCune." Miller-McCune. 23 Feb. 2011. Web. 16 Oct. 2011. http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/the-cascading-effects-of-the-arab-spring-28575/ Kushin, Mathew. “Getting Political on Social Network Sites: Exploring Online Political Discourse on Facebook”. First Monday. Vol. 14, No. 11, 2009. http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2645/2350 Lotan, G., Graeff, E., Ananny, M., Gaffney, D., Pearce, I., & Boyd, D. 2 Sep. 2011. "The Arab Spring: The Revolutions Were Tweeted: Information Flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions." International Journal of Communication 5 (2011) [online]. 5:0. Web. 16 Oct. 2011. Shirky, Clay. "The Political Power of Social Media." Foreign Affairs. N.p., 1 Feb. 2011. Web. 16 Oct. 2011. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67038/clay-shirky/the-political-power-of-social-media Smith, Aaron. "22% of online Americans used social networking or Twitter for politics in 2010 campaign Pew Research Centers Internet & American Life Project." Pew Internet & American Life Project , 17 Jan. 2011. Web. 16 Oct. 2011. http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=327648 Read More