Social media and elections

U.S. President Barack Obama has been touted as "the social media president" and the history books will certainly mark the 2008 election as the first to be influenced by social media. Do you think that social media will continue to play an important role in the 2012 election, or is the phenomenon over-hyped?

Through the first blog post, we have already established that social media is here to stay. By now, it has been inextricably woven into the fabric of our society.

From an advertising perspective, placement is everything. When we speak of real estate, it’s all about location, location, location. In politics, voter participation is key. Even if you are the most popular politician since, well, Nelson Mandela, it won’t matter how many people say they love you if you cannot translate those expressions of love into votes.

I am no mathematician, but I have come up with a simple equation just for this blog post:

Excitement + Participation = votes 

In Canada, voter turnout is on the decline. The 2011 election drew just 61.1% of voters to the polls. This was only a fractional increase from 2008’s 58.8%, the worst turnout since 1898. The American statistics are even more dismal.

Luckily for U.S. President Barak Obama, his election team knows their stuff; the 2008 election result is evidence of that. So, they understand that in order to get voters excited enough to participate and get out to vote, Obama needs to be where the action is. Not only that, but he needs to be the action.

How do people get excited in 2012? Without letting this thread go to the dogs, let’s just say that social networking gets people excited. Joining in on conversations, in groups, seeing what everyone is up to gets people excited.

And how do people participate in 2012? By talking, reaching out, connecting, conversing, opining, discussing, debating, questioning, contributing – all online.

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that where the people are, is where the candidates should be too. And, in 2012, the people are all on social networks. By having Obama positioned on every major social network, his campaign team is tapping into the power of conversation; and not just idle chit chat with anyone and everyone, but two-way conversations with any potential voter who cares enough to participate.

Frankly, I’m amazed Romney’s campaign is not recognizing the full potential of social networking. Perhaps it has something to with a misplaced notion that social networking is only for teenagers with nothing better to do, not for respectable politicians.

So to recap: if you are a politician and you place yourself in a position to excite people, get them to participate in the conversation and the process, then maybe – just maybe – you stand a better chance of getting those people to cast their vote on election day. And maybe – just maybe – they’ll even vote for you. 

The Dangers of Citizen Journalism

Social media has allowed everyday citizens to become authors, editors, and publishers of news and information. Do you believe that social media has increased the quality of news and information or decreased it?

Social media has allowed people from all walks of life to participate in newsgathering and the dissemination of news. No longer is it the exclusive domain of the professional journalist to inform the public.

While social media has certainly made it easier for people to report on news and events, I believe it has not increased the quality of news content and information for the following reasons:

• typically, citizen journalists are not accountable to any governing body or public editor
• citizen journalists are not held accountable by strict journalism industry ethics. These industry ethics guide professionals to deliver content in a truthful, respectful manner so that the public can maintain their trust in the validity and accuracy of the news
• citizen journalism lacks the critical editorial process for fact-checking, sourcing and referencing
• professional journalism standards are often not met, such as grammar and writing styles
• errors in judgement, factual errors, omissions, manipulation of quotes and facts – all these can result in misleading information
• a tendency for citizen journalists to pontificate and be subjective instead of objective
• a tendency for citizens to incorporate their natural biases into the reporting

Certainly having many voices is a progressive and positive shift in media: more voices around the world results in increased awareness. However, I don’t believe more voices equals better quality journalism, it simply equals more opinions. The frequency of something doesn’t necessarily increase its quality.

My fear is that there is a tendency among young people to rely on inexperienced and non-professional bloggers and lay-people (citizen journalists) for their daily news information. This is creating a cycle of mis-informed individuals guided by opinion, pontification and subjective reporting, even sometimes, outright manipulated information.