I'm kinda nostalgic for the pre-Twitter era.
There's no doubt that Twitter has given those without a voice a public arena in which they can express informed opinions, coordinate opposition movements , and break news happening in real time (examples of each linked). However, I think you and I both know that Twitter is also responsible for introducing you to the most inane thoughts of your friends, neighbors, and even celebrities.
Besides being newly privy to what my 61 year old Uncle Bob thinks of the new Nicki Minaj video, Twitter is also guilty of something much worse. It's responsible for confirming a frightening suspicion all of us have had about our elected officials: they can be idiotic sometimes, just like us.
For example, just yesterday through The Hill's "Twitter Room", I was able to read Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa's valuable opinion on the recent UN-Syria Resolution debacle. Though I join him in condemning Russia and China for their veto of the resolution that asks President al-Assad to step down from the Syrian government, I do not join him in taking to my Twitter account to rattle off a hasty, misspelled, and politically incorrect tweet. The tweet read:
"I app laude Amb Susan Rice strong statement abt Soviet Russia and Red China veto of Syria resoluition at U.N."
Soviet Russia? Red China? Don't even get me started on his mixed policy of letter allotment and lack of possessive modifiers.
Perhaps I'm mercilessly nitpicking at an older man who should be app lauded for using such a progressive tool of civic engagement. And you maybe be right. But there's no excuse for behavior like that of Congressman Anthony Weiner who in 2011 accidentally showed all of his twitter followers his package, or for politicians like Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who settle petty disputes via twitter feeds. What's more frightening is that in January, Twitter CEO Dick Costol called 2012 the year of the "Twitter Election" : "...if candidates don't tweet, they're going to get left behind in the new digital age of microbloggin". What do you guys think? Is this truly the age we're headed towards, where politicians get left in the dust if their thoughts don't get published to the internet? Is this necessarily a bad thing? I'm wary, but I'm up for hearing an argument as to why this is a good thing.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteWhile I actually share many of your feelings on this issue, I could make an argument as to why it may be a good thing. I, like you, am afraid of some of the things our so called "leaders" put on their Twitter and other social media accounts. In fact, I believe your aforementioned tweet by Senator Grassley is, frankly, appalling. Nonetheless, I do believe it could, and let me stress could, be a good thing for our politicians to be forced to use social media. The use of social media shows us another side of the candidates. It takes us beyond the world of sound bites and media portrayals of candidates to the human behind the image. As a voter, I want to know if Charles Grassley has thoughts like those contained in his tweets. In my view, social media is just another tool that we can use to judge our candidates.
I believe we are definitely moving toward an age where candidates who don't engage in social media simply aren't going to be able to compete. The modern generation thrives on social media, and for candidates to mobilize voters, they are going to have to take to the world of cyberspace. In 2008, Barack Obama redefined grassroots movements by running a campaign heavily based on internet donations and social media. Since then, one could argue that face to face campaigning has diminished, while twitter campaigning has skyrocketed.
Only time will tell us the impact of this shift in campaigns. However, I think the newfound necessity of social media just gives us another chance to examine our political candidates; something I would want to do. For me, social media is just another vehicle by which candidates can deliver their messages. If morons like Anthony Weiner decide to post pictures like he did, well then he deserves everything he gets from it.
Christine and Robbie,
ReplyDeleteI agree the phenomena surrounding Twitter is quite entrancing and romantic. However romanticism put aside, the concept of it becoming revolutionary seems quite implausible to me or atleast in its form as of current. Is it possible to create a logical, persuasive, or informative statement in the matter of 120 or so characters? I can barely create a witty satirical joke in that many characters. I believe it is quite helpful when you are politician currently in office as tool to update your constituency or as a way to get feedback. However for campaigns I think they are quite primitive and lacking luster.
I followed Huntsman for months and if you followed his feed and ignored traditional media, which is a trend amongs the younger population, you would think he was in 2nd place in the polls or the burgeoning new candidate. However that was not the case, he was treading water at 4th place.
BUT, when used properly it's a perfect vein to refute bad news or feed supporters important data, this is from a campaign aspect not a candidate aspect. When talking with Jack Kelly, Stetson Graduate 2011, he made a fairly reasonable analysis that "if you had a campaign and you DIDN'T have a twitter you'd be setting yourself up for a loss. It's like yard signs. Just something you gotta have this day in age."
"However for campaigns I think they are quite primitive and lacking luster" -- I think you hit the nail on the head. Probably people who already endorse a candidate like Jon Hunstman would follow him on Twitter, which just creates an echo chamber and doesn't create votes or increased political knowledge.
ReplyDeleteGee, Beth. What a great idea for a research paper.
ReplyDeleteThanks to sharing a well information post. This post give a good information to well know about the political yard sing.
ReplyDeletePolitical Yard Signs