Journalists and Academics

As we discussed in class, when it comes to journalism and political science, there is a great divide. Journalists often make mention of political phenomenon and theories concerning elections, but without citing any political scientists or valid political sources. Political scientists often drone on and on about theories and phenomenon, using complicated jargon and coded charts that are beyond the scope of common public understanding. As discussed in this article, journalists and  academics have a gap to fill in the education of the public of political events and happenings. The reality is-- political scientists and journalists need to work together to educate the public with information that is essential to their effective decision-making. This information does not need to be riddled with confusing charts and graphs or language that only graduate students and political junkies can decipher. They are not a microcosm of the electorate. So long as that remains true, academics need a lesson on how to correctly cite political information and not translate political information to just accommodate their hunger for a juicy story. Political scientists need a lesson on how to simplify complex political phenomenon for the average citizen to understand and apply. They should be encouraged to take to the blogosphere and employ their social science of praxis to engage citizens into political dialogue.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/04/16/16859/

A hidden bias

The Monkey Cage has an interesting blog up now about opinions on term limits for Supreme Court justices.  I like the entry, because it's a friendly conversation between different bloggers and political scientists. It's a neat article, and you should read it.

If you don't want to, that's ok. I bring your attention to the end of the entry.  There is a criticism of a bias that I think has been hiding in the shadows.  Journalists talk to journalists.  They don't talk to political scientists very much.  Of course, we see correspondents on television, but they are saying what they are "supposed to say", not discussing their involved and difficult-to-understand research.

This may be journalists' fault, but it may also be the scientists' fault.  Scientists' have had a notorious issue explaining their research findings to the everyday Joe.  Through the media, Joe the plumber is starting to be able to understand politics (at least more than he understands chemistry research), but at what cost? I wonder if this bias will affect the new media as research starts to penetrate the media through interwebular outlets.

The Need For Speed?

This article points to a few very poignant facets of modern day campaigning-- it is speedy and accessible, and it occupies the use of “new media” to facilitate dialogue or disseminate information to a new technological generation of citizens. Blogs and other social media sites rival print media and perhaps even broadcast media in their 24-hour coverage of news and also how they engage audiences in political dialogue. Rather than having a television talking at you and boring print media lecturing on the facts, new media allows for the audiences to join in on the political discourse as well and exercise their political self-efficacy as we discussed in class. Sites such as FaceBook, Twitter, and YouTube have spearheaded this revolution in the media. There are benefits to this speedy and participatory coverage but as this article points out, there are also a few drawbacks. 

This piece highlights a facet of new media-- rapid response ads, particularly on YouTube. Rapid response ads are clips of debates and sound bites of politicians, annotated with commentary, to spark traction for the idea being represented. The video attached to the blog post, for example, was released by the Democratic National Committee. It features sound bites and video snippets from a debate that Mitt Romney participated in and was released before the debate even ended. We’ve already discussed how sound bites can be dangerous because they have the potential to be highly influential on a viewer’s political perspective. They only capture a framed and sometimes manipulated sound or clip of a politician, often without context. The fact that these ads are posted this rapidly means that most of the commentary attached to them has been created beforehand. One could have an opinion that Romney is a elitist that commits tax fraud, create the skeleton of an ad for it, extract clips from a live debate by Romney, and post the video before the debate concludes. Usually the more traction the ad receives, measured by the views, the more fuel an organization is given to create more. The fact that YouTube allows for comments under the video is key in opening up political discourse, but with such an impressionable public, are their perspectives already skewed from the clip? For college-educated young adults and political enthusiasts, probably not-- they will take it as entertainment at best. For the majority of the citizens, this can be perceived as critical information and severely alter their ability to make sense of the politics around them. 

The fact is, these ads won’t cease. They serve their purpose, which is to deliver persuasive bits of information framed as the host party sees fit. It may seem perhaps wishful to hope for, but the public needs to exercise discretion when viewing these clips and review the debates or media remarks from politicians in context. Look at the candidate’s platforms, observe their public forums and debates on their key issues, and allow that to form your opinions of a candidate. Fast media is convenient, but is it accurate, all-inclusive, and objective? More often then not, the answer is no. With many of these ads being financed as commercials that play before a viewer is allowed to watch their desired video, maybe there is little that can be done to escape the pervasiveness and traction of these ads.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/01/20/the-speed-of-modern-campaigns-does-it-matter/

Tweets v. Likes

Tweets vs. likes: Ana Analysis of Monkey Cage Data

Joshua Tucker on February 26, 2012

Joshua Tucker, writer for the Monkey Cage once posted a question about why some blog posts are more likely to be “tweeted” and why others are subject to being “liked” on Facebook. Later, Georgetown student compiled data from the Monkey Cage and made an analysis of why certain blog posts are tweeted or liked.

The student’s analysis theorized that blog posts are liked based upon their graphical content. Blogs that have graphics or graphs are more likely to be “liked” on Facebook because of this social network’s graphical and picture orientated nature. On the other hand, blogs with more “wonkiness” received more tweets as Twitter is a text based network.

This basic study reveals some insight about the orientation of both social networks. Facebook is highly dependent on graphics and pictures for their internet traffic. Twitter is based on amusing, witty, and short “tweets.”

Another aspect of the tweet and like war is the public versus private spheres. Twitter is seen more as a public forum while Facebook has some “perceived” privacy towards your own friends and family. Due to this difference, Tucker commented that he is much more likely to post highly partisan ideas on the semi-private Facebook wall than on Twitter’s public forum.

He believes that this certainly has some impact on political behavior over social networks. Tucker theorizes that the difference between the public v. private domains of Facebook and Twitter will help differentiate the effects of social media on the audience.

Social media seems to counter act the hypodermic reception theory. Because users can be more selective in their media source options, the audience is more active and is not a passive recipient. The internet also balances the “agenda setting” behavior of televised news. The “agenda” on social media sites is entirely set by the users, not by the company trying to make profits off of popularizing a particular view. Therefore, social media and media on the internet may allow its audience to become more active and aware members of society.