Social Networking sites have transformed the political landscape.

Written by Tom Evans.

The emergence of social networking sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have changed the face of politics. Politicians all over the Western world are switching on to the new technology to increase their profile and spread their message (for a fraction of the cost of a conventional political campaign); governments are using the mechanism to consult with ordinary citizens and to give them a voice in the democratic process; but perhaps the most exciting development of all is the use that activists in totalitarian regimes have made use of the new technology to promote opposition.

In their article “MyFaceTube Politics: Social Networking Web Sites and Political Engagement of Young Adults”, Baumgartner and Morris (2009) provide a description of social networking sites: “Such sites allow individual users to post information and interact with others either one-on-one or in groups.”  A United States Government site, WebContent.gov (2010), gives a more detailed definition, “Social media use the “wisdom of crowds” to connect information in a collaborative manner online. Through social media, individuals or collaborations of individuals create web content, organise content, edit or comment on content, combine content and share content.” The theme common to both of these definitions is the element of interaction and provides the key to the power of the technology. No longer are people passive audiences for political messages, the new media gives them enormous opportunity to participate more directly in the political process and potentially to change its course.

The history of social networking sites is short.  According to Boyd and Ellison (2007) the first recognisable networking site was SixDegrees.com which began operating in 1997. It promoted itself as a means to connect people and allow them to send messages to each other but ultimately fell over in 2000. They explain:

“While people were already flocking to the Internet, most did not have extended networks of friends who were online. Early adopters complained that there was little to do after accepting friend’s requests, and most users were not interested in meeting strangers.” (Boyd, D. M. & Ellison, N. B 2007)

It wasn’t until early 2006 that Facebook, one of the biggest social networking sites was launched on a platform that allowed global access. Since then usage has increased exponentially along with other social networking sites, some using similar (My Space) and others very different platforms (Twitter and YouTube). Twitter, “a very popular instant messaging system that lets a person send brief text messages up to 140 characters in length to a list of followers,” (PC Mag, 2008) commenced operations in 2006. YouTube, using video sharing as its medium, made its debut in 2005. Both have become powerful contributors to the political process.

To demonstrate the power of YouTube, Professor Michael Wesch of Kansas State University in a presentation entitled ‘An Anthropological Guide to YouTube’ (2008) quoted statistics stating that in 2008 over 9000 hours of video was uploaded onto the internet every day more than the commercial television networks combined. Little wonder that politicians have recognised the opportunities that this new media presents. The editor of the New Stateman Magazine (2007) in a recent article said “who could have imagined a year ago that the Leader of the Opposition would be regularly discussing matters of State and party in online forums with voters, let alone posting regular video content? Or that the Prime Minister would make regular appearances on YouTube?”

The use of social networking sites was a major feature of the 2008 American Presidential campaign particularly for the campaign of Barak Obama. Using social networking sites, the now President Obama’s campaign organisers were able to mobilise his supporters across the United States with minimal cost and time. This tool made a significant difference to his campaign and saved him millions of dollars in campaign funds.  Many commentators believe that without Obama’s use of these networking sites and the Internet in general, he would not have won the 2008 election. Arianna Huffington, editor in chief of The Huffington Post (2008), an online Blog site dedicated to news and commentary, said “Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be President. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee.”

Through the Internet and social networking sites in particular, voters are now able to intervene in political debate directly and powerfully.  For instance, during the US Presidential campaign, speeches captured digitally were uploaded to YouTube for the world to scrutinise causing occasional embarrassment. For instance, John McCain told America that Sarah Palin had opposed the ‘bridge to nowhere’ in Alaska but was rebuked after a video of Sarah Palin emerged on YouTube where she was heard to endorse it. The potential of social networking sites lies in its immediacy and opportunity for feedback giving incredible power to voters and the need for heightened accountability to all politicians. (Cain Miller, Clair. 2008)

The 2008 Missouri Governor’s election is another prime example of the power of social networking in politics. In a Republican dominated state, the Democratic Party was able to win the 2008 election for Governor with strong campaigning using ‘viral videos’ uploaded to the internet. The Democratic campaign was already using social networking tools such as Facebook and MySpace, a website and an email campaign but chose to use an innovative approach to undercut the opposition candidate. The campaign organizers filmed the opposition candidate on the campaign trail and then edited the footage into a themed video which featured inconsistencies in his arguments or embarrassing moments which was then posted on newspapers websites and political news sites. In a journal article titled It’s More Than Just Putting Ads Online published in the November/December 2009 edition of Politics (Campaigns and Elections), Isaac Wright says “they leveraged key issues into the focus of the public dialogue. The news in turn drove consuming voters online to watch more of the videos, spreading the message even further.”

Wright quotes the Pew Internet and American Life Project (which produces reports examining the impact of the internet on American society) which noted that among adult internet users 45 per cent watched online political videos during the election and one third forwarded online political materials to others. As he points out, a viral video is “a politically deadly weapon in the right hands.” (Wright. I, 2009)

Meanwhile in oppressive regimes, the opportunities that the new media present have not gone unnoticed. ‘Citizen journalists’ have embraced the new tools to give them the means to update the online world wide community on developments during political crises minute by minute and  have used this to great effect to organise political rallies and protests centrally and efficiently. Such instant mass communication cannot be controlled easily. “With mediated technologies, such as the Internet, individuals become real agents who are capable of resisting the world around them.” (Katz J.E, Rice R.E, Acord S., Dasgupta K., David K., 2009)

In Tehran in 2009, a totalitarian regime was defied through the use of social networking sites. Despite government attempts to shut them down, ordinary Iranians found innovative ways to sidestep the controls. The Internet and in particular social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook provided a means by which the Iranian people could communicate with the outside world, as well as with each other. The totalitarian regime made drastic attempts to shut these media outlets down yet failed to completely control them.

Phillip N Howard in a 2009 article titled “Inside the Cyberwar for Iran’s Future” outlined the significance of what occurred in Iran. “The 2005 presidential election that brought Ahmadinejad to power also had irregularities and media blackouts. But this time, civil society groups, social movement leaders and disaffected young people had access to an information infrastructure largely independent of the state.” In the article he describes how ordinary Iranians used real-time photos on their mobile phones and videos of the demonstrations on the Internet to spread the news of electoral fraud creating a tension that resulted in rooftops protests that mesmerized the world. (Howard P.N, 2009)

He explained that during election day, almost all media forms were blacked out and a majority of internet sites blocked in an attempt to stop news coverage and people from communicating with each other. Worldwide News providers CNN and BBC World were temporarily taken off the air. This blackout was partially successful but it was impossible to stop all outgoing messages as internet savvy young people, using proxies and various other methods, were able to bypass these attempts to control communication. As a result, an election which was intended by the regime to be silent became a worldwide media frenzy. As Austin Heap, a 25-year-old information technology consultant in San Francisco said “I think that cyber activism can be a way to empower people living under less than democratic governments around the world.” (Stone, B and Cohen, N, 2009)

Several months earlier in Moldova, a similar phenomenon occurred. Young people unhappy with the election results that saw 50% of the vote electing communists to power with suggestions of electoral fraud, used Twitter and Facebook to organise a major protest demonstration.

In a New York Times article ‘Social Networks Spread Defiance Online’ published on April 7 2009, Khalip, Schwirtz and Cohen wrote:

“The protests apparently started on Monday, when organizers from two youth movements, Hyde Park and ThinkMoldova, began calling for people to gather at an event billed as: “I am not a Communist.” Natalia Morar, one of the leaders of ThinkMoldova, described the effort on her blog as “six people, 10 minutes for brainstorming and decision-making, several hours of disseminating information through networks, Facebook, blogs, SMSs and e-mails. And 15,000 youths came out into the streets!”

In the same article, they interviewed Evgeny Morozov, a technology and politics specialist from the Open Society Institute in New York who attributed the scale of the event to Twitter and Facebook. “Nobody expected such a massive scale. I don’t know of any other factor which could account for it.” (Khalip. N, Schwirtz. M, and Cohen. N, 2009)

It is expected that the new social media will play an important role in the upcoming Australian federal election with both Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott regular users of Twitter and Facebook.  University of Canberra academic Julie Posetti describes Twitter as “a vehicle for participatory democracy in Australia thanks to its ability to create unmediated interaction between political journalists, engaged citizens and politicians.” She cites the demise of Malcolm Turnball as an example of the power of Twitter as journalists embraced the platform to spread news of a split within the Liberal party over the Government’s emission trading scheme: “A politically engaged Twitter electorate was taken directly into the eye of the storm by journalists live-tweeting every twist and turn within the halls of power.” (Posetti, J, 2010)

Ultimately Turnball lost a leadership spill brought on by the emissions trading issue.  Ironically he later used Twitter to announce that he would resign from Parliament at the next election.

The power of the Internet has been known for a long time. The emergence of social networking sites and the innovative use of them by politicians, governments and citizen journalists around the globe, has created a powerful new medium that has transformed the political landscape bringing a new level of participation to the political process. It promises to keep political debate in the Western world lively, interesting and accountable but the most interesting development could be the response of totalitarian regimes.  How they grapple to maintain control with the tools of 21^st Century mass communication accessible to their citizens will be interesting to observe.

References:

Baumgartner and Morris. (2009). “MyFaceTube Politics: Social Networking Web Sites and Political Engagement of Young Adults” Social Science Computer Review 2010; 28; 24 originally published online Jun 12, 2009. Retrieved on April 20 from http://ssc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/1/24

Boyd, D.M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Retrieved March 29, 2010 from  http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Cain Miller, Clair. (2008), “How Obama’s Internet Campaign Changed Politics” retrieved April 4 2010 from http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-internet-campaign-changed-politics/

Katz J.E, Rice R.E, Acord S., Dasgupta K., David K., “Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community Theory and Practice” Communication and community, communication yearbook 28.  (pp. 315-371). Retrieved on April 13 from http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/a80.htm

Khalip N, Schwirtz M, and Cohen N, (2009), “New York Times, Protests in Moldova Explode, With Help of Twitter” retrieved April 7 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/europe/08moldova.html?pagewanted=1

Kizzia, T. (2008). “Palin touts stance on ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ doesn’t note flip-flop” retrieved April 4 from http://www.adn.com/2008/08/31/511471/palin-touts-stance-on-bridge-to.html

New Statesman (2007) “Social Networking meets Politics” retrieved April 4, 2010 from http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/07/politics-web-mainstreaming

PC Mag.com, “Definition of Twitter” retrieved 31st March 2010 from http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=Twitter&i=57880,00.asp

Howard P.N (2009) “Inside the Cyberwar for Iran’s Future” retrieved April 4 from http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/inside-the-cyberwar-for-iran-s-future-6535/

Posetti, J (2010). “The #Spill Effect: Twitter Hashtag Upends Australian Political Journalism” retrieved on April 15 from http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/03/the-spill-effect-twitter-hashtag-upends-australian-political-journalism061.html

Stone, B and Cohen, N (2009) “Social Networks Spread Defiance Online” retrieved April 6 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/world/middleeast/16media.html

WebContent.gov (2010). “Social Media and Web 2.0 in Government” WebContent.gov: Better Websites. Better Government retrieved April 10 from http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/technology/other_tech.shtml

Wesch, M. (2008). “An Anthropological Guide to YouTube”. Retrieved March 31 2010, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU&feature=channel.

Wright, I. (2009). “It’s More Than Just Putting Ads Online” Politics (Campaigns & Elections) Nov/Dec 2009, Vol. 30 Issue 11, p38-41.