Is social media what’s wrong with politics today?



Contributing Writer
Photo: Debate Credit: Bartlomiej Stroinski


In a recent Washington Post op-ed piece, a political opinion columnist wrote that lines like “binders full of women” which spread virally on platforms like Twitter are precisely what’s wrong with politics.  She doesn’t go into a lot of detail except to say that the discourse is dumbed down so that “virtual audiences” can provide commentary in real time, treating politics like a reality show.  She points out that this is the first “social media election,” so clearly she has been reading  other non-sequiturs about this election.  But this is the first time I’ve seen social media blamed for political messaging.

Let me tell you why I disagree with this assertion.  To blame social media for vapid political discourse is a modern-day version of Marie Antoinette’s “let them eat cake.”  It’s not that the body politic enjoys consuming empty calories, it’s simply that there’s not a lot else to consume.

Dispelling the social media myth

Let’s get one point immediately clear: social media isn’t a election game changer.  If you read the outstanding FiveThirtyEight blog, you see that there isn’t corresponding movement in the polls when “big bird” and “binders fulls of women” are traversing Twitter.  The mythology of social media as a driver or even as a harbinger of political sentiment is inaccurate.

Twitter recently released a study touting its effectiveness for driving political donations.  The only problem with the study is that it ignores any other marketing input and completely glosses over the fact that the people who are contributing to these campaigns are either targeted or opt-in to Twitter messages, indicating that they would have donated with or without Twitter.

Even more damning than Twitter’s donation without causation claims was a study by two professors who targeted a local audience with 30 impressions of a local candidate through Facebook, and found that very few of them even knew who he was when polled at the end of the time period.

So, the argument that politicians are clamoring to recite soundbites that resonate with social media users implies that these politicians are naive enough to think that social media is an important marketing tactic for them.  Their widespread use of the platforms probably is more defensive than offensive… but to be generous I’ll simply say that there is no established correlation between social engagement metrics and voter influence that I’ve seen.

Does the past have any bearing on the present?

The implicit assertion of the Post piece is that the political discourse was better before social media.  And that’s completely false.  Remember these zingers from previous campaigns?

“There you go again”

 ”I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience”

“You are no Jack Kennedy“

“Say it ain’t so, Joe”

If these were uttered today, it’s conceivable that all of these would morph into hashtags.  But they weren’t.  They are from 1979, 1983, 1991 and 2007.

Point being, politicians didn’t start rattling off condescending, irrelevant zingers after Twitter came to prominence.  There is a long history of them.  Politicians today are simply repeating the same lessons from previous elections.  If this says something about the dumbing down of politics or a politician’s disdain for the electorate, it predates social media by decades.

Two of those candidates (Lloyd Bentsen and Sarah Palin) were not elected into office, indicating that this distillation of politics into high snark isn’t so important (social media notwithstanding).

What to talk about?

Candidates talked about improving education in their debates, with one of them uttering the exasperating declaration “I like teachers.”  The other one trying to point out all of the other ways that his opponent doesn’t like teachers.  Nevermind that Geoffrey Canada has a 98% college acceptance rate in his inner-city charter schools.  What is he doing differently?  A large part of his success is probably due to resourcing his schools, smaller class size, changing the traditional school day, implementing the most effective teaching methods and extracurricular enhancement.  But a competition for who likes teachers more is a worthwhile conversation if you need to pass time in a debate.

Candidates debated their viewpoint on abortion, an issue that they have very little power to influence (besides appointing supreme court justices).  They went on to agree about the necessity of drone strikes despite studies that suggest these tend to kill a high percentage of civilians.  They gloss over that factual point like it’s no big deal.  They also advocated for sanctions in a very sanctimonious way, when the reality of these sanctions is that they degrade the quality of life for the general population to persuade their government to act (this was established clearly with sanctions in Iraq).  The dire human consequences to policies like this are conveniently not discussed.  Three of the four national candidates consider themselves pro-”life,” but nevermind the fact that their advocacy for life has geographic, socioeconomic and age limits.

About $2 billion dollars will have been spent on the Presidential election this year once it is (thankfully) over.  Assuming about $1 billion for each campaign, I have never heard about the concessions due political donors when these candidates get into office.  But one presumes that an aggregate $1 billion is not in any way philanthropic.  One further assumes that the platitudes about a “middle class” that each candidate spouts are empty, since middle income voters don’t contribute anywhere near the amount that big donors do.

And when a journalist like Martha Raddatz (and to a lesser extent Candy Crowley) had the audacity to follow-up on issues well within the narrow scope of what the politicians want to talk about, they were vilified for interfering with the candidates talking points and zingers.  Better to have a wet noodle moderator like Jim Lehrer or Bob Schieffer ask questions and let the candidates zing away.

That’s the political discourse that is going on right now, and it is completely irrelevant to social media.  And this landscape (with the exception of the scale of political donations) is nothing new or different.

Is it hypocritical to blame social media for this?

So how is it that despite a rich history of sound bites, smoke and mirrors, that the political discourse is blamed on social media?  It’s hypocritical to use an oversimplified argument to lament the oversimplification of political talking points.

Politics probably will never change.  In fact I was reading through some political posts today: some Romney advocates are expressing their outrage in Obama’s dismissal of bayonets, while Obama supporters are outraged about Mitt Romney’s “Romnesia,” an imaginary condition where he forgets his positions on issues.  Each contributor added to the discussion with the passion of a sport enthusiast, discussing these insignificant, ancillary issues as if they were issues that would affect them in their everyday lives.

If you dislike the current political discourse, don’t blame social media.  Social media doesn’t create trite, opaque topics.  They simply enable people to see the conversations around them.  By and large, social media is agnostic.  It treats the political campaigns no differently than the Real Housewives.  And as evidenced by the gregarious, empty promises and ambivalence to issues that are truly informing about governance - these campaigns probably don’t deserve any better.

Photo Credit

Jim Dougherty

Jim Dougherty

Writer and chief of miscellany at leaderswest.com

I aspire to give people something to think about rather than tell them what to do. My favorite Google Alert is “social media research,” I am increasingly compelled by Gen Z, and I appreciate good writers agnostic of where they write. At one time I was Kred’s 12th most influential social media blogger and Klout’s most influential person on the topic of David Hasselhoff. Transplant from Seattle living in Cincinnati. Haven’t entirely adopted the local sports teams yet.

Jim Dougherty

@jimdougherty

Writer about social media and tech at Leaders West, I also tweet as @leaderswest.

Altimeter Joined H&R Block And Expion To Chat Employees and Amplification http://t.co/bjsGf9xoQP via @ShellyKramer – 7 hours ago

Jim Dougherty

Jim Dougherty

  • Jack Durish

    Actually, I haven’t seen anything written on the social media that is any more vapid than that written by correspondents, commentators, and pundits. If I want to know who the pundits think won a debate, I’ll read their columns. If I want to know who the people think won a debate, I’ll turn to Twitter, Facebook, et al. If anything, social media is enhancing the level of discourse in politics. Any politician who throws out a sound bite better be careful these days. As when President Obama chided Candidate Romney for his ignorance of military matters and said, “We have ships that go under the sea… the Army doesn’t need bayonets…” There were plenty of ordinary citizens who were happy to explain, “Ships that go under the water are sinking… submarines are boats… and Every infantryman still carries a bayonet and is trained in how to use it…” Yes, I hear the ordinary folk singing and they make me smile.

  • http://twitter.com/MartyDia Marty Diamond

    Very thoughtful take on the current political climate – – Social media has amazing power and we have seen in many crisis situations – if we want a more substantive debate then instead of “binders of women” being the hot topic we need to be tweeting “where’s the beef?” and demanding more from all the parties.

  • http://twitter.com/hannahkirkman Hannah Kirkman

    Not so long ago, it was 24 hour rolling news coverage that was blamed for dumbing down politics. Now it’s social media’s turn. Thinking about what’s wrong with politics today – disengaged and distrustful voters, out-of-touch politicians – social media should surely be viewed as part of the solution, not blamed for causing the problem. If more politicians were willing to go beyond just using social channels for broadcasting, and actually listen to and speak with voters on the issues that matter to them, we might have a better chance of an intelligent debate.

  • http://barrettrossie.com/ Barrett Rossie

    Of course it’s not because of social media. The first campaign I worked on was in 1980, and the rhetoric was vicious back then. I’ve heard that in the early 19th C, it was even worse.

    I disagree with you on the debates, Jim. I thought the two debates in which the moderators did the least (Lehrer, Sheiffer) best served the discourse. I’d like to see them go at it head to head with NO moderator — just electronically controlled microphone time. You get two minutes, I get two minutes. Then the mike automatically cuts off. Maybe that way one particular candidate won’t be given more time to speak in each of the three debates.

  • http://twitter.com/leaderswest Jim Dougherty

    Thanks Barrett! Admittedly I wrote this a little fired up about blaming inanimate objects for human behavior, but I can see how less moderation could make for an entertaining discourse, too. I guess I was so shocked with Raddatz asking thoughtful follow-up questions that I wanted more of it! Thanks for reading and for your comment!

  • http://twitter.com/leaderswest Jim Dougherty

    Thanks Hannah! I totally agree – I love the analogy of the 24 hour rolling news coverage. Even that has become so compartmentalized with Fox News and MSNBC that you have to wonder if they are capable to influence undecided people or just preach to the converted? Thank you so much for reading and commenting!

  • http://twitter.com/leaderswest Jim Dougherty

    Thanks Marty! Funny that you mention “where’s the beef?” As I was researching debate zings that was one of them…. I want to say it was Mondale in 1984. Anyhow, I totally agree with you! There are some sites that have apps that tell you which presidential candidates whose policies you are aligned with – and I never side with the major political parties and suspect that many people don’t. I don’t hold out a lot of hope for political discourse, but can tolerate it so long as people don’t try to attribute it to other things! :) Thank you so much for reading and commenting!

  • http://twitter.com/leaderswest Jim Dougherty

    Thanks, Jack! I appreciate you reading and commenting. I enjoy the discourse on social media sometimes as well. I never saw or used a bayonet in the time that I was in the Army in training or deployed, so I can only assume that the inventory decrease is accurate – but my general presumption is that people that are pro-bayonet on social media by and large are driven by their party allegiance rather than defense of a bayonet. But to co-opt a term from the Republican convention: social media didn’t build that – the politicians did. If Obama, Romney, or the punditry wanted to be straight with people they could. They just don’t. It’s not a unique development of social media tools….. though an ancillary benefit could be increased awareness in Big Bird, binders and bayonets. I appreciate your insights!

  • http://www.impermium.com/ Candace

    The problem lies in the perception that social media is the great equalizer. Pundits who call this the first “social media election” understand that social media platforms bring more voices into the process. However, in reporting voter sentiment, journalists must also recognize that usage rates differ and while platforms are an equalizing force, some users are still more easily heard than others. My company analyzed comments posted during the second debate and discovered that 49% of political comments on social web sites come from 1% of users.

  • http://twitter.com/leaderswest Jim Dougherty

    That’s a great stat, Candace. I’ve also noticed that people commenting have a fairly limited reach (in general). I hardly ever see political tweets in my stream unless I search elsewhere. I suspect that in future elections there will be better plans in place to measure the impact of social engagement in a more isolated way. Everytime I see these campaigns blowing 120K on Twitter sponsored trends I wonder what the return on that is? It is an effective way to get people discussing the artifice that they’re promoting, but I wonder if those discussions are ever seen by uncommitted voters. It seems that undecideds must be somewhat isolated or unresponsive to social messaging. Great insight – thanks for sharing it!

  • http://barrettrossie.com/ Barrett Rossie

    The only one I really disliked was Candy C., I thought she overstepped her bounds. Politics is so much fun, but I hope it doesn’t give me a heart attack!

  • http://www.impermium.com/ Candace

    Great question, Jim. Campaigns are likely refining engagement metrics but the return comes from big data enabling targeted contact. Online ad buys can ensure contact with specific demographic groups like registered 18-25 year olds in Florida, Target vs. Walmart followers in the Midwest, etc. Given voting models can correlate consumer behavior with voting preference, sponsored ads may help shift a persuadable user to a reliable voter. This is a long-winded way of saying that campaign ads may aim to influence discourse as well as other aims such as effecting voter turnout. On an aside, I’d estimate that truly undecided voters get lots of campaign love in other old-school forms (e.g. canvassers and direct mail)!

  • jimdougherty

    Indeed! Maybe the Romney campaign is onto something when they discuss the sophistication of their digital targeting, rather than intimating that they are doing anything revolutionary with social media. To me, that’s a much more pragmatic and realistic discussion of why social media is an effective tool for campaigns. Great insights – why am I writing this stuff? You would have written it much better!!!!

  • http://twitter.com/emerigent/lists/memberships Emeri Gent [Em]

    There are great politicians and there are great social media advocates, there are productive political constituencies and there are transformational social media constituencies. If we utilize social media more to outline what is wrong with politics, then this focus on wrong, merely distracts us as to what is right with politics and social media and what works and should work in the future.

    So it is clear that social media isn’t what is wrong with politics, what’s wrong with social media is exactly what is wrong with politics, namely we treat “social media” as a living being, or politics as a person – so it becomes our identity. Neither are our identity, both are a profession in that in both people profess.

    What makes social media accountable to our individual life is what makes politics accountable to our individual life, which is participation. It is good to point out the amorphous nature of political contributions, in that it should not cost $2 Billion dollars to host a democracy, so as I see it, it is the other way around, politics is whats wrong with social media today.

    We have our constituency, we have our position – what we point to is the “other”. So long as there is the other, it is a political position, social media becomes a political position not a social movement.

    We also know that politics when it serves the polis in our age is a movement not a position. It is a movement of the many rather than a position of the few. When we begin to focus our attention with what works in politics and what works in social media, there is no other to fight, there is only our own face in the mirror, which remains the eternal reflection – whether what we see is freedom.

    Social media has given us some of that freedom, otherwise I could not have found a place like this to ponder or reflect the assertion you question – but the moment I push that mirror away from myself and ask others to respond in the same manner, the very people, the very souls of potential transformation – the things we think about here become not our individual question, but aggregated answer.

    So the challenge for me is to first re-write the question as if there is only two available positions,

    Is Social Media whats right with politics today?
    Is Politics whats right with social media today?

    Then am I not personally responsible to find an answer to those questions and in answering create a movement not of politics, but of my own enlightenment. This movement is not a position, it is not a cancelling out of the other, it is the multiplication of diversity – and in true diversity there is no other.

    The mirror I hold, I hold not a single soul out there, but solely to my own face – I don’t expect others to see my face in it, but their own – my mirror is the reality I face, and that reality wants me to move towards politics that works and social media that works.

    he good thing here is, that it is not an either-or – it is that Power of AND – I just have to be confident enough about the answer – and the answer is the same for everyone who looks at it – this is “my” life – and an iota of enlightenment in my life is a contribution of an iota to our life – the mirror that each of us now holds.

    [Em]

  • jimdougherty

    Em, yours is a much more thoughtful analysis of the topic than I think I brought. I didn’t mean to posit the question “what’s wrong with social media” because by and large that’s irrelevant. The point was simply to say that the social media is not a contributing factor to political content or conversation. I didn’t mean to imply that politics could be fixed either. I don’t think it’s a worthwhile endeavor to attempt to fix politics given the interests vested in maintaining the status quo. I simply mean to point out that social media content isn’t informing or misinforming the political discourse. The discourse is determined by the campaigns and they are pretty consistent from year to year. Phenomenal analysis, though! Definitely gave me something to think about!

  • http://twitter.com/emerigent/lists/memberships Emeri Gent [Em]

    I do understand that your response is fielded within the parameters of what was sparked by Kathleen Parker. Newspapers like to think they print news, but much of what we constitute as news is someone’s opinion. That opinion may well evaporate into the void of daily news consumption and we generally respond with slivers of information, keeping “to the point” and addressing the “argument” at hand.

    Responding to opinion is opinion, and my objective was not to know who Kathleen Parker was, but because I clicked on the twitter link that posited an interesting question – Is Social Media what’s wrong with politics today?

    I had no idea of who Kathleen Parker is and more to the fact, I still don’t want to know who she is. The great thing about social media is that provides an opportunity for everyone to have an opinion, but the beautiful part of having an opinion is figuring out who was the shaper of it.

    I do understand that in many ways I am living in a world that can be deemed the United States of Media. This federation isn’t one put together by a union of states but a union of thought leaders. For me the, the most interesting aspect of social media is that it is INTERNATIONAL.

    So I find it beneficial to answer your question, but not beneficial to meddle into the ins and outs of your country’s election process. As I have progressed personally utilizing social media, I have seen how it is I can meddle without realizing that my prior thoughts had no business to be shaped as thus – that is what I find most fascinating with social media, we rise above the politics when we learn about ourselves and the thoughts that shape us, that shape our thought.

    If I suggest that if international media could have an effect on the US election process, then Obama would win by a landslide and Bush would never have been returned to a second term – but international media has very little affect on what happens inside the US, and in that regard you have posed a really interesting question.

    The United States of Media is as much about soft power as the hegemony of soft power yields itself to that landmass we may refer to as the “Rest of the World”. How did I choose to handle your question?

    What I am thinking about, and I mostly amuse myself in this regard, what’s right with social media has to be what’s right with politics, the two are not mutually exclusive, but it comes back to a question of boundaries – social media is us not the U.S.

    If social media is us, then your question is quite profound once you remove the point you were actually trying to make. Do you see how it is, that it can be? That is the basis of my response – something for me to personally chew on as I think out aloud online.

    [Em]

Top