In 2008, Barack Obama won the American presidential elections. The journalists Mattew Fraser and Soumitra Dutta wrote an article afterwards in US News called Barack Obama and the Facebook Election, saying that Obama had "rocking the youth vote" (nb: exit polls revealed that Obama had won nearly 70 percent of the vote among Americans under age 25) thanks to social networks. Facebook was not unaware of its suddenly powerful role in American electoral politics. During the presidential campaign, the site launched its own forum to encourage online debates about issues. In the today society people cannot deny that the Internet plays a significant role in political campaigns. The Web is seen as a perfect medium for genuine grass-roots political movements, transforming the power dynamics of politics. There are no barriers to entry on sites like Facebook and YouTube. Power is diffused because everybody can participate. It is not the meaning of democracy itself? This new-generation of politicians who shrewdly understands the electoral power of the Web are now using many ways to communicates with new medias, especially the social network Twitter. When he was just elected, the president of Chile Sebastián Piñera, has asked all cabinet members to start tweeting. Is Twitter a new political weapon and if so, why?
_____________________________________________________________
Twitter is a recent social network which was created in 2006. It is an online social networking service and microblogging service that enables its users to send and read text-based posts of up to 140 characters, known as "tweets". These Twitter messages are like public telegrams which can be sent from any computer or mobile phone. Anyone with an account (there are 100m and rising) can send a public message to anyone else by placing the @ sign before a username or a # sign before a topic.
_____________________________________________________________Why politicians are so crazy about it?
 |
| via The Economist |
To start with, Twitter is a way to establish a direct link with the people. Indeed voters massively shift toward the Internet for social interaction, consumer purchasing, and political participation, office-seekers are rushing to establish an online presence and connect with voters on the ground. That makes it much easier for voters to reach politicians and for politicians to react to them (or at least to pretend to). People are doing more than connecting and tweeting on their sites. Indeed they’re reading and opinion-forming and debating and asking questions. Twitter is a public open space which can be opposed to the "aristocratic effect" that people can find in political press. It is easier to reach and it is an indispensable point of view for the society. It is to "talk directly" to the people about political action. Twitter, says Mr Piñera’s spokeswoman, Ena von Baer, means assessing reactions to announcements before presenting them in a press conference. It also can be a way of to sound out the people's mood. It looks like a democratic tool but with strategic sides.
Moreover, Twitter is a way for politicians to seem as normal human beings in people's eyes. As The Economist's article Sweet to tweet notices: "Twitter makes politicians seem more accessible". Some politicans do not hesitate to put personal anecdote on Twitter about their holidays, theirs hobbies or even their family. The goal of such actions is "to give the public a glimpse into their daily lives". Revealing some stuffs about private life make forget that you are member of the elite. It makes you more human, so more close to the people's worries. "People like to vote for human beings, and Twitter gives a candidate an unparalleled opportunity to appear human, in real time, over time" says Jonathan Abell with Wired Magazine. Thus, when the French politician Benoit Hamon tweets about her little daughter or when the American politician Claire McCaskill tweets about her weight, it makes them more likeable. It also can be analyzed as a strategy.
Then, Twitter enables politicians to communicate more easily between them. Thank to Twitter the political sphere can interact in real time. "Twitter to rule better" could be a leitmotiv. For example, a politician can tweet during a meeting about new measures which have just been proposed and it is a way to put opposition in the picture at the same time. Indeed, as well as boosting the profile of individual politicians, Twitter may be better designed for campaigning and opposition than for governing because explaining the messy and inevitable compromises of power is a lot harder. In January 2011 a study by Fleishman Hillard, a Washington PR firm, discovered that Republicans in the House twittered more than five times as often as Democrats. Moreover, Evan von Baer says that the Chilean opposition uses Twitter to make up for its poor coverage in the mainstream media. Twitter is a good political tool for the opposition. At the same time, Twitter is becoming a new tool for journalists. Indeed this latter is to a certain extent a source for journalists. Journalists as politicians, they all are on Twitter. Press talks about "crowd-sourcing" thanks to the mass of people who are on Twitter. This latter became the first information website.
Why Twitter is not really so democratic?
 |
| via Rue89 |
Then, what is private should remain private. A public figure cannot expose parts of his private life to everybody. Twitter may feel personal but it is all too public. The risk is asymmetric. An ill-judged tweet can do severe, instant damage. Kerry McCarthy, a Labour candidate in Britain’s election, revealed early postal-vote counts in a tweet that ended “#gameON!”. That may have seriously breached electoral law. It is difficult for politicians who have never been used to expose personal life to deal with it via Twitter. The limit between what is public and what should stay private is not so clear. Maybe a politician should not mix public and private? By this way it will be easier for him to keep its legitimacy. The French political scientist and specialist in new media Arnaud Mercier says that the social acceptation which sees politicians using of this ambiguity bewteen public and private affairs is not stabilized yet. Maybe people are not ready to "close politicians" and the distance between those who govern and those who are governed seems justified to keep a good political order.
To finish, using Twitter could also be analyzed as a kind of demagogy or populism. Sometimes a tweet sounds like a slogan! The desire to reflect the people, to speak like everybody and to show that you are a "normal human being" is not a good choice when in the end you just want to draw the attention of potential voters. However, people should know that on average politicians don't really know what they are doing. Indeed they don't think about consequences, they just content themselves with twitting. A tweet it is a way for politicians to deliver a message without elaborate afterwards.The immediacy of twitter - just type and hit send - eliminates the opportunity for second thoughts. Moreover sometimes Twitter is just a way to "follow", to imitate the other, leaving alone a real and personal activism. Twitter miniaturize the thought, it could lead to political life based on entertainment. Thus, maybe people shoudn't take Twitter seriously. Twitter is just a way out of a stressful political life, maybe a kind of recreation. Politicians under pressure imagine that thanks to these new ways of communicates they will avoid the journalistic tyranny. Nevertheless to free from media to communicate directly in the eyes with potential voters sounds to be a little utopian! Moreover, a multiplicity of networks doesn't mean a better communication. Some politicians are just on Twitter to show to the people that they are aware of new technologies and last tendencies but they don't really understand it. So, it is difficult to measure the real influence of Twitter in the political sphere.
What politicians have to change in the way of using it?
Even if analyzing Twitter looks complex, they are means to turn this simple whim into a real democratic tool for politicians. Indeed in order to improve the Tweeter's political content, politicians should avoid formatted speech and establish a dialogue by synthesizing ideas and favoring interaction. They should also mix references in order to talk to a wider audience. Quality has to be favored rather than quantity.
_____________________________________________________________
Dr Matthew Ashton, politics lecturer at Nottingham Trent University, gives few general rules that might be useful for politicians to keep in mind when using Twitter:
"- Don't make sweeping generalizations. Politics, like life, is a complicated and nuanced subject. If you want to tell the public your views on a controversial subject then a blog or press release is the way to go.
- Never forget that potentially everyone is reading what you're writing (including journalists). You should always remember that unless you're direct messaging them everybody can read what you're writing.
- You should also try to keep in mind that unlike when speaking to someone face to face you're tone isn't always clear on Twitter. Before sending a tweet, MPs should always ask themselves: 'How might the other person interpret this?"
- Never forget that potentially everyone is reading what you're writing (including journalists). You should always remember that unless you're direct messaging them everybody can read what you're writing.
- You should also try to keep in mind that unlike when speaking to someone face to face you're tone isn't always clear on Twitter. Before sending a tweet, MPs should always ask themselves: 'How might the other person interpret this?"
So, Twitter is a real political tool in a society in which new media are playing a significant role. The democracy 2.0 is just setting up and social networks have proved to be a way to guarantee freedom to each law-abiding citizen. Twitter is a true political weapon because this latter establishes a kind of direct talk with people, politicians have the possibility to show their "normal human beings" ' aspect and communication within the political world is easier. That's why politicians are crazy about it. Nevertheless, they must not forget these goals. Twitter should not be used only to make free political advertising as it should not be used to expose private life to political purpose. Politicians have to reconsider their connection with social network and the using of these latter to keep the political life dignified and legitimate.
Laure Massé
No comments:
Post a Comment