Add a Comment

Comment by Nicola Sinclair on October 6, 2010 at 9:39

Hi Jason

Absolutely, I take your points. As I said, I wouldn't doubt for a second that social media is an important and valuable means of communicating - what I dislike is the notion that it can act as a sticky plaster on a much wider wound. There's a risk some politicians will latch onto it as little more than an empty gimmick. I'm all for evangelising the merits of social media (hey, I'm on this network after all!) but the cynic in me starts to mutter when people claim it's capable of righting every wrong in modern society. Only the people can do that - social media is just an enabling tool. So is television, as you say, and so are the good ol' papers.

Comment by Jason Wassell on October 5, 2010 at 18:40

Umm a couple of political comments when I think you were asking an interesting question about the connection between politics and social media.

There are a couple of reasons why social media excites politicians, and I think the US elections are a good example of how it can work.

First it is a new organising tool, a way of galvanising your supporters and running a more effective campaign. Second it is a new way of reaching out to the electorate, a way of avoiding the prism of political journalists and focussing on the issues that matter to individual voters.

You are right to point out that Obama came through as the most charismatic of candidates, but what social media allowed him to do was to engage with millions of individual supporters. He developed the channels in order to get his message out to his core supporters, and that caught the media attention. More importantly, he was able to ask for money from his supporters to run a Primary campaign against the establishment candidate (Hilary Clinton) and then go on to take on a well funded Republican Party.

For individuals Obama campaigners there was a bank of information - messages and organising tips available for every local team. It didn’t matter whether you lived in a small town or a big city. The Obama supporters had access to the election toolkits to run their local campaign, including social media.

And it is needed in the UK, because about 1% of the population are members of the main political parties, down from 4% in 1983. Within that small number there are even fewer that attend political party meetings on a regular basis. Maybe social media will help revitalise the local campaigns and allow for online organising.

As a campaigning tool the social media allows for more targeted communication on issues that are important to individual voters. You're interested in environmental issues? You worry about the state of the economy? You think that there is a need for a truly ethical Foreign policy? Well the candidates will provide you with their policies, and if you joined the online events you could ask them questions on this issue.

Those who had a vote in the Labour elections will have seen that in a British context. There were emails from each candidate, online discussions, interactive manifestos, campaign blogs, video from the husting meetings, and video endorsements for Party members. The campaign came to you, rather than you having to search it out.

What we find is that social media is great at bringing together existing communities, like those with an interest in social media, massive gaming communities, motorcar enthusiasts, entrepreneurs, beer lovers, train-spotters, ramblers, educationalists, fundraisers for the developing world…... You name them, there will be a community website for them somewhere with all the supporting social media tools.

So social media is a way to engage with those electors, and make them supporters. If they are captivated by a past-time or hobby then that might be a motivation to vote on a related issue. And all of this is direct communication, the chance to create a dialogue rather than watching it translated by Fox News.

So I risk sounding like evangelist. This is a response to a post rather than an prediction. We will see if this all becomes part of our future elections.

But others have already pointed out the big innovation in the 2010 General Election was not social media, it was the introduction of a debate on good old Television.

Comment by Dr John Sutherland on October 2, 2010 at 14:50

How naive. Labour are a set of loosely affiliated mafioso who hate each other even more than they hate the Tories and the Nats. Come out West and see what Labour rule has done for Glasgow, Greenock, Airdrie, Motherwell, Paisley, Dumbarton, Port Glasgow, Cumbernauld, Alexandria, et al.

No, I am not defending the Tories, or any other of these self-seeking, pocket-liners we call politicians. They all just look exactly the same from where I stand as an unaffiliated digital media bod.

Ed Milliband? Plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose ...

Comment by Garioch Lesslyn on October 1, 2010 at 14:02

"Until a real change comes"...? Can't be more so than regaining Sovereignty.