Melanie Beltran
MCS 244
February 6, 2019
On popular social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, people have used their voices to debate or challenge loved ones and strangers regarding political campaigns. With just a click of a button, one can access articles or research to prove their point on an issue or create a meme about a political issue. Once it’s uploaded, everyone you follow and don’t follow will access it. Opinions and beliefs are changed based on the argument presented and challenged. The negative side is that fake information has been spreading across the internet. The positive aspect is that there are people that know their history and background on politics and help those that are ignorant. In the article, “Cell Phones, Social Media and Campaign 2014,” it states, “The proportion of Americans who use their cell phones to track political news or campaign coverage has doubled compared with the most recent midterm election: 28% of registered voters have used their cell phone in this way during the 2014 campaign, up from 13% in 2010. Further, the number of Americans who follow candidates or other political figures on social media has also risen sharply: 16% of registered voters now do this, up from 6% in 2010.” In other words, the use of these platforms is so popular, that people tend to use them to stay in tune with politics. It has helped users keep track or follow their favorite and unfavorite political figures and political news. The reasoning as to why voters follow their political figures is because it helps them find political news, having a connection or feel connected to the candidates and seeking for reliable sites. This has been nothing but beneficial to users. In the article, “The role played by social media in political participation and electoral campaigns,” several cases have been examined on young people, women, and men in Europe on their participation for political campaigns. It discusses how much of an effective technology has had on politics in Europe. Overall, media has evolved over time in which connects people to political parties with just one touch on one’s device. “The evolution of media communication and its relation with politics is illustrated by the presentation of various studies on the media coverage of previous European elections and the factors influencing media attention and voter turnout are identified.” The importance of having media communications, people and politics is that people will be constantly involved in the world around them. The microblogging, the messaging and alerts are at the tips of their fingers. In the article, “Crossing the Campaign Divide: Dean Changes the Election Game,” it states, “If campaigns choose to embrace online SNTs (Social Networking Technologies), they risk transformation from traditional, hierarchical organizations into broader, decentralized networks that give supporters partial control over campaign messages. If campaigns reject online interactivity, they retain the controlled and hierarchical characteristics of traditional, war room campaigns. They maintain greater control over the campaign’s message, but restrict their fundraising potential as well as the potential size of their active support network.” There’s a sense of loss of control yet having control at the same time. Political candidates have campaigns that need fundraising on. If that stops, support is lacked and neglected. Having “…war room campaigns are hierarchical, top-down organizations that rely on controlled messages and a clear strategy. They attempt to retain rigid control of the communication environment by choosing a clear thematic emphasis and staying on message. Each message, so the logic goes, should be thoroughly analyzed and pre-tested using focus groups and polling in order to maximize the campaign’s vote share.” This is beneficial because there isn’t a worry about anything being fixed in terms of SNTs. In the article, “Pithy, Mean and Powerful: How Donald Trump Mastered Twitter for 2016, The New York Times, Michael Barbaro,” it states, “...as Mr. Trump enters an uncertain period in his campaign, even rival campaigns acknowledge that Twitter is providing a powerful bulwark against a slide in his poll numbers, by allowing millions of supporters to make his case for him and deflect the controversies he delights in touching off.” Through his use of social media on Twitter, he has used his platform to connect with his supporters in hopes that they’ll side with him and support his antics. Trump asked, “‘Would anybody vote for that?’ — and hundreds of thousands of strangers defend him, spread his message and engage in emotional debates with his critics, all the while ensuring he remains the subject of a constant conversation.” This only plays into the idea that social media has elevated his supporters into defending him against other critics, helping connect more with him and track down his plans as President. Ultimately, social media has changed the realm of politics in a tremendous way. Social media itself isn’t bad, it’s the way people use social media that’s controversial. The President knows how to connect to his audience and knows how to attack his nonsupporters with the ignorant things he says either on or off social media. People who know they have power and ability to reach others can either use it in a constructive way or a destructive. But that choice is up to the person, not the supporters. The supporters have to discern if whether or not, it’s worth following a “leader” like Trump or goes against him.