In their conclusion, Stephanie Edgerly, Leticia Bode, Young Mie Kim, and Dhavan V. Shah ask, “Do the new digital campaign practices bode well for a strong future democracy?” (95). What do you think?
6 thoughts on “Week 7 Day 1 Discussion Question 2”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Edgerly, Bode, Kim and Shah make several convincing arguments weighing the pros and cons of the new and developing effects of digital storytelling and social media on campaign practices. Primarily these forms of digital media allow a larger portion of americans to become directly involved in the political process and campaigning. This can be seen in the form of blogs, live tweets and coverage of events as well as fundraising at the individual level. Political activism and involvement is no longer a spectator sport. Instead, anyone with access to social media or the internet is able to develop a deeper connection with candidates through platforms such as their youtube channel, twitter or appearances on popular “soft” media such as Saturday Night Live. As described in the article, “patterns of social fragmentation and the declining viewership of broadcast media” have lent to the overwhelming pull of these new forms of media as well as the involvement of a younger voter demographic. This form of bottom up politics gives voters a new space where they can exchange views and weigh in on the issues in a way that they have never been able to.
On the other hand, digital campaign practices allow voters to simply seek out the information they want to see rather than always being well informed on both sides of the issues. This “selective information consumption” results in polarization and a lack of tolerance rather than a well rounded set of information on many important issues.
I believe the new digital campaign practices are irreversible, while there is a portion of our population that does not have access to these forms of media, I believe that will inevitably change with time. Democracy in its essence is a process by and for the people. I believe the positives and ability to engage brought forth by these new digital forms of media outweigh the negatives they might elicit. It is our job as citizens to seek out information from both sides in order to continually form new and educated opinions rather than allowing our media preferences to polarize us.
I think new digital campaign practices bring both positive and negative impacts to America’s democratic process. Edgerly et al. raise the point that the rise of social media makes political involvement “too easy” and this observation definitely has weight. Modern social media users lead “like happy” lives in which telling the world your position on a candidate, for example, is as easy as one click. But what does one click really do? Older generations tend more to be motivated to simply be checkbook supporters for their preferred political candidates, but political candidates must be more innovative in the ways by which they reach the younger population. One good development of the new digital campaign of today is an increased willingness of people to collaborate and cooperate around issues they hold dear. Although there is mixed empirical evidence as to whether or not this actually translates into voting at the polls, I think any increase in participation is good for democracy. The last sentence of the article raises the very important issue of political justice. Who has access to these new modes of political communication? Who are the historical occupiers of political sway? Who dominates these digital political conversations? Do certain identities feel less safe than others participating in these conversations? Do these varying levels of comfortability correspond with sex, gender, sexuality, race, socioeconomic status, ability, level of education, language, age, geography, political affiliation, etc.? As effortless as it is to say that more political social media participation is positive, that is probably because I have easy access to it. It is essential that we recognize the biases that our own lenses pose. Political candidates will only improve microtargeting and their ability to reach niche and even disadvantaged groups, as will the extend to which these disenfranchised groups have access to information.
I think the new digital campaign practices bode really well for the future of democracy mainly because of social media’s easy access. I don’t want to sit around watching the news to learn about politics, but it’s so easy to search candidates’ Facebook pages and see what friends are posting to start figuring things out. And while I was initially alarmed at the “echo chamber effect” suggested in this article, I don’t actually think that people can avoid seeing both sides of an issue on social media. Even if your friends all post about one side of an issue, there are bound to be comments and replies from the other side. I think a lot of people find it easier, and safer, to speak out via social media, when there’s no consequence of directly confronting someone. Whereas in person, speaking out against someone’s statement can be intimidating. Social media makes stating your own opinion so much easier. However, my second moment of alarm came while reading about “slacktivism” in this article. Am I a “slacktavist”? I feel like I am in the sense that I’m likely to “like” something on Facebook and “follow” people, monitoring, rather than attend speeches and rallies and really participate. But I don’t think I’m impassioned enough for that yet, and social media provides and intermediary step. It’s just casual involvement for people who aren’t quite sure they’re ready to be standing in the crowds for their candidate. So, while “slacktivism” might be considered the easy and lazy way to support a candidate without really getting involved, I believe it actually allows people who aren’t completely enthusiastic to start getting involved and learning more, which probably leads to further involvement down the road. The new digital campaign practices do bode well for the future of democracy, and we shouldn’t worry too much about the “echo chamber effect,” and, in fact, we should embrace “slacktivism.”
I think that the digital campaign practices have both positive and negative affects on democracy. On the one hand, digital campaigns and the use of social media allow the American public to voice their opinions more easily and to a broader audience. The ease with which we can hear people’s opinions on politics furthers democracy because it gives more people a voice and also lets more voices be heard. Democracy is government by and for the people, and the more people can express their views, the better it is for democracy. However, the constant bombardment of opinions that we face every day can cloud our judgement because it is very difficult to decipher what is fact and what is false because the information that they spew often conflict with one another. Pundits from various news outlets are constantly presenting their views, many of which are biased towards certain candidates or parties, and we as the American public have to decipher what information to really believe. The information that we get may not be false, but often it is not the whole truth. Additionally, biased networks and pundits will purposely present information that only hurts their opposition. Because of these things, the digital campaign practices make it hard for the general population to go into an election without preconceptions in their heads from listening or reading to biased news outlets. Digital campaigns can help democracy if they are handled properly, but they can also make it hard for the general population to make decisions with a clear mind.
I agree with Stacey in the fact that social media does have polarizing effects on our democracy and our nation. The intention behind social as being a way for people to more engage in the political process is valid, but it has not worked out as smoothly as intended. I think that it has made our nation less occupied with doing our own research and gaining information for ourselves. If people want information about a candidate or a certain issue they can go on Facebook, Twitter or a news outlets website. In doing this it is important to understand the bias behind certain posts and tweets. Not all information that is presented on social media is objective, but I would argue that most people believe that it is objective. The idea that people are able to share their opinions online is a great medium to have, but at the same time thinking objectively about these topics is crucial. In response to the 2016 election, the candidates themselves and the social media surrounding them and political ideas is completely polarized. Almost every post is a negative comment towards the other candidate. In this, it is easy to block, unfollow or ignore posts made by the candidate or people who do not share the same political beliefs or opinions. This loss of learning from people who do not think like you and the loss of growing as a nation because of this has had immense effects on this campaign season. So while I think that social media is a privilege in order to express political opinions and beliefs, that 1) does not necessarily result in more votes for a candidate and 2) has not been as effective as we have wanted. In democratic terms, yes it has aided in the idea of democracy because more people are able to voice their opinions and gain information, but this information may be skewed or sarcastic causing people to not do their own research on certain topics and political issues.
The new digital campaign practices will have a polarizing effect on the future democracy. For the public, and millennials especially, to whom social media is integral in their daily lives, the new digital campaign practices will influence their desire to vote for and for whom to vote. In the third and final presidential debate of the 2016 election, for example, many people who do not have time or the desire to watch the entire debate, so they will watch part of it, and then catch up on the important points using the campaign Snapchat story, Twitter, and Facebook. This increases efficiency by allowing for people to consume a lot of information in a short amount of time. By engaging in the campaign’s digital stories, the public can either buy into or reject what the campaigns are trying to make you think about their campaign. However, they will only read and listen to what they want to know. After the third presidential debate, for example, Hillary emphasized Trump’s mistrust in the elections and the American democracy and his uninformed comments on abortion. Trump’s digital story, however, was one that emphasized his ability to stop ISIS and save American jobs by building a wall. Digital campaign practices will have a polarizing effect on our democracy since, as seen in the presidential debates, most people’s opinions are not changed, they are simply reinforced. If you are already a Clinton supporter, the stories her campaign tells after her debate in order to emphasize her strengths will only reinforce your opinion. The fact that she may have thousands of deleted emails will no longer bother you because you are only paying attention to what her campaign is telling you, which is only positive information. The same goes for Trump’s supporters. Thus, though digital campaign stories allow for the public to receive more knowledge about the campaigns, people will only seek information they agree with, which will further polarize the future democracy.