Both of our readings for today ponder the impact of digital storytelling and social media on the democratic political process. Having just watched the third and final presidential debate, do you feel that social media and/or digital storytelling impacted your experience of the debate positively or negatively?
2 thoughts on “Week 7 Day 1 Discussion Question 3”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Throughout the third presidential debate, it was evident to me that social media and digital storytelling impacted my experience in a positive and negative manner. Even in the few days post debate, it was interesting to see how the media portrayed each of the two candidates.
During the debate, I often looked at Twitter as well as Facebook comments on the live stream of the debate. Each time a candidate spoke, individuals on social media had several differing views. Even if I originally agreed with a point made by one of the candidates, the comments posted on Facebook and Twitter influenced me to question my opinion.
When looking at Twitter as a social media outlet, I found it both helpful and distracting at the same time. While I was able to observe the opinions and fact checks found on several accounts, it was a total distraction from the actual debate itself. Twitter users consistently expressed their own opinions based on political views and it was distracting to read those as well as listen to what each candidate was saying at that moment.
It was also quite interesting to look at debate content on Snapchat. Snapchat posts a presidential debate story live from colleges all around the US. Students from many different backgrounds, states, and universities expressed their opinions and it was interesting to hear what they had to say. Being a student at Middlebury College, which is located in a predominantly liberal area, it was helpful to get a variety of different opinions from across the country in both liberal and conservative areas. Snapchat also creates filters in support of both candidates, which caught my attention during all three of the presidential debates.
Social media after the debate was interesting to observe as well. SNL has created a short reenactment of each of the three debates in an entertaining fashion. The skits are quite comical, but often mock and joke about the candidates at the same time. At times I find the jokes very funny, yet sometimes I feel they represent the candidates in a harsh way and don’t fully display what the candidates stand for.
Post-debate articles found on websites such as NPR, CNN, The Washington Post, etc. also have negative and positive affects on my experience. While they are helpful for fact-checking and clarification on the debate, they are filled with opinions, often negative. I frequently come across articles that seem to pick the lesser of two evils as the debate winner but continue to explain flaws in both candidates. It is helpful to listen to other opinions and understand the general consensus about the debate, but overall it seems social media has a negative effect on my experience during the debate. I feel that social media has a larger impact on the opinion of the general public rather than the actual policies presented by each candidate. Social media allows for people to stay involved and have easier access to campaign information, yet also provides many distractions to the election itself.
Social media had both a positive and negative effect on my viewing of the third debate.
The one beneficial thing about twitter is the ability of fact checking. Accounts are constantly telling if what each candidate said is true or false. This helped my with my own opinions on the candidates, because I was able to base my thoughts on the truth.
But, overall, social media had a negative effect for me. First of all, it is extremely distracting. The accounts of the candidates and lots of other political figures were tweeting almost continuously through out the debate. In order to keep up with the tweets, you almost had to ignore the debate itself. Also, twitter is solely focused around conflict. Instead of tweeting positive things, people mainly tweet negative things about the other candidate. It is sometimes hard to swallow the fact that our democracy is based around the idea of tearing down your opponents to win.
While I think that social media does bring positive aspects to campaigns, such as allowing people to take action and talk directly with candidates, it also has made elections more about 140 soundbites instead of the policies.