One of the biggest criticisms of news media is the
barrier set between divisions like Fox News and MSNBC, known for being
respectively slanted to the right and the left on the political scale. Those who wish for a more neutral
platform opt for CNN or BBC, but neither broadcasting company goes without the
occasional subjectivity to one party or the other. Conservatives and liberals alike are often shamed for
concentrating solely on media that conforms to their political beliefs, and
many hope that the vast content spread via social media will help change
this. However, with the
ever-improving ability to customize friends, followers, “likes”, etc., people
may just be creating their own miniature “Fox News” or “MSNBC” via News Feed.
Pew
Research Center found that only about 31% of Facebook news consumers say that
they’d rather only see news that
shared their political agenda
(Mitchell et. al, 4). However, “saying” and “doing” are two completely
different things. Social media is
largely about building an online community (take our conversation in class last
week about TV shows, for example) and social media users want to be engaged in
political activity happening online.
More often than not, the activity is either voicing an opinion strongly
for or against a relevant issue.
It is difficult to be objective, whether as a mere user or as a
journalist, when it comes to political matters.
On
the other hand, the amount of each company’s Twitter followers can reveal a lot
about how much or how little the public trusts their information. Out of the four media powerhouses mentioned
earlier, the news source with the most followers as of February 6th
2014 is CNN with 11.7 million, followed by Fox with 3.63 million, MSNBC with
560,000 and BBC (USA) with just over 88,000. Interestingly enough, the supposedly neutral platform pulls
the most followers, directly succeeded by one of the news stations that
collects the most heat for their conservative bias. With MSNBC being on the liberal end of politics and our
current president being a democrat, it’s hard to say in full confidence that it’s
third place ranking has a direct correlation with the majority opinion.
Am
I boring you to death yet?
Hopefully the fact that social media can be the most important factor of
the 2016 election will add some excitement to this post. The ad tracking tactics we discussed
last week are not only utilized for retail, but also by presidential candidates
trying to reach our generation. In
the 2012 election, a visit to the Obama or Romney page could have you followed
(no pun intended) by the respective candidate’s online ads or promoted
Facebook/Twitter posts for weeks, whether you supported this person or not
(Radiumone). Could these ads
potentially have a greater affect on how we feel about the candidates, given
the consistency and quantity that they hold over television ads?
An emerging trend in the social
media community is “InstaMeets”, where Instagrams captioned with a certain hashtag
are considered by the “InstaMeet” leaders and if qualified, will be invited to
hang out with other “InstaMeet” competitors and do whatever it is they do,
whether it be photography, fashion, or sports. The White House already got in on this with a Fall Garden
InstaMeet last year (Hernandez), and this is sure to be a tactic that
republican and democrat candidates alike use in order to unite their
supporters. With the constant need
to be a part of a larger community, strategies like this could help swing those
who sit on the political fence to one side or the other depending on what that
InstaMeet offers. Do you think
that these incentives will impact how we feel about candidates in the
future? For example, if Romney
offered a trip to McDonalds but Obama offered a trip to the Plaza Hotel as the
venue for an InstaMeet, would this affect how you view them and possibly
whether or not you vote for this person?
Social media shapes not only the image of regular users
like you and me, but those who aspire to politically lead us. The video below shows the magnitude of our impact on presidential candidates' social media campaigns:
So, do the news and its biases still have a
place online? It seems that we
depend largely on the middleman, AKA social media, to relay important
information to us rather than seeking out the information ourselves on the news
source websites. That being said,
given the number of followers each company has in perspective to recent
election results, whether these biases are being deepened and/or facilitated
through social media is yet to be determined.
Works Cited
Hernandez, Brian A. "Mashable." Mashable. N.p., 08 Feb. 2014. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
Mitchell, Amy, and Dana Page. "The Role of News on Facebook: Common Yet Incidental." Pew Research Center. N.p., 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
Radiumone, Gurbaksh. "Election 2016: Marriage of Big Data, Social Data Will Determine the Next President." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 12 May 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vrczoLm7Es
I'm not sure. I think that social media does bring everybody together, but eventually the politics rise up out of it, but they don't separate people. I can't really think of an occasion when I added a friend on Facebook and then decided to distance myself from them because they were supporting a politician who held to the complete opposite of my beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI personally feel that although using social media sites may seem initially appealing to help gain voters during an election season, the tactic could backfire fairly easily if the campaign isn’t played right. As we discussed last week, we have all experienced incidences in which we have been shopping online, looking up TV shows, or Googling our cold symptoms when we find that the next web page we click on is bombarded with ads for content that we were just searching for. Just earlier today I was sending an email in which I mentioned that I had gone out to eat at TGI Friday’s. I hit the send button, and my emailed refreshed itself with a giant ad for half price coupons to TGI Friday’s at the bottom of the screen. Around Christmas I found myself searching online for a pair of slippers for a family member. Long after I had purchased the slippers, I was bombarded daily by ads for the exact slippers I had been searching for. The point I am trying to make is that tracking such as this is annoying, and often times leaves me feeling very untrustworthy toward whatever ad happened to pop up in my side bar. It feels like a great violation of privacy, and therefore the advertising company has lost the trust of the viewer.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I remember of the Obama campaign in 2008, it seemed to me as though it had catered to a much younger audience. The campaign took advantage of Internet technologies and new social media to reach a wider audience. This was a smart move for Obama seeing as “3,000,000 U.S. millennials are mobile-only newspaper content consumers” and tend to trust newspapers over any other source of news (Newspaper Association of America). While this tactic may have worked for Obama seeing as he is happily sitting in the White House, I have a feeling that it won’t take long until politics’ immersion into social media looses its staying power and brings fewer bang for the buck (Please note I am not suggesting that this is the only reason that Obama has the presidency!).
Since 2007, television news viewership has been on the decline for morning, evening, and late news broadcasts (Pew Research Center). It is reasonable to assume that many individuals have turned to other methods of news consumption. Social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit are popular sites for news consumption. The turn away from television and to online newspapers and articles is a beckoning call for online advertisement, especially in an election year. The problem that could arise here concerns overexposure.
Say and individual is interested in a particular candidate who is running for the 2016 presidential election. In an effort to find out more information about the candidate, they start doing some research online. Days and even weeks pass, and this individual is continually being bombarded by presidential ads for the particular candidate they had been researching weeks prior. However, this candidate’s ads have invaded personal emails, Facebook feeds, and Google ads even when the individual is no longer researching the candidate. This could become quite frustrating and even annoying for the viewer. The viewer now associates the candidate with the annoying ads, and is slowly turned off to the presidential campaign. While Internet tracking may prove to be effective for companies who are selling products, I don’t believe that it would be an effective way to advertise to the American people in a presidential campaign. A president wants to win the public’s trust, not annoy them or make them feel frustrated or as though they are being followed. When planning a campaign online, it seems that a candidate must not over advertise and be sure to use ads in moderation.
Emily Hauser
Works Cited:
Newspaper Association of America “Millennials Still Want Their Newspapers,” http://www.naa.org/Millennials.aspx
“The State of the News Media 2013 – Key Findings." Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. April 2013. Web. http://stateofthemedia.org/2013/overview-5/overview-infographic/
In reference to the title of this blog, I think that social media is both uniting and dividing us politically. I was not at all surprised to learn that CNN has the highest amount of followers via Twitter. As a news provider that has a more neutral stance on politics I believe it would be less likely to drive any one political party crazy with news about their opposing party. This blog referenced that the Pew Research Center stated that 31% of those who consume their news via Facebook don’t want to see news about the opposing political party (Mitchell, 4). I am personally surprised that the percentage isn’t higher. I would definitely be a part of that 31%. I don’t mind if people post about their political views but if they do it all the time, I simply can’t handle that. Politics doesn’t need social media in order to divide us as a nation. Going back to my initial thought that social media both unites us and divides us politically. I previously referenced Mitchells article and how roughly 31% of Facebook news users only want to see news about their own political beliefs, this is an example of how social media divides us politically. However, with that being said, the fact that people are going to social media to get their political news is an example of how it unites us. According to the article, “Twitter News Consumers”, “A core function of Twitter is passing along pieces of information as the story develops” (Mitchell and Page, 3). This core function is part of what unites people politically. This article also provides links that show how people become united over specific topics. Now on to the questions asked in the blog. The first question addresses advertisements for Presidential candidates and their influence on people. I believe that these ads could definitely have a greater affect of how we feel about the candidates. The ads on social media are strategically placed on people’s news feeds and they are subconsciously lodged into their brains, which could end up influencing the way people vote. The next question addressed “InstaMeet”. Like the ads placed on social media, I think that something like “InstaMeet” will impact how we feel about Presidential candidates in the near future. Following this question was a piggyback question providing examples of “InstaMeets”. If the candidates offered drastically different venues for an “InstaMeet” that would definitely impact the way people who were on the fence about who to vote for. It would also affect how a person would view that particular candidate. In my opinion, the news and its biases still have a place online. Take Twitter for example. In the article, “Twitter News Consumers”, people were posting their opinions on political things like Obamacare, the Supreme Court hearings on same sex marriages, and the Trayvon Martin incident. Today, it seems as though getting the news online is the most popular way to find the news. My overall conclusion is that social media unites us politically more than it divides us.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited:
Mitchell, Amy, and Dana Page. “The Role of News on Facebook.” Pew Research Center. 24 Oct. 2013. Web.
Mitchell, Amy, and Dana Page. “Twitter News Consumers.” Pew Research Center. 4 Nov. 2013. Web.
Subjectivity and personal opinion has always been something to consider when processing political news. Everybody’s a critic when it comes to how they think the country should be governed. With social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook turning into legitimate sources, largely due to the users, people have never been more connected with the media as they are today. Throw in feelings and perspectives, mix it with a political hot topic, what you’re left with as an end result is a story everyone is paying attention to.
ReplyDeleteSocial media is an invaluable tool in today’s age of information sharing. With social media we have a forum to broadcast our ideas, and opinions while being able to see and comment on the views and opinions of our friends and others who might agree or disagree. It has the capacity to make us more opinionated, or broaden our views. Facebook gives us the option of filtering and controlling the content of our news feeds by hiding certain users and giving us the ability to follow users we prefer. It’s a simple matter of what we like or don’t like. Social media can be a detriment for users who want a more bipartisan source of information.
In a Wrap article published in March, 2013, data shows television news stations have been the subject of increased opinionated reporting. (Lang) Largely due to interviews being easier to produce than sending a reporter out on fieldwork, the result is a large portion of their content being focused on the interviewers opinions. More specifically, MSNBC reported only 15% factual content while the rest was opinionated pieces. (Lang) With sources such as CNN and Fox news showing more balanced numbers between opinion and factual reporting, biased reporting is something to consider when looking at any news source.
A Pew study published in November looked at social media audiences and how they gathered their news information. 64% of the U.S. adult population used Facebook. Out of those numbers, 30% used Facebook for news. (Mitchell) Youtube was another site, with 10% out of 51% using the site for news; and Twitter, with 8% out of 16%, almost half of the users using the platform for news. With social media giving users a new way to aggregate their content by allowing them to follow or ignore particular sources, it’s very easy for our headlines to become unseemingly partisan.
Biased reporting is an issue with far-reaching effects. Social media can most definitely play a part in shaping our political identities. Filtering content in preference with our interest can shape our views and perspectives in ways we don’t even notice. In a time where information and opinions can be expressed and shared to an audience almost instantaneously, we should take into consideration how our political views, and interests, are being shaped.
Works Cited
Lang, Brent. “CNN Becoming Like Fox News, MSNBC.” The Wrap. 18 March 2013. Web.
Mitchell, Amy, Dana Page “News Use across Social Media Platforms.” Pew Research Center. 14 Nov. 2013. Web.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe social media largely impacts the political world. According to Twitaholic and Twittercounter, Barack Obama is currently ranked the third with the most Twitter followers. Currently Barack Obama has a contest on Twitter and Facebook. Obama is tweeting and posting on Facebook staged and “candid” pictures of himself and posting a link to his website. When you click on the link, you can enter your email address and zip code to help with the final push on health care and your name is automatically entered to win a chance to meet Obama. This contest is similar to the concept of InstaMeet, discussed in the blog. Obama is offering incentives in order for a person to support his health care reform. I think this is a great way to Obama to reach our generation because according to the article, “Twitter News Consumers”, 45% of Twitter news consumers are 18-29 years old (Mitchell and Page, 2). According to “The Role of News on Facebook”, 34% of Facebook news consumers are 18-29 years old (Mitchell and Page, 1). Since Obama is currently ranked third with the most twitter followers, people ages 18-29 are likely following Obama. For those not following Obama, there are other local and national news stations tweeting about the chance to win a trip to meet the president. According to the article, “Social Media Update 2013”, as of 2013, 71% of adults are Facebook users, therefore by posting about Obama’s contest on Facebook he has the possibility to reach a larger audience and a wider demographic (Duggan and Smith, 1). According to “The Role of News on Facebook”, most American adults do not go on Facebook seeking news, instead Facebook is a great way to stumble across news articles (Mitchell and Page, 1).
ReplyDeleteMy opinion about Obama has changed because of the contest. Obama is the president, he isn’t a celebrity and shouldn’t be having contests to gain support for health care reform. There are people who will sign the pledge, just to meet Obama and not because they support health care reform. Instead of spending money on the logistics of the contest, he could be touring colleges and giving speeches about the benefits of health care reform. His contest doesn’t affect whether I would vote for him. Clearly our political views are based heavily on the media, when our views should be based on the candidates qualifications and political views. Social media is changing politics, just as television changed politics and was able to sway people’s views. I believe politicians in the next election are going to need to be very active on social media to gain further support. Obama is a great example of a politician who actively uses social media to reach the public.
Social media will not only be an important tool for politicians to use in order to gain support, but also will be a great way for politicians to gather information about our generation. Should these politicians be allowed to access this information? What will this mean for politicians who aren’t tech-savvy, will they be considered less qualified because they aren’t active on Twitter and Facebook? Should social media have a large impact on politicians and the future of the United States? These are questions which need to be considered when thinking about the future of social media and its effects on politics.
Works Cited
Duggan, Maeve, and Aaron Smith. “Social Media Update 2013.” Pew Research Center. 30 Dec. 2013. Web
Mitchell, Amy, and Dana Page. “The Role of News on Facebook.” Pew Research Center. 24 Oct. 2013. Web.
Mitchell, Amy, and Dana Page. “Twitter News Consumers.” Pew Research Center. 4 Nov. 2013. Web.
"The Twitaholic.com Top 100 Twitterholics Based on Followers." Top Twitter User Rankings & Stats. Twitaholic.com, n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.
"To Get in the Top 100, You Need to Know How Your Follower Growth Is Doing."Twitter Top 100 Most Followed. Twittercounter.com, n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn 2012, Barack Obama changed the face of social media forever. For the first time, more people than ever began using sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to find about the candidates and their platforms. Obama’s campaign recognized the power of these outlets and began focusing strictly on the Internet. They found that they were able to reach the public on a more personal level, attract a new generation of voters and raise a record-breaking amount of money. His campaign won the election by a landslide (obviously) and set a new online precedent for future elections.
ReplyDeleteToday, it is very common for young adults to follow our country’s leaders on social networks. As a supporter of the Obama campaign, I follow Barack on Twitter and Facebook. On Twitter, Barack has nearly 42 million followers, which makes him one of the most followed accounts on the social site (just 8 million shy of the Biebs). Leading up to the election, I followed his account religiously and was able to find out where he was and what he was doing in the country. I thought this was extremely beneficial and made me feel part of the campaign. According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center, “Nearly one-in-ten U.S. adults (8%) get news through Twitter… and 30% get their news on Facebook” (Mitchell 2). Although this number is low, I believe it is going to continue to grow as future generations become more dependent on these sites.
Although members of these sites may choose who/what to follow, I do not believe it is dividing us. Instead, they are allowing us to become closer to our views and candidates. For example, I was able to learn more about Obama’s policies and main focuses through his Twitter account. I do not believe it swayed me a certain way because my views were already strongly infused in my mind and I happened to agree with them already. If I found that he was trying to do this, I would of probably unfollowed his account and found a new candidate.
In terms of social media versus traditional news, I much rather check my Twitter for news rather than watch it on television. Recently, I chose to follow Fox News on Twitter. I found that I could get my news quick and unbiased rather than watching an “expert”, who insists on providing his opinion on the topic. Although I found that Fox News does not do this as much, it is still a much cleaner source for getting the news. In another study conducted by the Pew Researching Center, they found that MSNBC devotes 85% of their airtime to commentary opinion and only 15% to factual reporting (Lang 1). For people like me, who want their news untainted, I would never watch their programming but would probably give their Twitter account a chance because it can only provide facts.
All in all, Obama has began a social media revolution, which can only benefit a campaign. As an easy accessible and trusted source to many (like myself), social media’s users will only continue to follow their leaders and obtain their news from these outlets. The 2016 election will prove how beneficial social media truly is to the success of a campaign.
Work Cited
Lang, Brent. “CNN Becoming Like Fox News, MSNBC.” The Wrap. 18 March 2013. Web.
Mitchell, Amy, and Dana Page. "The Role of News on Facebook: Common Yet
Incidental." Pew Research Center. N.p., 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 08 Feb
Personally, I’ve always viewed “getting the news” as something completely personal. I don’t watch CNN, Fox, MSNBC or any other major news network out of ignorance, but because as a media studies major, once you understand the idea of conglomeration and consolidation, you kind of see the televised news media as a giant farce (even the shift to an online presence). The fact is simple: the big corporations own news channels and thus, are generally in line with the viewpoints of a singular, very wealthy, generally white and middle-aged male. Relying on televised news broadcasts seems like something our grandparents were indoctrinated with early on; that the opinion of the masses is the opinion that counts.
ReplyDeleteBut in 2014, something about that seems entirely foreign, especially with such a shift to the Internet for newsgathering sources. That’s why I think it’s important to have varied and numerous new agencies that you use for fact gathering, and not for formulating opinions. Personally, I read new from various agencies, like the New York Post, the New York Times, Gawker and the New Haven Register, because not only do they focus on a certain geographic location, the East Coast, but also because they tend to have national and international headlines with unique information about any given story that I find interesting. This to me represents a new shift in the way we gather news, especially for my generation. According to Pew Research Center, 7.2% of people receive news information through the usage of a digital platform, like a news app or even visiting the news agencies website. Traditional media, like cable and newspaper, have both suffered a sharp drop in usership because of the role of accessibly that digital media represents. Unlike having to wait for a broadcast or a newspaper to arrive, digital news media represents a shift in instant gratification that at once is immediate, but also entirely subjective. It allows the person processing what they’re viewing to draw their own conclusions and formulate their own opinions.
At the same time, I can’t help but to feel that televised news media is going to have to change their ways. It makes sense that CNN would want to be like Fox or MSNBC because I can imagine it’s a little scary for these corporations when the role they’ve played for years suddenly begins to change because of the Internet. In addition, I agree with the usefulness of interviews, because interviews seem to not only be popular online, but also a really accurate way for someone to listen and form opinions on a specific manner. According to Brent Lang of The Wrap, the most successful televised new broadcasts, and the most cost effective, are those than employ smart and insightful tactics like interviews, where users are generally drawn into a newscasts because an interviewee can place a partisan opinion on a certain matter, thus drawing a specific political agenda and crowd. But interviews are also very common online, especially text interviews, and I feel strongly that an important way these news corporations could potentially grow is by including more of this content on their respective online divisions.
Personally, I don’t think that the news and its biases have a place online. They are welcome to voice their opinions freely, but I know that the majority of my generation is self sufficient enough (somewhat) and also opinionated enough to draw their own conclusions. It makes sense that news new organizations would voice their own opinion, however, otherwise they wouldn’t really be a news agency. Perhaps opinion has become such an important factor in regard to the way that news is reported, that eventually news shared across Internet based media platforms will mimic its predecessor, televised news media, if it hasn’t already begun to do so.
George Fracasse
Work Cited
“The State of the News Media 2013 – Key Findings." Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. April 2013. Web.
Lang, Brent. “CNN Becoming Like Fox News, MSNBC.” The Wrap. 18 March 2013. Web.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that social media is an effective way of building a community. However, to me, the most important factor of my personal online community is that it is made up of people and things that I am interested in and care about. Although many of the people I follow are friends, I also follow news sources. This is why I believe the news and its biases do still have a place online. Although people, especially of our generation, will first go through social media sites to get to news sources, many people will eventually end up on the originators website. According to Pew’s Research Center’s News Use Across Social Media Platforms, “Twitter reaches just 16% of U.S. adults, but half (8% of U.S. adults) use it for news,” (Pew Research Center 3). Personally, my main online news source is Twitter. I, as I’m sure many others do, usually have the intention of visiting major news sources’ websites yet whenever I find myself with downtime and my laptop in front of me, I always end up on Twitter anyway. I usually do not dedicate much of my day to keeping up with current events. The way I see it, a news source cannot tweet every story they cover. Therefore by following these sources on Twitter I am most likely going to see tweets of the stories that they believe are the most important.
ReplyDeleteTo go even further with that, trending topics are also a great way to keep up with what is being talked about the most at a particular time. I believe one of the main reasons people follow news stories in the first place is so they can discuss it with the people around them. You want to make sure you are aware and educated about what it is that people are talking about. Twitter hands this exact information to you through hashtags and trending topics. This is where I believe the social media numbers for the four major news sources can be explained. It is not necessarily the source of information that matters when you get your news through social media. Rather, it is the topic of news itself. It does not matter if you read a tweet from Fox News or from MSNBC, what you are seeing when reading a tweet is the headline. The opinion of the source whether it is liberal or conservative can rarely be detected in 140 characters. I believe this is most likely why CNN and Fox have the most followers out of the sources listed in this blog. It is more because these two news sources are trusted to provide relevant information, as opposed to the way they would present the information in a televised newscast. This point is further proved in the Pew Research Center’s report, Twitter News Consumers: Young, Mobile and Educated. As stated in the instance of George Zimmerman’s acquittal in the death of teenager Trayvon Martin, the majority of the conversation “shared news of that verdict without offering an opinion,” (Pew Research Center 3). This further solidifies the fact that even with a topic so controversial, Twitter still remains a reliable place to get news.
Kelsey Scriven
Works Cited
Holcomb, Jesse, Jeffery Gottfried, Amy Mitchell, and Jessica Schillinger. "News Use Across Social Media Platforms." Pew Research Centers Journalism Project RSS. N.p., 14 Nov. 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.
Mitchell, Amy, and Emily Guskin. "Twitter News Consumers: Young, Mobile and Educated." Pew Research Centers Journalism Project RSS. N.p., 4 Nov. 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.
Cara Gilmartin
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Gina that our society has become very dependent on social media for important news and information. We look to official Twitter handles for the most up-to-date information regarding our nation, and perhaps even more so during a presidential election season. I think we saw a great change in the news media world during the 2012 presidential election. Barack Obama saw the impact Twitter had on the American people (millennials, especially – a group with whom he knew he needed to begin building a stronger connection) and put a heavy focus on social media campaigning during the election.
However, in regards to social media accounts for official news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC and FOX, I think that they are resources for political information. In the article, “Twitter News Consumers: Young, Mobile and Educated,” the Pew Research Center explains that, “A core function of Twitter is passing along pieces of information as the story develops.” (Pew Research Center 3) These accounts do a great job of consistently updating stories as information unfolds.
With the 140 character limit, many Twitter handles will compose a tweet with the title of an article and the link to the article on the official website. So it’s not necessarily CNN using Twitter to demonstrate any bias, but driving a follower to their website to read an article, which may or not have a hint of biased opinion somewhere in its content. But isn’t that a huge part of journalism? Even more so, isn’t that especially political journalism? It is extremely difficult as a journalist to present information via the Internet without at least one reader taking the words out of context and/or considering it the opinion of the author of the article.
In the article, “The Role of News on Facebook,” the Pew Research Center explained that, “Facebook news consumers who ‘like’ or follow news organizations or journalists show high levels of news engagement on the site.” (Pew Research Center 3) Those who are utilizing social media to get this information are more likely to be the ones who have it. Yes, it is blatantly obvious that certain news media outlets share a certain political belief and can report information in a very biased way via social media. Upon reading this information, a reader is either going to share that political belief and most likely agree, or not share that political belief and most likely disagree. In my opinion, (and I’m not the largest fan of politics and media in general) the media is the only reason that most Americans have the ability to formulate political beliefs and opinions. Those who do not work in politics or government are uncontrollably more disconnected and unable to know everything that goes on, so we rely on the media to give us that information. No matter which way you slice it, we are probably never going to get 100% unbiased information and we will always be basing our own opinions on the (discrete) opinions of others. For me, social media isn’t really what’s politically dividing us. Politics itself calls for a division, and the media just forces us to choose a side.
Works Cited
“The Role of News on Facebook.” Pew Research Center. 24 Oct. 2013. Web.
“Twitter News Consumers.” Pew Research Center. 4 Nov. 2013. Web.
Social media has a definitive place in politics, of that there can be no doubt. Just exactly where that place is, and precisely what role social media will play however, has yet to be determined. On a stage like twitter, when the information you see on your screen is constricted to a mere 140 characters, I do believe social media can and has contributed to a political divide in our nation. The problem is not the social medium itself and the physical restraints it puts on the message being delivered by limiting it to 140 characters, but the unwillingness of the reader to follow up on the headline. When a person sees a tweet containing a headline followed by a link to an actual news story, how inclined do you really think they are to take the time to click the link and follow up? In this day in age where we needed our information yesterday, taking the time to do something as simple as read a news story for two minutes to put a headline into perspective is becoming a rare occurrence. It’s this reason, and not the social medium itself in this particular instance, that contributes to twitter dividing our nation politically.
ReplyDeleteThe 2008 election was heralded as the first “social media election”, and rightfully so. The eventual winner Barack Obama utilized social media to raise $600 million dollars (Carr, 2008), garnering five times as many “friends” as his opponent across 15 different social media sites, and winning by 8.5 million popular votes, (Lutz, 2009) the facts are hard to argue with. Especially after the 2012 election, where both candidates took to social media platforms to promote and brand themselves, there is no denying that politicians are in that arena for good. This is a smart move on their part, seeing as according to a Pew Report 60% of Americans use some sort of social media. Of that 60%, two-thirds have “done at least one of either civic or political activities”. It would seem that this was a match almost made in Heaven, what with politicians trying to get their message, views, and brand out there via social media, and the majority of Americans are waiting to hear that message on not just the TV and radio anymore but their computers and phones as well. This trend and its’ numbers will go nowhere but up, seeing as the most recent generation takes the prize of being the biggest in U.S. history as well as the most connected with social media with 73% of them using social media according to a 2010 Pew Report.
The question is, however, to what end will these mediums be used? I can tell you from personal experience that every time I see a Facebook “friend” post a politically opinioned status I cringe. I respect their right to freedom of expression, but I don’t think social media is the place to share it, and I don’t believe I’m alone in that regard.
It’s here that I believe social media and politics come to a crossroads. To what extent will the younger population allow their social media, the place where they originally came to get away from national news and talk to their friends about their stuff and their issues, allow their newsfeeds and timelines to be saturated by politics, its’ players, and their messages. I believe this relationship with remain fluid, and always change with time, but until it is more clearly defined, I think that the mixture of social media and politics is more divisive than it is unifying.
Works Cited
- Carr, David. "How Obama Tapped Into Social Networks' Power." www.nytimes.com. N.p., 9 Nov. 2008. Web. 10 Feb. 2014
- Lutz, Monte. "Social Pulpit-Barack Obamas Social Media Toolkit." www.harvard.edu. Edelman Digital Public Affairs, 2009. PDF. 10 Feb. 2014.
- Lenhart, Amanda et al. “Social Media and Mobile Internet Use Among Teens and Young Adults” Pew Research Center. February 3, 2010. 1
Gina, you bring up many good points about whether or not social media is politically uniting or dividing our country. However, it is my belief that social media is not the main culprit in our country’s political controversies. The old adage says: “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”. The same goes for individuals and their social media consumption. Social media (Facebook and Twitter in particular) has given consumers a large platform for political ideas to be discovered, discussed and challenged. But just because the opportunity is there doesn’t mean that people are going to take advantage of it. More often than not people like to remain within their comfort zone, especially when it comes to their political opinions.
ReplyDeleteThe rise of social media over the past decade has caused many news outlets to fear their demise. But rather than causing these outlets to become obsolete, consumers are simply accessing their news in different ways. The desire for news, however, is still deep seeded in the population. Where and how people receive their news boils down to a matter of trust. The majority of consumers find newspapers to be more trustworthy than other forms of media. 56% of people ages 18 to 34 read newspapers throughout the week, whether they be in print or digital form (Millennials 1). Digitally people are able to follow their favorite news station or political figure. This has been a game changer for news outlets. Before social media it was a contest of viewers and ratings, and now it is a game of likes and followers. This has forced the industry to rethink how they distribute information.
It is no secret that we have become an on-demand society. We cannot bear to wait for the evening news to learn about the events of the day, we want them instantaneously. Following political figures or news sites allows us to get our information as close to real time as possible. Everyone has their personal preference for which social media platform they like best. The majority of U.S. adults get their information from Facebook (Holcomb 3). Personally, I find Twitter to be the more accurate source when it comes to news. The reason for this is that “two thirds of people who get news on Facebook have it passed along to them second, third or twentieth hand from their Facebook friends – rather than directly from news organizations” (Mitchell 13). I find it easier to verify the source on Twitter than I do on Facebook. Once again it comes down to a matter of trust, I trust Twitter more because the information comes to me directly from the news outlet that I follow.
Social media has done a lot to change the way we receive our news, and how news stories are circulated. But as for changing our opinions about that news, I don’t think its made that much of a difference. There is no shortage of opinions. No matter how extreme, you can bet that there will be a post that aligns with your point of view. For example, it was found that 45% of adults in the United States who gather their information on Twitter are Democrats. Similarly, the majority of individuals who use Facebook for their information are Republicans (Holcomb 6). It is easy to find the opinion which sides with your own, you just have to know where to look. For those who are seeking a more balanced point of view, social media makes is easier than ever to do so. Consumers can absorb all sides of the argument in 140 characters or less if that is their preferred media platform. I believe that news and political biases will always have a place in our society, and that to some degree our country will always be politically divided. What social media can and will change is the way in which we access and discuss the news.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
ReplyDelete- Holcomb, Jesse, Jeffery Gottfried, Amy Mitchell, and Jessica Schillinger. "News Use
Across Social Media Platforms." Pew Research Center. 14 Nov. 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.
- "Millennials Still Want Their Newspapers [Infographic]." Infographic: Millennials Still
Want Their Newspapers. Newspaper Association of America, 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 09 Feb. 2014.
- Mitchell, Amy, and Dana Page. “The Role of News on Facebook.” Pew Research Center.
24 Oct. 2013. Web
To say that I get most of my news from the Internet is understatement. There is little doubt in my mind that every piece of “news” information I take in has a web address attached to it. If I overhear others talking about a current event, I have a guttural reaction to scour my Twitter feed before I even think about turning on my television for a follow-up. According to a recent study, as of August 2012, about 37% of smart phone owners used their device to get their news on a daily basis. I feel like in just that year and a half since then, that number has surely grown (State of the News Media). While the amount of facts and opinions that can be disseminated in seconds is incomparable, the task of sifting through piles of information can be daunting. As more and more organizations and people find a voice on the web, it only becomes more difficult to single-out an objective one.
ReplyDeleteI’ve spent years tailoring my Twitter feed to my liking, and as a student of the media I made the conscious decision to follow all the major news networks, regardless of its political lean. Despite the temptation to only follow those who share in your beliefs or say what you want to hear, I find it much more informing and conductive to my comprehension to follow people of various stances, backgrounds, and ideologies. Not only does this put the item or issue at hand in multiple contexts, it allows me to develop my own opinion by sampling a taste of what each side has to offer.
The use of social media by groups to push or share their agenda has been more and more noticeable as the rest of the world has begun to rely more on their most frequented apps and websites to read the news. Especially with the millennial generation coming of age, there seem to be ongoing attempts to target and influence a demographic one way or another. As Gina mentioned above, so-called InstaMeets are likely meant to sway a young, moldable mind to align their beliefs with a party. Prior to the 2012 presidential race, Barack Obama’s team used “Thunderclap”, a social media platform that allows users to recruit followers to specific campaigns. Ann Romney attempted, and apparently failed, to recruit a youth following among Pinterest users in support of her husband’s campaign (Georges). Clearly there is a growing trend of figuring out the most effective ways to utilize social media in an age when more people are using them than ever.
There’s no telling what kind of tactics we will see develop over the course of the next few years, as it appears that political strategists are looking for more creative ways to win over supporters. As long as our generation continues to consume as much online as we do, the influence will only increase.
Georges, Pascale. "Effective Social Media Strategies." New Media Campaigns. N.p., 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
“New Use Across Social Media Platforms.” Rep. Pew Research Center, 14 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
“State of the News Media 2013”. Rep. Pew Research Center, 14 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
When the issue of political views shared on social media comes up, it reminds me of the old saying that about the three things never to discuss at a dinner in mixed company; money, religion, and politics. In today's world, social media is essentially one ongoing dinner in mixed company, albeit with noticeably less alcohol.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, with the ease with which it brings the public and a major figure together, social media is incredibly useful for political canvassing, allowing campaign staff members to chart out how well certain points are being received or what things the public would like them to focus on more. Over 66% of adults have posted political messages on social media (Pew Research Center). The odds are that that's the majority of the adult voting population. Social media has even begun to see use by actual politicians regarding each other. In June, a California Congressman used the app Vine, to vote on a bill.(Social Media Today) Vine, which before that was seen mainly as being a way for someone to share their six-second attempt at the Cup Song from Pitch Perfect, now plays an active part in the United States political system.
On the flip side of the matter, with the world open for anyone with a basic Internet connection to offer their two cents on the matter, it is inevitable that a flood of information, much of it opinionated. Posts online reflect what people are talking about in real life, and politics is a major topic in everyday conversation. It isn't necessarily that social media makes society more divisive about politics per se, its that social media gives us access to a much larger amount of people who's political opinions we wouldn't be directly aware of without social media to bring it right to the screen in front of us.
Rainie, Lee "Social Media and Political Engagement" Pew Research Center. 19 Oct 2012. Web
Marse, Annie "The Interaction of Social Media and Politics" Social Media Today 10 July 2013. Web
From what I have taken from your post and the class readings I have concluded that the big talk of news media is no longer about whether news will no longer run on print, but it is now concerning news on social media platforms and its following. I believe that with the increase in social media to spread news will only bring about less objectivity. As mentioned in the post some news media powerhouses tend to be one-sided. According to, “CNN Becoming Like Fox News, MSNBC, Pew Study Finds” by Brent Lang, MSNBC is the most opinionated news source with a difference of 70%. Following is Fox News. However, CNN seems to be the only balanced news source with 8% more factual reporting than opinion pieces. While Lang says it is becoming more difficult to differentiate CNN from news companies like Fox News and MSNBC, I disagree. They have a more significant amount of factual content than the other two media despite their lack of on the scene reports. However, I do believe that with the progression of social media and news CNN will eventually become more biased. As stated in the blog, CNN has the most Twitter followers at 11.7 million. This social media popularity could lead to more opinion-based tweets influenced by followers. According to “Twitter News Consumers: Young, Mobile and Educated” by the Pew Research Center, despite the fact that conversations on Twitter regarding opinion-based comments on news stories, attitudes towards news stories change overtime. With the constant spread of beliefs in 140 characters or less, opinions regarding news will be in abundance. “News Use Across Social Media Platforms” by Pew Research Center states that half of both Facebook and Twitter users are exposed to news sources on those social media platforms. Both media sites are the foreground for sharing information. I have seen countless times someone sharing a news article they have read with a clear strong opinion regarding the content. I believe is that the pressures of strongly opinionated users within social medias community will soon influence CNN to become more biased. CNN already has a popularity advantage on Twitter but in order to gain more followers, who are willing to read their content, they might please the majority of the opinions. In my belief Fox News has a clear and dedicated following because of their political standpoint. Pew Research Center’s “The State of the News Media 2013” report confirms CNN lost 4% of its cable TV viewers since 2012, which exemplifies the need for social media followers. The end of the blog post states we rely heavily on social media for news and that is not to seek it out ourselves but to come across what is most appealing to us. Also, I believe news companies rely on social media and followers sharing the content, not only as a way of free press and advertisement but also a way to create their own vast community on social media. If CNN were to sway their content to entice certain users, and I’m not saying I agree they should, they would more likely gain a higher standpoint over news companies, thus creating a profitable online community.
ReplyDeleteFaustini, Gina. "Is Social Media Politically Uniting or Dividing Us?" Web log post.Blogger. Media Trends: Tuesday Takeaways S14, 9 Feb. 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
Lang, Brent. "CNN Becoming like Fox News, MSNBC, Pew Study Finds." The Wrap. N.p., 18 Mar. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
"News Use Across Social Media Platforms." Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping the World (2013): n. Pew Research Center, 14 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
“Twitter News Consumers: Young, Mobile and Educated.” Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping the World (2013): n. Pew Research Center, 14 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
Social media is a tactic that can be used for many events and situations. People use social media to communicate with friends, invite people to their events, and share news stories. Every day when I log into Facebook, my friends are constantly posting articles or videos about a pressing matter in the news. For our generation, we seem to have cut out the original TV and newspaper aspect of our lives in regards to news. Instead of seeking out news by tuning into programs at specific times, social media has proven to be a way in which news finds us.
ReplyDeleteSocial media is a way to be directly engaged with what’s going on around the world. Since young people often struggle with staying connected to the news and politics, Facebook has been an aid in that area. According to “The Role of News on Facebook” by the Pew Research Center, “…younger adults, who as a group are less engaged than their elders are with news on other platforms, are as engaged, if not more so, with news on Facebook. Young people (18- to 29-year olds) account for about a third, 34%, of Facebook news consumers.” With that being said, Facebook is turning into a site for both recreational and informational purposes. Although someone might not intentionally be searching for the news, they could stumble upon it, open it, and share it with others. “The Role of News on Facebook” goes on to say, “Two-thirds (67%) of those who use Facebook for at least an hour a day get news there compared with only 41% of those who spend less than an hour a day on the site.” The longer someone spends on Facebook, the more likely they are to get the news from there. In a way, people are consuming the news without the intention to. This can benefit the news source because they are given exposure on another platform and can generate more discussions. On the other hand, the biased reports of a news source can be highlighted and remembered more.
During the Obama 2008 campaign, Obama used social media to his advantage. The article “The Media Equation – How Obama Tapped Into Social Networks’ Power” from The New York Times discusses his benefits. David Carr states:
Like a lot of Web innovators, the Obama campaign did not invent anything completely new. Instead, by bolting together social networking applications under the banner of a movement, they created an unforeseen force to raise money, organize locally, fight smear campaigns and get out the vote that helped them topple the Clinton machine and then John McCain and the Republicans.
By jumping on the social media trend, Obama was able to target younger audiences, which increased the youth vote. He raised millions of dollars and created a sense of community online. Currently, though, more sites have been utilized to gain him publicity. Twitter and Instagram are new ways to connect with our President and stay up-to-date with what’s going on.
I think Twitter is the new way we are being politically united. First, Twitter allows you to follow people and outlets of your choice. Personally, I follow CNN and Obama because Fox News is too biased for me. When I’m interested in what’s happening that day, I will either scroll through my news feed or go to CNN’s Twitter feed. Although 140 characters is not the easiest way to deliver the information, it does help with sharing links to articles and pictures. I use Twitter as my main form of news consumption because it’s easy to filter and search. According to the article “News Use Across Social Media Platforms” by Pew Research Center, “Twitter news consumers are among the least likely to turn to local and cable TV.” I agree with this because Twitter eliminates the need to tune into a full program. Twitter sites release information quickly and constantly, so I always feel like I’m in the loop. We can follow the outlets that we want, so the news directly pops up on our feeds. Also, when big political events are aired, Twitter is a way for friends and icons to post their opinions – another way we are becoming politically united.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Carr, David. "The Media Equation - How Obama Tapped Into Social Networks' Power." The New York Times. 9 Nov. 2008. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
“News Use across Social Media Platforms.” Pew Research Center. 14 Nov. 2013. Web.
“The Role of News on Facebook.” Pew Research Center. 24 Oct. 2013. Web.
I believe that social media does a good job at both uniting us and dividing us politically. In traditional media, users would consume said media alone through watching tv or reading the paper. With the rise of social media, all of the media platforms you mention (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, BBC) now have an online presence. This gives the user the ability to discuss something they have consumed politically online with their peers. Whether that discussion is positive or negative is where the distinction happens.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the 2012 election, followers of either candidate would tweet or post with each other about news stories coming out, getting more voters to the polls, or any other information related to the election. This united the people who shared similar political views by allowing them to be part of a community. On the other hand, there were plenty of individuals who would see a post from a member of the opposite political party and criticize it, spurring a debate from both sides of the spectrum. This type of media usage would draw a line between democrats and republicans, further dividing us.
As more and more adults begin to use social media, they also begin to get the majority of their news from the social platform they use. In 2013, 50% of all adults on Twitter stated that they consumed news while using the service (Twitter News Consumers). This illustrates that these users are not only subject to the opinions of the news sources they choose to consume, but also the other users who are positing their opinions online. As stated before, this has caused a further divide between the members of opposite political parties and united the members of the same parties. Pew Research Center reported that 31% of Facebook news consumers only wanted to see postings about their own politically agenda ((Mitchell et. al, 4). However, as you stated Gina, it is extremely difficult to avoid opposing opinions. When I personally see a post from someone who I disagree with, I cannot help but want to get involved in a discussion with that individual. It is very difficult to feel unbiased with politics, and it becomes nearly impossible when someone is placing statements you utterly disagree with right in your face.
This can be a result of the platforms we use to get our news from. More and more are these news sources becoming more opinionated as it is difficult to stay unbiased when reporting on an issue you have a distinct opinion on. Fox News in known for being extremely republican and MSNBC being very democrat. CNN was once considered to report only factual information but that has changed in recent years. In fact, they are closing in on the Fox News when it comes to percentages of commentary that is opinionated.
With the rise of social media and an online presence from news platforms, it has becoming increasingly difficult to stay unbiased. Companies cannot help but interject opinions and that has a different effect on consumers. As users turn to social media to voice their opinions, they have become distinctly united and divided at the same time.
Works Cited
Mitchell, Amy, and Dana Page. "The Role of News on Facebook: Common Yet Incidental." Pew Research Center. N.p., 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
Mitchell, Amy, and Emily Guskin. "Twitter News Consumers: Young, Mobile and Educated." Pew Research Centers Journalism Project RSS. N.p., 4 Nov. 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.