Cary, Mary Kate. "5 Ways New Media Are Changing Politics." 4 Feburary 2010. U.S. News. 14 October 2015 In this article Mary Kate Cary opens up with the supreme court decision to not restrict the use of corporate funds in political advertising so that she can make her point that big money ads are not the most effective way for candidates to reach American constituents. She argues that social media is a new way for politicians to connect with citizens. Her five claim are that Americans can now, choose the media they wish to consume, share the media they choose the share, like posts they agree with and dislike posts they do not agree with, connect with others on social media, and donate to candidate campaigns online. With these claims she comes to the conclusion that politicians want to go around mainstream media so that they can connect directly with the voters. The purpose of this article is to persuade the reader that social media is the new alternative to mainstream big money ads for politicians. Cary’s intended audience is politicians, political campaign managers and politically engaged citizens. The tone of this article is informative but slightly opinionated. While Cary does back up her claims with notable quotes and statistics the main support for her argument is her professional opinion. Cary was formerly the …show more content…
He references the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections to explain his ideas. He claims that from 2008 to 2012 the demographics have changed from mostly young citizens using social media to more than 50% of the population. Because of this change candidates’ behavior have changed, not only online but everywhere. Jeffers second claim is that social media creates a history of the candidates causing mistakes they make to haunt them. Then Jefferson goes on to talk about the “Trillion Dollar Coin
Media finds its central role in the democratic debate in providing information, analysis, and a diversity of perspectives to the public. In recent years, with what is known as a media revolution, the amount of telecommunication outlets has increased dramatically. Often called “a product of healthy market competition,” the media revolution has theoretically expanded the public’s access to a multitude of facts, opinions, and general information (Miroff, et al. 2015). However, with a
One of the properties that allow social media to be an attractive tool to use by politicians is the ability to attract a massive audience of users. The Pew Research Center suggests that there is a growing number of social media users. A whooping 73% of US adults use the internet (Social Networking Fact Sheet). These...
...urself (and Others): How YouTube and Blogging have Changed the Rules of the Campaign. HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS , 75-85.
In their articles, Maltzman and Sigelman, as well as Hill and Hurley, explored the connection between a representative speech giving in Washington as a means of representing their constituency. The advent and permeation of mass media and connectivity to political events into American society raises the question of whether or not representatives can use their media presence to represent their constituency? Social media and news access provide representatives with an outlet to express empathy, demographic identification, and policy platform. Has the ability of a representative to broadcast their symbolic representation and policy through mass media significantly change the representational strategies of modern representatives from the strategies of their predecessors? The opportunity to connect with a constituency through mass media could provide a representative with the privilege of representing from Washington without the need to connect at home to the same degree as their predecessors.
The researchers present findings that indicate that a politician’s popularity in the voting booth may be related to the frequency with which the candidate is talked about on social media. The researchers goes on to discuss how further research may conclude that social media has a bigger impact on voting outcomes than traditional forms of media, and how that could potentially shape the future of voting.
Winograd, Morley, and Michael D. Hais. Millennial Makeover [electronic Resource] : MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 2008. DiscoverE. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. .
Media nowadays has changed from what it used to be in the past. While before it took several days to get word around, now you are able to access it 24/7 whenever you want. This is beneficial for the presidential election since the candidates can post something and have it seen automatically. In the article, ‘2016 Presidential Election Circus: Is Social Media the Cause?,’ it states, “Candidates have discovered the quickest way to make news is to put out a statement or comment in a social media post and avoid paying for ad space.” Before social media was big, the candidates had to buy
Social media has changed the way that people interact with one another for the rest of time. People can use social media to share their lives, opinions, and more importantly their political views. Some of the most popular social media platforms are Facebook, where one can post their own thoughts along with pictures and video, Twitter, where one posts short messages, Instagram, where one posts pictures along with captions, Tumblr, where one can post a variety of different media, and Snapchat, where one can share videos and picture with their friends for a short amount of time. Now that people are able to share whatever they would like on the internet, some have used this as a way to spread political initiatives through these platforms. Social
Biased opinions thrown everywhere online, from Facebook to Twitter and even to Snapchat. Within the recent election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, there was an intense amount of pressure put on young adults through social media for who they would be voting for. If, per say, a young adult posted a tweet that supported Trump, almost instantly they would receive hate mail or vulgar responses from those who disagreed with him (Sanders, 2016, para. 3). This bias went both ways, and opinions were formed for young voters that had only based their choice off of what was on social media and didn’t actually research what the candidates stood for. A lot of this happened in the 2012 presidential election also, between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, although instead of social networking sites, it was more about news channels. Channels like CNN portrayed biased news towards both candidates. In the article “Across the Great Divide: How Partisanship and Perceptions of Media Bias Influence Changes in Time Spent with Media”, it elaborates more on how CNN effected voters; “Respondents who thought the media were biased against Obama spent less time with conservative media and more with liberal ones, while those who judged the media as hostile to Romney spent little time with liberal and neutral media” (Kaye &
Over the past few decades our generation has witnessed a communication revolution no generation has ever witnessed before. The Internet was fully commercialized in the U.S. by mid-1990s and instant communication including the World Wide Web, email, and instant messaging have all played part of an enormous impact on media, commerce, and politics during that time and up until now. U.S. scholar and activist Robert McChesney has spent the past twenty years studying and documenting the effects of this Internet revolution and its relationship with capitalism and democracy. In his 2013 work “Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy,” McChesney addresses the relationship between the economic power and the digital world exposing how democracy is undermined by corporate capitalism’s control of the communications industry.
The use of social media in the Presidential campaigns has a big impact on the presidential election. This case study analyze how the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates, Mr. Donald Trump and Mrs. Hillary Clinton used social media to help deliver their parties platform and to help them to possibly become the 45th President of the United States of America.
The 2008 presidential election was historic. The United States elected its first African-American president and the use of the internet and social media greatly influenced the way elections played out for the first time in history. This election set a precedent for the way politicians could use social media to reach out to voters who they may not otherwise have a connection with. Mass media and social media changed the way elections played out by increasing voter intelligence, encouraging young people and people of color to vote, and spreading propaganda via the internet.
Social media including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, Flicker, internet websites, and blogs are becoming mainstream attracting a younger more technology savvy voter. Many candidates in the last elections learned to use these mediums so not to overlook tech savvy voters and learned how to use these to their advantage. Candidates took to the internet to raise awareness, state views, and even successfully raised donations. Social media was able to provide instant feedback on the standing of a candidate often days or weeks sooner than a more traditional poll.
The main aim of this report is to analyze the impacts of changes in the media concerning the societal and individual view of politics and politicians. The report also describes significant milestones in mass media since the year 1960 and examines the impact of mass media on how people think politically. The report then considers the effect of technological advancements in mass media and the effect on the results of elections. The use of mass media has increased over the last fifty years in that it is a primary medium through which supporters of various campaigners share their ideas and views concerning politicians and different political parties. Through social media, behaviors and performance of several activists have brought
Over the years the media has made citizens major role players in politics. Ross Perot opened eyes by putting the 1992 Election in the media and thereby allowing voters to become directly involved in politics. The Internet, the new form of mass media “has turned into a major political and media industry” (Grossman 16). Because of the rise the Internet has taken, the idea of direct democracy has risen. The foundation of direct democracy is in self-government. The claim is that the presence of the Internet will increase citizens’ involvement in political issues by allowing them access to more information. This is significant because it takes a look at the impact of technology on society and politics, as well by looking at politics from the average persons’ perspective. It is my position, however that although the Internet will make citizens more informed this would actually work to deter people from participating in politics. Through the greater establishment of community and trust among citizens will we find the desire to participate in government and politics.