It fascinates me how the advancement of technology has gotten more people involved in politics. I truly believe that the creation of social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter are greatly responsible for this. When looking at how social media can impact how people are actively involved in politics, we can look at the Presidential Debates and see how the number of viewers have changed over the past decade.
The 2000 election was between Al Gore and George W. Bush, and it was one of the closest elections of all time. Before I begin with the numbers, I must note that Facebook was not created until 2004 and Twitter until 2006. The presidential debates consists on three different debates spread out by about one week from each other. The first debate, October 3, 2000, had a viewership of 46.6 million people. This number was fairly consistent with the previous election debates. The second debate in the 2000 election brought in 37.5 million people, and the third debate had 37.7 million people. These numbers represent less than 10% of the US population.
Although Facebook was created in 2004, it did not impact the viewership of the debates in a significant manner. However, the first debate had a viewership of 62.4 million people. This spike in numbers could have been due to the fact that we were in the midst of a war, but nevertheless, this number is quite significant. The second debate was significantly lower with 43.5 million viewers, and the third debate had 46.7 million viewers. While these numbers are higher than the 2000 election, it is still hard to see how social media impacts these debates and the election.
The 2008 election was one of the more significant elections in our nation's history because of the fact that the first African-American president was elected. The first debate brought a viewership of 52.4 million people, which is a respectable number. The second debate brought in a whopping 69.9 million people. The third had 63.2 million people. These numbers were rare to have, but it was good for America as more and more people were getting involved. Twitter was up and running for the 2008 debates, but it was still fairly new to a lot of people. For all four debates (including VP debate) the number of tweets sent out totaled 500,000. This is significant in terms of political involvement. http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/04/presidential-debate-most-tweeted-political-event-in-us-history/
The 2012 debates saw similar numbers in terms of viewership. The first brought in 67.2 million; the second had 51.4 million; and the third had 65.6 million. These numbers are significant in the fact that there is still a wide range of people that are getting and staying involved in the political process. What is significant about the 2012 debates is how big of an impact social media had. For the first time, people could tweet their questions to the news station hosting the debate, and some of these questions would be read out loud to the candidates to answer. The number of tweets in the FIRST debate totaled more than 10.3 million...http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/10/presidential-debates-more-than-10-million-tweets-in-less-than-2-hours/ This is significant for america because it shows that people are expressing their opinion more and more, and they aren't afraid of getting involved in the process. The total number of tweets for all three presidential debates was more than 23 million. Try to wrap your head around that for a minute. http://www.newsmax.com/US/Twitter-debate-foreign-policy/2012/10/23/id/461088 . This once again goes to show how big of an impact social media can have on politics. These numbers are certainly optimistic in terms of more people getting involved in the political process.
The numbers I used for number of viewers can be found here: http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=debate-history
Great post and great research!
ReplyDeleteI think that social media has increased political participation and magnified the voices of a large number of people. Never before would the average citizen sitting in his/her living room be able to express a political opinion that can be viewed by millions. I think that there is a great deal of potential in social media and it will be interesting to see how it continues to evolve and shape politics in America.
These numbers are quite staggering indeed. A content analysis of these tweets, while impossible, would have been interesting so that one may see if they were mainly tweets of news stories, pictures, candidate quotes, or re-tweets and also what age group was predominantly involved. Content and user demographics are important and if most of the content being circulated was recycled, then the conversation would have been more like an echo chamber than a discussion board. I do agree that Twitter and Facebook have significantly helped circulate political information but one must think about how. Most of the information shared on Facebook and Twitter is within small pockets of individuals. One's tweets and posts only reach as far as one's 'followers' and 'friends'. Of course the circle is increased by re-tweets and re-posts, but how many people really re-tweet and re-post political messages. Instead, they are usually ignored for the more interesting cat video or daily life update.
ReplyDeleteThese are huge numbers and they will only increase from now on. I think the genius of these social media platforms is that regular people can express their opinions and questions towards national leaders. It breaks down all barriers of authority and hierarchy. Another great side effect of these technologies is that it makes it much, much easier to get involved. They don't have to personally be there asking questions. Instead they can do it from the comfort of their homes and by simply touching a few buttons. It facilitates their engagement and will probably make them stay engaged. These new forms of media must be made a more integral part of debates moving forward as numbers will increase.
ReplyDelete