Civil Discourse and the Internet

 These are the icons of just a few of the social networking sites available. How many have you participated in? Now I’ll admit that social networks are very helpful and have been a great asset for the political spectrum. They allow people to share their beliefs with the world, not just their local community. But this great stage for sharing has also opened up new doors for disagreement and rudeness.  In a study recently conducted at BYU, a political science professor ascertained that approximately 70% of the comments posted on political Facebook pages were negative. This means people weren’t necessarily commenting to share their ideas and beliefs, they were commenting to ridicule and distort the ideas and beliefs of others. 

 As a result of these actions, civil discourse, which breeds learning and understanding, is quickly losing its power.  We know that civil discourse does breed learning and understanding.  In Robert Putnam's book Bowling Alone, he reminds us that back in the 50’s and 60’s when civil discourse was high, so was the percentage of voters and the amount of civic involvement.

It is important to address this issue of the lack of civil discourse presented online so that our nation can move past it and forward with its goals, pushed forward by the new stage of social media.  I’m not saying that you are going to agree with another person just because you talk and share your ideas with one another.  However, if you do talk and share ideas, you will be able to understand why that person thinks a certain way or agrees with a certain policy.  Only when you understand where a person is coming from can you influence them, and you want to influence them so they will agree with you. Based on this information, it’s really in everyone’s best interest to promote and practice civil discourse.  

 Civil discourse will help promote action as well.  Instead of everyone discouraging each other and hitting heads against the wall, it will foster ideas and generate enthusiasm to be a positive influence in the political world.  We can see that talking creates an interest and desire in people, which can then transfer into action--and action is essential to the progression of America. The practice of civil discourse, whether online or face to face, will take America back to the rudimentary politics of discussion. Discussion is essential--because only when it takes place can America be inspired to take action and move forward.

Facts, please, not Faces

I’m personally not the biggest fan of being advertised directly to. I like to find what interests me and understand it for myself. I don’t like to have various opinions shoved down my throat. It seems like this election season more than ever I’ve been bombarded with politics everywhere I go; they’re inescapable.

Romney and Obama’s faces are plastered on every possible magazine cover, newspaper, side column on an Internet site, or (my least favorite place to see it) on my Facebook newsfeed and in the advertisements on the side. (And yes, I know that is Michelle and not Barack in the picture, it's just to prove a point).

 Some may argue that Facebook is a fantastic new place to demonstrate the power of democracy; an incredible new field to truly get the people’s opinion. This is true. The world has never known a time where one person can know exactly how an individual they don’t even know feels instantaneously and be able to respond to their comments, yet how effectively do we use this ability we have?

There are important issues at hand in this election, as there always are. However, I feel most candidates running for office on all levels are using social media to make themselves seem likable and popular instead of forwarding their ideas and stances on issues.

           If you ever could be satirical about this particular subject, I think this may be the pinnacle:  

                                 

  This guy totally knows how the media can be used to make a stir. Even if he is crazy, he is a perfect example of attracting people by his image. He is likable, he should be much more popular than he is (in my opinion), and has an unforgettable image. Honestly, this is exactly what Obama and Romney are working towards. They try to make their policies more accessible and likable, yet at the same time, they try to make their image likable and accessible. Honestly, unless you are actually the perfect candidate, you can't have both, illustrated by Vermin. He's likable, but his policies are bogus.  

Social media is making more information available, though it seems we still focus on the image of each candidate more than track records or personal issues, making elections a popularity contest in the worst sense of the phrase instead of a true democratic gathering where we are to choose our most qualified leader. 

Take JFK and Nixon for example. The famous debates between them were decided more by looks than content. JFK dressed up for the debates and practiced looking good while on camera, while Nixon was nervous and had looked fatigued and sweaty. America had a choice between a sharp-looking young Kennedy and an old sweaty vice president. Kennedy won, although their arguments were comparable. 

Then, in the first debate between Romney and Obama in this election, Obama seemed asleep and Romney seemed to be the more presidential one. Each had strong points, but it was the way they presented them that made the difference. Romney "won" simply because he acted better. In headlines after each of the following debates, the content is focused less on what they said but more on the way they said it. Why do we focus so much on how they said something instead of why? I think it's actually the fault of the viewer. It's much easier to see the mood of a candidate and judge them by that than to actually listen to their argument and decide who is telling the truth. It all comes down to how we crave for simplicity. 

Social media is the place for simplicity. We like to know little tidbits, soundbites, headlines and nothing else. We like to know a little of a lot of things, making our understanding concerning certain subjects quite shallow. I find this true: if I've got the choice to see a one minute long video or to read the super-long article underneath it, I'm watching the video no question. 

Any suggestions for how we can stop looking for the simple way out? Firstly, we need to recognize what we are doing that is bad or not good enough. Don't get me wrong, the Internet and various social media sites are incredible ways to get information, but we don't use them to their potential. Another thing we don't use to our fullest potential is our brain. Yes, yes, i know about the "only 10% of your brain is being used" saying, but really, we have a capacity to thoroughly understand topics so much more than we are currently. 

I say lets try to not focus so much on when the president's anniversary was or if the former governor's dog was ever tied to the top of his car. They've got issues they are trying to talk about, but instead of us focusing on those, we spend too much time trying to figure out if they're nice guys or not, focusing them to spend time trying to grab our attention with their personalities. Let's get serious and vote for not who looks the best or has the best taste in music, but who we think will lead this country to its fullest potential. 

Bias Overwhelming

I've been using the internet since the day where you had to go deaf in order to get on via dial up, since the days when a phone call would ruin the entire internet connection that took ages to connect to. So naturally, I know my way around the place. I know of the sites not to consider even going to (along with the search words) as well as those with only high-quality content. I also know the culture here, from Memebase to Facebook to Tumblr to YouTube. And let me tell you: it’s a dog-eat-dog (or in this case, troll-countertroll) world, especially for the more prominent subjects. And what year is it? That’s right.

Election year.

Election years have always been big – that’s no different from before. However, since the 2008 election, the use of social media has expanded. Since that time, I've joined five social media sites, and no matter where I go, there’s some sort of political content.

…and sometimes I get involved.

Is that a problem? No. The problem is the politician’s raging fanbase going keyboard to keyboard against each other, caps-lock shouting things like “UR POLITISHUN IS LAME” or “PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL INSULT NUMBER 2301,” or in some cases, “Ron Paul 2012!”

You do know he’s out of the race, right?

This doesn’t matter too much. People will be people (meaning they’ll throw insults at each other just to make each other mad – aka trolling). Where it gets bad, however, is when the bias becomes so overwhelming, or the “rhetoric” gets so simple, you don’t get a valid viewpoint – instead, you get a massive amount of people completely overwhelming one side. That Romney related post up there? Yeah. On Tumblr, it has over 9,000,000 notes (meaning over nine million people have either reposted it or liked it). There are about 9,000,000 Tumblr users. I think my bro and I are the few – if only – Romney supporters on Tumblr.

To show the power of social media (namely Tumblr), recall the first Presidential debate. That’s okay if you didn't watch it. All you need to know is that many people and sources (including CNN) agreed that Mitt Romney won. Tumblr didn't like that.

Those last two are me and my brother. Sorry to show my bias.

 Results before the Tumblr bomb on Fox news: Obama losing, 42-58. Post Tumblr bomb:

Obama used to be at 60-ish%. But that was a few weeks ago. (Taken on 10/27)

Remember, this is Fox News. Fox News readers are essentially the opposite (politically) of Tumblr users, and are about as biased. These results weren't the original: they came from social media. What does this mean?

Social media is a very powerful thing, and not one to be underestimated. A swing voter could cross his way to a heavily anti-Obama site and change his views - and his vote - on the spot, whereas the same could happen on an anti-Romney site. Sometimes it's because of the views; other times, this change in vote comes from the fear of being unpopular for one's opinion.

Point is, just as almost every news site has overwhelming bias, so too do social media sites. They are not the place to find a good opinion; quite the opposite - although if you want to start a flamewar (bouncing mostly unbacked opinions at each other over the internet), any social media site is a good place to start.

(This is social media for you.)

Forming the Wire

The first 39 seconds of  the first of FDR's famous Fireside Chats, a weekly radio broadcast.

In 1933 the radio was a extremely progressive concept. The new technology allowed those with it to listen to their national leader’s voice for the first time, allowing the President to connect with his people as never before. On March 12, 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt conversed with his county about the need to restore faith in the Banking system, not in formal banker’s terms, but in normal, conversational, layman’s terms.  The very next day the banks opened after their banking holiday, and people were lined up outside waiting to redeposit their hoarded cash, this short address served to open the doors of effective communication between the presidency and the people of the US. We haven’t looked back.

Radio dominated communication all the way up until the 1960 election, where Richard Nixon, the then vice-president under Dwight D. Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy faced off in a momentous presidential debate, not because of the content, but because it was the first debate broadcasted over the new invention of television. Americans now had the opportunity to see what their choices for the presidency looked like, acted like, and sounded like all at the same time. They got to know the person behind the name with more depth than before. Television remained the main media source, besides print, where candidates could present themselves in the best way possible, as a complete person, not just a name with a party.

Then came the invention of the Internet. During the historic campaign run by now President Obama, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter were exploited to their fullest extent. The image of a cool, sophisticated, and connected candidate was almost impossible to pass up, especially for people among the rising generation. Politics was made cool again; a popular thing to think about. But now, it’s not just a presentation of ideas to an audience who then shows their support by voting; it is a conversation now between politicians and the people. This is what we’re interested in. How has our political involvement bettered or worsened the way politics runs? Let's find out.