Shortly after the dust kicked up by the debate had settled, Twitter announced that it had been the most tweeted about event in the history of U.S. politics, out-tweeting this year's Republican and Democratic conventions.
With over 11.1 million posts, Wednesday's debate became the fourth most tweeted-about telecast of any kind. The debate was beat out by only three other televised events: the 2012 Grammy awards, MTV's Music Video Awards and the Super Bowl. Wow. Pretty impressive for a country who is generally apathetic toward politics.
I also find it interesting that of the 11.1 million comments, 55% were made by women and 45% were made by men. Why do you think this is? Is it because women feel the importance of their vote in this election? Whatever the reason, the numbers are worth noting.
I find it, for lack of a better term, extremely cool that social media has given a forum in which people can engage with events such as the presidential debate and effectively and pretty accurately shape the narrative of the event. What is so valuable about social media is that it is all unfolding in real time along with the debate. People did not have to wait to hear the candidates' closing statements or opinions of television pundits to form an opinion about who won the debate and then let everyone know what that opinion is.
While I do not doubt that viewers in the past formed their opinions well before the debate was finished, I do think that social media has completely revolutionized the way those opinions are passed on to others. People no longer have to talk politics over a cup of coffee to know their friend's political views. Today, all you have to do is scroll through your Twitter feed and see a link or tweet that gives you that same information in the fraction of the time it would take to get coffee.
"People still use old media to watch the debates, but they use social networks and other new media to have influence, voice opinions and be involved," said Scott Talan, an assistant communications professor at American University.
He continued, "Old media is not dead; its growing. But now we have more people involved and engaged because of digital means."
The millions of posts were not so much about what each candidate was saying but about their demeanor or presence on the stage, proving that while televised debates are designed to be platforms for getting your message out there, they are more-so a test of confidence and the image emoted by the speaker.
The "social chatter" from social media sifted into a few major topics: Big Bird, Jim Lehrer, and Romney's win over Obama.
The reaction to the debate via social media also speaks to the attention span of viewers. The broad topic of "the economy" seems interesting, but in actuality these people are talking about a very complex issue that is hard to understand, leaving many people with glazed over eyes and a slack jaw. Unless you are an economist following the national debt and the inter-workings of our economy it would be hard to intelligently comment on the debate's content and the plans proposed by each candidate. Thus, as soon as Romney said his "Sorry Jim" statement about cutting what he feels is superfluous funding for PBS and Big Bird, people jerked out of their stupors and reacted by agreeing, disagreeing or just plain laughing.
People don't want to be lectured by things they cannot comprehend. So, when Mitt takes a shot at Big Bird, everyone understands that and responds accordingly.
Even an ABC news executive tweeted during a lull in the debate that "avian life is outstripping human life in this debate."
I think it was also outstripping the issues.
Though this makes sense and I cannot fault the public for their ignorance on an issue as complex as the economy (because let's be honest I have no clue either), it worries me that this country is more concerned with the fate of Big Bird than the fate of this country. What I mean is that the real issues are side-stepped in order to appeal to people who don't know or don't want to know the issues.
I could come down hard on the media and blame them for perpetuating this ignorance, but that would not be fair. The media is a business. They are not going to sell a product that the public doesn't want. And like I said, the public wants what they know, not what is over their heads. So the media, being in the business to sell stories, is going to write what the public is willing to consume. In effect, Big Bird is the headline and the debate's fourth most-searched item on Google.
At the same time, social media is important because it is the living, breathing commentary of this country, for the people and by the people- or something like that. It is important for media analysts to take note of what is trending on twitter because that trend is mirrored in the stories produced by the mainstream media. Pretty interesting that, collectively, what we have to say is what the media has to say. Only they make money saying it.
So, what do YOU think?
Do people really want to learn about the issues, in an impartial way, in order to make their decision come election day?
Why do you think women participated in the social-media discussion about the debate more than men (55% female comments 45% male)?
Is the debate important to a candidates win?
What is more important: the content of the candidates arguments or the impression of their demeanor on the viewers?
Do you think if we collectively as a nation got more educated on the issues, the media would follow suit and report more on those issues?
My kind of debate:
Sources:
Associated Press: Social Media Renders Rapid Judgement on Debate: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/social-media-renders-rapid-judgment-debate-17395191#.UHHf2U2dN2A
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14244918-social-media-analysis-who-really-won-the-debate?lite
Must Reads:
No comments:
Post a Comment