Politics of social media
Nowadays, politicians not only have to be honest, charismatic, and willing to bow to corporate pressure, I mean, excuse me, willing to take a stand for what's right, they also need to be technologically savvy and constantly update the public about their life in a forum like Facebook or Twitter. Or at the very least, they need to hire someone who will do that for them. So what about politicians who don't do this? I guess they disappear into obscurity, becoming dinosaurs in an age ruled by monkeys.
That's not to say that an intense following on social networks will win one an election. Just look at Christine O'Donnell from Delaware. During the 2010 midterm elections, she had the most viewed YouTube page of any politician in the country. Her "not a witch" ad campaign was so popular, it was parodied on Saturday Night Live. But she still lost by 17 percent (57percent versus 40 percent) to Chris Coons when it came time to count the votes.
However, according to an article on the KPCC Southern California Public Radio website, 74 percent of House and Senate candidates with more Facebook fans than their competitors won in the 2010 midterm elections.
So it appears that an intense social media following is, although not a guarantee, a pretty good indicator of a political victory. What is this going to mean for the next election? Aside from the fact that all politicians now have Twitter accounts and YouTube pages (old news), is anything really different? It's just a new way of pushing the same old tired crap, with perhaps an emphasis on targeting a younger demographic. "I'm your hope for the future," "Our society has grown morally corrupt and needs my guidance," "I can assure you I will magically fix this debt ridden nation without raising taxes," blah, blah, blah.
Who really cares about what politicians are saying nowadays anyways? It's all just a ploy to get elected; the only thing they'll hold true to in office is whatever gets them money from lobbyists and looks nice to the American public. Republican, Democrat, it doesn't really matter; both sides just follow their corporate masters' diabolical instructions.
The only thing to gather from this new political side of Facebook is that people have somehow figured out a way to make the website more annoying than it already is. Now not only do we get to be updated constantly about some idiot's super awesome beer pong party, we also get to see Ye Olde Politician Man attempt to reach out to America's youth with a status update about the MTV movie awards. It's almost enough for one to delete their whole page and go without it. Note how I said "almost," because going without a Facebook page nowadays is pretty much the only thing more annoying than having one.
Is it not kind of depressing that Facebook has become an integral part of everyone's life? When the site first came out it was exclusively for college students, a "cool kids club" that you needed an invitation to join. But nowadays, everyone has a Facebook. There are over 500 million users according to the website, which means that 7.3 percent of the world's 6,775,235,700 people use the social media device. I mean John McCain has a Facebook for chrissake. How much more un-cool can something get if John McCain is doing it?