Internet & politics

After Barrack Obama became president of the United States of America in 2008, many analysts started writing reports on how Obama succeeded because he was extremely savvy when it came to Internet tools, and effectively used web 2.0 to his advantage. The New York Times reported, “By using interactive Web 2.0 tools, Mr. Obama’s campaign changed the way politicians organize supporters, advertise to voters, defend against attacks and communicate with constituents.” Arianna Huffington, editor in chief of The Huffington Post also agreed, going further to say, “Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be president. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee.”

The Internet can indeed be a very powerful tool in terms of reaching out to people effectively, firstly because the videos, websites or any other type of political advertising on the Internet is more targeted. Websites and videos are usually shared between friends or sought by the individual user. Most people who are watching a political advertising video or browsing the web page of a political figure is already interested in finding out more, that is why the user is even there in the first place. Hence, they are already cognitively prepared to receive the information.

On the other hand, when political advertising in done on television, campaigners are unable to include heavy content as the viewer is not cognitively prepared for the overload. When people watch television programmes, most of the time they are not as focused. It is more like an activity that viewers seek when hoping to relax and clear their minds. Furthermore, political advertising happens in between television programmes during the commercial slots. In this sense, viewers may be more irritated that the programme they are enjoying is interrupted and become less receptive as a result. In comparison, the Internet definitely trumps in this area as it much more targeted and much less limited in terms of publishable content.

With Google+ hangouts, President Obama even managed to change his approach (towards potential supporters) to a much more personable one. On 30 January this year, President Obama answers questions from 225000 people who submitted or voted on questions and conversed live on Google+ Hangout with five lucky participants chosen. This was a historical event as it was the first ever presidential Google+ Hangout. This approach is effective as it puts President Obama in a very favourable light, taking the angle that he is concerned enough about the queries, doubts and worries of his people to take time off and answer their questions live. Now, more people are also watching presidential debates online.

However, the Internet can also be a threat for political campaigners. In the recent years, the Internet has become a medium for dirty political ads and the negative framing of political candidates. The most recent example being Mitt Romney’s statement that he is not concerned about the very poor in America. Romney said that the 47 percent of Americans are dependent on the government and see healthcare and education as their entitlement from the government and that his job is not to care about these people who pay no income taxes. Romney made that speech in what he thought was a closed environment, but somehow, one of the attendees video recorded everything he said and leaked it on the Internet where it very quickly became viral. 

That then set off a series of dirty political advertisements uploaded onto YouTube about the very poor that Romney does not care about despite their contribution to the American society. 

It is also common for any speech errors or things that are not meant to be heard by the public to go viral on YouTube, such as Obama’s open mic slip about having more flexibility after the election.

Therefore it is clear that the Internet is a double-edged sword when it comes to political campaigning. It has the power to promote as well as the power to destroy the reputations of political figures.