Politicians as Media Producers Nowadays many politicians use social media and the number is growing. One of the reasons is that the web is a perfect medium for genuine grass-root political movements. It is also transforming the power dynamics of politics. There are no barriers to entry websites such as Facebook or Youtube, at least in western countries where social media is most commonly used. Unique characteristic of online media is that they accelerate the transmission of content and are accessible to large numbers of people. For politicians it is also an inexpensive mean of conducting voter outreach and a mean to target younger voters. 2008 US election was the first one in which all candidates, presidential and congressional, attempted to connect directly with American voters via online social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. Barack Obama gained over 5 million supporters during 2008 presidential election campaign. A number of 5 million does not sound impressive looking at it from today s perspective when several A-list public figures boast fan bases of over 50 millions but it is important to consider that a number of Facebook users in 2008 was way less than it is now. (Also here we used a term Supporter instead of liker because back in 2008 Facebook pages could be supported instead of liked. Later for commercial purposed Facebook changed it to like because it was researched that people would like more politicians, celebrities or all kinds of inanimate objects than support them.) Second most supported politicians in 2008 was John McCain. It is a well defined pattern, even today, that Democrat American politicians have embraced social media better than Republicans. Social Media and its role was so important in 2008 US presidential elections that often it is called Facebook elections. Obama's landmark victory was due, in part, to a groundswell of support among young Americans and as we said previously young people assemble a great number of social media users. Later exit polls revealed that Obama had won nearly 70 percent of the vote among Americans aged 25 or younger which was the highest figures in the American exit poll history. It is also worth to mention that One of Obama's key strategists was 24-year-old Chris Hughes, a Facebook co-founder, which does not make Obama s online success look coincident at all.
Social Media brought many significant changes to both journalism and political routines and, according to the article, the rise of online political communication in its turn developed into a more complex relationship between journalists and politicians. The authors of the article present three types of researches that can help one to grasp the way political representatives and press cooperate in order to produce news. Sources appear to be a fundamental part of all forms of professional journalism: they provide information, background and broader contexts of the investigated problem(s). Therefore, they should be rationally chosen in order to produce material of high reliability, accuracy and currentness. Source producers, politicians using social media in this case, are a priori willing to find themselves in the very centre of things and are building their media strategy with the aim to satisfy the journalistic need for a certain piece of information. This idea lies behind the first research type indicated in the article - the classical works on media logic by Altheide and Snow, Hernes, who considered media to have an ability to influence the behaviours and modes of communication of other social institutions. Hence, politicians and political institutions need to adapt their strategies and operations so that they fit the logic of the media, since this is journalists who have the power to select and process information and therefore play the role of a filter. A second type of research is in contrast focused on the journalistic adaptation to the New Media Age. The shift to digital ways of collection and distribution of information has caused difficulties for most of the media companies: high dependence on external resources (raw materials), need for resources for critical scrutiny, fact checking and investigative reporting plus the appearance of new alternative forms of communication that makes sources to active news makers themselves. As a result, media producers no longer have monopoly over public information and therefore should be able to find new ways of cooperation with politicians and public and rebuild the traditional models of media production. A third type of research focuses on both of the parties, journalists and politicians, and their interaction. The scholars maintain the importance that both of the actors feel that they gain from cooperation and suggest the mediatized interdependency theory that underlines the necessity of mutual interaction in order to provide an efficient news flow. Thus, this development results in that journalists and politicians become both media actors and media sources. It is, however, doubtful that these are the only actors in media production space. According to the article, the Social Media makes it easier for citizen-users to participate in new forms of multicommunication practices and therefore contribute to the processes of news production by, for instance, taking part in online discussions or participating in political campaigns.
Another important aspect discussed in the article is the journalistic value of information produced by politicians. According to the research, there are two factors that are most likely to make a news material successful: negativity and personification. Scandals and intrigues as well as politicians private life attract more attention from citizens than serious political statements, which becomes an evidence of de-politicization processes in politicians-journalists-citizens interaction. Sweden and Norway are characterized by high levels of Internet use among citizens and elected officials thus our group decided to research further and use examples from usage of social media by Scandinavian politicians as well (namely Norwegian and Swedish). Indeed Sweden and Norway, along with Iceland compile a list of top 3 countries with highest rates of Internet users. Politicians of these countries also actively use social media platforms. In this research the data is provided on two social media networks: Facebook and Twitter. A sample included a total of 570 politicians 193 from Norway and 377 from Sweden. Researchers examined all Twitter accounts and Facebook pages (not personal accounts on Facebok) belonging to these politicians. Quantitative data revealed that Twitter is used twice more commonly than Facebook. 58% of Norwegian politicians have Twitter account, and very similar number (57%) of Swedes is also present there. On the other hand fewer politicians engage with their supporters on Facebook, exactly 24% of Norwegians and 19% of Swedes. As a conclusion we could assume that: While both Sweden and Norway continually report high percentages of Internet use among a majority of age groups, the use of social media is primarily related to younger cohorts. Younger representatives engage more frequently online. No significant differences could be discerned between either the countries. No significant differences were shown between the use of Social Media by females and males. Larsson and Kalsnes, The researchers of the article found out that there is a mismatch between the use of social media among the politicians and voters in the two countries. Majority of politicians, once again, use Twitter as mean to disseminate information to and gather their voters, while majority of voters in the countries use Facebook. Twitter is believed to be used by only elite, urban, media-savvy groups, while ordinary citizens, citizens living in rural areas use Facebook. Without further due, the researchers recommended politicians to look beyond Twitter.
But the question is: Why majority of politicians use Twitter Rather Than Facebook to gather supporter/ voters? One among many possible reasons behind the fact that majority of politicians use Twitter rather than Facebook is that there is parallel trend of Twitter use among journalists and Politicians. According to Widholm (2013), there is a remarkable increase of the Twitter use among journalists from 48% in 2011 to 68% in 2013 and slight decrease of Facebook use among journalists from 77% in 2011 to 68% in 2013. Most of the journalists use Twitter for their work. They collect information, data, interesting quotes from politicians, famous people on Twitter and put them in their articles/ stories. Since politicians still believe in the power of the Old / Mass Media and in order to draw attention of those journalists and increase their presence on Mass Media, politicians decided to employ Twitter as mean though not many voters use Twitter compared to Facebook. Sadly, the article did not mention how many politicians use both Twitter and Facebook for their election campaign/ gathering supports from voters, which is part of our critique on the article. Normalization theory, according to Margolis et al., (1999: p.26) suggests that patterns of socioeconomic and political relationships on-line come to resemble those of the real world. Old and well established politicians in general with secure place in Parliamentary still have practiced Normalization theory (except for few well established politicians who use Facebook and Twitter), strongly believe in the power of mass media and see no importance/ power of social media in gathering more supporters for their party. Well linked with and being in the spotlight of journalists, they are picked up by journalists and have their presence on mass media. However, young and new politicians from small parties considered as Underdog politicians are not known and on the spotlight among journalists, so they don t have presence in the mass media. However, to reach out to voters directly without getting through mass media, those politicians have used social media, Twitter especially, and post and twitter their opinion about particular issues. Chances are possible for them to get quoted by journalists and appear on Mass Media. In the information and technological age, young and new politicians see the Internet in general, especially social media, Facebook and Twitter in particular as place where they can build up their own reputation among voters and journalists. And thank to Internet affordance, it almost costs nothing and is easy to operate social media on the Internet. Politicians can run their campaign permanently through social media without pause.
Searching for quotes on Twitter has developed into an established journalistic routine, while the inclusion of tweets in news discourse has become an established textual convention. An explanation for this could be that due to the fact that everyone now can have a voice and spread their thoughts, politicians no longer have to hunt down journalists to get their word out there. This might explain why news papers now go looking for news in, for example, public social media. Politicians using social media and publishing their own statement is a natural expansion brought on by the development of Web 2.0, where the targeted group is used to having information straight from the source instead of from a second hand source, such as news papers. Thus, by conforming to these new standards, politicians are trying to please a new kind of media user, while, at the same time, make up a picture of themselves that might not be known otherwise, where they can be personal and interact on a person to person level with voters. And of course, if your competition is using new ways of spreading information and gaining support, you have to follow not to be left behind. Morozov uses the example of Chavez (Morozov 2011:113), the Venezuelan president, who joined Twitter when the opposition party started to use social media to gather supporters. Chavez s main idea for Twitter was to find another channel through which he could communicate directly to citizens, and the account had as many as 3.2 million followers, and a team of people sorting through the incoming replies, looking for those that should be answered. He used Twitter both as a way of spreading information, sharing personal thoughts and experiences, as well as communicating with the people. In the book Morozov also quotes Chavez, when he s saying The Internet can t be just for the bourgeoisie; it s for the ideological battle as well, which is a clear indication that he thought political change could be done using social media as a stepping stone. In the article, they realize in their research that Tweets from politicians are often forwarded to news in a negative context. It is hard to say why this might be, but one reason could be that it is easier to sell news papers that criticize politicians, but also because the journalists still consider being skeptic towards politicians a part of their work as a both gatekeepers and as guard dogs of democracy. Mediatization can be explained as a process that changes the modes of interaction between various social and cultural institutions as a consequence of the media s major role and influence in society. This means, on the one hand, that the media become integrated into the functions and
operations of societal institutions, but also, on the other hand, that interaction within and between institutions to a greater extent is performed through the interaction with a medium. Finally, we believe both journalists and politicians should create effective strategies and keep the status of interdependence in order to maintain a news flow in digital age. References: Earl. J, Klimport. K Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet age Ekman M, Widholm. A. Politicians as Media Producers Larsson. A.O, Kalsnes. B. Of course we are on Facebook : Use and non-use of social media among Swedish and Norwegian politicians Margolis M, Resnick D, Wolfe JD et al. (1999) Party competition on the Internet in the United States and Britain. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics 4(4): 24 47. Morozov. E. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom Williams C.B, Gulati G.J. Facebook Grows Up: An Empirical Assessment of its Role in the 2008 Congressional Elections