After interviewing over 10 of Mayor Bookers Facebook fans, I realized that the discussion of what effect social media has on politics should be replaced by the conversation of how social media platforms are replacing television and newspapers as go to sources of information. The idea that web 2.0 is a participatory/dialogic revolution is true to an extent, but in the end, judging from my interviews, it seems that it really leans more to the side of being a glorified broadcast platform.
Those respondents under the age of 30 or those working jobs with a computer in front of view Booker’s use of Facebook as valuable to them. They believe that it gives them an inside look into what the Mayor is doing/thinking on daily basis. It helps them stay up on what is happening in the city and what some of the current issues are. Additionally, these respondents mentioned that since they were already on Facebook a lot, the FB platform was a convenient way to stay informed.
When I asked about whether or not they felt that the social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter made them feel closer to the Mayor, almost all respondents answered yes with the exception of one. This standout said that if the mayor is not replying to every person, then it is not really creating a closer relationship. When I told them that they were the only one to answer “no” they jokingly replied that they must just be old fashioned in the way they view relationships.
So what does this tell us? What is it really that the social media platforms like Facebook and twitter provide to constituents versus television and newspapers?
What it comes down to is convenience. One respondent mentioned that people her age (she is 23) are not inclined to follow politics in the newspapers or TV. However, when the mayor is sending out information via Facebook and twitter about important city issues or opportunities for community engagement, it is a far more effective way for getting people of her generation politically involved/aware.
Another respondent mentioned that Facebook was a great way to know about other ways to communicate with the mayor. For instance, had the announcement not been made on Facebook, this newark resident would not have known about a call in radio show with the mayor. She used the call in show as an opportunity to voice her concern about certain issues which lead to her getting a personal call from the mayor.
So what about the Mayor, what is it about the technology that allows him to reach his audience in a way thats different from TV or newspapers?
Social media has been defined by some as giving people the ability to self publish. It provides a broadcast channel to content that will not make it on a TV network or local newspaper. Additionally, it is instantaneous in its turn around. Given that Booker is one of those rare public servants who really wants to connect with his constituents, the platforms of Facebook and twitter give him the ability to do that all the time. If he were to depend strictly on TV, radio, or newspapers, he would be confined to their limitations which would not give him the ability to connect in the ways that he likes. The content of his weekly youtube updates might make it on local access TV, but even here contributors must meet certain guidelines which would be a production requirement that might slow him down.
Overall, the social media platform that Booker uses is really just a more efficient way of broadcasting his message. The social aspect of it is the conversation that takes place between the fans after he posts information or quotes. This, in my opinion, is a good thing. It generates political/civic conversation which to me is an indicator of people being concerned for their community. As far as anything social taking place between the constituents and the mayor on the platforms, that is more of an imagined relationship. But compared to the imagined relationship that the social networking tools used by obama’s campaign generated, the difference here is that Booker is a local character. If you like booker and participate in a civic activity, chance are you will see him and get to, at the very least, shake his hand, whereas with obama, you’ll be lucky to see him at any point in your lifetime.
It is for this reason that while the political use of social media to connect constituents with representatives may be illusory, I think that this illusion is of great benefit when applied to the local politics.
Special thanks to all the Booker fans who replied to my request for interviews!!
Possibly Relevant Posts:
- Can Social Media Change the Relationship Between Representatives and Consituents in Local Politics? (5) | Gabriel Mugar
- We’re ready, are they? (6) | Gabriel Mugar
- Corey Bookers Social Media Arsenal and how he uses it (0) | Gabriel Mugar
8 Comments
Yes, this comes down to the saying (free translation from Hebrew): “It is not enough for justice to be made, justice has to be heard”. My question though is, while they are indeed more engaged, would you say the closer communication makes the constituancy more or less critical of their representative?
The brand of information that is placed on the FB and twitter platforms is designed to get the citizens engaged and excited about their city. It is not being used to create critical debate, although there are definitely examples of people who voice their opinion about what the mayor is doing. Best example was when one girl said that all the mayors efforts were only leading to the gentrification of Newark. The mayor responded by requesting to chat with her through her personal email (I guess it could be an attempt to take the tough conversations off the fan page.)
So, to try and answer your question, if (and this is a big “if) people are only getting their information through FB and twitter then I think that it could lead to a less critical public.
Interesting. I find that this is my favorite thing about Twitter. I get access to thoughts and information from people – not my friends, but academics, business leaders, and artists I’m interested in. Social media as a broadcasting mechanism does seem valuable here, even in politics. Did you start this travelogue expecting to find more or less value at all?
I think that a lot of public figures use twitter and facebook in the way that they approach all media. They use the same normative behavior of information of one to many. Although those who utilize the platforms best are those that try to understand their feedback. While it has the illusion of being more peer to peer because everyone that wants to know information about you has their identity shown, rarely will a public figure respond to a single comment. What I think the real value of twitter and facebook pages, is it allows for an aggregation of popular opinion of a core audience. Social media help expedite the process of finding out a concerned audience thinks about the public figures latest update.
Because the content on twitter and facebook can go right from the mind of the creator to the press without passing through a whole host of steps typical of broadcast media, social media often gets characterized as being a more personal medium than broadcast. This results in people feeling like they are closer to those politicians or celebrities they are interested in. What I wanted to do was figure out what this idea of “closer” means and what it accomplishes in the realm of politics. Is it just a tool to get someone elected or can it be used to create a relationship where the representative can inspire constituents and constituents have a stronger voice…
my last comment was @allison
@ Lauren: I think I understand what you’re saying. Unfortunately facebook was being used to gauge the opinion of a concerned audience around inspirational quotes and good news updates in the city. While Im all for motivating people, I had hoped to see it being used as a means to provoke dialogue about important community issues.
I think you’re right, its a great way of aggregating opinion and concerns, it just needs to be done in a way that gets valuable input instead of only provoking adulation.
it’s always interesting when public figures, especially politicians, start using social networking tools. twitter became somewhat of a rage in India as well and when I was there, I remember reading about a twitter scandal. apparently a politician made a comment that was elitist and this twitter comment was all over the media for days on end. of course, many bemoaned the fact that some random twitter stuff was getting so much attention while people were starving and dying and such…
it makes me wonder – how many of these tweeting politicians are really themselves? I mean really just being themselves and not tweeting through some official that has to OK each tweet? there’s no real way of telling, is there? so, it could be that this gentleman is tweeting, but it could still be a calculated and monitored tweet. so this feeling of being ‘close’ could be more manufactured than I imagine! scary!
Gabe, although the message on social media platforms are able to go directly to the users/followers without passing through broadcast or print media, perhaps people realize that such mediation is simply going on behind the scenes. At the end of the day, politics is politics. I think its good that people realize this.