Rebecca Pineiro ENGW 3308 10/08/2014 Working Draft 1 Question I’m trying to answer: To what extent has social media affected public opinion and promoted political socialization? Introduction The use of the internet has ur\loubtedly improved modern life by connecting people, rapidly broadcasting information, afd allowing people to participate in society ‘Skecifically, membership to social networks have from the comfort of their homes\Mi ‘ yurse with virtual friends and participate in social movements. Howevpf, while itis easy tOyecognize the conveniences the internet has afforded society, public opinion and entities is increasingly popular as society moves away from their newspapers and popular as society moves a P towards thei gmdgets-in the modern age, nearly all political actors utilize social media and networking to propagate information, which lead scholars to question whether this shift has impacted public opinion by influencing political participation w & > Social Media and its Effect on Political Engagement \ It is important to make the distinetion between social media and social networks: social media is the content shared, whereas social networks are the platforms in which social media exists. Social media is an effective content-based tool used by governments, groups, news media, and individuals to spread information to the masses in a relatively cheap and instantaneous manner (Maarek 2011). On a social network such as Facebookor Twitter, users create a virtual circle which digitizes their everyday life by following actual friends, family and acquaintances, but also given the opportunity to follow specific interests or groups, such as non-profits, political parties, and politicians (Maarek 2011). Zheng, Yohison) Selzter, a fuse both terms and call them social capital. Zheng et a-define political participation as any actions taken to directly or indirectly influence the outcome of public policy or the selection of elected officials. According to the authors, social capital and political participation have a positive relationship (Zheng et al. 2010). Ona social network such as Facebook or Twitter, user AY create a virtual circle which digitize their everyday lives by allowing them to follow » actual friends, family and acquaintances. Because of this, there is a high level of trust ¢ that exists with receiving information the this medium that does not exist through mass media and broadcast news (Zheng etal, 2010). Consequentially, the relationship between associations and political participation is in effect a virtuous circ! friend becomes politically active on social networks, it creates a tend and multiplies through said person's friends, their friends and so on Vengah s once one ‘Nathaniel Swigger argues that although all networks are different, they all share and seeking out the publications of others. Individuals are welcomed to the site with a e an aspect in common which is their allowance and encouragement of self-publicizing x y prompt allowing them to share their personal details and opinions in a way which was “hy non-existent and outside of the norm a decade ago (Swigger 2013). Swigger’s study WYP sound that the setf-publicizing feature reflected an individual's value of their freedom of expression, which Tent itself to politcal participation whether or not the person was + predisposed to engage in political discourse. People self-publicize opinions aboutcurrent events regardless of their intention is to spark a conversation about politics (Swigger 2013). 1 Social Media and its Effect on Political Cognition and Public Opinion Online socialization defines one's virtual simulation of their friends and followers with similar interests or common backgrounds. One issue that complicates political socialization through social networking is the fact that an individual's network of friends may be ideologically homogenous, which limits one’s exposure to political information if \¥ it is not prioritized within their community (Gaines and Mondak 2009). Another issue with homogenous networks is that the information that is publicized is very polarized te and may not be ideologically challenged by one’s like minded few which leads to WK ‘ unproductive discussion on political views (Sunstein 2008). Zheng etal. offedthe caveat Y that although social networks may open one up to political discourse, an individual's choice to participate is wholly voluntary and if the desire to engage is not present, it is unlikely they will regardless of their peers. Regardless, Zheng et al. acknowledge that social media increases political cognition. An individual may receive preliminary information on a candidate or issue by glancing through their news feed, and will subconsciously absorb the information and come to an internal opinion or conclusion (Postelnieu and Cozma 2008). In a study performed by Postelnicu and Cozma, they concluded that individuals were more likely to research 2006 congressional candidates on their own after discovering their friends’ support of a person on MySpace. Zheng et al. ultimately deduct that an individual’s political attitudes will be influenced by whether they had a positive or negative interaction on the internet. Thatis, whether they engaged in constructive political discourse and debate, or whether the experience was intolerant and polarized. The extent to which social networks impact society's political leanings is hard to study empirically, and the authors deem that more VU: Social Media and its Effect on Preferential Voting ¥ research should be done. Research by Niels Spierings and Kristof Jacobs shows that candidates for office are eager to participate in self-publicizing on social networks, but few people follow candidates. Spierings and Jacobs discuss how the American tradition of grassroots campaigning has evolved into using social media to campaign for electoral support. The researchers analyze Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign and their revolutionary use of social media, especially their utilization of Facebook, to come to their conclusions (Spierings and Jacobs 2014). Spierings and Jacobs argue that a candidate's Facebook page has a direct effect on preferential voting. Facebook allows candidates to share personal information, such as their hobbies, intimate pictures of their family, and socio-demographic characteristics. This information creates a personality centered campaign, where people who find commonality or connection to this information find the candidate more favorable (Spierings and Jacobs 2014). There is also a symbolic value to a candidate's Facebook page which makes them appear to be modern, forward thinking and far from old fashioned (Spierings and Jacobs 2014). Philippe Maarek acknowledges the political attractiveness of having a social networking page, but offers the condition which argues that the social media shared is artificial and tailored to specific voter bases. Spierings and Jacobs agree, stating that thepresence of a social networking page is not merely enough but offers a more human point of view aside from a candidate's campaign platform. Although the image portrayed by their use of social media is highly tailored, a candidate's use of social networks to connect with voters increases political discourse and allows for saliency and name recognition (Spierings and Jacobs 2014). Maarek, however, agrees that there is value in the buzz surrounding a candidate's shared media and cites Barack Obama’s campaign and the popularity of his resonating catchphrase “Yes We Can” as a result of viral media shared online (Maarek 2011). Zheng et al. argue that correct use of social media can lead to a successful campaign and victory. They too study Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign and credit his knowledge of technology and the internet to giving him an upper hand over John McCain, whose rejection of social media made him appear old-fashioned and distant to the younger voter base. The Obama campaign's use of Facebook to publicize events, fundraise, attract volunteers and allow individuals to self-publicize their support of him onto their page with shareable media created a multiplier effect which made support for him almost contagious (Zheng et al.). Spierings and Jacobs's findings support the claim of the multiplier effect as it pertains to preferential voting. Their study, which analyzed the use of Twitter by 493 major party candidates in the 2010 Dutch Parliamentary elections, found that social networking sites are only effective if used often. Spierings and Jacobs found that every tweet sent from the candidate’s page added 11 votes per 1,000 followers due to the multiplier effect. That one tweet would be shared by a supporter, whose friends would see it and prefer that candidate over their opponents.Bibliography Gaines, Brian J. and Jeffrey J. Mondak, Typing Together? Clusterting of Ideological ‘Types in Online Social Networks. Journal of Information Technology and Politics 6. 2009: (216-231). Goodnow, Trischa. “Facing Off: A Comparative Analysis of Obama and Romney Facebook Timeline Photographs.” American Behavioral Scientist 57. 2013: (4584-1595). Jacobs, Kristof and Dr. Niels Spierings. “Getting Personal? The Impact of Social Media on Preferential Voting,” Political Behavior 36. 2014: (215-234) Maarek, Philippe. Campaign Communication and Political Marketing. (West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2011) 158-175. Postelnicu, M. and Raluca Cosma. Social Network Politics: A Content Aanalysis of MySpace Profiles of Political Candidates From the 2006 U.S. Midterms. National Communication Associ jon. 2007. Swigger, Nathaniel, “The Online Ci s Social Media Changing Citizen's Beliefs About Democratic Values?” Political Behavior 35. 2013: (589-603).Sunstein, Cass. Democracy and the Internet. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Zhang, Weiwu, Thomas J, Johnson, Trent Seltzer, and Shannon L. chard. “The Revolution Will Be Networked: The Influence of Social Networking Sites on Political Attitudes and Behavior.” Social Science Computer Review 28. 2010: (75-92).Rebecca Pineiro ENGW 3308 10/08/2014 Annotated Bibliography “With Chicago style citations Yagoodnon: Trischa, “Facing Off: A Comparative Analysis of Obama and Romney Facebook Timeline Photographs.” American Behavioral Scientist §7. 2013: (584-1595). & inthis article, Trischa Goodnow discusses the effectiveness of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama’s Facebook Timeline photos during the 2012 presidential election. Goodnow looks at some of Romney and Obama’s most memorable posts and studied how these frameworks for their photos altered public opinion. Goodnow delves deep into her study insofar as to read into the most obscure details in a photograph. ‘€— Mischa Goodnow is a Professor of Speech Communications at Oregon State University where her research focuses on propaganda and our cognitive reactions to strong language and imagery 2) Jacobs, Kristof and Dr. Niels Spierings. “Getting Personal? The Impact of Social Media on Preferential Voting.” Political Behavior 36. 2014: (215-234). Jacobs and Spierings’s piece defines the importance of a candidate's presence on the internet and its effect on the results of an upcoming election. The author's present two hypotheses: whether the amount of followers a candidate's social media page has garners them more votes, or whether the actual use of their social media accounts earns them more votes. The authors emphasize that there is a lack of empirical data on this, sothey create their own test through studying the use of Twitter in the 2010 Dutch Parliamentary election. Kristof Jacobs is a Professor of Political Science at Radboud University in The Netherlands where his research specializes in challenges to democracy and he teaches Political communication. Dr. Niels Spierings is a research fellow at the London School of Economics where his research has focused on the political impact of the internet and social media. 3) Maarek, Philippe. Campaign Communication and Political Marketing. (West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2011) 158-175. Phillippe Maarck is a professor of Information and Communication Sciences at the University of Paris. His book, Campaign Communication and Political Marketing discusses both traditional and contemporary forms of communication used to legitimize and promote a campaign or candidate. In his chapter titled “The Growing Importance of the Internet”, Maarek discusses the inevitable usage of the internet as a campaign tool in the form of campaign websites, blogs, advertisements, e-mails, videos and messages 4) Swigger, Nathaniel. “The Online Citizen: Is S cial Media Changing Citizen’s Beliefs About Democratic Values?” Political Behavior 35. 2013: (589-603). Nathaniel Swigger’s article explores online socialization, and how our virtual decision making reflects our personal preferences. This article focuses on how our online engagement affects our civic participation and political identities. Most- important to me within his article is his exploration of our creation of “social networks” which reflect our “personal networks”. Nathaniel Swigger is a Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University, and has been published in numerous academic Political Science journals. His research focuses on the psychology behind our political decisions and how they came to be. 5) Zhang, Weiwu, Thomas J. Johnson, Trent Seltzer, and Shannon L. Bichard. “The Revolution Will Be Networked: The Influence of Social Networking Sites on Political Attitudes and Behavior.” Social Science Computer Review 28. 2010: (75 92). Weiwu Zhang et al's piece “The Revolution Will Be Networked...” explores the move from conventional television and print media towards virtual media. The group of researchers also creates a study where they analyze whether the shift has caused the public's political participation and knowledge to increase. Its findings show that political participation does increase through using social media sites such as Facebook and ‘Twitter because we are being exposed to our more politically engaged friends’ ideas on the state of affairs. Weiwu Zhang et al. are a conglomerate team of professors and professionals from Texas Tech University. Weiwu Zhang, the principal writer of the project, holds a PhD in Mass Communication and focuses his research on propaganda and public opinion. ‘Thomas (Tom) J. Johnson is currently a professor of electoral journalism and communications at the University of Texas at Austin. Trent Seltzer is currently the Chairof the Department of Public Relations at Texas Tech University. Shannon L. Bichard is ‘an Associate Professor of Public Opinion and Propaganda at Texas Tech University