I want start my column today by thanking my colleague for the idea. We were chatting, ironically by email, when he suggested that an interesting column might be to discuss how political communication has changed as a result of the development of technology. There have been so many examples of how technology has changed the political game over the last years that it seems timely to make some observations.
Clearly there are at least two ways to think about the opening up of communication technology. First, one can argue that technology and particularly social media have opened up the possibility for a greater democratization of politics. On the other hand, one could argue that social media and technology have created many more opportunities for one's private character to be revealed to a much wider public. Clearly having very distinct public and private natures can be problematic in contemporary politics when every word one says can be posted far and wide. It is really a new world of politics especially to those who still believe that it is appropriate to say something in private that one would not say in public.
In terms of democratization, communication technology has fundamentally changed the way young people get their information. As a university educator for just over 17 years, I have seen such a rapid change in the breadth and depth of sources to which students have access. Yet there is such information overload that the depth can be lost especially when so much of the information comes in short bursts of 140 characters or less.
I was thinking more about this after the column I wrote last week about youth engagement. I suggested that political issues will really have to be relevant to youth if there is any hope of young people turning out to vote in large numbers. Elections BC has decided to try to attract the youth vote and very sensibly they went to Emily Carr University to consult and collaborate with youth to figure out some strategies. In an article written by Laura Rogers for the Ubyssey, she cites the course instructor involved in the project who said that the students decided to focus on Facebook and Tumblr rather than Twitter. The instructor explained that the students had greater insight into what social media was being used by students. Presumably, these social media technologies could be used to open up some dialogue with young people about elections and processes that traditional media can no longer do.
I must admit that I had to look up Tumblr because I had never heard of it. The Emily Carr students and Elections BC have nothing to fear with me as I can assure you I am way out of their target group. Anyway, it remains a fascinating new area of study to see if social media can make much of a difference. The jury is still out.
From another perspective, social media has made the 24 hour news cycle into the 24 second news arena. Ever heard of Scott Prouty? Maybe not but you probably watched as he single-handedly changed the tone of the U.S election by posting a video of Mitt Romney saying, "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what ... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." These comments, caught on tape, went (as our youth say) "viral."
Sometime ago, in this column I suggested that Mitt Romney was actually saying these things to pander to a certain political group and that this demonstrated more about American politics than it did about Romney's private character. Nonetheless in those few words, recorded for everyone to see and hear, social media had done the damage.
I am somewhat on edge about the idea that someone could be watching and recording our every move. There is no doubt, as the recent scandal in BC politics reminds us, even our email, which we may think is private, is not safe from unwanted distribution. In the past we were taught "buyer beware" in the present we should think "twitterers take heed.
