It is the 14th of April and I’m sitting on the train on the way home from work, reading a copy of the now free Evening Standard. I must admit I don’t usually bother with what I consider a load of propaganda, but every rule has at least one exception, and that fine Wednesday was it. What makes this a little different is that the election is just round the corner, and the paper is filled with page after page of political bore.
I turn to page 35, and I read what can only be described as fatuous opinionated and in fact contradictory bull from a Professor of Journalism at City University London, Roy Greenslade. From time to time I meet people like Roy, who believe that just because they are not on Facebook, social media has no relevance or place and particularly no power. More fool you.
His criticism starts with the following; “I am already heartily fed up with the knee-jerk claim, usually by people without a shred of knowledge, that this is Britain’s first internet election. It is not.”
I must admit that thus far, I don’t wholeheartedly disagree with him, but his arguments behind such a rash claim are somewhat thin or… yes that’s right, from a position of ignorance.
To break this down simply, I will look at six key arguments presented by Mr Greenslade and hopefully give some insight into his misjudgment.
He claims that politicians are falling over themselves to partake in this digital revolution, and sarcastically criticises the unimaginative use of just one, Facebook. Yet later in the article he highlights the effective use of David Cameroon’s YouTube Channel. Nice maths Roy. The fact is, even if politicians only used one platform to attempt to engage with their audience, Facebook would not be a bad choice. With 23 million UK users, it is not simply “in the background” as Roy suggests, it is a fundamental shift in the way we communicate.
Roy also argues that overall, Facebook, Twitter and blogging will make very little difference, and that mainstream media will play by far the biggest role. I am not going to argue that main stream media has less of an impact today, that would be unfounded, but for a large proportion of members, more time is spent browsing Facebook then watching TV. The Electoral Committee has in fact teamed up with Facebook to encourage the inclusion of people who were eligible to vote in the last election but did not register. In the 2001 elections, it was estimated this equated to 3.5 million people. The page, ‘Democracy’ now has 39,550 fans… wait 39,558..59…60. Sorry it keeps going up every time I refresh my page.
To argue that Facebook can never have as much impact as the “supposedly outmoded platforms of print, TV and radio” is ridiculous. Let’s look at last year’s Christmas No.1, Rage Against the Machine, who beat the highly televised and financially backed X-Factor single by Joe McElderry (cor that was a struggle to remember his name) through a single Facebook page. Rage Against the Machine are now performing a free gig to recognise the support it had from fans. I’d say that was a pretty decent result for social media, and guess how much it cost… nothing.
Roy looks at the incident of Scottish MP, Stuart MacLennan, and claims that “his ‘crime’ occurred months before the election was called and is of no lasting significance”. Roy, you may agree with MacLennan that X Factor judge Louis Walsh is a ”c***” or that his elderly constituents are ”coffin dodgers”, but I think he would disagree with you that it has no lasting significance, now that he has joined the ranks of the unemployed. I doubt any politician will be in a hurry to promote their own crude opinions.
The next criticism of social media I find highly amusing, as Roy argues that, “In marginal seats, it could well make a bit of a difference, but overall I just don’t see blogging, Facebook and Twitter having a massive impact”, and then goes on to say, “It is hard to imagine that floating voters in marginal seats – the people who really control the makeup of the next Parliament – are spending time assessing what’s available online.” Of course highly contradictory, the statement is also poorly thought out. Many of those who have not yet decided who to vote for are likely to turn to their peers for advice and guidance. Let’s face it, we are all a little ‘sheep’ like at times, and when better than those moments we are undecided on which political lies are less untrue than the next.
Finally, Roy’s (clearly vast) experience of ‘social media’ is derived from email campaigns to his constituents which under perform compared to good old fashioned knocking on doors. Research shows that generations x and y consider emails passe. Boston College stopped issuing email accounts to freshmen in 2009 because not enough students were using them. I hate to break it to you Roy, emails are not social media. Emails talk at people, the point of social media is listening first.
Could it be Mr Greenslade is simply a uninformed biased and peed off journalist? After all, with 24 of the 25 largest newspapers in the world seeing record declines, no wonder he is a University Professor. The only reason I do not entirely disagree with his initial statement is that politicians are not harnessing the potential power of social media effectively enough at the moment. This is not the first net election in that sense, but it does not mean that bloggers, journalists, opinioneers and yes, even ordinary people are not using it in that way. Whether you like it or not, social media will influence voters’ decisions and impact on the election.
