Social Media and Civic Engagement: An Oxymoron?

In spite of the numbers showing that not only is social media here to stay but that it will continue to shape the face of politics, there are still many skeptics out there--particularly those in the upper echelons of the political institutions we aim to address.  Personally, I don't blame their apprehension.  These days, with scandals like Weinergate and chatty cathy Blagojevich dominating the news cycle, from a politician's POV it seems better to play safe than sorrily have your career destroyed by a mere 140 characters.  After all, we have the same qualms in our personal lives; we are constantly building privacy firewalls in our Facebook settings and Twitter accounts so that strangers, potential employers, and colleagues can never find out who we really are outside the workplace.

However, when you dig deeper than the surface, this is absolutely the wrong attitude and an even more dysfunctional way to approach the social media phenomenon.  It can be argued that when cultivated and used strategically, social media has tremendous potential to spur democratic participation from the groundswell.  Not only can it be used to engage citizens from all over the social, geographic, racial, and economic spectrum, it can also provide a platform for smart, targeted debate on the issues that really matter.  When you think about it, the social media controversy is largely based on misunderstanding and close-minded attitudes.  The emergence of social networking does not have to mean that there is too much white noise and useless egotistical information out there, but it can also portray important lessons based on the increasing level of civic participation in the online sphere.

 

The White House White Board Initiative, a great example of marrying social media and political education

Earlier today, I had the privilege of watching a Brookings Institution panel set up by the Governance Studies Program entitled, "How Social Networking Can Reinvigorate American Democracy and Civic Participation."  Not only was it moderated by Darrell West, one of the prominent thinkers on the relationship between technology and democratic institutions, but it also featured a fascinating panel of people from a variety of industries: Macon Phillips, one of Obama's digital strategists in the '08 campaign and now a White House official, Diana Owen, a political science professor from Georgetown University, Lee Rainie from the prestigious PEW Research Institute, and Mindy Finn, a brilliant social media political consultant.  I found the conversation invigorating, extremely relevant, and forward-thinking, as it ranged from themes such as social media and journalism, foreseeing the role of new media in the '12 elections, and the digital divide with in the U.S. and around the world.

The panel from today's discussion (L-R):
Owen, Rainie, Phillips, and West (not pictured: Finn)

Some interesting themes that I found from this panel were:

• The level of civic education in early years of schooling is parallel to the use of social media for political and electoral purposes;
• Journalism is at the crossroads of attempting to incorporate new media in their traditional broadcasting archetypes while dealing with the tightening of belts in the newsroom;
• Social media is now equally representative of politicians shaking hands with constituents and kissing babies, as they will have to address the public more transparently and directly;
• Campaigns are going to be more decentralized and chaotic as once viral, civic discussions in the online sphere cannot be ignored by political officials and have the potential to drive agenda;
• Social media and civility are not antithetical, but rather compatible as it drives debate and important discourse;
• Participating in politics through social networking is not slacktivism, but rather drives engagement in various parts of the spectrum (passive/indifferent -> observer -> reader -> commenter -> broadcaster/sharer -> participant -> leader)
• In the near future, a Unified Theory of Communications that combine new and traditional media will need to be developed and assimilated into political communication studies.

All in all, it was extremely interesting and refreshing to hear people who have established careers and prominent academic backgrounds praise social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter for what they represent (democratic participation), rather than the typical contemptuous outlook that some self-deem they are "too sophisticated" for this phenomenon.

To read more about the event and Darrell West's conclusions from the panel discussion and Q&A, visit the Brookings Governance site here.

The Future of the News Industry = ???

According to the American Society of News Editors (ASNE), over 34,800 journalists, editors, columnists, and other newspaper-related professionals have been laid off since the height of the recession in 2008.  More and more Americans believe that print news is a less important source of information than the internet and television, and thousands of people are discontinuing their pricey subscriptions to newspapers and magazines by the day.  Now that the news industry is migrating to the web, it is no longer ludicrous to claim that a majority of print journalism will be obsolete by the end of the next decade.  This should be great news (no pun intended), shouldn't it?  After all, getting your news online is cheaper, greener, and more accessible than those flimsy newspapers that can never fold the way you want them to.  However, at second glance, there are some significant societal problems that can emerge if we don't pay attention to the evolution of the news and fail to adhere to the facets of responsible journalism.

As a Communications major, understanding the culture of media and the news is an extremely interesting theme for me.  Isn't it fascinating that journalists have such an important role in society--after all, they tell us what is going on in the world around us--but they are not held to as high a standard as other professions?  Why can a doctor have his MD revoked, or a lawyer his license disbanded if they conduct malpractice, but a journalist is only accountable to the vague ethics of objectivity?  How can right- and left-wing news sources claim they are committing to responsible journalism when they are owned by very partisan conglomerates, and thus, gatekeepers of information?  Although these questions draw very complex answers, the emergence of social media and the blogosphere in the news just makes things a lot more confusing.  By examining the major trends in social media and understanding the effects they have on the news (and democracy as a whole), I'm hoping to several predictions about the future of the news and what we need to do to preserve the values of the industry.

Check out my presentation, which I created through this amazing online software called Prezi, and I look forward to talking about this with you all on Wednesday!

Oh those TED talks, they never fail to inspire!

 

If you're a big news buff like me, you'll probably like this TED Talk by Clay Shirky on how social media is making history and changing the face of the news.  I know it's a not too revolutionary a concept these days with all this social media buzz going around, but I think it sums up the whole news-versus-social media dynamic really well and opens doors to a number of other issues that I wanted to address in my final project. Through my research I'm hoping to answer questions like:

•  What does the future of the news look like with the growing ubiquity of social media?  
• Does the partnership between social media and the news industry increase the objectivity and professionalism of the news, or lower its standards?  
• How can we better enhance this new wave of citizen journalism for the sake of preserving the quality of news, as well as the ability to obtain information from even the most oppressed societies around the world?

I'm still trying to hone the topic down a little better, but if you guys have any thoughts or suggestions on this I would greatly appreciate it.  Thanks! :)

"In a world where media is global, social, ubiquitous and cheap, in a world of media where the former audience are now increasingly full participants, in that world, media is less and less often about crafting a single message to be consumed by individuals... The question we all face now is, 'How can we make best use of this media? Even though it means changing the way we've always done it.'" - Clay Shirky

Auditing of STAND Now! Part II

Anti-Qaddafi Libyan rebels wave their national flag

The face of the world has greatly changed since my last post on STAND's social media presence just a few weeks ago.  An international coalition led by the U.S. and NATO forces militarily intervened in Libya to enforce the UN Security Council Resolution of a no-fly zone.  A new rebel movement grew momentum in the recently seceded Southern Sudan, further complicating its short and fragile history.  Members of U.S. Congress continue to debate the controversial details of the federal budget, increasing the looming possibility of a government shutdown.  All of these events, which have dominated the news cycles for weeks, have also impacted the operations of STAND and their social media campaigns.

Because of these developments around the world, it has been extremely interesting to follow STAND's social media presence throughout the past few weeks.  The impact of these events have not only proven that STAND utilizes their online tools to promote themselves as an organization, but that they also use social media to empower their members to help accomplish STAND's main agenda.  This, my friends, is groundswell in action!  For example, when accounts from Libya regarding violent government crackdown on anti-Qaddafi civilians were growing, STAND decided to use its social media presence to help their members advocate government action that would stop these atrocities against innocent civilians.  Through their Facebook, Twitter, and blog pages, they were able to take action by providing downloadable talking points for UpSTANDers to "Call the State Department now at (202) 647-5291 and ask for a no-fly zone over Libya."

Not only were STAND's efforts unique in this way, but they were also fruitful.  When the UN Security Council Resolution was passed on March 17th implementing a no-fly zone over Libya to reduce attacks against civilians, STAND was ecstatic and wanted to congratulate its fellow activists on their call to action.  This further portrayed their use of social media to empower their own groundswell:

Another example of how STAND's presence has been impacted by current events was when their annual Pledge2Protect campaign (which I discussed in my previous post) was disrupted due to the failure of Congress to introduce the genocide prevention bill in time for STAND to advocate during this event.  This is in part due to the government standoff regarding the budget and calls to reduce U.S. expenditures on foreign assistance (which, FYI accounts to less than 1% of the entire budget).  In spite of this, STAND decided to remain flexible and through its social media sources, shift the focus of their campaign from advocating this genocide prevention bill to providing invaluable training through a genocide prevention and activism boot camp.  Through suggestions from their members via online platforms, they were able to announce these changes and even decided to waive the $25 registration fee if those who already registered wanted to attend.  Talk about handling a crisis situation well!

Throughout this entire monitoring process, I have come to believe that STAND is unique in not only utilizing social media for marketing extremely well, but also for introducing never-seen-before initiatives that combine traditional and contemporary tactics of activism.  Because of this, it has been such a great and exceptional organization to monitor. 

However, through this monitoring process I have also come to understand that STAND still faces challenges that they will need to overcome in order to maximize their social media potential.  For instance, as it is an extremely large and decentralized organization with over 800 chapters all over the world, it has been difficult for social media auditors (like me) to analyze its large-scale impact.  Although STAND does have major social media outlets for its central headquarters, I would suggest further building their database to not only include a list of STAND chapters all over the world, but also links to the individual chapters' social media pages as well.  This way fellow UpSTANDers can see what the other chapters have been doing, and STAND officials can also keep a virtual eye on their different branches to make sure that the groundswell does not turn against them.

An Google map of STAND's different locations

Furthermore, as I mentioned in my last report, STAND is currently going through an "identity crisis," as they have recently changed their official name and main mission due to an expansion of their efforts.  For the sake of being able to monitor their social media impact, I believe it is important for STAND to be able to find an efficient title that is unique and able to track.  Although the word "STAND" is indeed clever, it is just not distinct enough to distinguish itself in this information-laden social media world.  Even their slogan, "Don't stand by, stand up!" is a phrase that is used in PSAs for anti-bullying campaigns.  Thus, although STAND has accomplished so much, I believe that they still need to find cohesion within their organizational identity and overall mission.  This issue will probably arise as STAND continues to grow as an organization, as they will confront the need to find an identity that will remain constant throughout their expansion.

In conclusion, I believe that everything STAND stands for (no pun intended) makes it such a unique organization to represent.  Its ability to empower the youth to not only be aware of ongoing injustices around the world, but also refuse to stand idly by as they occur, is completely consistent with their strategic use of novel social media tactics.  I believe that in their short history, STAND's actions have really impacted the discourse on U.S. foreign policy and a large part of their success has been accomplished with the assistance of social media tools.  It will be interesting to keep an eye on this organization and see how much they can grow--and how much they can shape anti-genocide policy--in the coming years.

What do YOU stand for?

Where Do We Go From Here? Reading Reflection #3

 
As we reach the end of the book, I found the last few chapters of Li and Bernoff's Groundswell optimistic, and their prediction future of companies continuing to improve due to the groundswell phenomenon rather reassuring.  After all, the main moral of this book is that the opinions of individuals affiliated with a company will be more and more valued with the growth of social media, whether its their customers or their employees.  This is great news, as the tools we have practically grown up with are going to be more pivotal in measuring the quality of a service or product as well as expressing ourselves as consumers.  Although it is still an ongoing evolution, it is safe to agree with Li and Bernoff that companies will soon be increasingly utilizing social media, rather than relying completely on creative departments of their own, to improve their products and services.

Standards are continuing to reshape itself even at this very moment.  Thanks to Groundswell, I know that if I someday end up working for a mid- to large-sized company that does not have social media outlets that they use to listen, empower, and respect their employees, it is an indicator of how little they care about their workers.  Same goes with a small company that does not have social media pages available to market themselves and listen to their groundswell: it shows that they are not thinking strategically and not committing that minimal effort to exploit social media to expand.  Reading Groundswell and knowing what is ideal and vital to success helps raise the bar on the quality of a company's work as well as their customer relations.

In addition, I found Chapter 11 on the employee groundswell extremely interesting, as it is now an increasing imperative to give all your employees the proper tools to be social media ambassadors.  In other words, not only should there be a centralized online site where employees can communicate with each other and throughout the hierarchy of the company ladder, but there should also be a top-down discourse that ensures company members that they are being listened to.  Furthermore, there should be regulations as to what is appropriate within each employee's individual social media sites and what they post in the company's main comment boards or pages.  After all, one company who divulges too much or too inaccurately could destroy a company's reputation in minutes.  It seems as though the dynamics of a company's future will be interesting, as younger people will continue to have more of a say in how a social media campaign should be approached, but guidance from senior officials about what is appropriate should still exist.

As Li and Bernoff seem extremely positive about the Groundswell phenomenon, I have to agree with them that this is the future of how businesses are run, how marketing is structured, and how shareholders and consumers will become increasingly important.  Hopefully as time goes on, social media standards (in other words, what is appropriate in personal and corporate social media use) will become more concrete in order preserve this valuable social communication phenomenon that is currently leading to better products and easier lives.