send to a friend | print | comment

Social media and social responsibility

This weekend, a minister in Florida was planning to burn copies of the Koran. This provocative plan garnered a lot of attention and condemnation, eventually leading to the church canceling the event. However, maybe more notable is the fact that the a church with only 50 members is getting national and world attention at all. That is the new reality of new media.

YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and the growing penetration of access to the Internet and cable TV all mean that the actions of an extremely small minority of Americans can elicit outrage all over the world. As we have seen with recent elections, social media can also lead to the downfall or success of political candidates. In 2006, Republican George Allen lost after video of him using a racially insensitive remark spread across YouTube. In 2008, Barack Obama’s comment about people in rural Pennsylvania clinging to guns and religion was all over the Internet, which may have helped Hillary Clinton win by a comfortable margin in the primary here.

Tip O’Neill famously remarked that all politics is local. That still remains true to an extent, but more and more it is becoming clear that all politics is both local and global. We are living in an interconnected world where no man is an island unto himself.

Twenty years ago, would a candidate compare his opponent to other candidates across the country in the same way that Joe Sestak has done in comparing Pat Toomey to Sharron Angle and Rand Paul? Maybe, but in 2010, those comparisons can carry more weight with videos of candidates floating around the Internet so that people in Pennsylvania can easily know all about the candidates in Kentucky and Nevada.

The other big change is the proliferation of national donors, especially when a campaign rises to national prominence through some controversy. When Republican Joe Wilson yelled “You Lie” during President Obama’s speech to Congress last year, both he and his opponent raised millions of dollars online, making a congressional race in South Carolina suddenly one of the most expensive races in the country.

Recently, there has been some controversy brewing between Congressman Jim Gerlach (R-6) and Democratic challenger Manan Trivedi over Trivedi’s financial support from the Indian-American community. Regardless of the controversy itself, the fact is that because of it, Trivedi’s campaign has received greater national exposure and will likely have a greater chance to raise a substantial amount of money online. In the 3rd Congressional District, pa2010.com reported on a video of someone trying to get incumbent Democrat Kathy Dahlkemper to admit that she’ll support Nancy Pelosi for speaker if she wins reelection. That kind of video can easily spread online and bring more donations into Dahlkemper’s opponent.

Information both good and bad can spread online like a virus. The research done regarding the connections between Jim Schneller’s petitions and Bryan Lentz’s volunteers wouldn’t gain much traction if left to just the local papers, but online it can spread and lead to a bigger story, more contributions, and more motivation for volunteers. Whatever campaign takes advantage of new media best has a significant advantage over their opponent.

With the rise of social media comes the need for greater social responsibility. Words matter more than ever before and actions have exponentially greater consequences. The actions of a small church in Florida can stoke the flames of anger around the world. A candidate’s inappropriate comment can destroy their chances for election or maybe even motivate their own base. Either way, the world can change in ways nobody would expect with just the click of a link. It is up to everybody, from politicians to volunteers to realize that their actions may have a greater impact than they could imagine.

In other words, listen to your mother and think before you speak. You never know how many millions might end up hearing you.

Between now and Election Day, any number of candidates in Pennsylvania alone could say something that changes the course of the campaign in an instant. A rising star could fall and a sinking ship could rise. With the lightning-fast spread of information, campaigns would be smart to not count their chickens before they hatch and, more importantly, expect the unexpected.

September 10, 2010 at 8:30 am

--Tony Heyl

comments

comments [2] | post a comment