Civic Discourse via Social Media

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

moreover the control and misinformation of citizens challenge the possibilities inherent in the public sphere. Open discussions become hazardous, as the state is able to gather information and control the public via new information technologies.

Despite these negative aspects of electronic media, when considering the establishment of public sphere it still prevails over traditional media tools. Accessing information, participation in debate and in the formation of public will, new media compared to traditional media offers much more opportunities. However, the erosion or transformation of the media’s old functions leads us toward a reconsideration of the role of media in this new setting. In addition, this process not only changes the functions of the media, but also the way that individuals, groups, communities and the overall society live and communicate. As public construction of news comes to the front, Habermas’ sphere of “critical publicity”

(Habermas, 1989: 248) becomes functioning. Assuming a significant social impact of digital communication, the main question that remains is how to use what we have already learned in order to maneuver events toward preferred directions.

2.2.2 Civic Discourse via Social Media

The increasing popularity of Social Media facilities, especially blogging and social networking provide new opportunities for civic discussion. Many studies have pointed out the use of Social Media for gathering and sharing information and participating in discussions about election campaigns, candidates and parties. For example, a study conducted in March 2011, by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that one in five adult Internet users turned to social networks to get or share information about the midterm elections last year.

“The study also found that 53 percent of Internet users went online to engage in some kind of

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

campaign-related activity,” like watching political videos or sharing and discussing information (Preston, 2011).

Gulati and Williams (2007) researched Facebook usage during the 2006 midterm elections and found that Facebook played an important role in the 2006 races by transmitting information, thus SNSs are capable of influencing the electoral process. However, due to the fact that social networking is mainly the activity of young adults (18-to-29 year olds) who have a lower voter turnout rate, the authors were not completely convinced that Facebook use helped the candidates to achieve a greater support. Similar results were found by Karan et al.

(2008), studying the 2007 elections in the Philippines. Baumgartner and Morries (2010) researched the political engagement of young adults through social networking. The authors concluded that the potential for SNS to raise the political engagement of youths has not been realized, thus they question that the Internet has the possibility to revolutionize political activeness among the new generation. Their main consideration is that users tend to visit likeminded sites, thus rarely meeting with opposite views and that their political engagement is limited to Internet activity.

With regards to blogs, Drezner and Farrell (2008) provide a complete investigation into the consequences of blogging on politics. The authors bring up several examples when blogs actually shaped politics and political outcomes, however, they also point out that this process is usually random. The main reason is that blogs, according to a 2006 poll by the Reuters, are the least trusted sources of information (Drezner and Farrel, 2008: 5), since they are written by ordinary individuals. Drezner and Farrel (2008: 8) also indicate that there is a high degree of disparity in the relative visibility of blogs. This leads to the creation of elite blogs which attract attention from other bloggers and the political elite overall, and thus easily reframe political issues.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

The idea of elite blogging was also presented by Davis, concerning the case of the UK (Davis, 2010: 110-113). The author found that ordinary citizens are becoming disconnected as policy elites form ‘elite discourse networks’ through new media channels that only give limited access to the wider public, and instead, is open to a privileged, politically-oriented reader-audience. Davis states that the proliferation of new media sites and especially blogs, are only useful for those who have been already engaged with politics and rarely attracts those who turned away from party and institutional politics.

Davis (2005: 67) had similar findings in an earlier book researching the political impact of electronic discussion. He states that online debates in reality are quite far from what they ideally could be. Online political talk “features dominance by a few, who consciously act to maintain … hegemony.” In addition, Davis points out that bloggers often undermine the standards of traditional news media as they often lack of respect, resources and expertise (2005: 43). However, blogs are nearly costless and easily accessible sources of information, therefore, they should stand as a supplement and not as a substitute for traditional media channels.

Van Ham (2010: 96-105) researched social power in the era of new media. He claims that although political change cannot be brought about just by these media revolutions, blogs and another Social Media channels can set agendas and attract public attention on certain issues. Van Ham brought up the example of governmental control over blogs and other Internet-based communication tools in autocratic states, which indicates the growing political importance of blogging (van Ham, 2010: 99). The author was positive about the potential political impact of Social Media, but pointed out that since anyone can write, edit and add to these media channels, there is a huge uncertainty and distrust over the reliability of information.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Kushin and Kitchener (2009) focused on the Internet’s, in particular Facebook’s potential for political debate equally exposing supportive and opposing viewpoints. The authors studied a politically centered Facebook group and found that Facebook plays a minor role in encouraging posting oppositional ideas to the group’s original stance. However, they also admitted that possibilities for group creation are unlimited, therefore, Facebook users with different viewpoints have the chance to find a group with likeminded members or create a group on their own. The study also found that the style of the posts is sometimes uncivil or aggressive, although, 75% of the posts were civil and represented a willingness of participants to engage in a discussion group (Kushin and Kitchener, 2009: 14). Therefore, the authors refused the idea that online discussion would discourage the participation of polite and respectful commentators (e.g., Davis, 1999).

Perhaps the most related research was developed by Clay Shirky (2011a) in his article about the political power of Social Media. The author claims that Social Media enhances the chances for information access and the ability for collective action helping a loosely coordinated mess of people express their desire for change (Shirky, 2011a: 29-30). However, Shirky also admits that these tools can only work in the long run and “that they have the most dramatic effects in states where a public sphere already constrains the actions of the government.” As a response to the claims (e.g., boyd and Ellison, 2008) that Social Media is only used for commerce, socialization and self-disclosure, Shirky refers to political works that had great influence in the past, although, were not the most popular readings.

Shirky recalls the role of traditional media in the Eastern European demonstrations in 1989 and states that its main function was to strengthen the public sphere and thus support the initiative for social change. The major opportunity inherent in either traditional or Social Media is that it allows people to carry on discussions about different viewpoints. “A slowly developing public sphere, where public opinion relies on both media and conversation, is the

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

core of the environmental view of Internet freedom” (Shirky, 2011a: 34). Shirky’s main point is that Social Media is not a replacement for real actions, but a supplement, a tool to coordinate the public and strengthen civil society.

These views entailed an enormous amount of literature, especially after the break out of the ‘new’ Arab revolts in the beginning of 2011. Malcolm Gladwell (Gladwell, 2011) addresses the question of whether these uprisings could have happened in the absence of Social Media. Similarly, Lisa Anderson (Anderson, 2011) refers back to the protests of the Arab world in 1919 when there was no Social Media and indeed, there wasn’t even a need of it to spark upheavals. Shirky (2011b) replies that Social Media only provides a tool for altering the picture of the public sphere. It enables citizens to raise their voice, express their opinions and organize actions at a higher level than before these tools were at hand. Social Media cannot substitute traditional media, but should be a supplement of it.

The above discussion serves as a proof for the power of Social Media, indicated by political related discourses. It is clear that Social Media offers a range of possibilities, however, those are not entirely exploited yet.