How do Politicians Use Social Media?

Just a collection of ethical thoughts

         A quite common practice in the lives of politicians is the use of social media to have a sort of online persona that can be easily spotted online by the assemblage of party followers. This does not mean that there is or will be some kind of open communication between this public figure, whose profile is probably managed by someone like a community manager, and people who are interested in listening to them or their detractors. From a mere ethical standpoint, it looks like their social media persona is vote-hunting or proselytizing for their opinions’ acceptance.

         Dr. Kajsa Falasca (n.d.) considers that “individual politicians may be active but [her] belief is that social media will be used like an ordinary advertising channel.” And it can be certain that if Twitter profiles, like the ones belonging to a country’s president, are there to pump out their message “and then let their followers do the work” (Falasca, n.d.), which in this case is to drop the bomb and see how followers and detractors “fight over” their points of view. For Dr. Mitchell Hobbs, these political public fugures should “use social media as direct communication with citizens” and for him “that’s its greatest strength and asset” (University of Sydney, 2020). However, seeing what happens with President Trump’s Twitter account, e.g., lots of bombs are dropped to stir up the media and cause a tactically prepared reaction, some would say. One expects to see dire repercussions arising when these bombs reach news networks that tend to tell people of shadows and forebodings of a obscure future coming ahead, but followers and detractors seem to enjoy the debate, each one definding their trench position.

         For Dr. Hobbs, “Tweets coming from politicians are open dialogues, especially if people answer to them” (University of Sydney, 2020). Nevertheless, though it is very desireable that people answer to them, what is expected is to see is an honest dialogue between the politician and people. But as put out before, oftentimes political parties “use the media as a channel for advertising” (Falasca, n.d.), and not as a channel to listen to the electorate and analyze what they expect from them even if there is a group of individuals managing a Twitter account that is not theirs. But on the other hand, what is commongly seen around here in Costa Rica with our political figures and opinion shapers, e.g., is what Dr. Falasca (n.d) has already pointed out for Sweden, “if a post has a great impact, it can be used and emphasised again and thus give the senders great publicity without actually doing a great deal themselves.” The job is done by the electorate debating over what wants to be re-shared and re-emphasized by politicians and their political parties. No such a thing as an open dialogue exists; what can be seen in the background are cunning and covetous social media strategists holding their blazing tourches to guide followers and detractors to “fight” their battles, to do their job.

         In the ideal world, messages coming from politicians in social media are open dialogues. For Dr. Hobbs (University of Sydney, 2020), tweets should be a great opportunity to a) communicate with the electorate, b) address vote casters’ issues and concerns, and c) hopefully win the electors’ votes. It looks like this is not exactly happening with every single politician in many nations across the glove when one gets to watch international news. At the international level, for instance, Trump’s Twitter account’s social media communication specialists follow Dr. Hobbs’ ideas, but not in terms of an open dialogue. As someone who follows President Trump in Twitter, never have I seen this dialogue taking place but a the fagots of firewood burning in CNN. And as pointed out before, in the case of Costa Rican politicians, the absence of dialogue and the honest and open exchange of ideas is not happening either. Whether this is done on purpose or not, what is being read between the lines here, following Rolland Barthes’ ideas, is not an open conversation but lots of secrecy.

         To sum up and trying to be ethically well-balanced, the guiding principle behind social media communication with citizens should be “to try to be authentic, to be charismatic, and to be likeable” (University of Sydney, 2020). What worries here is that as part of those indepent thinkers who do not follow political dogmas is that politicians are not genuine to their followers, lack charisma to guide the electorate, and engage with the wrong influencers. One gest to discover that a politicians authenticity is nebulously hazy; their so-called charisma is just a fuzzy, blurred façade that does not inspire any reliability on them. And in the case of influencers, knowing how these online personas work at times, they simply bias and sways people’s opinions to win votes for an employer, for an individual they hardly know as a political figure.

References

Falasca, K. (n.d.). How does the political parties use social media? Who is actually working for whom? Retrieved September 24, 2020, from Mid Sweden University: https://www.miun.se/en/Research/archive/how-do-the-parties-use-social-media-who-is-actually-working-for-whom/

University of Sydney. (2020). Politics and social media. Interview with Dr Mitchell Hobbs, University of Sydney. Retrieved September 21, 2020, from FutureLearn.Com: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/ethical-social-media/1/steps/824157

How Do Politicians Use Social Media by Jonathan Acuña on Scribd

Friday, September 25, 2020