Everyone keeps talking to me about “democracy being threatened” and it’s quite some bullshit. That topic and all the articles stating it should say “old democracy is being threatened” instead because there are many politicians who turn the internet into an advantage instead of a threat. Just try and search Twitter, Facebook or YouTube for your favourite politician.
With this entry I intend to clarify why democracy may be threatened by the internet.
Almost all politicians begin to see the advantages of the internet. Barack Obama is a great example of a person who takes voters by storm with the internet’s possibilities. On Barack Obama’s homepage there’re around 1.5 million accounts which belong to supporters and keep in mind that it only took him 2 years to become president[1].
What many politicians (including Danish ones) like Obama must’ve realised because they got successful is the following:
· The internet is a fairly cheap place to advertise
Accounts for Facebook and Twitter are free and then you can create “groups” which remind ordinary people of a political party. Websites made of templates (usually a blog like this) can easily be bought and managed for less than £50 a month. A professional isn’t needed but will definitely improve the blog for campaigning.
· It’s quite an ubiquitous tool to spread information with
Today many young people carry smartphones everywhere, which can access the internet and it’s a known fact that the people who politicians are focusing on reaching are swing voters which most often are people under the age of approximately 25.
· The newspapers and the TV news reach less and less people[2]
In 1985 75% of those who watched TV saw the news. In 2010, 25 years later, only 20% of those who watched TV see (verbal tense) the news. Therefore politicians have to begin adapting to the internet.
· Through very popular social networks like Twitter and Facebook[3] it’s possible to make readers/followers share what they read with their friends, who might share it once again.
In the advertising industries it’s a fact that viral advertising (the advertising based on sharing and like a virus) will be perceived with less of a critical mind than ordinary advertises.
Let’s not forget to mention the internet services like YouTube, which enable us and the politicians to publish videos.
· The internet enables persons to establish relations with people who live far away without travelling.
This point doesn’t need further explanation does it? Else comment.
Of course there is a downside to the internet in connection with campaigning. For one the fact that earlier on insignificant persons had a hard time becoming significant, but now they can easily create an account on Facebook or Twitter and then publish small entries about their personal opinions. It’s still pretty important to be popular so that people read and share your entries, but it’s really easy to do. This applies to YouTube as well.
This means that if one person has had a bad experience with a politician he/she can publish the story and in no time it’ll be spread across the internet and modern media might snap it up and give the story a boost on TV.
In conclusion the threat to democracy lies in the fact that every person who was insignificant earlier on has gotten more power because he/she can publish his/her opinions very easily. It’s also possible for everyone to share their experiences or others people’s opinions which they have in common.
Politicians should take the internet as a challenge and use it to their advantage by adapting into blogging, uploading videos and even spreading bad rumours about other politicians. I distance myself from this, but it is a possibility). Especially politicians must accept that the internet is a modern thing which many people use so they have to use it as better than them.
Please feel free to comment if you have any extra opinions on the internet’s threat to democracy.
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar