However, I do want to use last nights debate to think about how the public mind is shaped through social media.
In the past, television news programs, newspapers, talk radio and such centered our discussions about how Presidential debates were viewed. Political scientists, politicians, academics and journalists shaped how we understood the debates, and framed the information for the audience.
Last night, Twitter exploded with tweets over the various discussion topics between the hours of 8 and 11pm. Tweets surged with comments about Big Bird as well as moderator Jim Lehrer. Into today, Big Bird is still trending and various social media cites are providing an outlet for ongoing back and forth about Romney proposing pulling federal funding for PBS.
Facebook and Twitter allow citizens to engage in real time and render judgements about the success of each candidate.
Twitter scored Romney the debate's clear winner according to Peoplebrowsr, a Web analytics firm. The group found 47,141 tweets mentioning Romney and "win or winner" compared to just 29,677 mentioning Obama and "win or winner."
Consider the changing dynamic that realtime allows, it takes away our ability reflect and analyze. Bloggers blog, Tweeters Tweet, as they watch the drama unfold. It makes you wonder how it affects our ability to think critically.
Social media as a tool of information exchange about important issues is valuable. However, 'speaking without thinking' is not always a good thing. This is especially true when the discussion at hand is so important and the care with which we have it should be equally so.
It seems like people are too busy to take a second to think about what they're posting. Whenever I see something floating around Facebook I try to validate the information, even if it's just a quick jaunt to Snopes. It's amazing how quickly misinformation spreads. I would rather take a few minutes to validate the information before re-posting incorrect information.
ReplyDeleteI think often the debates themselves are irrelevant and that the drama is actually played out in the pundit analysis of the debate. I remember watching the debates between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000. Bush was clearly uninformed and largely clueless about most of the issues that were brought up. He either agreed with Gore or brought up other talking points to cover his lack of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the follow-up to the debate the television and radio pundits labeled Gore as "stiff" and Bush as "charming." That is what was broadcast to the masses. That is what stuck. When I listened to the analysis of the debate I wondered if I had seen the same thing.
This tendency to "spin" makes it almost impossible to find good information.