Attention GOP: New Media Is Here to Stay
The fact is, social media is here to stay and an incredibly valuable tool for creating a community around a persona and/or message. Why would a politician, of all people, avoid that? Politicians are in the business of self-branding and selling ideas. They need to stop viewing the internet as the Red Light District of modern media city and realize that Web 2.0 is the way politicians will share messages, raise money, and motivate action in the future.
Exhibit A: Barack Obama. Do Republicans want to be left in the dust for good?
But there are even bigger dangers for Republicans should they decide to avoid social media: their enemies aren’t avoiding it. That is, just because a picture wasn’t loaded on the internet by the politician doesn’t mean that some friend, family member, or anonymous person hasn’t tagged him in a picture on some social network. For example, on Facebook, I’ve made it my personal mission to UN-tag myself from pictures from my past. Not because I have any history to be ashamed of, but because I don’t want old friends or family to be harassed by someone. They don’t need the trouble. It is work to build a reputation in the real world — well, social media is not virtual, it’s real, too. Real pictures, real papers, real quotes, real evidence of a life richly led.
Another danger is that a person’s identity can be co-opted. Just like an identity thief can steal a phone bill and find a way to take over your persona, an online person can use a person’s name and pretend to be him or her. It’s more difficult to co-opt an established online person. A person has a voice and a rhythm to their social interaction that is difficult to steal.
Former Haskell, Oklahoma councilman and social media expert Sid Burgess contends, “Companies who are not learning what they need to know in real time (change opinion, problem solving, etc) are wide open for losing market share to a company who is wiling to do the extra work to stay connected — in real time.” The same can be said for politicians. Any organism needs constant feedback and new information in order to be responsive and grow. Online social networks do that.
Finally, social networks are communities. These are not the family a person is stuck with, they’re the friends a person chooses. The communities are a great way to win friends and influence people. They are a way to belong. They form an informal foundation for idea honing and intellectual interaction.
Social media won’t work if a politician doesn’t truly want to engage. People are extraordinarily sensitive to manipulation. Social media is first and foremost social. That is, if you’re not good with making friends or developing relationships on the terra firma, online relationships may be just as difficult.
Just like newspapers, the telephone, photography, television, movies, C-SPAN, cable, blogs, email, instant messaging, texting, and every other formerly new form of media, social media is here to stay. It’s not a matter of whether or not it should be used, because people are using it. Right now, there is spirited debate among conservatives about the potential RNC chair. This is not idle conversation. The direction the Republican Party takes hinges on this choice. So social media is important. It’s used by a lot of influential people. The question isn’t whether it should be used or even how to avoid harm with social media (a completely negative perspective), but how to most effectively use it.
Republicans need to embrace social media or they risk being left behind. Again.
I’m not a Myspacer or Facebook user, just don’t do the whole “Social Network” thing. But I see the advantages of them and see no reason why politicians shouldn’t be using it.
It’s a simple analogy. JFK used TV to win the 1960 election. Obama used Web 2.0 to win the 2008 election.
Anyone reading these comments uses the new media. Let’s hope the Republicans “Get It” or we will be a long time in the wilderness.
The most concise way to put it is that Web 2.0, or user-generated hangouts, make up that new ‘third place’ (outside home or work), or civic sphere where charismatic political operatives can go be charismatic.
When conversing, one ought to behave one’s self like one’s at a responsible social gathering. One can’t be too cavalier, and speak like one’s frequenting Fark or Something Awful. The danger is in slipping into forgetting you’re not in your anonymous internet persona anymore.
I’d suggest politicians interact with their accounts in person, as their reputation is at stake, and to always do so stone cold sober (unless they’re Stephen Green or Christopher Hitchens, in which case they think just as well flat drunk).
The exciting thing about it is that when you do it right, it’s a new pioneering experience every week. You can’t just broadcast from one location with a golden microphone, you have to colonize new places where the people go all the time. Not that there’s anything wrong with using the web to host conference calls, too.
As long as the GOP betrays out founding principles of minimal government, individual liberty, and national sovereignty, no new tactic or gimmick will save them. Good salesmanship cannot compensate for a bad product – and Democrat-Lite is a horrible product.
There is a problem with social media. It mostly preaches to the crowd. Most Libs or Independents aren’t going to subscribe to an RNC twitter feed. Just like many of us here aren’t going to seek out a feed by the staffers of Kerry or Edwards.
PJM is somewhat the same. Many of the Liberals here are like cedarford or vivo who either post for ego reasons or because they get some odd source of pleasure by being told their wrong.
Not saying we shouldn’t use social media, just that we should recognize its limitations.
Social media is fine, should be utilized.
However, unless we can figure out how to push dollar bills out of a cell phone, we are screwed.
And, truly, nothing beats owning your own television reporters.
Sara for America,
You’re right, no doubt. Republicans need to recognize the MSM’s loyalties and work within that paradigm. It is a huge deficit to be coming from. And still nearly 50% of the electorate voted for the Republican.
It’s a losing proposition to concede the new real-estate when it’s still being fought over. The new media is not controlled and there are innovative ways to reach people. Republicans need to use it. Wisely.
Facebook and Twitter are just additional outlets, in a long list of outlets, of ‘getting the message out’. Much more an element of pop culture than MSM. The liberals have a stranglehold on pop culture and therein lies the rub.
Melissa,
I think that the GOP “gets it” (with the exception of a few dinosaurs who don’t get anything at all), but most of us realize that you can Twitter all you want, you can buy a billion dollars worth of ads, but if the products sucks, nobody’s buying it.
Right now, we need a better product (candidate). There’s very little positive to Twitter about right now. It’s all anti this and that (as it should be anti-stimulus, anti-tax cheats).
Twitter and Facebook are big, no doubt about it. But, honestly, there are a lot of people out here who are only talking to themselves…and I’d add, including me.
How many “feeds” can a person read before they are sick of the constant bug in their ear? People will eventually tune out. They won’t like the feeling of having their privacy invaded. Not everyone will tune out – people like us, who care a whole lot – will stay tuned in. But my husband couldn’t care less to read political stuff on the internet. He represents a lot of people I know.
We need more face to face. We need to infiltrate the coffeehouses, the PTAs, offices and schools with innovative PROGRAMS, interesting and entertaining venues. This takes innovation. We need “people oriented” innovation in ADDITION to what you are talking about.
I really like what you have to say here – there’s a lot that can go wrong with new media, which means one has to learn and take risks, and you give a nod to that when you talk about untagging oneself from Facebook pics.
I think that in order for the GOP to be effective with new media, they actually need to get away from candidates for a bit and start communicating general Republican positions and what underlies them. Right now, if you ask most Republicans, they’ll think it’s obvious that lower taxes appeal to people except ones that don’t want to work. There’s no sense at all that the job market is frightful, that entrepreneurship is a mess in this age where there’s a law, bureaucracy, licensing process and potential lawsuits concerning anything, and that while we can make fun of government for doing some things wrongly, it also can be really effective when it wants to be.
In other words: there’s a disconnect between the party line and what people are seeing. Furthering that disconnect is the fact our school system – primary, secondary, University – only exists to create registered Democrats, and has been doing this for at least 2 generations now.
It might be nice if the party put forth a reading list or something to flesh out ideas. Milton Friedman once had an article on Hong Kong and why it was flourishing, and the lessons of less government and inviting in commerce are something that we can discuss and maybe get a few potential voters thinking about, instead of them reading about how much Bush sucks and Obama is awesome. Why an article like that, or Reason.tv’s video on farm subsidies, can’t be linked to from a site the GOP funds is beyond me. Heck, there’s also Leon Kass’ “L’Chaim and its Limits” sitting in First Things, unread.
The GOP has the audience. But if it wants to wait until election time to communicate, or only communicate about elections, its going to lose elections from here on out non-stop. Obama’s win isn’t insignificant – the larger implication is that it is a willful embrace of European style populist politics. Once a nation goes down that road, there’s no going back, as we can see from Europe and their struggles.
Here’s the media conundrum for Republicans. The rise of Fox News brought forth a powerful voice for conservatives. (One far more ideological than the mainstream media, but that’s for another post.) Simultaneously came the rise of talk radio, another vast plain of conservative opinion. So successful are both that they are now mainstream. Their “otherness” has vanished, replaced by the Internets. Now the thing about the Internets is that they are not controlled. That kind of environment attracts iconoclasts, people who don’t play by the rules, independent thinkers, you know, liberals. Conservatives spend all their time trying to forbid things, which doesn’t play well in a free environment.
And so, having been so completely fascinated with your own success of the past decade, conservatives and conservative media have let the Internets be defined by the left. We have an implicit understanding of its nature and power. We are far more creative in developing content. We are entrenched in billions of communities. You’re like IBM when they said, “Hey, you know this personal computer thing may catch on after all.” You spent all your time and money developing a media model that became obsolescent in ten years. Frankly, I think you’re too little too late with the whole Google thing. Proof? How about the impending demise of Pajamas Media? Unfortunate? Perhaps. Inevitable? Without question.
It is good to see active dialog on what can be done to counter the growing evil of a “free press” that has sold out to a single party.
THIS IS THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM FACING OUR REPUBLIC as a consequence of the election of 2008, a problem even greater than the election of The Kid, a totally unqualified socialist poseur.
We are like Cassandra: we speak the truth but no one listens. The blogosphere is so self-obsessed that it does not comprehend that the vast audience of the newspapers and the TV networks live lives totally untouched by FaceBook and such. The front pages of our newspapers carry no word that might reflect on The Kid. No mention that the severe cold in the midwest approaches Katrina’s damage. No mention that Korea’s dictator has not waited Biden’s 6 months to pose dramatic threat. No mention that of a serious and growing body of honest scientists are challenging AGW. No mention of a groundswell of outrage at the pork barrel dimensions of the so called “stimulant”.
Picking up the morning paper, or switching on the TV, are conditioned reflexes of those who voted The Kid away beyond his pay grade. It is unlikely that even 10% pay any attention to bloggers, right or left. THIS is the audience we must reach, and I don’t read anything here that recognizes it, much less addresses it.
#12, amen brother.
I was trying to say that in my post #6 & #9 but you nailed it.
Actually I didn’t say don’t use it but be wary. Unless you are an idiot…then be wary.
#12 Stuart . . . that is EXACTLY why you will continue to lose ground . . . Conservatism is the Air America of the Internet. The power of the Internet isn’t bloggers.
#15 S.H…..I erred in referring only to bloggers. The audience that must be influenced does not access the internet except to get email. I am wiling to be informed on what power the internet has over those who don’t use it. It is certainly true that the rising generation c does, and they are the ones who will carry future elections. But, for instance, both Fox and Limbaugh have large audiences, yet in the aggregate, don’t match the reach of the left-dedicated MSM. Will the hard-left not employ the same measures for spreading their Gospel? They are suppsed to be the experts in today’s communications. What is the edge that will go to the conservative cause?
If the internet is to enable the truth to reach past the blockade and bring enlightenment and conversion to the mentally afflicted, I would welcome an explanation of how FaceBook and Twitter will achieve it.
I’m a pragmatist. I would sincerely welcome being persuaded, but found nothing here that did any more than state that it WOULD happen.
…If MS Celouthier’s message was simply “Get with it or you’re dead”, I’m in agreement. I’m just looking for how we go beyond meeting them and actualy PASSING them.
16 SW:
It’s not Facebook or Twitter or MySpace – little more than toys. It’s how you package narrative. It’s all about story. The right’s story is: We’re victims of the liberal media. The left’s story is: We’re victims of the conservative media. The Internet’s story is: We’re not victims, we’re storytellers. The best analogy is the issue of race. The left says the right is overtly bigoted. The right says the left is secretly intolerant. People under 20 don’t factor in race. It is a non-issue. I know because I see it every day. The Internet takes that same new sense of culture and relationships and applies it to how influence is shared within and between online communities – a huge influence in Obama generating $750 million for his campaign.
So, liberals have a clear beachhead established online. Conservatives are trying to play catchup without speaking the language. Does the Internet supplant MSM? Not completely. But the shift is well underway, with newspapers becoming increasingly irrelevant. Put it this way. The right has Fox News and talk radio. Would you trade either of those for the internet?
You must admit that “infiltrate the coffee houses’ is the greatest advice a Republican can receive. I am still grinning ear to ear from that one.
Sambo Hux preens.
“We have an implicit understanding of [the internet's] nature and power. We are far more creative in developing content [I guess you mean, making up shit and skewing facts]. We are entrenched in billions of communities. … Frankly, I think you’re too little too late with the whole Google thing.
Which Google thing are you referring to? The power hungry manipulator that seeks to control our medical records, the one that now owns all the resources necessary to control speech, movement (satellite tracking), internet search results – as in, the socialist’s wet dream of harnessing technology for controlling communities? That one?
SH. Thank you for your polite response. It did help my understanding though I found little encouragement for my side.
Would I change either Fox News or talk radio for the internet? I don’t have time for talk radio and I find the format tedious and boring. But then I also find the internet tedious, in a different way, and boring if I have to scroll through long stretches of insult exchanges. If I were to listen to Limbaugh I know I would have to be able to stand one long harangue from one point of view. On the internet I find hundreds of voices, all full of themselves, haranguing rudely and frequently crudely from one narrow point of view. I cannot possibly gain anything from more than a tiny fraction of what is, as the Brits say, on offer.
So, how does this make me better off? Magnitude of resources is more of a problem than a benefit. I do not wish to spend my entire waking day, as some people apparently do, visiting an endless universe of opinion, 95% of which is repititious drivel.
I think you under-estimate the survival chances of newspapers, in some form, magazines and certainly of TV/cable sources. They offer the comfort of a collection of views aand insights we generally can subscribe to. The internet, of course, now does the same. There may indeed be more of them, and they may become more technically advanced, and certainly any cause, political or otherwise, will have to employ them if they wish to be heard and heeded.
Fortunately. SHux ( I am sufficiently PC to find myself unable to use your first name) I feel that both of us will locate our small cluster of similar-thinking justifiers of our viewpoint, and the opportunity to voice our derision of all others. Or, as Sara points out, other personally fulfilling purposes.
What keeps facebook afloat is a huge chunk of investment captial and the as yet not realized hopes of ad placers.
What keeps myspace afloat is the Murdoch media empire.
Having worked in a firm that did myspace and facebook apps, let me tell you that there is not mcuh room to make money. It is a false economy. It is starting ot look like another bubble. Also, the next generation of kids will do something else. Mobile social gaming in a virtual world.
Also, as young people today start families and in general grow up, the landscape will change. The Social Net world seems focused on trivial and childish things.
Socialism never works, and the Democrats are frauds, sooner or latter more people figure that out. Young people are mostly Democrats, and it has been this way since the 1930′s. Then they grow up. The boomer are an exception to that rule. The next generations may not be.
This is not to say that the right should not embrace it, but let us not assume that it is as huge a phenomena as TV.
It time, all apps will be socially enabled and it will be more of just a focused ad model than any radical social/media phenomena.
What we need to endrun the Media and the left are platforms that allow:
1) local organization for political action, opinion sharing and information dissemination. school board elections, mayorial elections, outing far left professors, crooked lefty pols, countering the MSM’s agitprop etc.
2) Lets the local communities in #1 unite at a regional and national level.
3) Serve as a repository of facts to debunk liberal lies, hustles, outrages and attacks.
4) Facilitate political pressure groups that can put pressure on the Left wing establishment.
5) Provide a way to opt out of popular/media/MSM culture
The big social platforms can be infiltrated and new ones built.
But the overriding focus of current social net platforms is scarcely adult at all. Perhaps they will adapt as their users age, or perhaps they fall by the wayside.
In tough economic times, a great deal of pressure is going to be put on the whole world of social networking.
#22 Marianne, great post.
I would add another thought to your points 1-5. In order to shift the culture from “socialism/government is cool” to “capitalism/individual responsibility is cool” we should be thinking how we can encourage young people to see the light.
Our society rewards young people who volunteer to paint a house, who set up a program to provide blankets to homeless people, who round up cans of food for the food bank. THAT IS GREAT, NECESSARY, COMMENDABLE.
However, we ALSO need MORE programs that focus on rewarding youth who help struggling families learn how to build things (not just building the house for them), to take care of themselves for the long term. We have to teach a different way of thinking. Programs like junior achievement, where adults work with youths to develop viable businesses – every one of us should be working with organizations like that. The feeling a child gets from doing things for himself is long-lasting. We, as a party, need to “capitalize” on that feeling. Every school needs a corporate sponsor that works to develop programs teaching these principles. Every PTA needs a parent promoting these concepts. And so on.
Sara: as long as those programs are privately funded, I am all for them.
We must teach children that when they take care of themselves and their families and see that they are safe, secure and have decent and moral lives then that is charity enough, more than enough. Only the extremely gifted add more to the wide world, and then only if they are lucky.
Taking care of your and those close to you is the best that you can do for the world, provided that you do this with morality and deceny. In very real sense it is all most of us can can do that has any real effect.
I think it comes down to “resilient communities”. I think we need to make our lives as independent as we can from the national/global Leftist Established hooks, snares. grips traps and levers. We should do this at the same time we try to take down the Left’s power structures and reshape the regional, national and global political mess that the Left as put us in.
This may all seem at counter purposes or counter intuitive, but it is not. We need an save place, and “Empire of the Hearth” as a haven; let us win this battle first and then from this place we can then march to the larger war. (note: I do not mean this “Hearth” in any Feminist sense at all, it is just a metaphor, and when I say communities, i am not talking about communist soap operas like “Habitat for Humanity” I am talking about getting youself and those around you as independent–and as politically shrewd–possible.)
So our communities should be resilent–independent and self-supporting as we can make them. Resilient spiritually, humanly and economically. Let us not ship of our cash to the enemy if we can help it (but break no laws). Let us not send off our children to the enemy, if we can. Only send them to battle, send them to fight, not to be co-opted. Let us let them take our children from us anymore. Let us cleave toward one another and what is good in us.
So the examples that you want to give them are in the community, they are close at hand, not on the TV, not on myspace. They can be reflected by media, but they are close to the bone. As close as a good dog, or an old friend. Media, social or otherwise, cannot gives us this.
Your examples need be close to hand, and they are there:
They are the local Veteran, the local business man, the local farmer, the local teacher (if we can find one that is not corrupt), the housewife. The good father free of Leftist cant.
They are the “Heroes of the Ordinary”, the Sons (and Daughters) of Martha.
But there are Sons of Mary too. There are Dreamer and Artists too.
They are there, quiet, but there. If not, then let us create them in ourselves and in our communities.
In the end this is a battle of the spirit made flesh in culture, action and belief.
Our enemy thinks that man is just an animal. SO THEN, how can we possibly lose the battle?
A lack of love and faith and respect. Let us look close to home for that is where these things live.
let us NOT let them take our children** sorry.
Personally I am on MySpace (my band), Facebook/Twitter (me) and LinkedIn (professionally). They all have their uses for different aspects of my online identity. Used with care they can all be rather useful for getting what you want out of the internet.
The stats show the news media intentionally leaned heavily for the liberals, promoted Obama & used negativety toward the Republicans. The country is mostly run by intelligent Republicans. Libs like to think inside the box and need a government to tell them out to think & act! Look at the stimulas bill. I cannot seem to find many libs who work and are in a position where they are suppose to have a brain with a response is “What Bill” Then they vote! duh!
I think this article is a bit extreme. It reads like the dot.com boom. No doubt there is some potential in these new tech fads, but it won’t have anywhere near the impact. The give and take in the comments here well highlight the impact, or alck thereof.
Much is based upon the success of the Obama campaign. Ooh, look how well he did with it. (gush) It’s grossly overstated. We never got the details of whence the money actually came. Indications are that it came from overseas donors in contravention of the law. The claim that it came from all the small donors is just a smokescreen.
Further, election data shows that the youth vote was pretty much the same as it ever was, despite all the media-hyped projections. So, if you want to get all a-twitter (pun intended) about the new tech, go ahead, but know that it really always comes down to demographics. Always.
I can, however, think of many uses for it, mostly in identifying our group. The Get Out The Vote potential is huge. Talking points. Arguments supplemented by raw info. Other equipment for the troops. Fundraising. But it is not a panacea. In the end, one has to educate the majority who vote, that is, the over-30 crowd.
We need to find a way to reach them, and to reach them with a message they can hear. It mustn’t be drowned out in the vast sea of other info (and spin). I’m thinking a daily blip:
Maybe a cartoon or joke;
Maybe, a thought-provoking self-answering question. They need to be taught to see through the lies this way; to learn critical thinking;
It needs to not take much time, but something they look forward to each day;
Perhaps some quote from some great speech or article that enunciates a conservative principle.
Baby steps. Pithy enough to appeal to their limited tolerance/time for the info. Eventually, make the info slightly greater; a little more depth. Make it something they want to share. Humor is the best thing. It’s more eagerly received, and the Left is notorious for not being able to tolerate humor directed against them.
Hmm, think I’ll apply for Michael Steele’s aide job.
Mark, they will move on soon enough.
Obama will be using government funded Stormtrooper like Acorn in the next election.
The big youth bulge will not be a factor in the next election.
A lot of these people will be out in the real world. That changes things considerably.
This article expresses the need push your political agenda(propaganda) in any communication outlet. Whosoever shouts the loudest, wins! How stupid are we becoming?
I have noticed that the majority of TV commercials are pushing pills, drinks, and programs, all claiming to be the fixers of whatever makes you feel inadequate. Good for the seminar sponsors, soft drink bottlers, and pharmaceutical companies in these “tough economic times”. My point is that if we will buy any of this crap, of course we will buy anyone’s propaganda without questioning its merit.
Republicans need to tune in to the fact that America has ALREADY dumbed down and that ‘whosoever shouts the loudest’ is now the political reality.
My tendency is to avoid such until I joined a social network without realizing that was part of the deal: TeamSarah.org. There’s quite a variety of personalities and interests. You can engage in endless discussions of food, dogs, you name it. God, I even have my own page where people comment on my comments. I’m starting to think it’s okay, although the decor is excessively pink. Then there is all the info and links that are not happening in the MSM. Obama’s people like to plant false stories there and are usually busted pretty fast. I assume that is for our entertainment. Check it out and consider yourself the very model of a modern major news junkie.
#0 Jim Baker – You’re right and you’re wrong. America has been dumbed down. The Libs have a stranglehold on our info stream, so we need other media to get the message out. That’s why the bad guys want the Fairness Doctrine back: to shut off our access to other media and consolidate their lock on the info stream. We don’t have to shout, but we do have to educate.