 |
| Tumblr |
A new report
from Pew Research Center claims that political posts shared on social
media are in fact capable of changing people's minds. The report
considers the views of social media users (rather than voters in
general) in relation to the US Presidential Election. It found that, for
one in five people surveyed, politically-themed posts on social media
had been effective in changing their position on a particular issue.
Moreover, 17 percent of participants agreed that such posts had changed
their opinion of a particular candidate. But beyond the stats, it's
probably more relevant (and a bit funnier) to consider how they're going
to be interpreted by everyone. After all, however we decide to take
these data, their main effect is probably going to be the perpetuation of quarrelling and squabbling online.
Although the report likely won't change much, whatever effects it does
have will probably be felt most by everyday users of social media. In
the minds of those who already take to Facebook to wax political, the
research will undoubtedly solidify the notion that social media is an
important setting for chatting-up their unique and excellent views. We can probably expect the embiggening of some already-large egos by this time next week. 'Member the South Park episode about Yelp reviewers? More of that's a-comin', folks.
However, if that's going to happen, a lot of people might choose to give social media a rest for a bit. After all, although
the report found that 20 percent of participants liked encountering
political discussion online, over one third (37 percent) were tired of
it. Which is very understandable. Half the US electorate is probably
going to be quite bitter for a while to come; the Presidential
campaigns were divisive, the rhetoric bitter, and both candidates were
really, really unpopular. Even us Brits became exhausted watching, and
we don't even live there!
Nevertheless, among those whose polemics do persist, Republicans and
Democrats are likely to wield the report in a manner which suits their
particular viewpoints. For example, Pew felt it necessary to emphasise
that a slight majority of those 20 percent who agreed that social media
could indeed change their minds were also, at the time, planning to vote
Democrat. Through this distinction, the report-makers have given divisive forces more excuses to be mean to each other. We
can probably expect some interpretations of this outcome which take it
as evidence of the naivety, the flip-floppiness, of Democrat voters;
which will undoubtedly rub against rival interpretations which assert
things like 'Republicans are just closed-minded.' Erm...no comment on that. Just, again, brace yourselves for more online arguing.
The report, therefore, seems to achieve what many reports often end up
achieving: providing ammo to both sides of a debate while stoking
hostilities through the odd loaded fact. However, it's worth remembering
that reports like this do serve an important social function. If
we take these findings as part of a wider landscape of surveys and
data-gathering by various research bodies, the Pew report stands in
stark contrast to a lot of things out there at the moment. Wired, for
example, recently published an article
which led by claiming: "Sorry, but your astute election posts aren't
changing anybody's minds." It built on a survey conducted by Rantic, a
social media marketing firm, but has since been removed due to "further
reporting."
 |
| Against the Grain Nutrition |
Post a Comment