The Economist (disclosure: client) carries an article today on why social media won’t play a factor in determining the outcome of the forthcoming General Election.
It claims that the leaders’ debates on television are a triumph for traditional media and that “much-touted social media such as Twitter is so niche as to be almost invisible”.
There’s also the demographic issue. Newspaper and TV audiences are older and more likely to vote.
The article ‘Shock of the old’ acknowledges that the TV debates have played out through social media but that when it comes to “voters who matter” its old media that is still the best.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6bf834bc-f518-4b4b-a41d-56c0f2dc105f)
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Speed Communications. Speed Communications said: Traditional media dominating the election, says The Economist http://goo.gl/fb/WfxpA (@wadds) #media #economist [...]
I did a blog on this very subject last week and suggested that politicians should not lose sight of who actually goes out and votes for them – the old people. However, British political parties are targeting an audience who are apathetic and they are the young people, to be precise, the 18-25 year old category.
Even with the television debates, people “tweet” their comments and therefore it is a good way to find out what people think about the leaders/parties. I’m unsure of the real advantage of politicians tweeting (in some cases they are tiresome and dull), but some of them do give out important information in real time. I think British polticians saw how social media worked for the USA Obama Presidential campaign and they have stepped aboard the social media boat hoping for the same results.
In my opinion, a mixture of “old” and “new” media is the key to communicate with as many people as they can.
Hmmm. Not disputing the article but when I and hundreds of thousands (potentially millions) of others can view tweets from the likes of Alastair Campbell and thousands of MPs and political journalists it’s got to have some bearing either directly or indirectly down the line.
Admittedly the TV debates have been the major platform for this election so far, but remember the first one aired just over a week ago so the after effects are brand new. The discussions have been taking place on Twitter for a long time.
TV debates = short, high impact influencing
Social media = long term persuasion
Case in point: me. I made my mind up who I’m supporting because of social media. Have the TV debates influenced me to change my vote? Not yet, no.
In terms of the politicians, I can understand why they are reluctant to use Twitter and Facebook. The fear in putting themselves out into the social networking world means that people have much easier access to question and make angry comments, however it also means that more of the ‘younger’ generations can be reached and can find out about issues that matter to them.
I am in my early 20’s and I vote. I feel by them only directing their discussions towards the ‘oldies’ through traditional media and also through the discussion topics for debate, are a little bit of an insult. I still follow politics, so I can’t be that annoyed. I just feel if politicians were to interact a little more with younger generations they will have lifetime supporters, or at least lifetime voters. I wouldn’t wait for people to grow up until they were talked to about the government.
There was a documentary on the reasons why past Prime Ministers have not entered into live debates before, and it does not surprise me that they won’t use social media. It will take at last another 20 years for them to realise the potential they are missing out on.
I can buy this, though what your snippet misses is the seeming irrelevance of the red-top and mid-market newspapers this time around. Their reporting of the TV debates has been execrable and since (this time) people have actually seen the performances that their reports are based on, their partisanship and desperation are very clear.
So: a triumph for TV, not ‘old media’.