So this is Part 1 and it is going to address my opinion of President Obama's social media presence. It will study how the President's presence affects voters' proclivities rather than how well it informs citizens. It is neither a definitive study nor a purely statistical analysis. It is primarily how I, as a voter and Obama supporter, feel about the President's presence, although there is research to support my biased opinions. In future analyses, I will take a more objective approach, but I feel that to introduce this study to myself and yourself, it is important to understand this as a member of the target audience rather than as a theoretical outside observer.
Argument Key (in case you get lost):
1. Introduction
2. First impression after Addictomatic etc... searches
3. Why the President's social media isn't permeating the most common debate threads
4. Is this lack of permeation good, bad, or in between?
5. Potential for improvement
(1)
Presidents' public presence has traditionally been very conservative and one would expect that any president's social media presence would follow this trend. However, one might see President Obama as eschewing conservatism by using media like Twitter and Facebook extensively. He is reaching out through the newest frontier before conservative analysts have a full handle on the possibilities - positive and negative - of that frontier and in a time when large numbers of Americans are uncomfortable with emerging manifestations of the trend.
(2)
However, it doesn't seem that the President's efforts are improving his brand. First, explanation of methodology: In order to find general conversation on the President, I used "Obama" as my search term because it is a simple term that allows for any surrounding words that could indicate bias or otherwise preclude results. Even "President" can be biasing, since it is often supporters and media folk who refer to him as "President Obama," rather than "Mr. Obama," "Barack Obama," or simply "Obama." Obviously, additional words can also change the position of search results. I work under the assumption that "Obama" is the word that is most common in comments on the President.
Unfortunately, I was not able to expand on the following with many examples because the President's trip to Brazil has created a bevvy of conversation in languages I don't speak, possibly by non-voters. All the examples in this post are from social media searches but most of them are not from this week. I do not, however, think that anything has happened to change the general trends. Anyway...
An Addictomatic search reveals tweets that don't engage with the President's Twitter handles, Google blog search results that reference the President negatively, and three out of five YouTube videos openly hostile to the President. Not many people engage this man, birthers are prevalent, and no one is openly positive about his presidency. (see below for sample video)
However, it doesn't seem that the President's efforts are improving his brand. First, explanation of methodology: In order to find general conversation on the President, I used "Obama" as my search term because it is a simple term that allows for any surrounding words that could indicate bias or otherwise preclude results. Even "President" can be biasing, since it is often supporters and media folk who refer to him as "President Obama," rather than "Mr. Obama," "Barack Obama," or simply "Obama." Obviously, additional words can also change the position of search results. I work under the assumption that "Obama" is the word that is most common in comments on the President.
Unfortunately, I was not able to expand on the following with many examples because the President's trip to Brazil has created a bevvy of conversation in languages I don't speak, possibly by non-voters. All the examples in this post are from social media searches but most of them are not from this week. I do not, however, think that anything has happened to change the general trends. Anyway...
An Addictomatic search reveals tweets that don't engage with the President's Twitter handles, Google blog search results that reference the President negatively, and three out of five YouTube videos openly hostile to the President. Not many people engage this man, birthers are prevalent, and no one is openly positive about his presidency. (see below for sample video)
Using Samepoint, TweetGrid, and other tools, you can see that there is an expansive conversation on the job the President is doing but that President Obama is not a part of it. You can also see that weigh-ins are generally overwhelmingly negative to neutral, but rarely positive or overwhelmingly positive. For example, one IceRocket search of Facebook showed 7 of the first 10 very negative, 1 I couldn't read, and 1 neutral news story (the 11th called the President a moron).
The President is also struggling to eclipse the passion and reach of key Republicans. As of March 21, on SocialMention, President Obama has equal sentiment, equal passion, and less reach than (Speaker of the House and opposition leader John) "Boehner." (Sarah) "Palin" has better sentiment and equal passion. Admittedly, the President's strength is far superior.
top 5 hit
(3)
Why isn't the President's social media trending? Because he is simply bringing the norm to a newly invented mode of communication. His tweets, wall posts, YouTube videos, etc... are boring. In all likelihood, it probably seems to the President and his advisors that it would be inappropriate to wade into the din or to try to influence it; it is their job to dispense facts and official opinions but to leave general debate to the people.
Because of this, everything posted is so edited for content that I never feel I can trust it to give me anything beyond the White House's official stance, and that stance is something I can get anywhere else. The irony is that social media is meant to be an informal place for informal conversation beyond the bounds of society's usual constrictions. The President and his social media team circumvent this spirit by establishing pages that are usually one-way and un-candid; participation is only possible by following and never by providing input, and the messages from on-high feel like they only scratch the surface of the President's thinking. In short, the usage hems too close to formality for there to be any reason to participate.
Why isn't the President's social media trending? Because he is simply bringing the norm to a newly invented mode of communication. His tweets, wall posts, YouTube videos, etc... are boring. In all likelihood, it probably seems to the President and his advisors that it would be inappropriate to wade into the din or to try to influence it; it is their job to dispense facts and official opinions but to leave general debate to the people.
Because of this, everything posted is so edited for content that I never feel I can trust it to give me anything beyond the White House's official stance, and that stance is something I can get anywhere else. The irony is that social media is meant to be an informal place for informal conversation beyond the bounds of society's usual constrictions. The President and his social media team circumvent this spirit by establishing pages that are usually one-way and un-candid; participation is only possible by following and never by providing input, and the messages from on-high feel like they only scratch the surface of the President's thinking. In short, the usage hems too close to formality for there to be any reason to participate.
This is essentially a zero-risk/zero-reward approach and isn't so much a problem as it is missing an opportunity to pull in a boon from the ether of possibility. While many social media users follow the President and his use of social media has been hailed as great (see here and here), it feels to me like the natural extension of Presidential communication over a medium increasingly saturated by more appealing alternatives, rather than some sort of grassroots revolution.
Small businesses help drive America’s economic growth and create new jobs. When our small businesses do well, then America does well.
Barack ObamaBarackObama
ok?
(4)
Now, in the spirit of equivocation, I expand briefly on why this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Evolution itself can be hard to nurture, especially in a bureaucracy as change-resistant as the federal government. Just by reading the above-linked articles, you can see how President Obama's leading the executive office into just the shallows of new media has made controlling the message easier, created dialogue, and brought more information to the people. Even if it is a natural evolution, the President should be commended for encouraging it.
Is Obama using social media to bypass the Press Corps? from Mari Fagel on Vimeo.
(5)
Nevertheless, I feel that President Obama can do better. I feel that he can create more honest conversation with the public and more honest commentary to the public. I'd say I don't know how but, well...
President Obama can revolutionize government by making it some precursor to open-source. Rather than dispensing information and answering the occasional question, he can engage in an ongoing discussion with the American people. I believe that by doing so, he would have more control over the tone of the national discussion because people would be more interested in what he has to say and therefore listen more and take him more seriously. I know that I don't listen to him now but that I would if I thought I would hear more than the average line, and I know that I am not alone in this.
And that is what I want as a member of the target audience. I want to feel engaged with the President. I don't want him to just tell me that he thinks small businesses are awesome. Until he changes, I may support him but I will look elsewhere for information on him and even for information on what and how he thinks. Not to treat myself like an object, but it is harder to persuade me away from his brand if his team engages me in a more substantive manner. It is the eye-to-eye factor, where you trust someone more when they are talking to you and making an effort to do so. I think the same is true for most voters.
Until then,
Argument Recap
1. Introduction
2. The President is not engaged in civic debates at-large; he doesn't engage the debate and people do not engage him
3. This is simply evolution rather than revolution, or communicating in a traditional manner over a new medium, because messages are stated rather than discussed at-large
4. This is not necessarily a bad thing and simply bringing himself into social media is an accomplishment
5. Nevertheless, there is potential for the President to use social media in new ways and be more persuasive
No comments:
Post a Comment