By Katherine Yaremko, Columnist
With midterm elections not too far off, the usual flurry of debate concerning candidates, their positions, or lack of, their shortcomings and accusations, has been flying across the airwaves. Thanks, however, to our various media of online social communication, and their influence on previous elections, questions about the ability to accurately portray candidates are raised.
Eloquently explained by New York Times columnist Frank Rich in his article “Facebook Politicians Are Not Your Friends,” Internet media, such as Facebook and Twitter, have proven to be double-edged swords; while providing greater access to the average citizen, and therefore, a greater opportunity for ordinary individuals to organize political groups, they have, perhaps, been less successful at increasing the kind of transparency so often espoused.
Of course transparency is an integral part of the Internet in reference to politics. Politicians can rarely escape with statements or actions under the constant guise of the ceaseless eye of the Internet. But as Rich notes, despite the transparency, despite the ease with which virtually anything can be discovered concerning political candidates, particularly the ease with which reliable research and fact checking can be conducted, inaccurate knowledge still seems to be widespread. To emphasize this point, Rich notes that just under a fifth of all Americans still believe Obama to be Muslim.
Falsities, however, will always exist, and regardless of whether technology aids the practice of significantly spreading them or not, it just is not possible to convince some individuals of certain truths. This is particularly the case where accepting certain facts might contradict or invalidate a firmly held belief system. I do not see this as the fault of the Internet or technology. It is primarily a flaw of humans that we take information and conform it to our beliefs and biases.
The other major point that Rich addresses is the myth that all of this sociopolitical chatter is playing an instrumental role in empowering the underdog, both in this country and internationally. He specifically discusses the Iranian uprising, stating that while Twitter received enormous praise in the incident, it did not do that much to help Iranian dissidents, instead being used primarily by American journalists.
It makes sense, as he mentions, that those that control the media by which information is dispersed would continue to have the most power, as he notes, even if the majority without political power have access to such media.
Perhaps there is too much cynicism in this however. As technology advances and becomes an organ of our lives, as opposed to merely an appendage, it is only natural that its influence in the political sphere will grow. The extent to which this growth is genuinely beneficial or more detrimental to political and social change is something only further time will be able to determine.
I think too extreme of a position on either end is unwise. Social media outlets may have been helpful in allowing individuals to more easily organize and exchange information, although they probably do not deserve to be glorified to the extent that journalists and commentators have done.