Social Media and Presidential Candidacy

With Obama being the first presidential candidate to embrace the technology of social media in order to branch out to the people of the United States, one must wonder if this will become the new trend in future elections, or whether it is something that only Obama himself will choose to use.

To start, I believe that by embracing social media, Obama put himself in a better position than his opposition by utilizing what his opponents did not, and put him at a closer connection to his current and potential supporters. This I believe gave him an edge and in extent, a decent portion of his victory.

This year, his major opposition, Mitt Romney, has also been seen taking up social media as a tool to try and help ensure his own victory. But in a way, one must wonder if this is because Obama is continuing to use social media once again, or because it has become a mandatory tool to use.

By Obama using it in 2008, I believe he set a new standard for the United States election, by means of what a candidate should be doing to help rally support. If only one candidate used it, they would be covering more ground than the others, and thus putting them at a disadvantage. In extension, making candidates notice that in order to keep up with the rest of the competition, they must adapt to this new approach as well.

At the same time however, it will then also depend on who will use social media in the next election. This term will be Obama’s last intentional term in office, and so any future elections will depend on who chooses to embrace social media next.

I do believe however, that whoever campaigns for office in the future will continue to use social media regardless, as it is too good of a resource for them not to.

Quantity over Quality?

Social Media has been a large part in helping any and everyone to be able to distribute information on their own, whether it be reporting the news, distributing their own music or artwork, to even writing and selling their own publications. But the question is whether or not the quality of such information has increased or decreased because of it. I personally would have to say that it depends on how you look at it.

For example, unsigned music artists have been given the ability to broadcast their music to the public and be responsible for their own exposure without the need of a record label for support, such as through YouTube and BandCamp. This then can separate into both sides. Without the support of a record label, they are responsible for everything, including mixing their music, recording it, exporting the files, uploading it to distribution sites. You may have artists that know how to mix, record and export professionally, and thus guarantee that the sound of their music will be more on par with the quality of music from artists who are with a label. You then have others where they don't know how to do that stuff, or don't have the money to pay someone else to do it for them. Leading them to have poorer quality of music. The same can said about other information distributed by users of the internet.

If I were to finish here, then I would be saying that it is a pretty neutral stance. but you have to then look into the amount of people now distributing their information, and factor in everything else for each person. From my personal experience, I have seen more people as unexperienced and unprofessional when it comes to their distribution than I have people who are more professional and produce higher quality content.

In the end, I would have to say that although it allows for more people who just haven't had the opportunity to professionally distribute their stuff with equal level of quality, social media has decreased the overall quality of information being distributed.

Quality over quantity, not the other way around.