The role of social media in political
communication; its differences from traditional media political communication;
and its potential advantages and disadvantages for the audience when
politicians use this medium to bypass mainstream media.

Introduction

In daily live every human will never
escape from the so-called communication. From children to adults, from ordinary
people in the societies to politicians in the parliamentary institutions, all
of them are in need of communication to express their thoughts and concerns
about any issues they face in their lives. Communication has enabled humans to discuss
various issues, make social construction on such issues and compromise solution
to deal with them.

Communication experiences evolution from time to time following the evolution of human civilization. The way humans communicate with each other and the media they use for communication have evolved from time to time. Since ancient time to the present humans have developed methods and media of communication. In the ancient time human communication methods were limited to oral, face-to-face, and writing communications (Business Case Studies, 2017). In addition, media used to communicate with broader audience was also limited to traditional media of communication such as smoke signals and carrier pigeons that were used to deliver writing messages written on writing materials like papyrus and parchment (Samsung Galaxy, 2014, Johnston, 2017).

While in the ancient time the methods
and media for communication were very limited, in this millennium era they have
varied greatly thanks to the advancement of information and communication
technology (ICT). The development of ICT has led to the birth of new media and
methods for communication. As a result, at present human no longer rely heavily
on oral and written communication, but now they also communicate online using
social media communication platform. Social media have now widely been used for
day-to-day communication. Indeed, it has been used for political communication
by members of the public, politicians, and political parties.

One example of successful attempt to use social media for political communication was in the 2008 United States presidential election. In that election the former president of the United States Barack Obama integrated social media in his political campaign strategy; and cleverly and effectively used it to support his offline election campaign. As a result, Obama won the election and took office in 2009 (Bogost, 2017). Since then, following Obama success with social media, it can be witnessed an increase in the use of social media for political communication such as in the campaign for presidential and legislative elections in many countries around the world.     

This paper argues that social media play supporting roles in mediating political communication between members of the public, politicians and political parties. Alongside with traditional media, social media provides alternative avenue for political communications, make it more direct and interactive. Using social media, members of the public can now be easier to target public officials and politicians to convey their aspiration, idea and criticism over political issues and agendas.

Despite social media use for
political communication purposes provides benefits to members of the public; however,
it also provides disadvantages for them as the user of this media platform.
This paper therefore will critically discuss the use of social media for
political communication. Firstly, it will outline what is social media, its
differences from traditional media, and its roles in political communication.
Secondly, it will address the potential advantages and disadvantages for
audience when politicians use this media platform to bypass traditional media.
Finally, the paper will provide a conclusion on the discussion.     

What is social media, its differences from traditional media, and its roles in political communication

For most members of the public social
media platforms such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, and Wikipedia,
just to name a few, are not new things. They use those new media communication
platforms to communicate and maintain friendships with other people (World Economic Forum, 2016). These communication and friendships
are not limited to their own circle of friends but also to broader social media
users in different communities, different times, and different agendas.

Despite social media has gained its
popularity amongst member of the public and largely discussed in communication
and political literatures, there is no single definition on social media (Effing et al., 2011, Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). However, most communication media
academics agree that social media can be defined as ‘a group of Internet-based
applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web
2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content’ (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010, p. 61). Based on that definition, it is
clear that social media is not at all a new communication platform. It is a
development of the Web 2.0 and is equipped with features which allows its users
to independently and easily generate, disseminate, discuss, and exchange
various information with other users. This unique characteristic has made
social media platform becoming so popular amongst the users of media
communication; and it can be argued that social media has now challenged the
existence and roles of traditional media in mediating information.

Even though both social and
traditional media have similar roles for mediating information, they are
actually two different media platforms. Both media platforms have different
characteristics that differentiate them one to another (Gainous and Wagner, 2014, Klinger and Svensson, 2015). There are three main differences
between social media and traditional media as this paper identifies.

The first difference is on the model
of communication. Social media communication is a model of two-way mass
communication, while traditional media communication is a model of one-way mass
communication (Gainous and Wagner, 2014, p. 5). In the communication process,
social media enables reciprocal communication between users in the sense that
both users are active in using the medium. This is different to traditional
media communication in which active communication does not exist as one of its
user is active while the other is inactive (Gainous and Wagner, 2014). On traditional media political
campaign, for example, message is produced by election candidate, disseminated
by mass media to their constituents and electorates; and almost all times
politician has been the creator of the information and audience has been the
passive audience. Again, this is different to social media campaign in which
both politicians and potential voters can generate, disseminate, and discuss
the message. 

The second difference is media
coverage. With regards to media coverage, social media can cover broader
audience than traditional media. Social media communication takes place in an
incredibly open environment, make it enables information ‘that is perceived as
the most interesting or appealing to be distributed to the widest audience’ (Gainous and Wagner, 2014, p. 6). This is different to traditional
media communication in which communication is limited by distance and geography
conditions. Newspapers and other printed media distribution is limited to area
that can be reached by new papers outlets and largely depend on manual
distribution.

The third difference is on the
content producers. While there is a clear division between content producers
and users in traditional media; professional journalist is the producer of
information, while audience is a passive user of the information (Klinger and Svensson, 2015); for social media platform, such
division is blurring as there is no clear division between creators and users
of information. There is no definite creator and user of information in social
media, and both are playing the same roles as creator and user of the
information that is transmitted through social media.

Back to social media use as a
communication medium. In the present democratic era, social media use has now
been extended from mere day-to-day conversation to political communication.
Both members of the public and politicians use social media for different
political purposes. While members of the public use social media for discussing
political matters, and engaging with civil society organizations and political
leaders; the vast majority of politicians use it as a campaigning medium for
maintaining their public image, and as a communication medium for sustaining
engagement with journalists and their potential audience (Howard et al., 2017). Therefore, it is not surprising
that social media channels today are filled with political discussions in addition
to daily conversations.

Considering the power of social media
platform to spread huge information to broader audience and mirroring on the
success of business industries marketing their product to broader customers in
an efficient and effective manner; at present politicians tend to embrace
social media communication as their strategy to communicate with their
potential audience (Nulty et al., 2016). Alongside traditional media social
media has now been main platforms for political campaign to gain support from
prospective electorates, to raise funding for political parties, and other
political purposes. Then, what is the roles of social media on political
communication which make it become popular to politicians and political
organizations?

There are several important roles of
social media for political communication. 
Firstly, social media increase the effectiveness and efficiency of
political campaign. Political campaign using social media can be more effective
and efficient in targeting potential electorates. Empirical examples have shown
that social media can be used for political campaign and support the offline campaign
strategy. One example of successful social media use is in the 2008 United
States presidential election. During the election campaign, Barack Obama
systematically used social media platforms as main means for running his
campaign. At that time, there were fifteen social media platforms used by Obama
alongside with his own website (Effing et al., 2011, p. 26). And as he effectively used social
media for his political campaign, he eventually elected as the president of the
United Stated in 2008.

Secondly, social media in political
communication plays important role in bringing politicians closer to their
electorates. Dissimilar with traditional media, social media allows politicians
and their audience to directly communicate. This communication can take place
everywhere at different time and different agendas. In Mexico, for instance, a
politician Jaime Rodriguez Calderon know as ‘El Bronco’ had successfully used
social media to maintain communication and proximity with his constituents. He
uses social media for political campaign at gubernatorial election campaign and
continues use it well beyond the election day for everyday discussion about
public life with the public of state of Nuevo Leon (Howard et al., 2017).

Finally, social media also mediates
political communication with broader audience. Social media use in
international political context has help politicians to communicate with
broader audience from different nationalities and languages. In the 2014 European
parliamentary election, for instance, election candidates and their parties use
social media to communicate with audience in the 28 member states of the
European Union. Social media has provided ‘a unique technological means to
bridge linguistic divides, as well as to extend the reach of political
communications by candidates and parties to the electorates located in the
multi-national political system of the European Union’ (Nulty et al., 2016, p. 2).

From discussion above, it clear that
social media has been an alternative medium of communication in addition to
traditional media. It builds on the concept of Web 2.0. In addition, Social
media has unique characteristics which distinguish it from traditional media.
And the most important is that social media plays important roles in political
communication and has contributed to the improvement on the way political
communication implemented.

Having discussed about social media
characteristics, its differences from traditional media, and its roles in
political communication, it is also worth to discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of social media use for members of the public as political
audience as will be presented in the following subheading.

Potential advantages and disadvantages for audience when politicians use this media platform to bypass traditional media

Without a doubt, social media has
contributed positively to the development of political communications by
providing a new platform facilitating a more direct and interactive political
communication (Nulty et al., 2016). It has help to improve
communication between members of the public and politicians. Especially, social
media has help politicians to gain political advantages over the improved
communication system. Using social media politicians can now conduct political
campaign and other political communications in an efficient and effective
manner.

However, despite social media use for
political communication provides benefits for politicians, it also presents
several disadvantages that should be of concern to politicians. One possible
disadvantage of social media use for politician is that social media operation
needs sufficient skills and resources. Since not all politicians are internet
literate and sufficient communication skills, it thus can be very difficult for
them to keep pace with social media applications (Howard et al., 2017). In addition, operating social media
is also time consuming. The nature of social media platform that allows two-way
communication will force politician to allocate much time to response to
abundant audiences’ comments and posts. Again, it poses difficulties to
politicians to respond to all audience contents. To deal with this problem
politicians then tend to appoint a person to provide responds to their audience
which creates another burden to human resources and management (Howard et al., 2017).

Another disadvantage is that using
social media as a medium for political communication in online public sphere
will make politicians to have ‘less control over the information available
about them in cyberspace’ (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010, p. 60). It is increasingly difficult for
politicians to maintain their positive image over potential constituents as
users of social media can possibly generate and disseminate as much misleading
information on politicians to social media channels.

The 2017 Jakarta Gubernatorial
Election in Indonesia can serve as an empirical example on the disadvantages of
social media use for candidate political campaign. During this election process
can be witnessed massive negative use of social media for black campaign over
one election’s candidate Basuki Cahaya Purnama known as Ahok. Social media has inspired
users to practise hate speech which fertilize sectarian and racist sentiment (Lim, 2017), while putting aside politicians as
helpless observers who cannot alter publicly posted negative comments. This was
particularly true when Ahok and his team failed to recover his public image
despite massive counter message had been posted to the public through social
media.

However, despite those advantages and
disadvantages of using social media for politicians, a relatively limited
number of literature address the possible advantages and disadvantages for the
audience when politicians use this media platform to bypass traditional media. This
paper has identified several advantages of social media usage by politicians
for members of the public.

Firstly, social media platform will
enable direct engagement between members of the public and politician in
political activities. Different from access to traditional media use which is difficult
to gain due to increasing competitiveness with other political audience;
characteristic of social media which provide open and free access to its users (Klinger and Svensson, 2015) make it easier for members of the
public to communicate and transfer their message directly to politicians.
Therefore, social media use will increase the likeliness of members of the
public to directly engage with politicians and political parties.

Secondly, social media use for
political communication will increase political participation of members of the
public (Speakman, 2015). Unlike political communication
using traditional media which produce one-way communication, social media
communication enables two-ways communication. This reciprocal communication
will encourage the public to be a more active participant. Social media use
will encourage the emergence of ‘new voices in the political debates’ (Scaramuzzino and Scaramuzzino, 2017, p .46) as individual becoming more active
participant.

Thirdly, social media provides
alternative access to communication with politicians. If the last decades
political communication has largely conducted through traditional media
channels, currently this communication can also be done through social media. As
both members of the public and political actors today have widely used social
media as a means for political communication (Nulty et al., 2016); currently communication between
both parties no longer depend on traditional media mediation. Both members of
the public and politician no longer need to compete for a space in traditional
media for political discussion. With the existence of social media both parties
can use it to create their own domain to discuss political issues.

Finally, social media use increases political
literacy of members of the public. Social media use for political communication
allows members of the public to gain more information on politics and increases
their opportunity to learn about it. This argument relevant to Howard’s idea that
‘social media, like other Internet-based communications, …supplement our intake
of information about politics, elections, and public policy, and allow people
to be more omnivorous in their information diets’ (Howard et al., 2017, p. 58). Therefore, it is worth for
politicians and political parties, alongside with traditional media, using
social media for political education either for their constituents and broader
political audience.

Despite those above advantages of social
media use for audience, social media use also has several disadvantages.
Firstly, social media usage in political communication may limit public
participation in political activities. One factor that contributes to this limitation
is government censorships against social media. This is due censorship
regulations applied by government. The application of media censorship by
several countries such as in Zimbabwe, Indonesia, China and Turkey has posed
challenges to social media use for political communication especially for
members of the public. In such countries where censorship is tightly applied to
all media platform, undertaking political communication through social media
will be difficult. It would be difficult for member of the public to fully
engage in political communication with politicians especially the ones
perceived as opposition to government. There will be many risks faced by the
member of the public to generate, communicate, and discuss sensitive issues
especially ones aimed at criticizing their government. In China and Turkey both
central government exert excessive control over public use of social media (Miller et al., 2016, p. 148). As a result of this control, public
in China use social media for entertainment instead of political communication,
while in southeast Turkey using social media to criticizes government will
expose users to government sanction (Miller et al., 2016, p. 148).

Another factor that contributes to
the limited public participation in political communication caused by social
media use is the existing digital divide. The fact that digital divide is still
exist within communities in every country is also contribute to the limit of
public participation in political activities. Digital divide itself can be
defined as a condition in which some proportion of a society who are
underprivilege do not access to the Internet, while some other proportion who
are wealthy, middle-class, and young living in the urban areas have the access
to the Internet (Norris, 2001). 
Existing digital divide has made social media use for political communication
ineffective as not all of members of society can access the media platform.
Social media use therefore will exclude them from participating in political
activities and increase democratic deficit.

Secondly, social media usage in
political communication will increase marginalization over certain members of
the public. The fact that not all members of society have access to the
Internet will make social media use increase marginalization and polarization
of political audience, leaving the marginalised group limited access to online
political participation. This condition will reduce their opportunities to
interact and communicate with politicians to convey their aspiration, thought
and critics.

Thirdly, social media usage is
resource and skills demanding (Scaramuzzino and Scaramuzzino, 2017, p. 46). To operation social media users
need devices such mobile phones and computers. Also, there should be Internet infrastructure.
And the most important is that users should be internet literate. Those
preconditions have made social media use is not easy. Even though digital
divide in certain communities decreases that is marked by improving on the
development of and the even distribution of the Internet infrastructure,
operating social media apps still poses challenges to members of the public due
to literacy problem. Recent data from UNESCO shows around 750 million of adult population in
the world are still illiterate and most them are women (UNESCO Institute of
Statistics, 2017).

Another factor that might limit
social media use is that the fact that this media platform is not entirely free
media. To operate social media apps such as Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Blackberry
Messenger, for instance, users of those social media platforms should have an
internet connection; and to have such connection is not always free. In Uganda,
for example, despite users of social media can access free internet connection
at some public places like public libraries and airport; not all of them can
make use internet connection in every place. Uneven development of internet
infrastructure has been the main reason for the limitation on social media
usage in the country. The majority of internet infrastructure in Uganda is
currently available in urban areas compare to rural ones (Kiranda et al., 2016). This, condition then will hamper
communication process between members of the public and politicians. Not just
limitation in internet connection has been the problem for running social
media, the expensive cost for setting up internet connection has also been the
reason for the limitation on social media use.

Finally, social media usage increase polarization
among members of the public. Social media use for political communication encourages
the establishment of groups within society based on political ideology and
preferences. This is due to social media users tend to establish friendship and
communication with user who share the same political preferences and ideology.
Research findings reveal that ‘social media use causes people to turn their social
networks into “filter bubbles” that diminish the chance of exposure to new or
challenging ideas’ (Howard et al., 2017, p. 57). This in turn will encourage the
creation of homophilous networks. In the United States, for instance, social
media use like Twitter and Facebook has divided electorates into Republicans
and Democrats.

It is clear from the aforementioned discussion that using social media
as a platform for political communication has both advantages and disadvantages
for the public. It is therefore worth to consider how to deal with the
disadvantages in order to improve the benefits of using social media for political
members of the public. Politicians should consider combining both traditional
and social media as the media for communication. Combination of both media will
likely increase the efficiency and effectiveness of political communication.

Conclusion

To sum up, every human needs to communicate. Communication has enable
human to keep interact with each other to express their concerns and thought
about any issues and difficulties they face in their daily lives. To better
communicate, human develops communication method and media. As a result,
communication method and media are always changing. They will change following
the development of human civilization.

In this millennium era, communication media has varied greatly thanks to
the development of information and communication technology (ICT). The
development of ICT has encouraged the birth of new media communication. New
media communication like the Web 2.0 has an alternative of communication media.
Indeed, the latest development of Web 2.0 that is social media has increased
the efficiency and effectiveness of public communication. If in the last
decades, the roles of mediation and dissemination of information mainly
monopolised by traditional media like print media, TV, and radio, just to name
a few. Currently, some of that roles, if not all, have been transfer to social
media.

Social media use today is not limited to day-to-day conversation, but
has been extended to political communication. The interactive and flexible
nature of social media has made it now widely used by either member of the
public, politicians, and political parties in political communication. Social
media has now been a main means for political campaign and communication.

However, politician should be wised in using social media for political
communication as this medium communication use presents several advantages and
disadvantages, especially for the audience. Combining traditional and social
media for communication may be the best solution to maintain engagement and
communication with the audience. 

References

BOGOST, I. 2017. Obama Was Too Good at Social Media [Online]. TheAtlantic.com. Available: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/did-america-need-a-social-media-president/512405/ [Accessed 13 September 2017].

BUSINESS CASE STUDIES. 2017. Page 4: Methods of communication [Online]. Available: http://businesscasestudies.co.uk/hmrc/getting-the-message-across-the-importance-of-good-communications/methods-of-communication.html [Accessed 17 September 2017].

EFFING, R., VAN HILLEGERSBERG, J. & HUIBERS, T. 2011. Social Media and Political Participation: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube Democratizing Our Political Systems? LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE, 25-35.

GAINOUS, J. & WAGNER, K. M. 2014. Tweeting to power : the social media revolution in American politics, New York : Oxford University Press, 2014.

HOWARD, P., SAVAGE, S., FLORES-SAVIAGA, C., TOXTLI, C. & MONROY-HERNÁNDEZ, A. 2017. Social media, civic engagement, and the slacktivism hypothesis: lessons from Mexico’s “El Bronco”.

JOHNSTON, G. 2017. The Means of Ancient Communication: Part 2 [Online]. Available: http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/themeansofancientcommunicationpart2.html [Accessed 9 August 2017].

KAPLAN, A. M. & HAENLEIN, M. 2010. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68.

KIRANDA, Y., MUGISHA, M. & OJOK, D. 2016. Social Media, Political Communication and Campaigning in Uganda: Opportunity or Challenge? In: KAMP, M. (ed.) Assessing the Impact of Social Media on Political Communication and Civic Engagement in Uganda. Uganda: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Uganda Programme.

KLINGER, U. & SVENSSON, J. 2015. The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. New Media & Society, 17, 1241-1257.

LIM, M. 2017. Freedom to hate: social media, algorithmic enclaves, and the rise of tribal nationalism in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 49, 411-427.

MILLER, D., COSTA, E., HAYNES, N., MCDONALD, T., NICOLESCU, R., SINANAN, J., SPYER, J., VENKATRAMAN, S. & WANG, X. 2016. How the world changed social media, UCL press.

NORRIS, P. 2001. Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide, Cambridge University Press.

NULTY, P., THEOCHARIS, Y., POPA, S. A., PARNET, O. & BENOIT, K. 2016. Social media and political communication in the 2014 elections to the European Parliament. Electoral Studies, 44, 429-444.

SAMSUNG GALAXY, N. 2014. From smoke signals to smartphones: The evolution of communication.

SCARAMUZZINO, G. & SCARAMUZZINO, R. 2017. The weapon of a new generation?—Swedish Civil Society Organizations’ use of social media to influence politics. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14, 46-61.

SPEAKMAN, B. 2015. Interactivity and political communication: New media tools and their impact on public political communication. Journal of Media Critiques [JMC], 1.

UNESCO INSTITUTE OF STATISTICS. 2017. Literacy [Online]. Available: http://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/literacy [Accessed 11 September 2017].

WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM 2016. Digital Media and Society: Implications in a Hyperconnected Era. World Economic Forum.