The power of social media has always fallen under a less important banner to that of “legacy media” when it comes to politics. But with the rising trend of individuals seeking their own news, the influences sites such as Twitter and Facebook are having on the new generation of content being created, I believe Tony Abbott’s views on it should change.
Constructing this online media persona, candidates, I believe can appeal to a wider range of personnel on the internet. Tools such as the “#” are ever increasing methods of collectiveness and have the ability to reach a larger scale of people then regular methods of campaigning. In this YouTube video I will look into this notion, and how I believe Mr Abbott should definitely reconsider his opinions on social media, as it could perhaps increase his popularity amongst my own generation of cyber culture.
In lectures covered, the concept of ideology was introduced as “the way we imagine the world to be”. As this varies from person to person, the power associated to controlling who listens to your version of how things should operate often come back to media ownership.
The thought I was left with was “Does it matter who owns the media” and in relation to the media I use does it make a difference? The best comparison I can relate this topic to is the recent state election in NSW, and thus elections in general. For news and events my use has changed dramatically since moving to university, to that of when I lived at home. Originally Channel 9 was my source of news and current affairs on television, Channel 9 isn’t owned by any one person, instead private equity firm CVC Asia Pacific has control through its holding of Nine Entertainment yet since becoming more independent and the introduction to a smart phone, my primary source of news is Facebook and Twitter. This is due to the ease of access and the ability to filter what news is brought to me through following providers and hashtags. Facebook is owned by Mark Zuckerberg, and Twitter, Jack Dorsey.
In relation to the election coverage, I believe the media can sway voters in which ever way they choose. This can be the “idealogical” position of those in ownership, the ties they have with the candidate or simply how they appeal to those on different platforms. The recent one is an example due to how each party was represented on social media, which then appeals to me who uses this service as a news source.
Memes from the NSW election campaign. Photo: Supplied
So, in this particular example, yes. I do believe that this makes a difference about who owns the media, as they display content in relation to news and events that is consumed by a target audience such as a state election.
An interesting link that was in the lecture, covers another election in 2013, this time federal, and how the media was able to sway an entire party shift led by Rupert Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph. He released a less then convincing post on Twitter (To perhaps reach in another perspective of his opinion)
“Tele wot won it”! No, Australians just sick of Gillard-Rudd incompetence and infighting wrecking great county.”
— Twitter, @rupertmurdoch, 7th September, 2013
Out of a total of 293 political stories we scored only six as pro Labor. While 43 were pro coalition. On the negative side there were just five articles which we judged to be anti Coalition. While a remarkable 134 were anti Labor. The rest we scored as neutral
If this continues to be the case, politicians will not only have to sway the public, they’ll also have to be in terms with media owners so that they may be presented in the media in a positive light, or effectively be cast out and be shamed in the press.