I called my friend long distance after watching Tuesday’s presidential debate. When I asked her if she watched, she replied that she hadn’t but she may as well have. My friend was referring to her Facebook newsfeed, one that was chock-full of sardonic status updates and links recounting debate highlights. While she didn’t know about the candidates’ evasive responses to gun control legislation, she was able to laugh with me over the “binders full of women” meme page. When it comes down to it, social media is taking this year's election coverage in a new and unfortunate direction.
The rise in social media has redefined the notion of viral. We no longer need to consult our local media conglomerate to discover the latest controversy. Recently, social media has played a direct role in inciting political controversy. From the Anthony Weiner Twitter scandal, to the numerous blunders coming from both Romney and Obama this summer, political bloopers are abound.
The craze du jour is Romney’s comment in response to equal opportunity for women. The comment has made its way onto virtually every social media platform. It has multiple twitter accounts, a Tumblr and a Facebook page. These pages join the virtual gallery of political tomfoolery.
This fall, the political social media presence has been particularly intense. Before the binders, it was Ryan’s photo shoot. Even before that, the bully Joe Biden dominated the web. It is extremely easy to get caught up in these dramatic moments on the campaign trail rather than focusing on the issues at hand.
Media conglomerates are adapting to this trend. The Guardian recently paired with Tumblr to start “live-GIFfing” the debates. And if they aren’t creating the memes, publications are listing or analyzing the top trending memes, parodies and Twitter handles.
Getting social media to work in your favor is easy. Like the page on Facebook, and your friends will view you as a “politically-savvy” debate watcher, whether you are or not. Better yet, post a status about Paul Ryan's "Bean" baby yourself. It will be sure to garner likes from other “politically-inclined” Facebook users.
It is for this reason that I question the role social media is playing this election. It's making comprehensive, multifaceted coverage more accessible, but also allowing political gaffs to share the stage with cat GIFs and Perez Hilton. Yes, there is more online discussion about the race, but becoming reliant on our newsfeeds for election coverage leaves us misinformed. Personally, the posts on my Facebook page about 2k12 can be nauseating, especially if they are written to demonstrate political aptitude. Feeds depict a fraction of the political landscape.
I wonder when it became “cool” to know about the upcoming election, and how far it will extend. So far, it doesn’t seem like the urge to be the first to know about the next political gaffe be incentive enough to watch the whole debate. Knowing about Romney’s intentions to “fire Big Bird” doesn’t seem to be enough to compel Facebook users to look into voting for Obama. This is only perpetuated by our news sources frequently reporting on the goofs. If the political trivialities that dominate social media can be used to get an onslaught of informed young people to the polls, then they definitely have merit. But if they continue to fester on the internet, blockading and over-simplifying candidates’ policies, then we are better off without the excess memes and tweets.