Social Media in Government: Benefits, Challenges and Impact on Social

Perception
An engaged citizenry is key to any democracy, and social media is built on engagement. A government
entity using social media can directly interact with citizens in a more personalized and accessible way
than press conferences, television appearances, or ads. It’s important for individuals in government
organizations to understand how social media, done well, can provide many benefits. Yet even the best
intentions can go awry, so professionals in charge of government accounts also need to prepare for the
challenges of direct interaction with the public on social media.

Engaging the Public Through Social Media

Social media represents a unique opportunity for government entities to create an engaged citizenry.
Many agencies consider it mission-critical.

For instance, the Department of Justice believes its use of social media through platforms like Twitter,
Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram improves government transparency, increases the availability of
services and information, and allows it to share news more easily. The State Department uses the same
social media platforms plus Flickr to spread the influence of the United States’ foreign policy. These five
platforms are also used by the Department of Energy to keep their Energy.gov brand in the public eye
with the intention of increasing government transparency, facilitating public participation, and
furthering the discussion of energy issues.

Unfortunately, many state IT departments have open positions because the government can’t pay as
much as corporate sector employers, and IT pros don’t see the government as a cutting-edge workplace
in their field. But some states, such as Maine, Colorado, and Vermont, are using social media to
emphasize the government’s service-oriented nature, which appeals to millennials.

Examples of How Cities Use Social Media

Austin, Texas, shares information about resources, activities, and city initiatives via social media. For
example, the Austin energy utility’s YouTube channel teaches customers how to save on utility bills,
while the Austin Public Library’s Flickr account highlights the results of library craft nights.

Seattle Washington uses social media to encourage citizen engagement and interaction on its account.
For example, the city’s Office of Economic Development uses Twitter to share COVID-19-related school
and business closure information, while their Department of Construction and Inspections uses
Facebook to showcase community involvement and share industry-related city news.

Nine Key Benefits of Social Media Use for All Levels of Government

One of the biggest benefits of social media is that it allows governments to share critical information in a
crisis. It can also enable governments to control the narrative on key issues. Thirdly, social media allows
governments to use experts to share health, science, and expert information. Additionally, it can allow
governments to create an open channel for citizen interaction and engagement.

Another key benefit is that it allows agencies to find out quickly which messaging resonates best with
the target audience. It also can reduce public relations and advertising costs. Additionally, it can increase
trust in the government. It can also allow agencies to reach people and communities on platforms they
already use. Finally, social media humanizes governments.

Challenges of Using Social Media in Government

Social media can benefit government agencies, but it’s also the realm of conspiracy theories and
disinformation campaigns. While social media can foster better citizen engagement and connection, it
can also divide and confuse

About 70% of U.S. adults rely on social media for government information at least once a week, but only
11% of them actually trust the information on social media, according to a survey conducted by the
Associated Press. This creates some unique challenges. For instance, an Arizona woman sued her
congressman after he blocked her on his personal Facebook account, where he was posting campaign
information. Social media platforms used for public meetings like town halls have also run into problems
when comments are reposted elsewhere in violation of the platform’s rules.

Pitfalls to Avoid When Managing a Government Account

There are numerous stumbling blocks to be aware of to effectively manage a government account. One
potential pitfall is to think of social media as a bullhorn. Another challenge is using personal accounts to
post official information. A third pitfall to avoid concerns posting classified or sensitive information. It’s
also important to be mindful of posting political content or taking sides. Another issue to skirt involves
posting official policy without authorization. Finally, it’s important to avoid violating local quorum laws
by engaging in private social media channels or commenting on a post.

Influencing the Public Perception of Government

Many Americans turn to social media for government information and news, and agencies can use social
media to show people and communities their government in action.

Tips for Government Social Media Managers

There are several key strategies behind building an effective, trusted government social media channel.
These include making the channel visual through video, using tasteful humor, and understanding privacy
laws.

Advice in Action

It can be crucial to understand your audience and deliver what it needs. It can also be essential to
connect with citizens when they need clarity. Additionally, being an engaging presence can help
tremendously. Finally, it’s wise to use vast resources at your disposal.

The Power of Being Social

While social media can present problems for government entities, it’s also a tremendous opportunity for
civic engagement and targeted messaging. Clear, thoughtful social media guidelines and a plan for
emergency situations can go a long way toward helping those who post to public platforms avoid the
pitfalls.
The media’s influence on society
The media influences so many people’s behaviour nowadays. Information can be spread after a few
clicks of a button, whether it is true, false, speculation or gossip. This can affect relationships in various
ways, be it between celebrities and ordinary people or between celebrities themselves and their loved
ones. The media can manipulate, influence, persuade and pressurise society, along with even controlling
the world at times in both positive and negative ways; mentally, physically and emotionally.

Controversial stories are reported and printed with no reliance of it being fact or not. The public is
“meant” to believe everything they’re told and not question it. With it being so easy to say assert an
opinion so easily after a few taps, it can lead to investigations and front page headlines. Additionally, as
newspapers and magazines have websites, articles can be posted and received quicker than printed
articles, and are updated more regularly. Links to these articles can be posted to social media platforms
– like Facebook and Twitter – as well as being emailed and messaged directly between friends and
family. Today, the media is everywhere, and can easily get to places if needs be in ‘BREAKING NEWS’
scenarios. According to Global Web Index, 54% of daily media time is online. Also, on a typical day, 12%
of people watch online TV, 10% listen to online radio, 12% read online press, 28% use social networking
sites, 13% are micro-blogging, 9% read or write blogs, and 17% do other things. This means there is
constant access to news and the goings on in the world, with the aid of links from social media sites, as
you can receive news so quickly, all information whether it’s true, false or opinion.

The media can influence the way people are viewed, which means people’s careers can change within a
flash. The media can also manipulate people in the spotlight to lead their life a particular way, or to
rebel against what they ‘should’ be like. Miley Cyrus, 21, grew up around fame, with the influence of her
father, Billy Ray Cyrus, as well as famous godmother Dolly Parton, both of which are American country
singers. Therefore, Miley Cyrus was bound to attract public eye. Miley has had minor acting roles, but
became a famed child star at the age of 11, with her success in Hannah Montana, a TV programme
based on a teenage girl (Cyrus) with a split life between that of an ordinary schoolgirl and of a ‘teen pop
sensation’. By having the role of Hannah Montana she became a role model to millions of young girls
around the world which she didn’t ask for, but it came with the job.

Her style and public acts started to change during her 15 month engagement to Liam Hemsworth at the
age of 19. Some say she was too young to be in such a committed relationship. The media started to pick
up on everything she did. She’s been caught up in controversial matters which could be seen as
inappropriate to her younger fans. She has been accused of taking drugs, her ‘twerking’ scandal, and
also spitting water over her fans at concerts. This all creates a bad image of her to the public, and
especially to parents. However, Miley’s positive and beneficial acts are not drawn upon by the media,
like the fact she supports many charities. According to looktothestarts.org, a celebrity charity fact
website, Cyrus has supported around 39 charities over her ten year career. A key way Miley raised
money was by promoting charities through her concerts. The City of Hope charity, dedicated to research
and providing treatment centres to help and support people suffering from cancer, diabetes, and other
life-threatening diseases, is a charity Miley has performed for, with the aid of the Jonas Brothers, Jordin
Sparks, and Gavin DeGraw. In addition to this, whilst still in a relationship with Liam Hemsworth, it was
reported that Miley Cyrus, then 19, cut her hair off for charity which she tweeted about to clarify, and
that she was happy that she did so.
Many celebrities and sportsmen are influenced and manipulated by the media, but have to ignore it to
perform well. Diver Tom Daley, who is one of England’s top athletes, has had to deal with the pressure
of having to perform at his very best, whilst battling with internet abuse and the media through most of
his senior career. He’s won three Commonwealth Games gold medals, along with one silver, an Olympic
bronze medal, national titles, and more. He had success with Splash!, a diving show with celebrity
participation, over the last two years, as well as Tom Daley Goes Global, where he travelled with best
friend Sophie, to Thailand, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, various European countries, and Morocco. At
the 2012 Olympics Daley was one of Team GB’s golden boys and high hopes were expected of him.
Diving comes with pressure in itself, but with the added pressure from Great Britain and the media this
doesn’t help when going into competition. Daley didn’t secure gold, which led to news stories being
published of Tom doing too much media and PR work along with not training hard enough. Alexei
Evangulov, of British Swimming, questioned Daley’s media commitments and Tom defended himself.
This was the February before the 2012 Olympics, which couldn’t have helped Daley. He still came away
with a bronze medal for all his hard work. Daley stayed away from social media during his completion
periods, so he was away from opinion. Not all reports were positive about him, but the people writing
the articles may not understand diving and the mentality needed for the sport. Daley is a private person,
and who can blame him? He’s an ordinary boy from Plymouth, participating in a sport he loves. Diving is
an ‘on the day’ sport, which with one bad dive can affect whether you get a medal or not.

General challenges faced by the media industry across all formats

The content that is distributed through these formats can be either for educational purposes, for
entertainment or to endorse an idea. These formats are broadly categorized into two heads; (1)
Traditional media (those which we hereinabove named) and (2) New media (like blogs, vlogs, websites,
podcasts, websites, etc). Some common challenges faced by both these formats are:

Lack of Transparency

This has been an issue for as long as the industry can be recognized. Issues in complex nature of
contracts, advertising, handling (and settlement) of funds, acquisition and retainment of personnel and
content, ambiguity in having on board the clients and producers have always been of concern to the
media houses. Further, advertising has been a simple model; but there are various pieces that are
needed to be put together- what type of media is being used for advertising, is it direct or indirect
advertising. This leads then to a whole separate need of accounting, from sales, to financial planning, its
analysis, to finance management. This poses a risk of slip-ups due to which an overall analysis gets
affected.

Compliance with laws/regulations

It is very difficult for the media industry to comply with all the rules and regulations within the time limit
and to act in accordance with all the laws that apply to them. From managing the finances to filing of
return, reporting expectations with SEBI and such other Authorities, complying with labour laws,
environmental laws, local laws that regulate the lease of the premises, electricity and other
requirements, from employment laws to IP laws, etc. Legal compliance is very important as it prevents
the organisations from lawsuits and damages, while detecting violations. But it is not easy to identify
them since the laws are evolving and an organisation needs a sound team to put off this challenge.

Challenges with respect to taxation

Each business has to pay taxes, to the local government, to the state and the centre. The Income Tax
department comes very heavily on the defaulters, from huge amounts of fines to even imprisonment.
Taxation is a very slippery path and it is very important to be cautious as to how the media industry
grows and grows safely (without having being a target to the tax structure). Hence it is very important
that this industry has a very sound section to manage taxes.

Threat to media channels

With people shifting to digitisation, it is not only the transmission of news, facts and information that
has become faster and easier but so has the attacks such as hacking of social media accounts, phishing,
frauds, etc. Social media accounts are one of the most important assets of the media industry in the
current scenarios, and the hackers can easily hack into them and spread false information which may
result in hurting the sentiments of lots of people and attract bad names to the media house. Further, the
attackers may use these handles to post a link that may redirect the users to malicious websites and the
users may be duped. There are various instances wherein these attackers pose themselves as employees
of these media houses and loot them.

Hurt and life threats to people working in the industry

We see this happening to reporters that cover sensitive issues and to those who really put in genuine
efforts in revealing the truth behind a story. News anchors, journalists, activists on social media are
mainly targeted. People who are whistleblowers or who spend their career covering issues such as rape,
dowry, honour killing, murder, revealing the identity of a famous celebrity or a VIP or even cases related
to them; most likely get threatened of harm to their life or injury to their loved ones. This holds true for
people working in journalism, anchor/hosts of radio station, news channel, writers of print media and
influencers online.

Concern relating to Data Privacy

Regulations have been implemented for businesses to handle personal data and for organisations that
transmit user data to such companies, yet data leak has been the headlines quite very often. Big data
challenges can pose trouble when it comes to accumulating adequate user data, without which exact
scrutiny cannot be carried on. Viewers are being more sensitive than ever, towards their data and are
troubled on how their personal data is being used.

Licensing requirements

With each step of success that the organization takes, registration is required for business licenses, from
employment registration, taxation, expanding the business, enlarging its scope by having new clients on
board, etc.; for all steps, the ownership document is a primary requirement. Investors are also very
vigilant on the license issues ahead of entering into this type of business.
Adaptation challenges

Only a few percentages of players in the media industry are welcoming new technologies to their area of
work, while the majority are hesitant and are concerned about the backfire or the trouble these new
“uncommon” solutions will cause. This results in dependency on outdated methodologies making it
difficult for the players to communicate business between themselves. Use of terms like “big data”,
“artificial intelligence”, “automation” etc have increased now more than ever, particularly as reporting
tools and yet we are resilient in adapting these technologies for our benefit.

Lack of financial support

Finance is not so-much-of-a-big-issue for well established or even new media houses that are backed by
some influential person; but it matters a lot to small organisations, someone like you and me who wants
to establish a start-up to give out some real content. Starting a new company may or may not be difficult
on an individual basis but one thing is common in each case, that is, building investment and scaling up
with the growing business has always been tough for all types of media houses. These costs vary a lot,
from human resources costs, to data collection and processing costs, to data storage and protection
costs, etc. SaaS and Cloud storage do make it easier to an extent but not everyone is ready to accept it
with open minds or do not have enough resources to implement it.

Media Reputation

Reputation is fast-reaching; it is like the fire in the forest. The character of lifetimes crushed down to
“reputation” in one action; whether that action was justified or not is something to be looked into but
nowadays, media houses are not considered to be a very favourable place to work at. It has gained a
bad reputation; a medium that was earlier supposed to bring out true facts and be a source of
inspiration has now merely become a money-making institution and the “voice of the voiceless” gets
silenced in no time. Ever wondered why not many people are choosing this profession? Ever wondered
why there aren’t enough professionals to fill the void?

Discrimination and lack of efforts

Both these words are a reality in the media industry. Discrimination happens; discrimination of both
types-positive wherein females are not put out on field for particular tasks where muscle and high
tolerance to pain and pressure is needed and, negative wherein a stereotype is formed that a particular
gender is only fit to assist and to do desk-job. But this discrimination is gradually fading away when we
as a society are developing a sense of togetherness, that no work is made for a particular class and that
anyone who has the require qualification and skills can perform it. That draws my attention to another
challenge which is short of initiative. I remember my journalist friend telling me, “I just do my part of the
work, our individuality gets work done but we lack team effort; my teammates always have to gossip
around until the deadline and then work all night”, she continues, “we are a group, not a team.” When
odds are against us, it is the total effort that brings us success. I believe Hellen Keller puts it in the best
way when she says, “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” [1]

Print Media

The print media has been in the market since Johannes Gutenberg invented the print press in 1450s.
However, technology upgradation and changes in customer preferences have created some serious
challenges for this industry. One of the very serious concerns amongst the masses lately has been that
so much paper is consumed by the print and publication industry. As much as half, or atleast near about
so; of the trees that are harvested, are cut off to make paper. The bleaching agents that the industry
uses, also causes harm to the environment. Inks which are petroleum based, have high amounts of
volatile organic compounds that cause further harm to the environment.

Challenges faced

One of the biggest challenges is the digital substitution of the print media. With the introduction of E-
Book formats such as Kindle, Noble and Nook, and audio books, a larger audience has substituted the
traditional means of newspaper, magazines and books. These digital substitutions are a better option
and are affordable, convenient. Another shot that digitalisation has taken on the print media is that,
there were some tasks that very mandatorily be done through the means of printing; but due to the
Covid-19 hitting worldwide and us witnessing nationwide lockdown, has made us digital. We create
documents and send them online; can create invites, brochures, magazine layouts on our
desktops/laptops and share online with people. No need for printing now.

They say that a Pen is mightier than a sword. Journalism, a form of print media is expected to state out
true facts, to bring out the political narrative. However, with political pressure and/or the media house
owners’/promoters’ ties with political links, suppress the actual facts and the whole intention of free
press is failed. For instance, a Marathi newspaper, Lokmat, have Mr. Rajendra Darda and Vijay Darda as
its editor-in-chief, both former MP of Congress and Jagran, a Hindi newspaper, has Mr. Mahendra
Mohan Gupta as is CMD, who is a former MP from the Samajwadi Party. Various regional print media
publications are partially or wholly owned by the political parties. Such control of present or former
politicians can directly/indirectly affect the elections. Though the Election Commission comes down
heavily and watches every activity of the parties participating in elections, a kin or next friend having
interest in the media house can influence the readers through advertisements. Political capture in India
needs to be regulated.

Being strategic. With many competitors emerging in the industry, the business houses need to up their
game, engage in formal strategic planning by goal setting and undertaking measures to stay ahead in the
competition. Assets, talent, margins, verticals, customer base, their response should be considered at all
times. Planning, Pricing and People will help media houses stay ahead in such times of crisis.

Social networks

For four consecutive years since 2015, Philippines has been at the top spot worldwide in terms of the
amount of time people spend on social media, based on the report published by advertising agency We
are Social and social media management platform company Hootsuite in January this year. According to
the same report, Filipinos spend an average of three hours and 53 minutes on social media on any
device everyday, hence the label ‘social media capital of the world’ (Pablo, 2018; Mateo, 2018). The
report also shows that the average number of social media accounts per internet user is 9.9.
Surprisingly, despite these figures, Philippines lags behind its neighbors in Southeast Asia when it comes
to internet speed and cost (Pablo, 2018), although recent figures show that average internet speed in
the country is fast increasing (We are Social and Hootsuite, 2020).
The report showed that Philippines has 73 million active social media users. This figure bears more
significance if contextualized – the total population as of 2020 is roughly 109 million. An overwhelming
98 percent of these users access social media networks through their smartphones. These figures are
higher than the numbers in some highly developed countries like Japan and South Korea (House of IT,
2018).

Facebook is the most widely used platform – 96 percent of internet users use the network, much higher
than the U.S. figure (We are Social and Hootsuite, 2020). This is followed by YouTube (95 percent),
Facebook Messenger (89 percent), Instagram (64 percent), and Twitter (56 percent).

Social media is also used somewhat extensively in e-commerce as 29 percent of the internet-using
population search and purchase products through social media (We are Social and Hootsuite, 2018).
Commercial firms maintain at least one social media account as a way of promoting products or services
and getting in touch with the market. Furthermore, as of January 2020, Facebook reported that its
adverts reach 70 million Filipinos at a given time (We are Social and Hootsuite, 2020).

Many government agencies and public figures, as well as private enterprises, have social media accounts
to disseminate information and discuss with their ‘followers’. Advocacy groups and even belligerent
forces are managing social media accounts to communicate their cause and establish a wider audience
base. The Moro International Liberation Front and the Communist Party of the Philippines, for example,
are publishing some campaign materials and other related content in their Facebook accounts.

Most of the news consumption is now done through television and social media (David, San Pascual, and
Torres, 2019, p.4; Newman et al., 2020). Much of the traffic to the news websites was generated by
social media, particularly Facebook (David et al., 2019, p.4), and media outlets now employ social media
managers or community managers to manage audience engagement and expand reach. A lot of political
engagement among Filipinos also happen in the Facebook social space. Based on an online survey with
978 Filipinos, David et al. (2019) found that following political figures and institutions on Facebook is
‘associated with higher levels of political interest and engagement’ and that using Facebook as source of
political information is positively correlated with discussing politics frequently with others (p.1).

However, social media has become ‘weaponized’ in this setting (Ong and Cabañes, 2016, p.1), as groups
and individuals were found to be implementing massive disinformation and discourse-hijacking
campaigns for political agenda (p.5). Ong and Cabañes’ (2016) conducted in-depth interviews and online
observation with operators of fake Facebook and Twitter accounts and the strategists who manage
them. The researchers found that click farms, fake news, and troll armies were used systematically by
players across the political spectrum to sow disinformation in social media. In another report, the
political party of the incumbent president Rodrigo Duterte, Partido Demokratiko Pilipino Lakas ng Bayan
or PDP Laban, was found to be hiring fake account operators especially during the campaign period
(Bradshaw and Howard, 2017, p. 17). Duterte himself admitted that during the presidential campaign
period in 2016, people were paid about USD 200,000 to ‘defend him on social media’ (Ranada, 2017).

The researchers noted that ‘disinformation production is a professionalized enterprise: hierarchical in its
organisation, strategic in its outlook and expertise, and exploitative in its morality and ethics’ (Ong and
Cabanes, 2018). They added that there is a system ‘has not only normalized political deception, but
made it financially rewarding – especially for people at the top’.

This systematic campaign to sow disinformation and delegitimize non-state sources of information –
‘cyber attack (and) online harassment/trolling’ – is perceived by Filipino journalists as the ‘second worst
threat’ in the current practice, according to a 2018 survey done by the International Federation of
Journalists and Southeast Asia Journalists Unions (International Federation of Journalists, 2019).

Critics fear that Facebook and other social media networks can become venues for cyberattacks against
perceived enemies of the government. For example, in June this year, hundreds of Filipinos reported
dummy accounts on Facebook – accounts with their name (sometimes misspelled) but with no profile
photo and few or no friends. One fake account reportedly sent a message to the real account, calling the
person a ‘terrorist’ (Cabato, 2020). The hashtag #HandsOffOurStudents went viral as many netizens
believe that these fake accounts could be used to implicate people in what could be considered as
‘terrorist’ acts online, especially because the fake accounts emerged at the time of the strong backlash
against the then proposed anti-terror law (see CNN Philippines Staff, 2020b; see also Rappler, 2020b).

The social media scene in the Philippines has also become spaces for gender-based violence (offensive
language, online harassment, among others). In fact, ‘cybercrimes against women’ is among the top
three complaints received by the Anti-Cybercrime Group of the Philippine National Police (Occeñola,
2018). An empirical study also proved the link between depression and use of Facebook among Filipino
college students (see Maglunog and Dy, 2019): Based on a survey with about 350 college students, there
is a ‘moderate positive association’ between depression levels and time spent on Facebook.

Although social media has become a hostile space according to the experiences of many people, it
played an important role during natural disasters (see Tandoc and Takahashi, 2016; Tandoc, Takahashi,
and Carmichael, 2015). When super typhoon Haiyan barreled across the Visayas region of the
Philippines, the victims used Twitter ‘mostly for dissemination of second-hand information,

in coordinating relief efforts, and in memorializing those affected’ (Tandoc et al., 2015, p.392). Others
used Facebook for ‘collective coping strategies’ (Tandoc and Takahashi, 2016, p. 1).

As the pandemic crisis continued, more Filipinos turned to online selling particularly through Facebook
(Rivas, 2020b) as face-to-face interaction and gatherings were restrained and millions lost their jobs
during the lockdown (Lopez, 2020).

Media freedom is the lifeblood of Philippine democracy — and it’s under threat
If there’s a silver lining for the Philippines’ beleaguered democracy, it’s that its increasingly autocratic
president, Rodrigo Duterte, is limited to a single six-year term by the country’s constitution.

But each silver lining has a cloud. Based on current polling, there’s every chance that one of Duterte’s
allies will take over the presidency from him at the elections scheduled for May 2022. His daughter Sara
remains the most popular candidate, followed closely by Bongbong Marcos, son of the former dictator
Ferdinand. The most viable anti-Duterte liberals are all polling in the single digits.
The stakes in the election are still real, even if a turn back towards more liberal pre-Duterte politics
doesn’t appear likely. The polls will be both a test and a determinant of whether Duterte’s core cabal of
supporters are able to entrench their power under the leadership of a favoured successor.

Despite Philippine democracy’s myriad problems, elections are meaningful events in which voters have
the agency and the power to arbitrate intra-elite contests for political power. For that reason, slowing
the deterioration of the system depends not only on whether the 2022 polls see a Duterte proxy
elected, but whether the conduct of the election is still marked by free and fair competition between
the candidates. A level electoral playing field is the fundamental criterion that distinguishes even deeply
flawed democracies, like the Philippines, India and Indonesia, from what political scientists call
‘competitive authoritarian’ regimes, like Singapore or pre-2018 Malaysia — where elections might be
free and frequent, but not really fair.

That’s why it’s disturbing that one of the key pillars of political life in the Philippines — its traditionally
vibrant and critical mass media — has been under such pressure in the Duterte era, as Danilo Arao
writes in our lead article this week.

As part of his attempts to intimidate and punish opposition, Duterte and his allies in the Philippine
Congress, regulators, police and the military have fostered a ‘climate of media repression’ that ‘sends a
chilling message to journalists and media workers in the country that they should toe the administration
line’, says Arao.

The country’s leading TV network, ABS-CBN, disappeared from the airwaves in July 2020 after the
Duterte-controlled congress refused to renew its broadcasting licence — an echo of the Marcos regime’s
attack on the same network in the 1970s. Violence against journalists is common, with the Philippines
one of the most dangerous places in the world to practice journalism. Maria Ressa, the editor of the
fearless online news site Rappler, has had her global stature confirmed by being awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize; in her home country she has been the target of relentless legal harassment and intimidation
from the administration.

A hallmark of the current global political era is the mass media’s supplanting the role of grassroots party
and civic organisations in linking voters with politicians. This is particularly true of the Philippines, where
the system has never been structured by parties but instead by interlocking alliances of local political
machines. Presidents depend on the media — and especially TV — to reach past these machines to the
grassroots. Because voters barely identify with parties, the impressions of individual presidential
candidates they get via the media have a tremendous influence on their choices at the ballot box.

For these reasons, the domestication of the mass media as described by Arao has potentially serious
implications for the fairness of electoral competition in 2022 if, for instance, outlets feel obliged to give
favourable coverage of an administration-friendly candidate, or to limit coverage of their opponent.
Given a crowded presidential field, it makes a difference in the context of a media-saturated political
culture.

These dynamics are also in play to varying extents across Asia’s other big democracies. Indonesian
President Joko Widodo has maintained popularity throughout the pandemic in part because he
aggressively co-opted the tycoons who control Indonesia’s broadcast media; coverage of his
government has become noticeably friendlier as a result. In India, there are deep worries that the ruling
Bharatiya Janata Party is restricting the media’s ability to report critically on government policies.

Social media has subsequently become a haven for groups — some liberal, some not — who increasingly
distrust the mainstream press. Governments are aware and cracking down on social media with a
variety of tactics, typically under the cover of anti-‘misinformation’ or ‘fake news’ campaigns. In India
and Indonesia this has meant using the legal system as a tool to target selected critics; in the Philippines,
the government has simply made online spaces toxic by flooding social media with abuse and
misinformation directed at opponents.

It’s difficult to identify what could arrest or reverse these trends against media freedom and online
speech, given the deeply rooted domestic political forces and interests driving them. One thing liberal
democratic governments can do is to recognise how and when their own efforts to more tightly regulate
social media and crack down on foreign ‘interference’ — even if for good reasons — gives cover to
illiberal governments to do these exact same things for bad reasons.

In some places, ‘misinformation’ means just that, but in the increasingly chilly media and free speech
environments in the Philippines and across the region, it often means what the government doesn’t
want voters to hear.

Social media and democracy in the Philippines

The digitalisation of almost every aspect of civic life has brought forth a new constitutional moment. The
hyper-connectivity of peoples in the digital space has put a new spotlight on the importance of
constitutional rights such as free speech and press freedom. Indeed, the central role of social media in
contemporary society, particularly its ability to foster community political engagement, has heightened
appreciation for democracy itself.

For Filipinos the use of social media in the context of democratic consolidation is exceptionally
remarkable because for the past four years the Philippines has topped social media users worldwide.
They rank first globally in internet usage with an average daily screen time of 10 hours. And almost half
of the adult population use the internet.

But more importantly, a third of the 61 million-strong Philippine electorates are from the 18-35 age
bracket, where perhaps the majority of social media users actually belong. It is therefore imperative that
Filipinos now undergo a critical examination of the interplay of social media and democracy because in
two years they will be participating in a volatile and divisive political battle, the 2022 presidential
election.

Pertinently, CNN Philippines, through its Digital Disinformation Tracker research project, deployed a
team of academics to monitor online conversations relating to the midterm elections in 2019. And one
of their findings was that practically all candidates used various social media platforms such as
Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to promote themselves and their political agendas. This will likely
happen again in 2022.
Ostensibly, social media enabled otherwise under-resourced citizens to run for public office. For
instance, a majority of the 62 candidates in the 2019 senatorial race did not have nationwide popularity
nor the proper election machinery to implement a conventional political campaign. Many of these
relatively unknown candidates professed that social media platforms have afforded them the chance to
raise their profile with minimal cost.

Social media popularity not a guarantee

This apparent democratizing effect of social media then raises the question of whether a strong
presence in social media equates to electoral success?

First-time candidate Willie Ong is a good case study. At the time of the election, he had around 10
million followers on Facebook. As per the final and official tally of election returns, “Doc Willie”, as he
was known by his social media followers, garnered only about 7.6 million votes. This was not enough to
get one of the 12 seats up for grabs. The candidate who got the 12th seat tallied 14.5 million votes while
the one who took the top spot received 25.2 million votes.

One possible reason why some popular online personalities did not perform well in the election was that
Filipino voters pretty much stuck to their echo chambers in cyberspace. There was no effort from the
various political sides to “reach across the aisle” so to speak. Each side was only keen to promote their
respective narratives while equally determined to suppress the claims of the others.

Toxic environment in social media

The problem with an “isolationist mindset” is how easily it can evolve into an “us versus them”
mentality. Factor in the anonymity the internet affords, it is not surprising that interaction in social
media can become really vitriolic quickly. In fact, another finding of the CNN Philippines research project
was how “toxic” online discourse amongst the various political groups in social media was during the
entire election period.

Negative campaigning is part and parcel of any electoral exercise. Pointing out the faults and flaws of
opposing candidates is not unusual and in fact, helps voters in evaluating whom to vote for. According to
veteran journalist and news anchor, Christian Esguerra, who covered the midterm election closely,
“social media seemed to be a top weapon of choice for campaign disinformation, complementing old-
school negative propaganda on the ground”. Begging the question of whether more stringent measures
regulating online political advocacies should be adopted? A move that ironically could be viewed as
undemocratic being a curtailment of free speech.

Indeed, social media in the democratic context poses a huge dilemma for many democracies around the
world. Negative campaigning, fake news, and other modes of disinformation on the web are preventing
people from having an honest-to-goodness deliberation of urgent issues that impact everyone. This
absence of open public discussion then enables purveyors of these types of unscrupulous tactics to put
more garbage on the internet. Poisoning the well even further to the severe detriment of frequent social
media users like Filipinos.

Social media community response

Clearly, social media significantly impacts the trajectory of Philippine democracy. When utilised the right
way, the “connectivity” it fosters can enhance political engagement within the polity, which then can
elevate the level of political consciousness of citizens. But given the fluidity and dynamism of digital
technology, finding the “right way” is inevitably a process of reinvention. For starters, internet-savvy
Filipinos must accept that more open dialogue and genuine deliberation about political issues are
beneficial to the democratic growth of the country.

The government, on the other hand, must fully recognise that technology itself plays a huge role in
protecting and upholding the constitutional rights of Filipinos in the digital world. Therefore, it is
incumbent upon the government to keep pace with technological developments and recalibrate
cyberspace-related policies accordingly.

The truth of the matter though is understanding that the effects of digitalisation on democratic values,
such as freedom of speech and rule of law are still ongoing. But threats to democratic institutions
brought forth by digital technologies continue to evolve. Hence, civil society, the business sector
(including tech companies that own social media platforms), and governments must persist with good
faith discourse on this very issue to make sure that social media enhances democracy, not undermines
it.

The New Media’s Role in Politics

The new media environment is dynamic and continues to develop in novel, sometimes unanticipated,
ways that have serious consequences for democratic governance and politics. New media have radically
altered the way that government institutions operate, the way that political leaders communicate, the
manner in which elections are contested, and citizen engagement. This chapter will briefly address the
evolution of new media, before examining in greater detail their role in and consequences for political
life.

New political media are forms of communication that facilitate the production, dissemination, and
exchange of political content on platforms and within networks that accommodate interaction and
collaboration. They have evolved rapidly over the past three decades, and continue to develop in novel,
sometimes unanticipated ways. New media have wide-ranging implications for democratic governance
and political practices. They have radically altered the ways in which government institutions operate
and political leaders communicate. They have transformed the political media system, and redefined the
role of journalists. They have redefined the way elections are contested, and how citizens engage in
politics.

The rise of new media has complicated the political media system. Legacy media consisting of
established mass media institutions that predate the Internet, such as newspapers, radio shows, and
television news programs, coexist with new media that are the outgrowth of technological innovation.
While legacy media maintain relatively stable formats, the litany of new media, which includes websites,
blogs, video-sharing platforms, digital apps, and social media, are continually expanding in innovative
ways. Mass media designed to deliver general interest news to broad audiences have been joined by
niche sources that narrowcast to discrete users (Stroud, 2011). New media can relay information directly
to individuals without the intervention of editorial or institutional gatekeepers, which are intrinsic to
legacy forms. Thus, new media have introduced an increased level of instability and unpredictability into
the political communication process.
The relationship between legacy media and new media is symbiotic. Legacy media have incorporated
new media into their reporting strategies. They distribute material across an array of old and new
communication platforms. They rely on new media sources to meet the ever-increasing demand for
content. Despite competition from new media, the audiences for traditional media remain robust, even
if they are not as formidable as in the past. Readers of the print edition of The New York Times and
viewers of the nightly network news programs far outnumber those accessing the most popular political
news websites (Wired Staff, 2017). Cable and network television news remain the primary sources of
political information for people over the age of thirty (Mitchell and Holcomb, 2016). Consequently, new
media rely on their legacy counterparts to gain legitimacy and popularize their content.

Ideally, the media serve several essential roles in a democratic society. Their primary purpose is to
inform the public, providing citizens with the information needed to make thoughtful decisions about
leadership and policy. The media act as watchdogs checking government actions. They set the agenda
for public discussion of issues, and provide a forum for political expression. They also facilitate
community building by helping people to find common causes, identify civic groups, and work toward
solutions to societal problems.

The diversity of content disseminated by new media has created opportunities such as the ability for
more voices to be heard.

New media have the potential to satisfy these textbook functions. They provide unprecedented access
to information, and can reach even disinterested audience members through personalized, peer-to-peer
channels, like Facebook. As average people join forces with the established press to perform the
watchdog role, public officials are subject to greater scrutiny. Issues and events that might be outside
the purview of mainstream journalists can be brought into prominence by ordinary citizens. New media
can foster community building that transcends physical boundaries through their extensive networking
capabilities. Although legacy media coverage of political events correlates with increased political
engagement among the mass public, mainstream journalists do not believe that encouraging
participation is their responsibility (Hayes and Lawless, 2016). However, new media explicitly seek to
directly engage the public in political activities, such as voting, contacting public officials, volunteering in
their communities, and taking part in protest movements.

At the same time, the new media era has acerbated trends that undercut the ideal aims of a democratic
press. The media disseminate a tremendous amount of political content, but much of the material is
trivial, unreliable, and polarizing. The watchdog role pre-new media had been performed largely by
trained journalists who, under the best of circumstances, focused on uncovering the facts surrounding
serious political transgressions. Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein inspired a
generation of investigative journalists after revealing President Richard Nixon’s role in the break-in at
the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel, forcing his resignation (Shepard, 2012).
Much news in the new media era is defined by coverage of a never-ending barrage of sensational
scandals—be they real, exaggerated, or entirely fabricated—that often are only tangentially related to
governing.
This chapter begins by briefly addressing the evolution of new media in the United States to establish
the core characteristics of the current political media system. We then will focus on the role of media in
providing information in a democratic polity, and will examine the ways in which new media have
impacted this role. The diversity of content disseminated by new media has created opportunities, such
as the ability for more voices to be heard. However, the questionable quality of much of this information
raises serious issues for democratic discourse. Next, we will discuss how the new media are integral to
political coverage in a post-truth society, where falsehoods infused with tidbits of fact pass as news.
Finally, we will contemplate the ways in which the watchdog press is being overshadowed by the
mouthpiece press which serves as a publicity machine for politicians.

THE EVOLUTION OF NEW MEDIA

New media emerged in the late 1980s when entertainment platforms, like talk radio, television talk
shows, and tabloid newspapers, took on prominent political roles and gave rise to the infotainment
genre. Infotainment obscures the lines between news and entertainment, and privileges sensational,
scandal-driven stories over hard news (Jebril, et al., 2013). Politicians turned to new media to
circumvent the mainstream press’ control over the news agenda. The infotainment emphasis of new
media at this early stage offered political leaders and candidates a friendlier venue for presenting
themselves to the public than did hard news outlets (Moy, et al., 2009). During the 1992 presidential
election, Democratic candidate Bill Clinton famously appeared on Arsenio Hall’s television talk show
wearing sunglasses and playing the saxophone, which created a warm, personal image that set the tone
for his campaign (Diamond, et al., 1993). The fusing of politics and entertainment attracted audiences
that typically had been disinterested in public affairs (Williams and Delli Carpini, 2011). It also prompted
the ascendance of celebrity politicians, and set the stage for a “reality TV” president like Donald Trump
decades later.

Political observers and scholars contemplated the advent of a “new media populism” that would engage
disenfranchised citizens and facilitate a more active role for the public in political discourse. New media
had the potential to enhance people’s access to political information, facilitate wider-ranging political
discourse, and foster participation. Initially, the public responded positively to the more accessible
communication channels, calling in to political talk programs and participating in online town hall
meetings. However, new media’s authentic populist potential was undercut by the fact that the new
political media system evolved haphazardly, with no guiding principles or goals. It was heavily
dominated by commercial interests and those already holding privileged positions in politics and the
news industry. Public enthusiasm eventually gave way to ambivalence and cynicism, especially as the
novelty of the first phase of new media wore off (Davis and Owen, 1998).

The next phase in the development of new media unfolded in conjunction with the application of
emerging digital communications technologies to politics that made possible entirely new outlets and
content delivery systems. The digital environment and the platforms it supports greatly transformed the
political media system. Beginning in the mid-1990s, new political media platforms quickly progressed
from the rudimentary “brochureware” website, used by Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992, to
encompass sites with interactive features, discussion boards, blogs, online fundraising platforms,
volunteer recruitment sites, and meet-ups. The public became more involved with the actual production
and distribution of political content. Citizen journalists were eyewitnesses to events that professional
journalists did not cover. Non-elites offered their perspectives on political affairs to politicians and peers.
Members of the public also were responsible for recording and posting videos that could go viral and
influence the course of events (Wallsten, 2010). In 2006, for example, the reelection campaign of
Republican Senator George Allen was derailed by a viral video in which he used the term “macaca,” a
racial slur, to refer to a young man of Indian ancestry who was attending his campaign rally (Craig and
Shear, 2006).

A third phase in the evolution of new media is marked by Democratic candidate Barack Obama’s
groundbreaking digital campaign strategy in the 2008 presidential election. Obama’s team
revolutionized the use of social media in an election they felt was unwinnable using traditional
techniques. The campaign made use of advanced digital media features that capitalized on the
networking, collaboration, and community-building potential of social media to create a political
movement. The Obama campaign website was a full-service, multimedia center where voters not only
could access information, they also could watch and share videos, view and distribute campaign ads,
post comments, and blog. Supporters could donate, volunteer, and purchase campaign logo items, like
tee shirts and caps. The campaign was active on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, as well as a range of
other social media platforms that catered to particular constituencies, such as BlackPlanet, AsianAve,
and Glee. The campaign pioneered digital microtargeting tactics. It used social media to collect data on
people’s political and consumer preferences, and created voter profiles to pursue specific groups, such
as young professional voters, with customized messages.

The new media trends established in the 2008 campaign have carried over to the realm of government
and politics more generally. Social media have become a pervasive force in politics, altering the
communication dynamics between political leaders, journalists, and the public. They have opened up
wider avenues for instantaneous political discourse and debate. Research indicates that people’s access
to social media networks has a positive effect on their sense of political efficacy and tendency to
participate in politics (Gil de Zuniga, et al., 2010). However, there also has been backlash when social
media discourse has become too nasty, and users have blocked content or dropped out of their social
media networks (Linder, 2016). Social media allow people to efficiently organize and leverage their
collective influence. Thus, political leaders are held more accountable because their actions are
constantly probed on social media.

Members of the public also were responsible for recording and posting videos that could go viral and
influence the course of events.

At the same time, legacy media organizations have come to rely on aspects of new media. Newspapers,
in particular, have experienced financial hardships due adverse financial market conditions, declining
advertising revenues, and competition from proliferating news sources. The size of traditional
newsrooms in the U.S. has shrunk by more than 20,000 positions in the past twenty years, and global
newsrooms have experienced a similar decline (Owen, 2017). Legacy news organizations have cut
investigative units, and only around one-third of reporters are assigned to political beats (Mitchell and
Holcomb, 2016). Alicia Shepard, a former media ombudsman and media literacy advocate, opined,
“When newspapers can’t even cover daily journalism, how are they going to invest in long-term,
expensive investigative reporting?” (2012). Still, journalists working for legacy organizations continue to
do the yeoman’s share of serious news gathering and investigative reporting. Mainstream journalists
have come to rely heavily on new media content as a source of news. These trends have seriously
influenced the quality and nature of news content as well as the style of political reporting, which has
become more heavily infused with infotainment and quotes from Twitter feeds.

PROVIDING POLITICAL INFORMATION

The complexities of the new media system are reflected in the diversity of available content. The
information distributed via the vast communications network runs the gamut from fact-based,
investigative reporting from professional journalists to brash fabrications or “alternative facts”—to use
the term coined by President Trump’s advisor Kellyanne Conway—proffered by the alternative press
(Graham, 2017). In the new media era, the boundaries that separate these disparate types of
information have become increasing muddled. Professional media editors who regulate the flow of
information by applying news principles and standards associated with the public good have become
scarce (Willis, 1987). They have been replaced by social media and analytics editors whose primary
motivation is to draw users to content regardless of its news value. Audience members have to work
hard to distinguish fact from fiction, and to differentiate what matters from what is inconsequential.

A number of explanations can be offered for the shift in the quality and quantity of political information.
The technological affordances of new media allow content to propagate seemingly without limits. Social
media have a dramatically different structure than previous media platforms. Content can be relayed
with no significant third-party filtering, fact-checking, or editorial judgement. Individuals lacking prior
journalism training or reputation can reach many users at lightningfast speed. Messages multiply as they
are shared across news platforms and via personal social networking accounts (Allcott and Gentzkow,
2017).

In addition, the economic incentives underpinning new media companies, such as Google, Facebook,
and Twitter, are predicated on attracting large audiences that will draw advertising revenue. Political
content is used to drive consumers to social media products, rather than to perform the public service
function of informing the citizenry. Commercial pressures lead media organizations to feature incendiary
stories that receive the most attention. Further, while platforms proliferate, similar content is dispersed
widely as media power is concentrated in a small number of old and new media corporations
(McChesney, 2015). Search engines direct users to a limited selection of heavily trafficked and well-
financed sites (Hindman, 2009; Pariser, 2011).

Other explanations focus on the nature of the American political environment that has become
extremely polarized, prompting the emergence of political agendas that promote rogue politics. A 2017
Pew Research Center study revealed that the gap between Democrats and Republicans on core political
values, including the role of government, race, immigration, the social safety net, national security,
taxes, and environmental protection, have grown to epic proportions for the modern era. Two-thirds of
Americans fall solidly in the liberal or conservative camp, with few holding a mix of ideological positions
(Pew Research Center, 2017; Kiley, 2017).
Speech on new media reflects these stark political divisions, and frequently devolves into expressions of
hostility and ad hominem attacks. President Donald Trump used Twitter to ignite a controversy over NFL
players who protested racial oppression during the playing of the national anthem before games. He
used a derogatory term to refer to players, who are predominantly African American, and urged team
owners to fire those supporting the demonstration. Trump’s social media blasts accused the players of
disrespecting the flag and the military, which misrepresents the protest agenda and has divided the
public along political and racial lines.

Political divisions are reflected in the presence of media “echo chambers,” where people select their
news and information sources based on their affinity for the politics of other users. Modern-day new
media echo chambers began to form during the first phase of new media, as conservative talk radio
hosts, like Rush Limbaugh, attracted dedicated followers (Jamieson and Cappella, 2010). Social media
has hastened the development of echo chambers, as they facilitate people’s exposure to information
shared by like-minded individuals in their personal digital networks, with 62% of adult Americans getting
their news from social media platforms. Even politically disinterested social media users frequently
encounter news articles unintentionally as they scan their feed (Gottfried and Shearer, 2016). The ability
of social media to isolate people from exposure to those with differing viewpoints exacerbates political
polarization.

A significant segment of the public perceives journalists as removed elites who do not share their
conservative values. Political analyst Nate Silver (2017) contends that the national press has been
operating in a politically homogenous, metropolitan, liberal-leaning bubble that has become attached to
“Establishment Influentials”. He maintains that the mainstream media are out-of-touch with a wide
swath of the public. During the recent election this became clear as legacy media institutions are unable
to connect effectively with the frustration and anger of people outside of high education and income
circles (Camosy, 2016).

Some scholars argue that new media are closing the gap between distant journalists and the mass public
by giving voice to those who have felt left out (Duggan and Smith, 2016). The Tea Party, a conservative
political movement focused around issues about taxation and the national debt, used social networks
for political mobilization in the 2010 midterm elections. Tea Party candidates employed social media to
reshape public discourse around the campaign, forging a sense of solidarity among groups who
previously felt disenfranchised (Williamson, Skocpol, and Coggin, 2011). Candidates pushing an extreme
agenda have amplified this trend. Highly partisan, flamboyant congressional candidates, on both sides of
the aisle, who spark political disagreement and indignant rhetoric garner the most supporters on
Facebook. They use social media to solidify their political base (Messing and Weisel, 2017).

POST-TRUTH MEDIA

American author Ralph Keyes (2004) observes that society has entered a posttruth era. Deception has
become a defining characteristic of modern life, and is so pervasive that people are desensitized to its
implications. He laments the fact that ambiguous statements containing a kernel of authenticity, but
falling short of the truth, have become the currency of politicians, reporters, corporate executives, and
other power-brokers.

Journalist Susan Glasser (2016) argues that journalism has come to reflect the realities of reporting in
post-truth America. Objective facts are subordinate to emotional appeals and personal beliefs in shaping
public opinion. The public has difficulty distinguishing relevant news about weighty policy issues from
the extraneous clamor that permeates the media. The work of investigative journalists has in some ways
has become more insightful and informed than in the past due to the vast resources available for
researching stories, including greater access to government archives and big data analysis. However,
well-documented stories are obscured by the constant drone of repetitive, sensationalized trivia-bites
that dominate old and new media. Reflecting on coverage of the last American presidential contest,
Glasser states, “The media scandal of 2016 isn’t so much about what reporters fail to tell the American
public; it’s about what they did report on, and the fact that it didn’t seem to matter” (2016).

Evidence that Glasser’s concerns are well-founded can be compiled by examining media content on a
daily basis. Post-truth media was prominent during the 2016 presidential election. Media accounts of
the election were infused with misinformation, baseless rumors, and outright lies. False stories and
unverified factoids emanated from fabricated news sites as well as the social media accounts of the
candidates and their surrogates. Republican nominee Donald Trump used his Twitter feed to push out
sensational, unverified statements that would dominate the news agenda, a practice he maintained
after assuming the presidency. He alleged that the father of Ted Cruz, his challenger for the nomination,
was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and perpetuated the false claim that
President Barack Obama was not born in the United States (Carson, 2017). False news stories infiltrated
reports by legacy media organizations as they relied heavily on digital sources for information. Cable
news organizations like CNN and MSNBC amplified Trump’s unfounded claims, such as his allegations
that Muslims in New Jersey celebrated the fall of the World Trade Center on 9/11, even as they criticized
their veracity (Shafer, 2015).

Contrived controversies detract from coverage of important issues related to policy, process, and
governance (Horton, 2017). In October of 2017, President Donald Trump and Senator Bob Corker (R-TN)
exchanged a series of insults as Congress considered major tax reforms. The feud dominated coverage
of the battle over tax legislation on new media, and commanded the front page of The New York Times.
Among the many insults slung over the course of several weeks, Trump referred to Corker as “Liddle
Bob,” and tweeted that Corker “couldn’t get elected dog catcher.” Corker called the White House “an
adult day care center,” and labeled Trump “an utterly untruthful president” (Sullivan, 2017).

THE ASCENDANCE OF FAKE NEWS

The most extreme illustration of the concept of post-truth reporting is the rise of fake news. The
definition of fake news has shifted over time, and continues to be fluid. Initially, the term “fake news”
referred to news parodies and satire, such as The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Weekend Update
on Saturday Night Live. During the 2016 campaign, the concept of fake news was attached to fictitious
stories made to appear as if they were real news articles. These stories were disseminated on websites
that had the appearance of legitimate news platforms or blogs, such as Infowars, The Rightest, and
National Report. A 2017 compilation documented 122 sites that routinely publish fake news (Chao, et
al., 2017). Authors are paid—sometimes thousands of dollars—to write or record false information.
Some of these authors are based in locations outside of the United States, including Russia (Shane,
2017). They make use of social media interactions and algorithms to disseminate content to specific
ideological constituencies. Fabricated stories are spread virally by social bots, automated software that
replicates messages by masquerading as a person (Emerging Technology from the arXiv, 2017).
Objective facts are subordinate to emotional appeals and personal beliefs in shaping public opinion.

Fake news stories play to people’s preexisting beliefs about political leaders, parties, organizations, and
the mainstream news media. While some fake news stories are outright fabrications, others contain
elements of truth that make them seem credible to audiences ensconced in echo chambers. Conspiracy
theories, hoaxes, and lies were spread efficiently through Facebook, Snapchat, and other social media,
and reached millions of voters in the 2016 election (Oremus, 2016). For example, a fabricated story on
The Denver Gardian, a fake site meant to emulate the legitimate newspaper, The Denver Post, reported
that an F.B.I. agent connected with an investigation into Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s emails
had murdered his wife and shot himself. Other erroneous reports claimed that Pope Francis had
endorsed Donald Trump and that Hillary Clinton had sold weapons to ISIS (Rogers and Bromwich, 2016).

Conditions in the new media age have been ripe for the proliferation of fake news. The new media
system has lifted many of the obstacles to producing and distributing news that were present in the
previous mass media age. While vestiges of the digital divide persist, especially among lower-income
families (Klein, 2017), barriers to new media access have been lowered. The cost of producing and
distributing information on a wide scale have been reduced. The logistics and skills necessary to create
content are less formidable. Social networking sites make it possible to build and maintain audiences of
like-minded people who will trust posted content. Fake news proliferates widely through social media,
especially Facebook and Twitter. In fact, fake news stories are spread more widely on Facebook than
factual mainstream media reports (Silverman, 2016). Audiences are fooled and confused by fake news,
which confounds basic facts about politics and government with fiction. A 2016 Pew Research Center
report found that 64% of the American public found that made-up news created a great deal of
confusion about the basic facts of current events, and an additional 24% believed fake news caused
some confusion (Barthel, Mitchell, and Holcomb, 2016). Finally, legal challenges to fake news and the
distribution of false content are much more difficult to pose, as it is costly and time-consuming to sue
publishers for spreading false information.

An alternative meaning of fake news emerged after the presidential election. At his first press
conference as President-elect, Donald Trump appropriated the term “fake news” as a derogatory
reference to the mainstream press. Pointing at CNN journalist Jim Acosta, who was attempting to ask a
question, Trump exclaimed, “You are fake news!” Trump and his acolytes frequently employ the “fake
news” moniker when attempting to delegitimize the legacy media, including The New York Times and
The Washington Post, for reporting they consider to be unfavorable (Carson, 2017). Weary of Trump
repeatedly invoking the “fake news” label, CNN launched a “Facts First” campaign in response to
“consistent attacks from Washington and beyond.” A thirty second video shows an image of an apple,
with the voice over:

This is an apple. Some people might try to tell you this is a banana. They might scream banana, banana,
banana, over and over and over again. They might put banana in all caps. You might even start to
believe that this is a banana. But it’s not. This is an apple.
Facts are facts. They aren’t colored by emotion or bias. They are indisputable. There is no alternative to
a fact. Facts explain things. What they are, how they happened. Facts are not interpretations. Once facts
are established, opinions can be formed. And while opinions matter, they don’t change the facts.
(https://www.cnncreativemarketing.com/project/cnn_factsfirst/)

WATCHDOG PRESS OR POLITICIANS’ MOUTHPIECE

The notion of the press as a political watchdog casts the media as a guardian of the public interest. The
watchdog press provides a check on government abuses by supplying citizens with information and
forcing government transparency. Public support for the media’s watchdog role is substantial, with a
Pew Research Center study finding that 70% of Americans believe that press reporting can “prevent
leaders from doing things that shouldn’t be done” (Chinni and Bronston, 2017).

New media have enhanced the capacity of reporters to fulfill their watchdog role, even in an era of
dwindling resources for investigative journalism. Information can be shared readily through formal
media sources, as local news outlets can pass information about breaking events to national
organizations. News also can be documented and shared by citizens through social networks. When a
vicious category 5 hurricane devastated Puerto Rico and the American government’s response was slow,
journalists were able to surface the story as residents and first responders took to social media to
provide first-hand accounts to national journalists who had difficulty reaching the island (Vernon, 2017).

However, there are aspects of the media’s watchdog role that have become more difficult to fulfill.
Countering outright lies by public officials has almost become an exercise in futility, even as fact-
checking has become its own category of news. The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” identified almost
1,500 false claims made by President Trump in just over 250 days in office
(www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker). Sites focusing on setting the record straight, such as
PolitiFact, Snopes, and FactCheck, can barely keep pace with the amount of material that requires
checking Despite these efforts, false information on the air and online has multiplied.

There is evidence to suggest that the new media allow political leaders to do an end-run around the
watchdog press. In some ways, the press has moved from being a watchdog to a mouthpiece for
politicians. This tendency is exacerbated by the fact that there is a revolving door where working
journalists move between positions in the media and government. Some scholars maintain that this
revolving door compromises the objectivity of journalists who view a government job as the source of
their next paycheck (Shepard, 1997).

The media act as a mouthpiece for political leaders by publicizing their words and actions even when
their news value is questionable. President Donald Trump uses Twitter as a mechanism for getting
messages directly to his followers while averting journalistic and political gatekeepers, including high
ranking members of his personal staff. Many of his tweets are of questionable news value, except for
the fact that they emanate from the president’s personal social media account. Yet the press act as a
mouthpiece by promoting his tweets. A silly or vicious tween can dominate several news cycles. In an
interview with Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiomo, President Trump gave his reason for using social
media to communication with the public and the press that supports the notion of the mouthpiece
media:

Tweeting is like a typewriter—when I put it out, you put it immediately on your show. I mean, the other
day, I put something out, two seconds later I am watching your show, it’s up… You know, you have to
keep people interested. But, social media, without social media, I am not sure that we would be here
talking I would probably not be here talking (Tatum, 2017).

Social media use in politics

Social media use in politics refers to the use of online social media platforms in political processes and
activities. Political processes and activities include all activities that pertain to the governance of a
country or area. This includes political organization, global politics, political corruption, political parties,
and political values.

The internet has created channels of communication that play a key role in circulating news, and social
media has the power to change not just the message, but the dynamics of political corruption, values,
and the dynamics of conflict in politics.[1] Through the use of social media in election processes, global
conflict, and extreme politics, diplomacy around the world has become less private and susceptive to
the public perception.

Participatory role

Social media have been championed as allowing anyone with an Internet connection to become a
content creator[3] and empowering their users.[4] The idea of “new media populism” encompasses how
citizens can include disenfranchised citizens, and allow the public to have an engaged and active role in
political discourse. New media, including social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, can
enhance people's access to political information.[5]

Social media platforms and the internet have facilitated the dissemination of political information that
counters mainstream media tactics that are often centralized and top-down, and include high barriers to
entry.[6] Writer Howard Rheingold characterized the community created on social networking sites:
"The political significance of computer mediated communication lies in its capacity to challenge the
existing political hierarchy’s monopoly on powerful communications media, and perhaps thus revitalize
citizen-based democracy."[6]

Scholar Derrick de Kerckhove described the new technology in media:

"In a networked society, the real powershift is from the producer to the consumer, and there is a
redistribution of controls and power. On the Web, Karl Marx’s dream has been realized: the tools and
the means of production are in the hands of the workers."[6]

The role of social media in democratizing media participation, which proponents herald as ushering in a
new era of participatory democracy, with all users able to contribute news and comments, may fall short
of the ideals. International survey data suggest online media audience members are largely passive
consumers, while content creation is dominated by a small number of users who post comments and
write new content.[7]: 78  Others[8] argue that the effect of social media will vary from one country to
another, with domestic political structures playing a greater role than social media in determining how
citizens express opinions about stories of current affairs involving the state.

Most people see social media platforms as censoring objectionable political views.[9]

In June 2020, users of the Social Media platform TikTok organised a movement to prank a Trump Rally in
Tulsa, Oklahoma by buying tickets and not attending so that the rally appeared empty.[10]

As a news source

See also Social media and political communication in the United States.

Social media platforms are increasingly used for political news and information by adults in the United
States, especially when it comes to election time. A study by Pew Research conducted in November
2019, found that one-in-five US adults get their political news primarily through social media. 18% of
adults use social media to get their political and election news.[11]

The Pew Research Center further found that out of these United States Adults relying on social media
for this information, 48% of them are from ages 18–29.

In addition, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, lead the social media platforms in which the majority of the users
use the platforms to acquire news information. Of all United States adults, 67% use the platform with
44% who use the platform to get news.

According to the Reuters Institute Digital News Report in 2013, the percentage of online news users who
blog about news issues ranges from 1–5%. Greater percentages use social media to comment on news,
with participation ranging from 8% in Germany to 38% in Brazil. But online news users are most likely to
just talk about online news with friends offline or use social media to share stories without creating
content.[7]: 78 
The rapid propagation of information on social media, spread by word of mouth, can impact the
perception of political figures quickly with information that may or may not be true. When political
information is propagated in this manner on purpose, the spread of information on social media for
political means can benefit campaigns. On the other hand, the word-of-mouth propagation of negative
information concerning a political figure can be damaging.[12] For example, the use of the social media
platform Twitter by United States congressman Anthony Weiner to send inappropriate messages played
a role in his resignation.[13]

Attention economy

Social media, especially news that is spread through social media sites, plays into the idea of the
attention economy. In which content that attracts more attention will be seen, shared, and disseminated
far more than news content that does not gather as much traction from the public. Tim Wu from
Columbia Law School coins the attention economy as “the resale of human attention.” [14]

A communication platform such as social media is persuasive, and often works to change or influence
opinions when it comes to political views because of the abundance of ideas, thoughts, and opinions
circulating through the social media platform. It is found that news use leads to political persuasion,
therefore the more that people use social media platforms for news sources, the more their political
opinions will be affected. Despite that, people are expressing less trust in their government and others
due to media use- therefore social media directly affects trust in media use. It is proven that while
reading newspapers there is an increase in social trust where on the contrary watching the news on
television weakened trust in others and news sources.[15] Social media, or more specifically news
media- plays an important role in democratic societies because they allow for participation among
citizens.Therefore, when it comes to healthy democratic networks, it is crucial that that news remains
true so it doesn't affect citizens’ levels of trust. A certain amount of trust is necessary for a healthy and
well functioning democratic system.[16]

Younger generations are becoming more involved in politics due to the increase of political news posted
on various types of social media.[2] Due to the heavier use of social media among younger generations,
they are exposed to politics more frequently, and in a way that is integrated into their online social lives.
While informing younger generations of political news is important, there are many biases within the
realms of social media. In May 2016, former Facebook Trending News curator Benjamin Fearnow
revealed his job was to "massage the algorithm," but dismissed any "intentional, outright bias" by either
human or automated efforts within the company.[17][18] Fearnow was fired by Facebook after being
caught leaking several internal company debates about Black Lives Matter and presidential candidate
Donald Trump.[19]

As a public utility

See also: Social media as a public utility

A key debate centers on whether or not social media is a public good based on the premises of non-rival
and non-excludable consumption. Social media can be considered an impure public good as it can be
excludable given the rights of platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to remove content, disable
accounts, and filter information based on algorithms and community standards.

Arguments for platforms such as Google in being treated as a public utility and public service provider
include statements from Benjamin Barber in The Nation

"For new media to be potential equalizers, they must be treated as public utilities, recognizing that
spectrum abundance (the excuse for privatization) does not prevent monopoly ownership of hardware
and software platforms and hence cannot guarantee equal civic, educational, and cultural access to
citizens."[6]

Similarly, Zeynep Tufekci argues online services are natural monopolies that underwrite the
"corporatization of social commons" and the "privatization of our publics."[6]

One argument that displays the nature of social media as an impure public good is the fact that the
control over content remains in the hands of a few large media networks, Google and Facebook, for
example. Google and Facebook have the power to shape the environment under personal and
commercial goals that promotes profitability, as opposed to promoting citizen voice and public
deliberation.[6]

Government regulation

Proponents and aims for regulation of social media are growing due to economic concerns of
monopolies of the platforms, to issues of privacy, censorship, network neutrality and information
storage. The discussion of regulation is complicated due to the issue how Facebook, and Google are
increasingly becoming a service, information pipeline, and content provider, and thus centers on how
the government would regulate both the platform as a service and information provider.[6] Thus, other
proponents advocate for “algorithmic neutrality”, or the aim for search engines on social media
platforms to rank data without human intervention.[20]

Opponents of regulation of social media platforms argue that platforms such as Facebook and Twitter do
not resemble traditional public utilities, and regulation would harm consumer welfare as public utility
regulation can hinder innovation and competition.[20] Second, as the First Amendment values are
criticized on social media platforms, the media providers should retain the power to how the platform is
configured.[20]
Effect on democracy

Social media has been criticized as being detrimental to democracy.[21] According to Ronald Deibert,
"The world of social media is more conducive to extreme, emotionally charged, and divisive types of
content than it is to calm, principled considerations of competing or complex narratives".[22] On the
contrary, Ethan Zuckerman says that social media presents the opportunity to inform more people,
amplify voices, and allow for an array of diverse voices to speak.[23] Mari K. Eder points to failures of
the Fourth Estate that have allowed outrage to be disguised as news, contributing to citizen apathy
when confronting falsehoods and further distrust in democratic institutions.[24]

Politicians and social media

Social media has allowed politicians to subvert typical media outlets by engaging with the general public
directly, Donald Trump utilised this when he lost the 2020 presidential election by claiming the election
to be fraudulent and therefore creating the need for a re-election.[5] The consequences of Trump's
online actions were displayed when on January 6 the U.S. Capital was attacked by supporters of the
former president.[8]

Being a popular presence on social media also boosts a politicians likelihood of coming to power take
Boris Johnson in the 2019 bid to replace Theresa May as Prime Minister, Johnson had more than half a
million page 'liking' his page (substantially more than the other candidates) which meant that when he
released his launch video it gained more than 130,000 views[9] which could have been a prominent
factor in him eventually winning power.

A study conducted by Sounman Hong[10] found that in the case of politicians utilising social media and
whether its use would increase on their individual weighing up on the consequences and if they would
be largely positive or negative found that in the case of backbenchers, 'underdogs' and opposition it was
likely to increase in order to gain recognition and support from the public eye where they otherwise
might go unnoticed.

Democratization

The Arab Spring

See also: Social media and the Arab Spring

During the peak of the Egyptian Revolution of 2011, the Internet and social media played a huge role in
facilitating information. At that time, Hosni Mubarak was the president of Egypt and head the regime for
almost 30 years. Mubarak was so threatened by the immense power that the Internet and social media
gave the people that the government successfully shut down the Internet, using the Ramses Exchange,
for a period of time in February 2011.[14]
Egyptians used Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube as a means to communicate and organize
demonstrations and rallies to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak. Statistics show that during this time
the rate of Tweets from Egypt increased from 2,300 to 230,000 per day and the top 23 protest videos
had approximately 5.5 million views.[25]

Disinformation in relation to US election

Though fake news can generate some utility for consumers, in terms of confirming far-right beliefs and
spreading propaganda in favor of a presidential candidate, it also imposes private and social costs.[26]
For example, one social cost to consumer is the spread of disinformation which can make it harder for
consumers to seek out the truth and, in the case of the 2016 Election, for consumers to choose an
electoral candidate.[26] Summarized by a Congressional Research Service Study in 2017,

“Cyber tools were also used [by Russia] to create psychological effects in the American population. The
likely collateral effects of these activities include compromising the fidelity of information, sowing
discord and doubt in the American public about the validity of intelligence community reports, and
prompting questions about the democratic process itself.” [27]

The marginal social cost of fake news is exponential, as the first article is shared it can affect a small
number of people, but as the article is circulated more throughout Facebook, the negative externality
multiplies. As a result, the quantity demanded of news can shift up around election season as consumers
seek to find correct news, however the quantity demanded can also shift down as people have a lower
trust in mainstream media. In the American public, a Gallup poll in 2016 found “Americans’ trust in the
mass media ‘to report the news fully, accurately and fairly’ was, at 32%, the lowest in the organization's
polling history.” In addition, trust in mainstream media is lower in Republican and far-right political
viewers at 14%.[28] About 72% of American adults claim that social media firms excessively control and
influence the politics today, as per the June 16–22 survey conducted by Pew Research Center. Only 21%
believe that the power held by these social media firms over today’s politics is of the right amount, while
6% believe it is not enough.[29]

Algorithms can facilitate the rapid spread of disinformation through social media channels. Algorithms
use users’ past behavior and engagement activity to provide them with tailored content that aligns with
their interests and beliefs. Algorithms commonly create echo chambers and sow radicalism and
extremist thinking in these online spaces.[30]

Algorithms promote social media posts with high 'engagement,' meaning posts that received a lot of
'likes' or 'comments'/'replies'. For better or for worse, engagement and controversy go hand-in-hand.
Controversy attracts attention as it evokes an emotional response,[31] however "Benford's Law" of
controversy states that "passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available".
[32] This means that the less grounded in facts a political tweet is, the more engagement it is likely to
receive, therefore the likelihood of spreading disinformation is high. Twitter has become a battleground
for political debate. Psychologist, Jordan Peterson, spoke of Twitter's radicalising effect in an interview
conducted by GQ.[33] He explained that for any given tweet that appears on one's 'feed,' the tweet shall
have been seen by a far greater number of people than is reflected by its likes and comments.
Therefore, who are the people who comment on a tweet? The people who comment shall be those who
have the strongest views on the matter, the people who want their opinion to be heard. Peterson claims
that this creates an environment in which the opinions that the average user sees on twitter do not
reflect the views of a random sample of the population. The opinions most commonly seen on twitter
tend to be those of people at each extreme end of the political ideology spectrum, hence the
'radicalising effect'.[30]

Advertisement

See also: Microtargeting and Geo-fence

Political advertisements—for example, encouraging people to vote for or against a particular candidate,
or to take a position on a particular issue—have often been placed on social media. On 22 November
2019, Twitter said it would no longer facilitate political advertising anywhere in the world.[34] Due to
the nature of Social media bringing different information to different people based on their interests,
advertising methods such as "Microtargeting" and "Black ads" have become prominent on social media
and allow advertising to be much more effective for the same price, relative to traditional adverts such
as those on cable TV.[35]

Grassroots campaigns

When it comes to political referendums, individuals often gather on social media at the grassroots level
to campaign for change.[36] This is particularly effective where it comes to feminist political issues, as
studies have proven that women are more likely to tweet about policy problems and do so in a way that
is more aggressive than their male counter-parts.[37] Like-minded individuals can collectively work
together to influence social change and utilise social media as a tool for social justice.[38] An example of
this is in the referendum to appeal Ireland's eighth amendment. Civil society organisations, such as
TogetherForYes, utilised Twitter as a tool to bring abortion law into the public and make the harms of
the eighth amendment visible and accessible.[39] The positive outcome of the referendum (in the
amendments repeal) can be equated to the efforts of individuals and advocates coming together at the
grassroots level to make the vote visible, as social media goes beyond the local level to create a
widespread global political impact, making the issue of strict abortion laws a global one, rather than one
just confined to Ireland.[40] The strength in a political grassroots campaign on social media is the
increased mobilisation of participants. Due to the fact that social media platforms are largely accessible,
a political platform can be provided to the voices of those traditionally silenced in the political sphere or
in traditional media.

Impact on elections
Social media has a profound effect on elections. Oftentimes, social media compounds with the mass
media networks such as cable television. For many individuals, cable television serves as the basis and
first contact for where many get their information and sources. Cable television also has commentary
that creates partisanship and builds on to people's predispositions to certain parties. Social media takes
mass media's messages and oftentimes amplifies and reinforces such messages and perpetuates
partisan divides.[55] In an article by the Journal of Communication, they concluded that social media
does not have a strong effect on people's views or votes, but social media does not also have a minimal
effect on their views. Instead, social media creates a bandwagon effect when a candidate in an election
commits an error or a great success, then users on social media will amplify the effect of such failure or
success greatly.

The Pew Research Center finds that nearly one fourth of Americans learn something about the
candidates through an internet source such as Facebook. Nearly a fifth of America uses social media
with two thirds of those Americans being youth ages of 18–29. The youth's presence on social media
often inspires rallies and creates movements. For instance, in the 2008 presidential election, a Facebook
group of 62,000 members was created that sponsored the election of President Obama and within days
universities across the countries held rallies in the thousands. Rallies and movements such as these are
often coined the "Facebook Effect".[56] However, social media can often have the opposite effect and
take a toll on many users. The Pew Research Center in a poll found that nearly 55 percent of social
media users in the US indicate that they are "worn out" by the amount of political posts on social media.
With the rise of technology and social media continuing, that number increased by nearly 16 percent
since the 2016 presidential election. Nearly 70 percent of individuals say that talking about politics on
social media with people on the opposite side is often "stressful and frustrating" compared to 56
percent in 2016. Consequently, the number of people who find these discussions as "interesting and
informative" decreased from 35% to 26% since 2016.[57]

In terms of social media's effect on the youth vote, it is quite substantial. In the 2018 elections, nearly 31
percent of the youth voted compared to just 21 percent in 2014. Social media use among the youth
continue to grow as around 90 percent of the youth use at least one social media platform. Of the 90
percent, 47 percent received information about the 2018 elections via a social media platform. The
messages shared on the social media platform often include messages to register to vote and actually
carrying out their vote; this is in contrast to receiving the message from the candidate's campaign itself.
Subsequently, of the first time youth voters in the 2018 election, 68 percent relied on social media to get
their information about voting. This is in comparison to the traditional methods of being notified to vote
of just 23 percent first time voters. Furthermore, just 22 percent of youth who did not hear about an
election via social media or traditional means were very likely to vote; however, 54 percent of youth
who found out about the election via social media or traditional ways were very likely to vote.[58]
However, the youth are becoming distrustful of the content they read on social media as Forbes notes
that there has been a decline in public trust due to many political groups and foreign nations creating
fake accounts to spread a great amount of misinformation with the aim of dividing the country.[59]
Social media often filters what information individuals see. Since 2008, the number of individuals who
get their news via social media has increased to 62 percent.[60] On these social media sites, there are
many algorithms run that filter what information individual users see. The algorithms understand a users
favorites and dislikes, they then begin to cater their feed to their likes. Consequently, this creates an
echo chamber.[61] For instance, black social media users were more likely to see race related news and
in 2016 the Trump campaign used Facebook and other platforms to target Hillary Clinton's supporters to
drive them out of the election and taking advantage of such algorithms.[62] Whether or not these
algorithms have an effect on people's vote and their views is mixed. Iowa State University finds that for
older individuals, even though their access to social media is far lower than the youth, their political
views were far more likely to change from the 1996–2012 time periods, which indicates that there are a
myriad of other factors that impact political views. They further that based upon other literature, Google
has a liberal bias in their search results. Consequently, these biased search results can affect an
individual's voting preferences by nearly 20 percent. In addition, 23 percent of an individual's Facebook
friends are of an opposing political view and nearly 29 percent of the news they receive on the platform
is also in opposition of their political ideology, which indicates that the algorithms on these new
platforms do not completely create echo chambers.[63]

Washington State University political science professor Travis Ridout explains that in the United
Kingdom the popular social media platforms of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube are
beginning to play a significant role in campaigns and elections. Contrary to the United States which
allows television ads, in the United Kingdom television ads are banned and thus campaigns are now
launching huge efforts on social media platforms. Ridout furthers that the social media ads have gotten
in many cases offensive and in attack formation at many politicians. Social media is able to provide many
individuals with a sense of anonymity that enables them to get away with such aggressive acts. For
example, ethnic minority women politicians are often the targets of such attacks.[64] Furthermore, in
the United States, many of the youth conservative voices are often reduced. For instance, PragerU, a
conservative organization, often has their videos taken down.[59] On a different level, social media can
also hamper many political candidates. Media and social media often publish stories about news that
are controversial and popular and will ultimately drive more traffic. A key example is President Donald
Trump whose controversial statements in 2016 often brought the attention of many individuals and
thereby increased his popularity while shunning out other candidates.[61]

In the 2020 Presidential Election, social media was very prevalent and used widely by both campaigns.
For Twitter, nearly 87 million users follow President Donald Trump while 11 million users follow Joe
Biden. Despite the significant gap between the two, Biden's top tweets have outperformed Donald
Trump's top tweets by nearly double. In terms of mentions of each candidate on Twitter, from October
21 to October 23, there were 6.6 million mentions of Trump and Biden and Biden held 72% of the
mentions. During the 2020 Presidential Debates, Biden had nearly two times the mentions as Donald
Trump with nearly half of the mentions being negative. For Trump, he also had have of his mentions
being negative as well.[65]
In Europe, the influence of social media is less than that of the United States. In 2011, only 34% of MEPs
use twitter, while 68% use Facebook. In 2012, the EPP had the highest social media following of 7,418
compared to the other parties. This is in relationship to the 375 million voters in all of Europe. When
comparing the impact to US social media following, former President Obama has over 27 million fans
while the highest in Europe was former French President Nicolas Sarkozy of over 700,000 fines, a stark
difference. The 2008 US presidential election skyrocketed the need for technologies to be used in
politics and campaigns, especially social media. Europe is now following their lead and has been
increasing their use of social media since.[66] However, just because European Politicians don't use
social media as much as American Politicians doesn't mean that social media platforms such as Facebook
and Twitter don't play a large role in European Politics- in particular- Elections. In the run-up to the 2017
German Bundestag Elections, a group of extremists used social media platforms such as Twitter and
YouTube in hopes of gaining support for the far-right group Alternative für Deutschland. Despite being
limited in numbers, the group were able to publish "patriotic videos" that managed to get on to the
Trending tab on YouTube as well as being able to trend the hashtag "#AfD" on Twitter.[67] Though
polled to come 5th in the election, Alternative für Deutschland won 13.3% of the vote, making them the
third largest party within the Bundestag, making them the first far-right party to enter the building since
1961[68]

In the UK, Cambridge Analytica was allegedly hired as a consultant company for Leave.EU and the UK
Independence Party during 2016, as an effort to convince people to support Brexit. These rumours were
the result of the leaked internal emails that were sent between Cambridge Analytica firm and the British
parliament. These datasets composed of the data obtained from Facebook were said to be work done as
an initial job deliverable for them. Although Arron Banks, co-founder of Leave.EU, denied any
involvement with the company, he later declared “When we said we’d hired Cambridge Analytica,
maybe a better choice of words could have been deployed." The official investigation by the UK
Information Commissioner found that Cambridge Analytica was not involved "beyond some initial
enquiries" and the regulator did not identify any "significant breaches" of data protection legislation or
privacy or marketing regulations "which met the threshold for formal regulatory action" In early July
2018, the United Kingdom's Information Commissioner's Office announced it intended to fine Facebook
£500,000 ($663,000) over the data breach, this being the maximum fine allowed at the time of the
breach, saying Facebook "contravened the law by failing to safeguard people's information". In 2014 and
2015, the Facebook platform allowed an app that ended up harvesting 87 million profiles of users
around the world that was then used by Cambridge Analytica in the 2016 presidential campaign and in
the Brexit referendum. Although Cambridge Analytica were cleared, questions were still raised with how
they came to access these Facebook profiles and target voters that would not have necessarily voted in
this matter in the first place. Dominic Cummings the prime minister's ex aide had a majority in involving
Cambridge Analytica in the Leave.EU campaign, this can be seen in the real accounts of Brexit: The
Uncivil War.

In terms of analyzing the role of fake news in social media, there tends to be about three times more
fake new articles that were more likely to be pro-Trump over pro-Clinton articles. There were 115 pro-
Trump fake news articles while only 41 pro-Clinton fake news articles; pro-Trump articles were shared
30.3 million times while pro-Clinton articles were shared 7.6 million times on Facebook. For each share
there is about 20 page visits which means that with around 38 million shares of fake news articles there
are 760 million page views to these articles. This means that roughly each US adult visited a fake news
site three times.[69] Whether the spread of fake news has an impact on elections is conflicted as more
research is required and is difficult to place a quantification on the effects. However, fake news is more
likely to influence individuals who are over 65 and are more conservative. These groups tend to believe
fake news more than other groups. College students have difficulty in determining if an article shared on
social media is fake news.[70] The same study also concluded that conspiratorial beliefs could be
predicted by a person's political party affiliation or their ideological beliefs.[71] For example, those that
Republican or held a more conservative belief were far more likely to believe in baseless theories such
as that of former President Obama being born outside of the United States; and those that voted
Democrat or held a more liberal belief would be more likely to believe in conspiracies such as former
President Bush having played a role in the 9/11 attacks.