The use of media based life in political issues including Facebook, YouTube,Twitter and other online networking stages has significantly changed the manner in which crusades are run and how Americans communicate with their chose authorities.In the article,” Cell Phones, Social Media and Campaign 2014,” by Aaron Smith it stats, ” Voters of all ages are more likely to take part in these behaviors than in the previous midterm race, but that growth has been especially pronounced among 30-49 year olds. Some 40% of voters ages 30-49 have used their cell phone to follow this year’s election campaign (up from 15% in 2010) and 21% follow political figures on social media (up from just 6% in 2010). Voters in this age group now take part in each of these behaviors at rates nearly identical to 18-29 year olds”. The pervasiveness of media based life in governmental issues has made chosen authorities and contender for open office increasingly responsible and available to voters. What’s more, the capacity to distribute substance and communicate it to a huge number of individuals promptly enables battles to deliberately deal with their electrons. It likewise enable government officials to talk specifically to voters without spending any money.Donald Trump utilized online networking in a way where being politically right doesn’t make a difference and spreading misleads push a motivation that just fulfills his and the other world class. He is a case of how negative and can cause an impact can be by disquieting the individuals who don’t concur with you and afterward bothering the individuals who have faith in what you’re lecturing enough to end up radical. Online networking can be your most noteworthy resource or your most noticeably bad dream, this all relies upon the message you’re conveying and how you convey it to the majority.Another negative thing is that a few people can’t get to web-based social networking, while other individuals can get to online life. Individuals that can’t get to online networking, likely won’t get the correct data about an applicant, and will settle on an awful choice of who they choose.

Crowdsourcing is a sourcing model in which individuals or organizations obtain goods and services. These services include ideas and finances, from a large, relatively open and often rapidly-evolving group of internet users whether they’re paid or unpaid; it divides work between participants to achieve a cumulative result. People created websites to increase the number of internet customers who bought goods and the number of owners who want to make profits for the benefit of the economy. Individuals also created websites for mass publication because according to the Atlantic’s article, “The Blurring Line Between Amateur and Professional”, Charles Murray of AEI complained that the New York Times only paid him $75 for co-op contributions and that caused assumptions about the content. Users wanted to become involved with crowdsourcing due to the increase in sales over the internet and consumers have the chance to get ideas and to produce them but not only that but it helps them save money that in the New York Times article, “Crowdsourcing To Get Ideas, and Perhaps Save Money”, it has benefits for users to make profit by saving money after consumers purchased their goods on the internet and it replaced focus groups but not only it’s faster but it’s cheaper. Crowdsourcing also brings out competition from both amateurs and professionals all over the web that in Wired.com’s article, “The Rise of Crowdsourcing”, both classes compete to see who sells their goods the most without going overconfident but they sell their goods at lower prices instead of items that are way too expensive for consumers to buy. Crowdsourcing is important because users created websites to encourage customers to purchase items at a low cost to increase the number of items that were sold to save money for the economy so they could be professionals in order to make their businesses booming and at large for the benefit of the Internet.

Social media has quickly rose to become one of the public’s most prevalent means of getting news on political campaigns. Seeing political images, comments, and stories is an inescapable component of being on a social media site. Politicians are constantly trying to get their message out, especially when campaigning. Social media makes doing this quite easy for them. They can engage with potential voters more often in addition to reaching a wider audience.

According to the article “Cell Phones, Social Media, and Campaign 2014,” one of the reasons for this rise in social media’s influence on political campaigns is the drastic increase in the use of smart phones. A large number of registered voters are getting their political information primarily through the use of smartphones. This is not at all surprising as phones play such a major role in daily life and provide us with the information we need quickly and as often as we choose to see it. One of the most positive aspects about the access our smartphones give us to political coverage is that we are able to get information that is relevant to us as opposed to the days where traditional print media and tv or radio news coverage was the primary place to find political news. Having to sift through newspapers or watch an hour of news that you might not particularly be interested in does not foster engagement in the way that social media does.

The article, “Crossing the Campaign Divide: Dean Changes the election game” illustrates how social media can have such an extreme impact on a candidate’s position in politics. His incorporation of SNTs to his campaign was a significant boost in his fundraising ability as well as his increased popularity at the time. Although he did not win the election, he was able to garner support and visibility through a combination of a “war room” and “networked” campaign.

What I do find troubling about the use of social media in political campaigns is that it does encourage a level of bias. It is so simple to look at information that merely confirms our beliefs that we may miss a lot of pertinent information from perspectives outside of our own.

How has media changed political campaigns? What are the positives / negatives?

Throughout the years, political campaigns changed greatly. In today’s world many Americans use the cell phone more than anything else throughout the entire day. Back in the days when you would want to hear about politics, it would result to you using the old newspapers, radio, or television. In today’s generation, everyone has social media, and less people own cable boxes for television and just rely on the internet. If you compare 2010s use of the cell phone to track political news or campaign coverage to 2014, it was more than doubles, and that was only a 4 year difference. Compare 2014 to the present time (2019) and i guarantee that the use of tracking political news from cell phones would have been tripled from that of 2014. “ As smartphone ownership has increased dramatically in recent years, more and more Americans are using their mobile devices to keep tabs on political events. Some 28% of registered voters have used their cell phone this year to keep up with news relating to the election or political events, which represents a two-fold increase compared with the most recent midterm election cycle. In a survey conducted at the end of the 2010 election campaign, just 13% of registered voters said that they had used their cell phones to keep up with election coverage.” (quote from Cell Phones, Social Media and Campaign 2014). When we talk about media and how it can be positive, we can look at how Donald Trump mastered the use of twitter to get the most engagement that was a main reason why he became president.You can say that this is a positive method because of the amount of people that can see quick news in a matter of seconds. You wouldn’t have to wait for things to be broadcast and processed on tv which can cause delays. Thoughts and opinions can be shared as soon as it comes to mind. For example, Donald trump’s last tweet was 4 hours ago which has gotten 44.6k likes shared from 11.5k people. The negatives about this is that what is said on social media that can be false, to opinionated, or distracting. Donald Trump same tweet in my opinion seemed compulsive and not necessary to say in this manner “ Remember this, Andrew McCabe didn’t go to the bathroom without the approval of Leakin’ James Comey!”. This can be negative because of the unnecessary drama it could cause and the fact that it can take away from important politics.

Throughout the years the use of social media in political campaigns has increased, before social media political candidates would interact with people by giving speeches on television and all over the United States. Political candidates used news networks and the press to promote their campaigns, they also used billboards and posters to promote. Now political candidates have access to all these social media outlets that allow them to promote their campaigns quickly. These days candidates use facebook, twitter, instagram and much more to promote their press conferences and campaigns. I believe in this aspect that social media has had a positive outcome in political campaigns. Social media allows these political candidates to market and promote their campaigns at any given time and moment, they do not have to rely on the press to spread the information about their campaign through television or newspapers. I believe that news travels faster through social media as opposed to traditional news sources, people are always on their phones.

Social Media could also have negative outcome during political campaigns and in politics in general. Politicians have to be mindful of the things they post because it can get them into serious trouble with the public. A perfect example of this would be our fellow president Donald Trump. Trump seems to have no filter when he is on twitter ranting, he is very offensive and does not hold back. In the article article, Pithy, Mean and Powerful: How Donald Trump Mastered Twitter for 2016 by Michael Barbaro, we learn about Trumps outrageous twitter habits and rants. Barbara states “Mr. Trump has mastered Twitter in a way no candidate for president ever has, unleashing and redefining its power as a tool of political promotion, distraction, score-settling and attack”. Which is absolutely correct Trump is the first president to ever use social media outlets in a negative aspect, he is constantly ranting and attacking someone. So in this case social media use can be negative for politicians.

Social media sites such as; Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have changed the way political campaigns are ran and how everyday Americans are able to interact/communicate with the candidates/elected officials. Many people, between the ages 30-49 now use their cellphones to track current elections, with the number of people taking part in this increasing to 40% according to “Cell Phones, Social Media and Campaign 2014.” There has been an increase with using social media for politics because “people want to find out about political news before other people do.” They also want to develop a more personal connection with the candidates/political parties. Another reason as to why using social media for politics has increased is because many are beginning to view the news on social media as being more reliable because it is unfiltered. “The Role Played By Social Media In Political Participation And Electoral Campaigns” states that “personal communication via social media brings politicians and parties closer to their potential voters. It allows politicians to communicate faster and reach citizens in a more targeted manner and vice versa.” Many politicians now prefer to use social media because they get to control how they are portrayed on their accounts and what image/message is being broadcasted to their supporters, whereas if they depended on mass media such as the news channels on the television, they would not be able to stop the news sources from painting them as a negative person or bashing/critiquing their viewpoints/policies. Using social media gives them the opportunity to only show-off their positives to distract from their possibly many negatives. The use of social media also brings in new audiences for many politicians because their messages and campaigns are multiplied and shared all across sites such as Twitter, which then reaches those who may have needed an extra push to support a specific candidate. A major benefit of using social media for politics is that it costs no money for the candidates/elected officials since they are using it to advertise without paying for advertisements. An example of this would be politicians creating advertisements and posting them on YouTube for no cost. With the many developments in social media, campaigns can now view data/statistics about people and customize their messages to better relate to their audience by age and gender. However, there is a negative which involves a politicians’/candidates’ decision on whether to use social media or not. In the article “Crossing the Campaign Divide: Dean Changes the Election Game ,” it is stated that if a “campaign decides to use social media, they are risking leaving behind traditional organizations for decentralized networks that allow supporters and non-supporters to have some control over the campaign’s message.” That control can either go in a positive direction or a negative direction seeing that if you are a non-supporter, you would only be spreading negativity and an unpleasant image of the politician. However, if they do decide not to use social media and maintain their relationship with the traditional organizations, they become more in control with what is being broadcasted, but suffer because these traditional organizations don’t allow the average person to contribute/interact with the campaign. A campaign without interaction can be defective because your supporters won’t feel as though they can connect to you or have their complaints/desires heard. Using social media is a powerful weapon for politicians such as Donald Trump because he has showed others that they are able to use it “as a tool of political promotion, distraction, score-settling and attack.” However, seeing as it is a powerful tool, you must be careful what you tweet, share, and post as a politician because you can receive a lot of backlash and erupt controversy on the internet which can backfire against your campaign if the message is hostile/offensive. Being able to take a step back, pause, and think about how your message can affect/hurt your supporters is an important skill to possess, and we can all see that Donald Trump doesn’t have that skill which is why he is so controversial and always bringing hurt/fear into the lives of many Americans.