Introduction

This paper defines online social media and briefly notes Internet usage in New Zealand before focusing on the use of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube by MPs. The use of online social media in campaigning, its influence and instances of online public interaction is examined. Finally, possible future trends are discussed.

Parliamentarians and online social networking

As online social media data changes rapidly the figures below represent a ‘snapshot’ of MPs when the information was gathered. [6]   These figures provide some context for how online social media is used by MPs. While these do not necessarily indicate the engagement carried out by MPs and the influence MPs have, they infer usage rates of social media.

Influence

Although there is debate over just how much influence online social media has in the political arena, its potential impact is acknowledged. Anand Giridharadas, a New York Times columnist, has noted that some believe social media is capable of enabling “Athenian-style direct democracy.” [32]   US President Barack Obama has envisioned “technologies, including blogs, wikis and social networking tools to modernize internal, cross-agency, and public communication and information sharing to improve government decision-making.” [33]   Soon after the 2008 New Zealand General Election, Rt Hon John Key said “While I can’t promise to read and reply to every comment that you make, your posts (on a range of websites including Facebook and YouTube) will be read by my staff and will contribute to our thinking.” [34]   Australian Liberal MP Joe Hockey sent a ‘tweet’ in November 2009 asking for feedback on the Australian proposed Emissions Trading Scheme. [35]   While he was criticised by some for this, Hockey said “That’s the great value of Twitter. There’s 8500 people out there who have different views. Some of them are quite plainly hostile, but they’re all prepared to give an opinion and so it’s useful.” [36]  

The use of online tools indicates that some government leaders recognise the potential for social media to provide a direct line of communication between “the governed and the government.” [37]   However, the ‘digital divide’ [38]   can prevent some people accessing the Internet to participate in online democratic activities. Nor does online activism necessarily translate directly into offline action. In the United Kingdom, a May 2010 survey found that 45.9% of Internet users who had engaged in official or non-official campaign activities online had not engaged in any way offline, such as through attending rallies. [39]   This shows that having online ‘fans’ or ‘friends’ does not necessarily equate to having votes, or active offline supporters.

Campaigning

Of particular interest is the impact of online social media on electoral campaigning. The Internet helped shape the 2008 New Zealand General Election campaign. The Labour Party created a campaign website with a daily blog from Rt Hon Helen Clark, and extensively used YouTube and Facebook. [40]   National Party Asian candidates used Facebook and YouTube to contact Asian voters. MP Melissa Lee said “It makes sense to engage them in cyberspace because Asian people are generally more internet-savvy, and now there's a space for them to discuss politics and stuff with us.” [41]   However, Nicola Kean, a journalist and scholar who studied Internet use during the election, has indicated that online interaction with citizens was “preaching to the converted.” [42]   While social media sites can help political parties connect with more people, it still requires motivation from voters. It may be easier for voters and constituents to contact candidates and MPs if they use the same online tools rather than expecting individuals to search for a way to engage with MPs online. Labour MP Grant Robertson said “I am not certain that any party in the election, Labour included, really harnessed the power of the internet in the way we saw with (US President) Barack Obama. There is much to learn in this regard.” [43]   In New Zealand, National MP Hon Hekia Parata in the 2010 Mana electorate by-election started using social networking sites such as Twitter to broadcast her campaign activities before the Election date was announced. [44]  

There is debate over the impact of online social media on the United Kingdom’s 2010 General Election with some newspapers referring to it as the “first social media election.” [45]   There were 14,000 voting registration forms directly downloaded from the ‘Democracy UK Facebook’, a Facebook page on United Kingdom politics. Approximately 9,000 forms were downloaded daily from ‘About My Vote’, an Internet site explaining United Kingdom voting and elections. [46]   In the United Kingdom there appears to have been a shift towards continual election campaigning beyond the traditional campaign period. This has been described by the United Kingdom Hansard Society as the main shift caused by using digital communication. The Society further believes that political parties have been able to use the Internet’s organisational capacity to raise their profiles, and take control of communications from the mainstream media. Despite this, there “is little indication that citizens in advanced and developing democracies visit candidate or politician websites in any great numbers.” [47]   This may suggest most people are not actively searching for political information but rather wanting it to come to them, potentially through social media sites, or non-partisan sites offering comparative policy and campaign overviews. This has also been discussed in the context of the 2010 New Zealand Local Body Elections. The New Zealand Herald reported in September 2010 that some younger voters wanted to use modern technology to access the Internet to “find one site and find out about all these people (the candidates).” [48]   Local Government New Zealand established a website as “a one-stop shop for confused voters”. The website asked candidates to list their top five issues, and provided the candidate statements in the booklets which had been posted with ballot papers. [49]  

Australian social media strategist Tiphereth Gloria said that the 2010 Australian General Election candidates were “broadcasting propaganda to voters” on social media, rather than using the sites to respond to voters. “If you take the basic definition of social media as a conversation online – then this is not it.” [50]  

Online interaction of MPs

While online social media is a comparatively new form of communication, MPs have always engaged with the public. According to Mark Blevis, a digital public affairs strategist, “The benefits of any social network – real or digital – come from the quality of the relationships with members of the network rather than the pure volume of people within it.” [51]   Social network analysis indicates that there is a ‘horizon of communication’ extending beyond a person’s direct contacts. When creating a social media account, many people choose to use the opportunity to explore carefully, with only a small initial community. This provides a chance to decide what ‘voice’ to use, and how to use a social media account. Over time many people move from ‘broadcasting’ what they are doing, to discussing their thoughts with their community. Due to the public profile of MPs, they often do not have this opportunity to explore how to use social media tools, as people begin following them immediately.

Smartphones and other devices such as i-pads are being used to post to and access social media. The use of these mobility tools is particularly helpful to MPs with their “on-the-move” lifestyles in allowing them to engage actively in online social media.

Social media compared to traditional publicity

Treating a Facebook wall or a Twitter stream as a broadcast mechanism, can add little value to the potential engagement with the public. Instead, it is similar to a mailbox drop. Previously, people who signed up to receive mail and information from an MP would most likely be a supporter or a constituent; today people who do not support the party or individual may sign up to observe the MP.

There is also more scope for interactions to be negative, and this occurs in a public arena. It is important to consider what policies and actions are in place for dealing with people who cause problems or want to discuss sensitive issues on social media accounts. In early 2010 Labour MP Hon Trevor Mallard ‘unfriended’ [52]   Green MP Metiria Tūrei following an online conversation. Tūrei said: “The beauty of Facebook is that politicians like Trevor and I can discuss issues in the public eye. It means we are challenged by others to answer for our views, decisions and behaviour - which is great.” Mallard said: "I choose who is there (on his Facebook wall). While there are lots of discussions initiated by constituents I decide whether they run or not. But the idea of politicians using the comments section of my status to attack me just doesn't seem right". Mallard later agreed to be ‘friends’ again. [53]   This raises the question of what MPs allow on their Facebook walls, and how comments are regulated.

Hansard Society research in 2010 concluded “citizens do not want the passive, broadcast-only relationship with their MPs that has existed until now, they wish to communicate and engage, to track and contribute to the democratic debate.” [54]  

Future Trends

Access to online social media is likely to increase in the future, and along with this, its political use. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), broadband prices are decreasing, while the speeds are increasing, and this combined with the increase in mobile technologies should mean increased Internet access. [55]   As more people have Internet access, many will expect politicians to maintain and indeed increase their online presence. The 2007 Internet and Elections Project found international evidence that “an increase in political use of the web goes hand-in-hand with diffusion of the internet in a nation.” [56]   As young people reach voting age, and social media becomes ubiquitous, it will be necessary for “democratic institutions and practices to restyle their political communication in such ways as to be commensurate with the interests and discourse of contemporary youth culture.” [57]   Facebook is used by people of all ages; a July 2010 Omnibus report by Perceptive, a marketing and research company, showed that while engagement with Facebook declined with age, 64% of people aged 65 years and over still used it. [58]  

Online social media will continue to evolve in the future while remaining an influence on politics here and internationally. Peter Chen from the University of Sydney suggests that “online communication remains a contested political space and one where there remains considerable scope for competition and innovation in the future.” [59]  

For effective use of online social media tools, it may be useful for MPs to consider the following points when creating a social media account:

• What sort of community do you want to build?
• Social media will keep changing, how will you maintain your communities over a range of social media sites?
• What sort of voice do you want to use?
• What value can social media add to your current communicating tools?
• How will you manage negative interactions online?
• A high number of ‘friends’ and’ followers’ is not necessarily useful if active engagement is limited – what can stimulate real engagement?

Conclusion

New Zealanders use the Internet for diverse activities which include sharing political opinions and engaging with others online. Online social media tools can be an effective way to easily engage with the community in an environment where people feel comfortable, and where little effort is required to find MPs. In the future, the level of online engagement with the public is likely to rise as more people access these sites, and their use becomes the norm. There is considerable potential for MPs to engage with the public in an innovative fashion online; however there are various points to be taken into consideration. While some MPs are using online social media tools that are useful for interaction with the public, some politicians use social media as a broadcasting mechanism, rather than as a way to engage with constituents. MPs often have many online ‘fans’, ‘followers’ and viewers. However, effective use of online social media requires more than a profile and occasional updates. An effort is needed to actively engage with the online community, such as through online dialogue and seeking feedback, rather than simply making announcements similar to media releases.

“Communication is not just person-to-person; it involves making the work of Parliament open, visible and transparent.” [60]  

Christine Busby

Economics and Industry Team

Parliamentary Library

(04) 817 9289 or Ext 9289

Christine.Busby@parliament.govt.nz

Paul Bellamy

Social Policy Team

Parliamentary Library

(04) 817 9204 or Ext 9204

Paul.Bellamy@parliament.govt.nz

Further reading

Websites:

Tweetminster. Available from: http://tweetminster.co.uk/

Digital Democracy – Hansard Society. Available from: http://hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/eDemocracy

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand licence. In essence, you are free to copy, distribute and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to the Parliamentary Library and abide by the other licence terms. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/nz/.