Well, as many of us tech savvy students know, Facebook is a convenient, addictive, time consuming way of keeping in touch with (stalk) our friends. What many of us may not realize is that the US Government has gotten in on Facebook as well. Don't believe me? Click this link and see for yourself.
What I would like to say on this matter is this: What on earth is going through the government's mind? Facebook is for social networking, not for raising awareness about politics. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for raising awareness about politics, but incorporating it into Facebook, or MySpace for that matter, is ridiculous. It seems to me that when you're surfing the web, looking at your friend's new pictures from their party last weekend, making comments, you're not interested in watching a video of the latest debate or reading up on what a close race it is between Obama and McCain; you're interested in checking out what that cute boy's major is.
I understand that the government is trying to spread awareness about what's going on in politics, but I just don't believe that creating a Facebook or MySpace profile is the way to do it. I believe that putting politics on a mainstream source of entertainment degrades it in a way. Politics should be on news channels, written in newspapers, talked about during political classes; not on a website made to entertainment.
I believe the best way for the government to peak interest in politics is to keep it short and simple. People, as a whole, aren't geniuses. We like it short and simple. Nowadays, everyone's in a hurry. Gotta be somewhere, gotta make that money, no time for issues that don't concern me. I say the government should make politics short, simple and show people how much each decision will effect them. Then people will be interested.
For example, instead of throwing words around like "caucus", "superdelegates", or "electoral college" on news channels, define them for the listeners; put a little scrolling bar at the bottom of the screen or something. Don't spend 30 minutes talking about what Clinton meant in that last statement. Talk about what she stands for, what the issues are that she cares about and what she can do for the common American in simple sentences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I will be the first to admit that I am slightly addicted to facebook and myspace, and I do sometimes find political adds on these entertainment websites slightly annoying.
However, I do not totally agree with you that these adds are in the wrong place. The majority of facebook/myspace users are Americas younger population and unfortunately it is this population that is not voting and participating in politics. So, if creating facebook groups, and myspace pages is what it is going to take to get the younger generation involved with political policy that is directly affecting them, then I am all for it. (even if it does get slightly annoying)
I have to respectfully disagree with you. Although the intention of facebook is social networking, wherever there is social activity likely politics will come into discussion at some point or another.
Although you may not be interested in discussing politics on facebook (I'm not always wanting too either), certainly many people are. My memory may be off slightly, but last time I checked there was over 85,000 members in a McCain support group I was asked to join. My school even has its own political discussion group on facebook.
On to my main point, you made a reasoned statement in saying politics is a place for TV news channels, etc. However you have overlooked a few things. People are increasingly turning to the internet as a source of entertainment, communication, information, etc. The more traditional forms of newspapers and television are being more overlooked by the increasingly tech savvy population. Advertisers have caught on, and are pouring more and more money into internet advertising because it becoming the best way to reach people.
We must also remember television networks and newspapers are businesses, and compete for viewer attention. While it would likely serve the public interest best to keep them informed about the nation's issues, it is not the best interest of a business. Especially in today's less educated political population, the more sensationalist eye grabbing stories are best in holding the short modern attention span. In actuality, boring detailed legislative plans to fix a national issue may be the quickest way to get a viewer to change the channel. The result is as you see, stories about a candidate's personal life rather than political philosophy.
In short, the internet currently is the best way to raise awareness for just about anything. The other traditional forms are simply not reaching our younger tech savvy population effectively. These traditional forms are losing appeal and several of them have even established footholds in the internet. (Such as a new's networks website)
Post a Comment