1

Twitter’s exponential rate of success led to a surge of research studies and academic ruminations on Twitter’s utility--or its vapidity. The author and cultural critic, Malcolm Gladwell, discussed Twitter’s potential failings as a tool for encouraging real- world activism, and concluded that Twitter encourages “armchair activism” with limited ability to create necessary social change. As a result of Gladwell’s widely publicized critique and analysis, a group of media researchers compiled an interactive website that provided a visualization of the significant role of Twitter in Egypt and Tunisia’s revolutions.

2

However we found, when it comes to politics, “armchair activism” might be enough . If politicians were only looking for online donations and clicks of Facebook- style “likes” to publicized media appearances, Twitter may well be the perfect forum. However, our study of presidential candidates’ use of Twitter and studies of other scholars found limited examples of innovation, or even much use of Twitter’s distinctively unique features. Mark Blevis’ study of Twitter use among Canadian Members of Parliament, for example, found that only eight of the 58 members studied garnered a significant “generosity” rating, as calculated by the number of members’ messages that were retweeted compared to the total number of tweets that they sent to their followers. Retweeting was a key way to engage with followers, and the fact that only eight Canadian MPs used this feature indicates that politicians largely ignored the distinguishing and potentially advantageous aspects of Twitter.

3

We confirmed the analysis provided by Mark Blevis and other scholars through our findings in this study. We found that the candidates mainly used Twitter for four common, quotidian campaign functions: advertising, broadcasting policy positions, linking to other favorable media sources, and creating a persona with which their followers could easily relate. With the possible exception of linking to other media sources (and even that can be done through the campaign website), none of the functions we discovered were in any way unique to Twitter . These were the same functions for which politicians used their websites, their print literature, their speeches, and most other forms of campaign media. It seems, then, that judging by the four presidential candidates that we studied, Twitter was just another campaign medium through which to achieve the same goals typically met by other campaign communication strategies.

4

The natural question to ask was whether there were other functions that the presidential candidates should have used. Were politicians using Twitter for the same goals because the candidates were too shortsighted to realize the unique possibilities of Twitter? Or did new forms of media produce not new goals or new ways to interact with voters, but simply new mediums through which to achieve the same old goals? We believe that the answer to these questions is a bit of both. In his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama galvanized young voters and revolutionized modern campaigns through his innovative use of social media. The way Obama’s team used social media to organize potential supporters was significant because that campaign demonstrated a way to do the same thing (organize supporters to volunteer their time, for example) in a way that was different, more participatory, more democratic, and more decentralized than previous methods.

5

We believe that our study demonstrates that Twitter is neither the game- changing, election-altering panacea that some of its most vocal adherents claim. Nor is it the absurdly ridiculous form of “self-authoring” and “navel-gazing” with which its opponents dismiss it. Campaigns and candidates need to find ways in which Twitter differs from, and improves upon, political strategies that have been used in the past. Ultimately, we think that our study shows that most presidential aspirants tend to hew to a close script in their efforts to get elected and tend to think of and use “new media” in “old media” ways. We concluded that although presidential candidates used Twitter to achieve their typical campaign goals in ways different from their website, a direct mail letter, or other traditional communication campaign media – Twitter has as yet not proved itself to provide most presidential candidates with any significant, or measurable advantage.

← →

FILLER

ABOUT

FILLER

METHODOLOGY

1

2

3

4

5