Social media is one of politics biggest allies today. Whether that be as a platform to share news, opinions, etc. it can connect politicians to mass groups of people both quickly and successfully. However, with opinions come disagreements… Obviously the reason there are different political parties, with the main two being Democratic and Republican, is because everyone thinks differently and has different stances on different topics. In the past this was how people voted for their preferred candidate party. But with the rise in popularity of social media, many are using it as an outlet to express their personal opinions or concerns on the political world and this is causing a mass issue of polarization. 

 

By definition, political polarization is “the divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes”. For the most part without social media, this extreme divergence was much less if not existent at all. Specifically, the 2016 and 2020 elections have seen a strong pull in change from disagreements to full blown “cancel culture”. Cancel culture is when a person or celebrity says something to the public, or on social media that people might not agree with and because so instead of educating that person, they are “cancelled”. This basically is full blown exile from public acceptance and could affect that person’s platform drastically to the point of putting current or future employment in danger. 

 

On the other hand without social media, the public would not even be able to hold that kind of power to hold someone accountable at a national level. But again, at what cost could this power have on a person’s life? As we’ve seen, this kind of polarization created by social media can be dangerous and sometimes even fatal. For example, the riots that took place outside the United States Capitol on January 6th, 2021 were created out of former President, Donald Trump’s, remarks on how he had not lost the election that took place in November. Student Olivia in a New York Times article on the matter states, “They defaced flags, tore apart the democratic procedures that they apparently supported like a group of sulky toddlers all fighting over who got the cherry lollypop, and began the destruction of a symbol of worldwide freedom.” This created a divide that was so extreme that Trump supporters genuinely believed he won the election and violently protested against President Biden’s win. The polarization that Trump created on Twitter that created this chaos ended in the permanent suspension of his account as a result.

 

Political polarization at first glance may sound just like a divide between ideas. For example pro-choice vs pro life, pro gun vs anti gun, for or against the death penalty, etc. For the most part each political party or candidate sides with one of these issues and not the other and that is how people find who they most identify with. But social media has taken these to a whole new level that make political polarization a true threat to the United States democracy and political system as a whole. Platforms such as Instagram and Twitter allow people to repost other people’s or companies posts. For instance, if someone on Instagram posts an illustration that is anti-abortion on their timeline, people can take that post and repost it to their “stories” which are shown on their page for 24 hours. Notes, comments, etc. can be posted on top of it expressing their interest in the topic/illustration which is then shown to all of their followers. The problem with this is that these posts and comments are so biased that it basically strips away an alliance from half of that person’s followers who are most likely in favor of the opposition which in this case would be pro-abortion. 

 

The track that this will take us on is a very dark one because it’s taking away any room for disagreement and leaving it to a right and wrong answer for everything in this world. When voting this could mean that there will be even more aggressive protests for parties, cyber abuse on social media, etc. Many have seen this take a toll on friendships and even families because it seems like there is only one option in politics. The best solution to solve and further prevent political polarization from social media would be to leave space for open conversation and discussion. A lot of the time social media is made to be one sided and it’s almost like the users are lecturing their followers rather than sharing their ideas with them. Discussion is essential in politics and this is what will prevent polarization from destroying our nation.

 

Sources:

https://www.pewresearch.org/topics/political-polarization/

The issue that I am going to address is increased security in K-12 schools in America. Since Sandy Hook, school shootings have increased and up until the Covid-19 pandemic, were at an all time high during the 2019 school year. Although many districts have implemented new measures like SRO’s (Security Resource Officers), schools would further benefit from new security implementations such as metal detectors. It’s proven that schools with metal detectors have decreased crime within and around the school so if this policy were to be enforced at all schools around the US, we could see a decrease and maybe even the disappearance of school shootings.

 

The “cause” of the issue I am addressing is inadvertent when looking at the four causes. This is because the problem was brought about by the US educational system’s lack of caution since the problem first came about decades ago. If right after Sandy Hook schools immediately started putting in metal detectors around the entrances and exits, Parkland, STEM, etc. could all have been avoided. Obviously there are other issues within this subject such as mental health, but by implementing metal detectors now, schools are preventing firearms and other weapons from being brought into the classroom by not only students, but also outside threats. 

 

The policy instrument named in the “Making Policy” entry that would best fit the crafting of this policy for my issue brief would be system changes. To successfully keep school shootings down and keep kids safe in their learning environments, you would have to alter how the US educational institution provides security. Although this policy instrument can be seen as the most dramatic of the four, this is exactly what needs to be done to prevent any more innocent people from losing their lives to something that could have been avoided. 

 

Last week my civic issue post related to how people receive their political news from biased sources and how we can better differentiate fake news on social media platforms. This week however, I want to look at the impact politicians make on politics based on their personal involvement on social media. Social media today is used for many reasons. From creating platforms for fame and fortune, to sharing niches and tips or tricks, and of course, sharing news, social media is equivalent to what live television was 20 or so years ago.

 

In the past, politicians used to stray from social media and would instead provide information to the masses through national news sources to maintain reliability. Now however, social media has become the newest and easiest way to receive news as quickly as possible. Although this can definitely have it’s advantages, it also leaves quite a bit of room for personal bias. Politicians primarily use Twitter and Instagram to share any news or anything of political significance. Yes, a lot of these accounts are controlled by a team and not the politician themselves, but the information itself is coming from the direct source. 

 

One of the most involved politicians on social media is/was Donald Trump, the most recent US president before Joe Biden who is currently in office. Because Donald Trump was a celebrity before he was elected as president, his Twitter account already had quite the following and he was rather comfortable with sharing his personal ideas and opinions on his account as he had done in the past. The question is to what point should politicians be able to share biased opinions to the public? Although there were times where he tweeted about political, international, and national news, many of his daily dozen tweets were him complaining and criticizing someone for arguing against his personal views. 

 

The consequences of Trump sharing his personal ideals took place on January 17th 2021, when Twitter made the decision to ban his account indefinitely after a tweet of his encouraged a violent riot/protest at the United States capitol. Earlier that day, Trump supporters had decided to swarm the capitol in protest of the appointment of president elect Joe Biden. This was in efforts to prevent Biden’s inauguration into office because the president attempted to convince his supporters that the election was “fraudulent” and that the votes were counted incorrectly. Instead of diffusing the situation, he encouraged it. In an article by CNBC on the situation, reporter Lauren Feiner writes,  “As the riot unfolded, Trump tweeted messages encouraging nonviolence, though he later released a video message that also reiterated his unsubstantiated claim that the election was stolen from him and told rioters, ‘We love you.’” To prevent further encouragement from the president to the public, Twitter made the decision to permanently ban Donald Trump’s account. 

 

On the other spectrum of things, the instagram account of Michelle Obama, the 44th first lady of the United States, is used as a platform of hope and uniformity. Although she still posts things that are rather personal such as photos of her husband or kids, she still uses her platform in a respectful manner…and with over 45.4 million followers, people are in fact listening to what she has to say. Michelle is an excellent demonstration of what social media can do to influence the current political world for the good. At the beginning of the Black Lives Matter movement, she posted on Instagram a portrait of George Floyd with her caption writing, “…Race and racism is a reality that so many of us grow up learning to just deal with. But if we ever hope to move past it, it can’t just be on people of color to deal with it. It’s up to all of us—Black, white, everyone—…” Unlike the Twitter posts that were published daily by Donald Trump that spoke to only one portion of the political audience, Michelle Obama’s Instagram speaks to everyone as a whole to hold our country accountable and thus move forward from the past to the future. In a CNN article by Leah Asmelash on both of Obama’s efforts to reach out to the public via social media she writes on the previously mentioned post, “Both statements come against the backdrop of sometimes violent protests across the nation, as people mourn and show their anger over the death of Floyd.” 

 

Personal social media pages are just one of the newest ways that modern technology is being used to share the ideas of all different platforms of people, companies, and so forth. Although it can have negative impacts due to to the lack of a “filter”, it’s also good because now news outlets and second sources are less likely to sugar coat, or beat around the bush of an idea or issue that a politician is trying to quickly and easily get across to the public.

 

Sources:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/twitter-permanently-suspends-trumps-account.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/30/politics/michelle-obama-george-floyd-statement-trnd/index.html

In the past, reliable news networks, newspapers, and live airings of the politicians themselves were how the public received news and updates about politics. Today however the term “fake news” has risen from unworthy new platforms who act more as a tabloid than they do a news source. From there, people retweet, repost, and fabricate these sources on their own social media page to further spread the word of whatever information is being given out. On the other hand, social media is also able to spread reliable news sources faster and more efficiently to those who no longer read the paper or physically watch the news anchors every morning. Whether it be false or correct political news, is social media doing more harm than good for the modern political world?

 

There are several generations currently active on today’s social media platforms. The eldest of the standing generations is the Baby Boomers, born from 1946-1964, whom if they use social media primarily use Facebook. Gen X, those born between 1965-1976, also use Facebook but are often on Instagram and Twitter as well. Millennials, born between 1977 – 1995, and Gen Z, born 1996 to today, reside on the same platforms of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok. All four of the above mentioned apps are completely different but are used to quickly spread information from one source, to another person and from that person can be spread to any of their friends or followers. 

 

The two main political party affiliations, democrat and republican, have been divided recently of which news source they trust and prefer to receive political information from. Democrats prefer news sources such as CNN whereas republicans prefer to receive news from Fox News. The main difference is that each one is biased towards their political party, candidates, elects, and so forth. In an NPR article about the negative effects of social media on the political world, Pinar Yildirim, a marketing professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in social media trends, speaks on the subject. He states, “One way that increased usage may be felt in the 2020 election isn’t in just the amount of false information being seen and shared”- “but in how polarized the American public is during the campaign cycle.” The polarization of America is becoming more evident more than ever and social media is making it much worse. 

 

Former journalist Steven Brill says in the previously mentioned NPR article that, “The great thing about the Internet is everyone can be a publisher. The really bad thing about the Internet is everyone can be a publisher.” Individuals can take what they heard or read from their preferred news source and shape it into what is merely an opinion but then is taken by their followers as facts and legitimate information. The current pandemic has led people to create their own theories on if the coronavirus is a hoax, if/how it can be contracted, if masks are necessary, and so forth. Instead of listening to the scientists who are speaking on the democratic news platforms like CNN, they are hearing from false sources and then spreading that information to everyone else. 

 

Yes, social media can be used to distribute false or negative political news, but on the other hand, social media has also been a way to give political information to people who usually aren’t interested in politics. More youth voted in the 2020 election than ever before and this could be thanks to social media. Additionally, unlike older social media users, younger users are more adapted to discovering false information from the truth because of their increased knowledge on sources, plagiarism, bias, and so forth that is taught in the modern educational system. “How Important Is Social Media In Reaching Young Voters?” is a recent article in Forbes written by Peter Suciu who writes, “Even as this is the first opportunity for many of generation Z to vote, they see how it was manipulated in past elections and how it is used to sow distrust and spread disinformation.” This acknowledgment of the youth is how social media could possibly be seen as being beneficial when it comes to politics.

 

So how do we discredit false sources and users posting false information without vanishing the good social media has done for the distribution of political news? A newly encouraged idea comes from a previous and continuous used social media that is somewhat of a “trigger warning”. Instagram stories are where the user can post something or repost another user’s post for 24 hours for all of their followers to see (or if they’re public, for everyone to see”). On there, if the post shows something disturbing whether it be emotional, gory, etc. it first is covered by a gray screen that warns the user of the post before they can click again agreeing to see it. If this could be used to be put over unauthentic news sources or opinionated posts on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok, etc. stating that it could be showcasing false information, then the user knows truthfully what they are reading or watching. This upcoming policy could be what saves American polarization between parties and further benefit generations to come. 

 

 

Sources:

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/27/860369744/social-media-usage-is-at-an-all-time-high-that-could-mean-a-nightmare-for-democr

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2020/07/22/how-important-is-social-media-in-reaching-young-voters/?sh=3b9243387679