Social media: distorted incentives

If elections were won or lost on social media, we may be looking at a President Trump in November. Fortunately, there’s more to the equation. 

Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Vine) has drastically changed aspects of the media and campaign landscape that have previously been taken for granted.

Social media allows candidates to communicate directly with the public without the filtering effect of legacy media. Messages can be delivered directly and instantly, whereas before such messaging had to take the form of mail pieces or phone calls. Traditionally, media would report a candidate’s words – offering context and assessing the truth or validity of the claims. This is bypassed through the use of social media. 

Conversely, mainstream media now reports what is happening on social media as news (Pepe the frog and the Ken Bone phenomenon are two examples). Candidate communications via social media are frequently the subject of stories (for example, Donald Trump’s tweets about Alicia Machado or his claims of media bias).

Social media also provides a platform for those who would otherwise not receive coverage. Black Lives Matter gained momentum through social media networks and is now a topic of reporting by the mainstream media. Additionally, fringe movements and conspiracy theories that would normally be filtered out due to their lack of credibility receive attention and inspire a following. Some examples include calling CNN the Clinton News Network, the fact that Clinton suffers grave neurological problems, or that the warnings about Hurricane Matthew were fabricated as part of a Democratic plot to extend voter registration deadlines. Social media allows these topics to gain momentum and the mainstream press covers them as news.

Social media self-reinforces ideology. People who think alike tend to be friends with each other. Social media news feeds thus reflect the ideologies of the users. In a time when Pew reports that 44% of US adults receive some type of news or information about the 2016 election from social media, the lack of diverse opinions can make a real difference. This Wall Street Journal page shows the differences between Facebook feeds of liberal and conservative individuals. Check out the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump filters. It’s pretty eye-opening. 

The formatting limits of social media affect the message. Twitter’s 140 character limit favors short, punchy, attention-grabbing communications over lengthier nuance. Such soundbites can and often are mis-interpreted in the absence of context (for example, build a wall or deport them all are much catchier than a more nuanced explanation that takes economic realities into account). 

Social media rewards outrageous comments and exploits. Inflammatory or controversial statements are liked and shared thus giving them a larger audience than the more arcane posts. In the social media world, according to CNN’s Van Jones, “saying and doing crazy stuff just makes you more famous… on Twitter, insulting people and throwing rhetorical bombs doesn't cost you followers. It usually gains you followers. Lots of them.”

Nowhere is this more apparent than in comparing Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s social media following. Trump has 12.5 million followers on Twitter and 11.4 million likes on Facebook. Clinton has 9.79 million followers and 7.1 likes respectively. Thus, social media distorts the traditional incentives that guide a candidate: presidential behavior is ignored while bad behavior makes one popular. 

Finally, Twitter reaches influencers. Daniel Kreiss of the UNC School of Media and Journalism notes that this election, “Twitter is primarily a means for campaigns to influence journalists.” It is a space where writers can test stories, float ideas and find out what types of coverage earn clicks (hint: it’s the conspiracy-ridden scandals).

Consensus among journalists – and rightly so – is that Trump is winning the social media wars. Daniel Kreiss notes that the public likes to see authenticity in a candidate and no where is this easier than in the direct link via social media. In fact, Trump supporters cite the unscripted, blunt nature of Donald Trump as a reason that he is so attractive. Trump has also used social media to gain an enormous media following. According to Kreiss, “Trump has used Twitter to great effect in setting the agenda of the professional press.” Van Jones agrees, “The most successful politicians have an innate understanding of [the media] environment and the skill to act on it. In our era, that could be Trump.” 

This makes sense to me. In class, among friends and colleagues, most of us spend more time talking about Trump’s antics than Hillary’s policy ideas. Take a look at the Twitter feeds of both candidates. While Donald is throwing punches and bellowing into the ether, Hillary talks about policy. Which is more interesting? – of course, Donald Trump. It doesn’t make him the best candidate, but in light of these distorted incentives, his popularity is beginning to make more sense.