Meme's and Politics: How Politicians are using Social Media to Influence Citizens

In present day society, the weight put towards a Politicians social media presence is now an important aspect in ones campaign. The term social media is portrayed as a newly created terminology, largely associated with companies such as Facebook and Twitter. The technological advancements of these social media websites have also altered the dynamic of politics in the 21^st century. The creation of the Internet has developed a new power struggle within society; with the Internet being one of the main powerful tools for the oppression of less dominate beliefs and the promotion of more hegemonic ideals within politics. 

Manuel Castell defines power as the, “relational capacity that enables a social actor to influence asymmetrically the decisions of the other social actor(s) in ways that favour the empowered actors will, interests, and values.” One can see the power struggle within social media, every time one logs on. Politicians and corporate institutions put a large emphasis on having a social media presence, through gaining the most followers, likes and shares. Those politicians, which have a large manifestation on social media are seen to be a higher class of people within these online social communities. Castell mentions this phenomenon saying that, “Technology is one of many results of the productive societal interactions of human beings. It therefore has qualities that are, on the one hand, specifically societal" (Castell 74). In capitalist, democratic society there are class struggles, which are usually influenced by ones financial income. Online social media websites have created a currency that also establishes these social influences. This currency is not physical money but rather translated into: likes, shares and follows. In order to gain this sought after online presence, you must follow the institutional ideals and beliefs that are seen as normative. An important source of media for swaying public opinion or collecting these social currency can be seen within sites such as, Facebook, Twitter, Tumbler Pinterest and Snapchat in the form of political memes. 

 Meme's in politics are not new, the word was actually first created by Richard Dawkins in 1976 in his book the Selfie Gene, which explained how individuals spread cultural information. However, the book does not talk about how memes have now infiltrated the political realm. The concept of meme actually takes its route meaning from Greek, where it means "that which is imitated." However, since its induction into the Internet sphere, it has transformed into a form of media that is copied rapidly, with various variations of images, texts and video. Political memes are created and used by people in order to sway individuals towards seeing the political environment in a particular light. Presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz embraced the meme culture using the hashtags #CruzCrowd and #FeelTheBern in order for his        supporters to tag him in memes through out social media. Memes seem to circulate within the newsfeeds of prominent social media profiles, often not targeting political policies but rather they try to portray one specific politician as more negative than they other, which can be seen above in the anti-Trump meme. 

Memes have a lasting affect within politics, they are seemingly never ending viral moments in pop culture, they have a peculiar affect, for their function seems to be to crowdsource particular agendas. More specifically, memes and hashtags come to define the entire debate or election as a whole for 2016. There influence is only continuing to grow and may define future elections even more greatly than this past election. However, the influence social media has over politics over the last few elections, cannot be questioned, and its presence will continue to grow, specifically as political parties and politicians gain an even larger following within these sites. 

Work Sited: 

Castells, Manuel. 2009. Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Conclusion: Toward a communication theory of power. Print.

Citizen Media a Tool of Freedom: Social Hactivism, Whistle Blowers and Anonymous

Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels’ (1848) in their Communist Manifesto explain that the ideals in capitalism are nothing more than, “…the dominant material relationships… which [makes] the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of their dominance” (p.12). Those that are in the upper class control the mental and material means in capitalist society, in order to keep the working class suppressed. This suppression permits the ruling class to manipulate and benefit greatly from the proletariat class. In present day society, the class system is still very much intact. By examining the strengths of Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model, we can analyze the methods adopted by Liberal governments, in order to sustain the control of the mental and material means, within society; thus, highlighting the inherent contradictions created within society due to the continued privatization of traditional media corporations. This post will analyze the emerging roles of whistleblowers and how they, along with digital activists, have replaced the role of traditional media corporations by posting often sensitive information on an blog website like WikiLeaks. 

Whistleblowers are individuals who report illicit corporate activity about those in power, to the general public. With the creation of the WikiLeaks platform, the majority of whistleblowers are able to access a safe outlet to expose and provide global citizens with critical information. Since the creation of WikiLeaks by Julian Assange, multiple whistleblowers: Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and John Kiriakou have utilized this digital platform.These digital activists have provided an online un-bias media source to which valuable information can be accessed. Whistleblowers and digital activists believe, “…that information [should] not to be hoarded but [should be] shared [with everyone]” (Ludlow, 2010, p. 25). Since news outlets have become increasingly privatized and commoditized, they have become uninspired and bland, and are merely covering stories that will enhance their ratings and benefit their shareholders. Online activist groups like Anonymous, have become the unbiased medial outlet without any external influences, which the traditional media outlets were created to be. These online activists have helped take away the mental and material means from the bourgeoisie class and aided in creating a more equal social and economic order, within society. 

          

        Whistleblowers have been around for generations but the Internet and online platforms such as WikiLeaks have offered these individuals a safe and effective avenue to expose their often top-secret information. Chelsea Manning, a famous whistleblower, was credited for saving up to 1000 lives but was also simultaneously charged with treason and sentenced to 30 plus years in jail. She was a low-level analyst for the military and was responsible for packaging military information that could be used to predict trends on battlefields; specifically in Afghanistan and Iraq. She realized that her expertise was being used for the wrong means and that the United States military was killing innocent civilians. To her “[the] SigActs [files] represented the on-the-ground reality of the conflicts, in both Iraq and Afghanistan…[and that we were] ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals of missions” (Free Chelsea Manning, 2013,para. 21). Manning initially contacted a local newspaper and then the New York Times, but neither would take her seriously, even though she reiterated, “ [she had] access to information…that [she] believed was very important” (para. 23). Her struggle to be taken seriously by formal media institutions led her to the WikiLeaks Organization, which, “through [her] research… seemed to be the best medium for publishing this information to the world within [her] reach” (para. 12). Manning recognized that publishing these documents and videos would have had irreversible personal consequences, however, she trusted “that the information would help document the true cost of the Iraq and Afghani conflicts” (para 17). This whistleblower’s story points to the fact that though journalism is a noble profession, individuals that are brought into such powerful organizations, are in fact, powerless against them. Consequently, stories like Chelsea Manning’s, are labeled as unpatriotic and to be avoided at all costs, by those in positions of power. The bottom line and satisfying shareholders is held at a higher regard than informing the citizenry.

          Social and political hacktivists have replaced traditional media corporations and have led the fight against Internet regulation. This culture has permitted “regular” citizens to have information that governments do not want in the hands of all their citizens. The controlling of traditional media outlets has transformed the media into an effective propaganda machine for those in power, rather than the voice of the independent citizen. Perhaps these digital activists are attempting to fulfill the promise of the Internet during the “digital revolution” and once again establish the unbiased media that informs the citizenry. Chelsea Manning and Aaron Swartz are two examples of civil activists who have put society’s needs before their own. The freedom of the Internet and the increased transparency of government processes are due to the courageous actions of whistleblowers and digital activists alike.

                                                                     Work Sited: 

Ludlow, P. (2010). WikiLeaks and Hacktivist Culture. The Nation, 25-26.

Marx, k., & Engels F. (1848) Manifesto of the Communist Party. Progress Publishers, 1, 98-137. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf