In recent years social networking sites have become some of the highest traffic destinations on the internet. This has provided a new platform for political discussion. It allows like minded and opposing parties to banter amongst themselves without needing to be in the same location. For these people, it's great they are able to do this, but for the rest of us, who actually cares about politics? I know I don't. I dislike what they implement, how they justify taking my money and in general how they act. A lot of gen-y people would have to agree with me.
Despite this, the government has decided to use social mediums to reach out to younger generations. Unfortunately I don't think they realize that we actually have to click on their video or post to view it. After all, who really wants to spend precious procrastination time watching Julia Gillard on YouTube talking about creating a "sustainable future"? Additionally, we all know that she is lying anyway. Despite the labour governments over complex explanations to try and justify why the ‘plans’ had to change, in the end we were lied to. One example was when Julia Gillard promised there would never be a carbon tax under her government. However a few months later the motions were passed and guess what? We are getting a carbon tax.
Although this type of political campaign has not been successful in Australia, it has had great success over in the USA. When Barack Obama was a candidate running for presidency, he had grand plans to help him beat the numerous odds that were stacked against him. He wondered if social networking, with its tremendous communication capabilities and aggressive database development would provide him with the edge he needed. In an article by David Carr he states that, “It was like a guy in a garage who was thinking of taking on the biggest names in the business.” However, his campaign was a huge success and he is now the President of the United States. So how can the same political objectives be rejected in one case and successful in another? Personally, I don’t think it has got anything to do with politics. Barack Obama is a charismatic and genuine guy who believes in what he says and goes through with what he has promised. His speeches take on a funnel type style, where he starts broad and explains what he is going to talk about. He then goes on to finish with a powerful statement that produces spontaneous applause from his listeners. He provides hope for his country and his citizens respect him. Additionally, President Obama is open to having some fun with his position. He is able to go on television programs such as talk shows and be entertaining while still delivering a message. One example is when Barack Obama appeared on the Jimmy Fallon show and did a slow jam of the news. This guy has personality, someone that we can relate to and trust.
In contrast, by the time Julia Gillard has finished speaking, no one thinks about applauding as their attention is still focused on trying to comprehend what she was even talking about. Her reign has been filled with broken promises and excuses. I think it is great that we have the first women prime minister but that does not justify why she has struggled. Barack Obama was the first black president and he does not use that as an excuse.
Once again, it’s not about the politics or even the social media forms that politicians have began to use. It is about the personality of the person and the characteristics that constitute them. Just because you are crowned the leader doesn’t mean people will follow you.
No comments:
Post a Comment