Leading up to the past year or so I haven’t been the most politically aware person; I understood it in, to quote John Green’s The Fault in Our Stars, “the vague and incomplete way people understand electrical circuits and ocean tides.” (Ch 6; 91). I followed news via snapchat, a daily email the Skimm that I occasionally deigned to peer into if I had free time in my morning schedule, thinly veiled anger around the dinner table, and as a weary listener to friends’ political rants. I voted, but not because I was particularly zealous for one presidential candidate over the other. Despite the above lukewarm ambiguity, there has always been a thorn in my foot about social media portrayal and how it effects our decisions politically. 

Two summers ago, I was vegging out on my Aunt’s couch in San Antonio watching a show I had never seen: National Geographic’s Brain Games. The show’s host introduced a Dora-the-Explorer-esque game where the viewers guessed who won real-life mayoral elections based solely on their campaign picture. My then-aversion to the political scene notwithstanding, I am a fan of games, plus, the remote was just slightly out of reach. The theory was that out of the two pictures displayed on screen you could chose the correct candidate in each round before the time ran out. I picked the winner 3/3 times and was sufficiently worried. (Here are the candidates, and winners are in the footnotes) What was it in these faces that compelled me to vote for them? Pictures are one of the subtlest yet most effective tool to grab your audience’s, or voters, attention. 

        

A Bulgarian perception specialist Alex Todorov of Princeton university explained that 70% of the people they surveyed chose all the correct candidates when, according to my collegiate statistics class, it’s only 12.5%  likely someone would be able to correctly guess the right answer all three times. Todorov went on to say that, “candidates who looked more competent and more trustworthy were more likely to be elected in office…your brain can literally decide if it trusts someone within a tenth of a second of seeing his or her face” (The Power of Persuasion). Which I get. I also want someone competent and trustworthy in a position of power. What gives me the creeps is that people are, to a seemingly large degree, voting whilst being influenced on looks instead of facts. 

I am a young voter, and I want to understand and recognize how I am being influenced so I may strive to make my own judgements. I have been relatively unaware of the subtle prods and pushes that I have succumbed to subconsciously. It feels like manipulation, and I am not fond of being manipulated. Many of my peers, myself included, did not watch the debate live to form our opinions first hand, and the information that was most exposed to was on my various social media cites; Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter. This subjected me to more bias towards each candidate that I would have gotten from watching the debate straight out, so I ask myself, what did I learn from each candidate’s social media page? 

Social media’s popularity has exploded in the 21st century. When cellphones gained the ability to go online and download applications with no cost you could suddenly be on your social media anytime you wished. As the accessibility of the cite increased both its users and time spent online swelled as well. Cellphones grew more advanced, more accessories were added, more apps were created so now your phone can be just about as good as a computer. In a study conducted by Pew Research Center it was estimated that, “50% of 18- to 29-year-olds and 49% of those ages 30-49” get their news primarily from online platforms, and “66% get news from both mobile and desktop/laptop” (The Modern News Consumer). Most people involved in the survey received news online, but 50% indicated it as their most frequented source. Why are people so attracted to social media? I think part of the reason is how fast it adapts to modern needs and fads.

The media has consistently forced a change in how leaders relate to the public starting with the invention of the radio in the late 1800’s. George VII of England had a stutter, and needed to address his country about the war with Germany in 1939; radios had just become a household item. The King could address nearly all his subjects at the same time which was not possible prior to the invention of the radio. Soon after the radio was invented televisions made their way into the American homes. By the 1950’s television was one of the most popular mediums used to influence the population. One of the most popular examples of televisions influence on the population is the 1960 presidential debate between Nixon and Kennedy. The 1960 election year was the first debate to be on national television. Polls after the debate showed an interesting trend; those who watched the debate thought Kennedy “won” and those who listened to it on the radio thought Nixon did. On camera Nixon looked uncomfortable and unhealthy in the poor lighting while Kennedy’s youth and confidence made him appealing. This is a perfect example of candidate’s appearance swaying voters. A second example of television media affecting debates is the Al Gore and George Bush presidential election. Gore was frequently seen rolling his eyes and sighing at things that Bush had to say and was vaguely rude and irritated throughout the debate. During one of the debates Gore walked over to Bush and stood next to him as a possible intimidation factor. The viewers were not only affected by this rudeness when they watched the debate live, but also when Saturday Night Live did a skit about the debate. The skit was aired on most stations and it exaggerated Gore’s negative reactions to Bush making Gore seem like a huge jerk. Again, those who listened to the debate thought Gore’s greater experience made him the more desirable candidate, and Bush seemed unintelligent because of his southern accent and long pauses heard on the radio. These examples show how changes in popular media impact elections.

Using social media cites like Twitter and Facebook positively influence a Candidate’s potential voters. Social media allows for a large chunk of voters to be exposed to the same thing and like-minded people to reinforce their own ideas through the confirmation bias and third person effect. Not only does it make the candidate appear more relatable and accessible, social media can drastically sway voters. Twitter and Facebook are the best tools for such an impact as they combine multiple facets of persuasion. Candidates gain voters because their ethos is strong and social media is an excellent source to discover somebody’s ethos and form opinions about their character. Some may argue that you shouldn’t get your impression of a world leader from second hand information because can’t rely on it, or that sharing articles isn’t as influential as it seems. An argument could also be made that social media isn’t a good platform since it is all carefully crafted and doesn’t truly reflect how the individual thinks, and that not many people use it anyway, but “birds of a feather flock together.” The most compelling argument thoush is that it doesn’t matter what social media Hillary Clinton used, because she’s a woman, she’s automatically at a disadvantage. 

 Social media is a constantly shifting entity. Cites will often steal ideas from each other to lure more people their way; take Snapchat’s story feature. Snapchat was the first popular platform to incorporate disappearing pictures or videos, and now both Facebook and Instagram have it as well. Similarly, as anyone who has been on Facebook recently knows, Facebook has slowly evolved into a political platform; so much so that American Press Institute claims that, “88 percent of Millennials get news from Facebook regularly…and more than half of them do so daily.” They go on to describe how “social media is no longer simply social. It has become a way of being connected to the world generally.” (How Millennials Get News) Personally, I know I receive more news than I intend to on Facebook because of my politically fervent friends sharing stories that appear on my news feed. 

Facebook knows and uses your specific political biases to keep you online for a longer period. Scott Bixby, writer for The Guardian, explains how Facebook gleans your political preferences and uses the conformation bias. You can see your own biases if you, “go to facebook.com/ads/preferences on your browser” ('The End of Trump': How Facebook Deepens Millennials' Confirmation Bias). If Facebook knows your preferences it knows what information to show you to justify your beliefs and use the confirmation bias to keep you coming back to the cite. Bixby defines the confirmation bias as, “the psychological tendency for people to embrace new information as affirming their pre-existing beliefs and to ignore evidence that doesn’t.” (The End of Trump) When your own beliefs are validated it makes you feel understood and good about the website you are on, but if you see something you don’t agree with it could make you angry and leave the website. These platforms strive to keep their users using for as long as possible, so why not show them what they want to see. Facebook can not only edit what shared posts you see, but it also coordinates those beliefs for deciding what ads you view and could potentially share. Sharing news stories is an example of something called the third person effect. 

The third person effect is used as a persuasion technique in media campaigns for candidates. Diana Mutz, a journalism professor at the University of Wisconsin, demonstrates in her findings how the third person effect subtly influences you. During the 2016 election, it was thought, “that whether or not media content actually influences political attitudes and behaviors or not, it has a substantial impact on the conduct of elections as a result of third person perceptions of media influence.” (The Third Person Effect) This is explaining that even if the media is not intentionally abusing this effect to sway voters one way or another when you look at something somebody else shared, on Facebook, Twitter, or on the news, you are subconsciously swayed towards their thinking. Just the idea that other people would be influenced by something influences your own ideas, even if you normally wouldn’t agree with the article. It’s self-imposed perceived peer pressure. The sharing process also has some interesting effects on people.

Being able to share an article on Facebook makes it an ideal platform for Candidates use to re-affirm voter’s opinion. Dene Moore explains in her article MRIs Say We're All Needy Attention Seekers on Facebook how we share articles that we believe will make us look good. By sharing an article on Facebook, or any other social media cite, we are exposing our opinion with the hope that followers will still accept us. There is safety in numbers, and many people desire to be accepted in a group. As civilization grew people could be solitary without deadly consequences, but as Moore states, “[it] is still very important to us today to have positive social relationships with other people” and forging connections through pressing “share” is a simple way to belong. A frequent sharer is most likely confident in both his or her views and the fact that they will be positively acknowledged by their followers, and likely is due to the conformation bias.

Facebook helps presidential candidates by using the confirmation bias and our natural need to be part of the group. Sharing a politician’s message goes further than your own inner need to be accepted. Carrie Kerpen, CEO of Likable Media, interviewed an Obama’s campaign team member on how they used Facebook successfully. She learned that, “the most valuable effort a campaign can have is people who are willing to evangelize on behalf of the campaign and spread its message in a way that feels authentic” (Election 2016: How To Use Campaign Social Tactics to Build Your Brand). By your friend using the “share” option presidential candidates become more trustworthy because the information is coming from your friend, not the stereotypically shady politician. “There’s a kind of self-fulfilling perception to [the confirmation bias],” said Robert Lichter, a pioneering media-bias researcher who heads the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University. “Once people see something they don’t like, they notice things that reinforce the belief that there’s bias” in the media (How Biased Are the Media, Really?). After sharing an article on your Facebook page, you’ve subjected your friends and family to the third person effect.

Facebook’s problem is that the cites shared are not always credible. People could share articles without doing further research or verifying their information first. Who cares when the share button is right there? It’s too easy to click and not think about what you’re doing in depth. Business Insider did a study through the Pew Research Center looking at the biases of several websites. “Most [surveyed] say they get their news from local TV and Facebook, but Americans still rely heavily on network and cable news shows as well” (Here's How Liberal or Conservative Major News Sources Really Are). As seen on the picture below, most of the popular cites they surveyed were left of center. I thought it was interesting and something to keep in the back of your head next time you get news from one of these sources, especially if it’s about a presidential candidate. Reporter for The Washington Post Paul Farhi says “there’s more media and more overtly partisan media outlets, too…this means your chance of running into “news” that seems biased has increased exponentially” (How Biased are the Media, Really?) Just by writing the article the author uses the third person effect. Then sharing the article uses it. And its shared thousands of times. You are affecting the political atmosphere by influencing your followers just a little bit. The candidates

sharing pages themselves make an even larger splash in the Facebook sphere. Going on a candidate’s page should be an excellent way to get to know them. What pages do they like? Are those pages credible? Do you like those pages as well? Forging a connection with a candidate over something you are both passionate about is the best way to gain a vote, but “like” the wrong page and you could lose one just as easily. Every page that a candidate associates itself with is a high risk high reward situation. If a president shares an article instantly millions of their followers are exposed to it; they should pick and choose carefully. If an article that they share or one of their posts is later debunked it could seriously discredit them to their followers. 

Using pictures to reinforce ideas in people’s heads is an effective campaign strategy many candidates use on social media. People respond well to visual stimulates; The Social Science Research Network claims that “65 percent of the population consists of visual learners” (Why the Blank Stare? Strategies for Visual Learners). Because people remember pictures well it is important to choose the right one to carry the message. Colors, expression, background and clothes are all important factors to consider. 

A presidential perk of social media is how it can express someone’s ethos through pictures. President Donald Trump’s Facebook profile picture is rich with his character. His current picture displays him staring intently at the camera with an American flag and the white house in a soft fade behind him. By looking at this picture the viewer gets the impression that this man is devoted to his country. The viewer is immediately drawn to his eyes, then down to his red tie that echoes the red in the flag behind him. Kendra Cherry says in her article, Color Psychology: Does It Affect How You Feel? that red is an, “intense, or even angry, color that creates feelings of excitement or intensity” which is what Trump is trying to communicate to the people. The flag is also displayed in miniature as a pin on his blazer which further communicates his dedication to America. The photo resonates with his campaign slogan to “Make America Great Again.” Every section of the picture depicts very American images. In fact, the whole picture is either red, white, or blue if you negate his hair color. His hair, which at 70 should be sparse and/or lacking color, still retains its body and partially its color. It is combed (apparently natural) and styled which suggest an investment to his personal appearance not always common in males. By wearing a suit President Trump conveys that he is a professional and the deep frown marks between his eyebrows indicates that he is frequently concentrating or engaged in serious business. He is looking directly at the camera which is naturally both intimidating and aggressive; his expression says, “Stay back! Watch who you are messing with.” The camera angle itself helps this message as it is head-on. His signature scowl, puckered lips included, is reminiscent of Winston Churchill’s (see below) which makes me wonder if it was intentional. Choosing not to smile in his photo makes him appear less approachable. It is staged and communicates through his focused eyes and lack of smile that he is not messing around. This photo is not candid. He is a strong man who uses carefully structures pictures to communicate his ideals. Donald Trump’s photograph shows power and an Uncle Sam level of aggression and patriotism. 

  

Hillary Clinton’s profile picture on Facebook is an insight to her ethos as well. It is a close and well-lit candid shot. It is a professional picture which demonstrates that she is serious, influential, and mindful of her appearance. She is not looking directly at the camera but is making eye contact with someone who seems to be beyond. Staring slightly up into space could communicate to voters how she is looking towards the future, and the smile on her face indicates she likes what she is seeing. She is well put together with softly styled hair and makeup. Being able to concentrate on looks shows that the rest of her life is put together so she can take time and beautify herself. The background of the picture is blue which is a subtle tie to the democratic party that she represents. Kendra Cherry describes blue as being, “seen as a sign of stability and reliability…it is often described as peaceful, tranquil, secure, and orderly.” (Color Psychology: Does It Affect How You Feel?) She, like Trump, has a good amount of color in her hair, but it isn’t fully colored; she too is mixing the color of youth and attractiveness with the gray of experience and wisdom. Likewise, her skin is a mixture of wrinkles and smoothness. Her business suit indicates a level of expertise and professionalism that is looked for in a presidential candidate. Clinton’s picture features a camera angle that is underneath her. This is typically how a man would be seen from a women’s perspective, as most women are smaller than most men, and it gives her an edge of authority. The angle communicates that she is a leader; the height reinforcing that she is symbolically above other people. As a woman she is also, some might argue ironically, perceived as more trustworthy. Perception specialist Alex Todorov explains that “as the face becomes more feminine it becomes more trustworthy.” (The Power of Persuasion) This ingrained trustworthiness combined with the soft blue background demonstrating reliability influences the viewer to relax and have faith in her. 

Candidates pushed their social media platforms hard this election, and it all started with President Trump. Alan Rosenblatt, director of digital research at SocialMediaToday.com says that Trump use of, “Twitter to engage the voters, press and other candidates is certainly a harbinger of what future candidates will need to do.” (Has Social Media Changed Presidential Campaigns Forever?) Trump’s use of Twitter was both “authentic and engaging” and allowed him to “take back control of their message from the filtration of the media.” (Rosenblatt) As anyone who even peeked at the election knows, whenever something negative about Trump came out he quickly struck back with his own opinion. Twitter allowed him to succinctly (darn you, 140 character limit!) and swiftly retaliate without having to take the time to call a press conference. 

Twitter became Trump’s direct line to his audience and he used it to its full advantage. Jon Keegan says, “Twitter was a battleground” in his article Clinton vs. Trump: How They Used Twitter. President Trump has almost 3.5 times the number of tweets that Hillary Clinton has and between Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram had 2.5 million more followers than she did at the end of 2015. This large gap in followers might be what Matthew Green sheds light in his article How Millennials Voted in the 2016 Presidential Election that “Clinton did not maintain the same level of enthusiasm among young people that Obama did in 2008 and 2012.” Something that might have contributed to this is Clinton was said to use TweetDeck for her posts, an application that helps to manage twitter used by many professionals, while Trump posted mostly himself. Clinton’s very controlled social media usage was a deterrent to the Millennials she was trying to target; they didn’t feel as if they could connect deeply with her all the time. On the flip side, some may argue that Trump was too extreme and needed to be reined in. NPR host Renee Montagne’s segment with Sam Sanders about Trump and Hillary’s Twitter discussed their use of “bots.” Bots are, “fake accounts on Twitter that are preprogrammed…to align themselves with an agenda” and apparently 1/3 of pro-Trump tweets were bots, and 1/5 of Clinton’s were (Social Media’s Increasing Role in the 2016 Presidential Election). These bots kept people fired up and provoked heated arguments between people with their strong unfiltered opinions. They also helped to keep the conversation going well past it’s natural expiration date. 

Twitter allowed for intimate yet public debates that their audience could connect with. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush had a memorable Twitter tussle using both pictures and words to appeal to potential voters. In an interview, Sam Sanders describes how, “The Clinton campaign tweeted out this graphic about student debt. It claimed that 40 million Americans owe $1.2 trillion in student debt. Bush campaign replies to her tweet, tweeks her own graphic and writes about 100 percent of student debt increases happen under Democrats. But then team Clinton replies again. They scratch out the words in the Bush response, they scribble on top of the graphic and then write a big F on top of that” (Social Media's Increasing Role in The 2016 Presidential Election). This is a prime example of how candidates reach out to young voters, become notable, and deliver their message in a memorable and easily understood way. The various clap-backs from and Clinton’s eventual win demonstrate to voters that as the winner of the Twitter battle Clinton is witty, informed, and committed to both a fight and winning. It helps build her character by proving her facts are from trustworthy cites that cannot be exposed by a casual inquiry. Posting about student debt on a platform mostly occupied by Millennials is also a smart campaigning move as most of the users are in that generation.

The argument that social media doesn’t have the effect we think it does is ridiculous. Most people have some form of social media that they are on at the very least occasionally, with many studies proving that a lot of people are getting news from their social media accounts. Baum and Potter talk about how it’s people’s duty to be involved in media; “Democracy requires that a citizen’s opinions play some role in shaping outcomes” (The Relationships Between Mass Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis). William T Bianco and David T Canon further this opinion in their work Public Opinion and the Media by talking about how “Americans actually do hold measurable opinions on a wide range of topics and that these opinions shape their political behavior…the way individual opinions are formed and the tools used to measure public opinion shape what people demand from government and how politicians respond to those demands.” Many of these people are also following major presidential candidates on these platforms to get their information straight from the horse’s mouth. Yes, some of the information is second hand and the information that many people are receiving is due to the echo-chamber algorithm of Facebook, but if these articles are viewed with a critical eye and open mind this should not be a road block. Most of the information available to readers are second hand whether its cable news or the newspaper; someone else is writing that too. The availability and opportunity for less credible people to write on the web is higher, but people are also generally aware to not believe everything that they hear, or read.

 A counter thought could be that other people on Facebook who share articles exposes me to viewpoints that I might not run into otherwise, but studies are showing that this isn’t as straightforward as it seems. I know many people who have unfriended people due to their political stance. Bixby continues in pointing out how “Facebook users can block, mute, and unfriend any outlet or person that will not further bolster their current worldview.” By deleting other’s views you are further solidifying the confirmation bias; you are turning your Facebook feed into an echo chamber of your own beliefs. Judging a candidate by his or her followers or what they share is an extremely important part of deciding whether to vote for them. They share articles that they themselves believe in and will support; it is critical that you educate yourself on their own biases so you can choose who to best represent you. Sure, not every single tweet or Facebook post might be written by your presidential candidate, but it was written by someone who they trust to spread the word accurately. If somebody else posted something under the candidate’s name that they themselves did not condone that person would most likely be fired. The company you keep is important in revealing who you are, as are your followers.  The important and substantial argument though was about Hillary Clinton. 

Hillary Clinton was at a disadvantage on social media. Throughout writing this I had to make a conscious effort not addressing her as Hillary, though I never had to re-write Trump instead of Donald. Kelly Wilz is an award-winning teacher at the University of Wisconsin who works in the Department of Communication and has a Ph. D. Her work been featured in The Huffington Post, Thought Catalog, and Feministing.com. Wilz’s teaching includes education, media literacy, gender, politics, democracy, and popular culture. Her article Bernie Bros and Woman Cards: Rhetorics of Sexism, Misogyny, and Constructed Masculinity in the 2016 Election demonstrates how female candidates are set up to lose by our current biases concerning a female in a traditionally masculine roll. For example, If you search “porn” under the male candidates there’s virtually nothing, whereas if you searched for female candidate porn it is remarkably higher. Exploring how female politicians are sexualized and therefor trivialized Wiltz says “negatively impacts the candidate’s credibility and chance at winning.” In debates media outlets can use derogatory language to discredit a candidate. You can disagree with a candidate without it being inherently sexist. Witz further comments on how “women in the political sphere, to be taken seriously, must enact just the right degree of femininity and masculinity. Secretary Clinton’s “failure” to be “appropriately feminine” not only has hindered her but has also made her the target of hatred for decades.” Wilz also writes another article on “A Feminists’ Guide to Critiquing Hillary Clinton” outlining an appropriate way to help voters distinguish between sexist remarks and genuine critiques. Though Hillary Clinton may have had a disadvantage in Social Media, I do not believe that was the fault of the individual sites, but of the people of world right now. Social media allows for people to have equal opportunity to express themselves and their beliefs to anyone who cares to listen but it is perverted by those who use it. 

For most purposes, presidential candidates should have no qualms with how social media operates for them. Their message is not only spread on the site, but multiple other forms of media, the cable, news, other sites, will often pick up on choice bits of information and spread it themselves. When something is screen captured on a social media site it makes the information itself more credible because it is something that your candidate truly believes in. They are an individual, just like you, and social media gives you a platform to get to know them better. Like any friendship though, you will not agree on everything. The important thing is to remember that you will most likely not find the perfect candidate, but look for one whose beliefs line up most closely with yours, not which party they represent. 
