Brexit and Trump’s Election in Online News Media

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Brexit
The 2016 US Election
The Possibility of Misuse
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

The “Arab Spring” brought to the world the new concept of internet-inspired political revolutions, which challenged, and in some cases, toppled formerly stable autocracies. The revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia not only sparked similar uprisings in the MENA region but also helped revolutionaries all over the world to realize how they could use the internet to reach their followers. Shervin Pishevar, the owner of the Social Gaming Network (SGN), even suggested the need to have an online platform through which freedom-seeking people could link up without the possibility of interference by their governments (Berrett et al. 2015). Also, President Obama’s re-election campaign made use of the internet to secure his second term at the White House. This new approach to campaigning led him to be termed as the first social media president. However, two recent events, namely, Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as the US president, revealed the true power of internet-mediated collective action. This paper will critically evaluate how the internet shaped both events, resulting in outcomes that were not only unexpected but also shocking.

Brexit

Social media swayed the outcome of Brexit, as many people were mobilized and motivated to vote for Britain’s exit from the European Union (EU). The former British prime minister once stated that the internet had the power to ‘excite the attention of hundreds, thousands, millions of people and stirs them to action’ (Graham & Dutton 2014, p.197). These words were realized during the Brexit debate when the masses voted for leaving the EU, despite the elite class being in favor of staying. The mainstream media was for Britain to remain in the EU, citing potential economic harms of the exit. However, the leaders of the populist agenda such as Boris Johnson resorted to social media to spread their agenda. For months before the Brexit referendum, the ‘leave camp’ was engaged in establishing momentum online through various slogans that became popular over time. Through emotional appeal and a deep understanding of its target population, the ‘leave camp’ was able to secure victory against the London establishment.

Brexit portrayed the internet as a tool for political revolution by the masses that otherwise lack the resources to organize a traditional campaign. Although the ‘stay camp’ led by Prime Minister David Cameron used vast resources to advance its agenda, it failed in terms of reaching the people. This observation is a demonstration that the internet can bring together like-minded people without necessarily requiring huge resources. Indeed, all that is needed is an internet-enabled smartphone and a powerful online message. Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter were used to reach the masses without the traditional expenses that are typical of political campaigns. Such cell phone-driven technology enabled the ‘leave camp’ to reach many undecided supporters who did not connect with the message being passed by the ‘stay camp’ via traditional media outlets. In the end, the side that understood and exploited the full revolutionary potential of the internet carried the day.

The ‘leave camp’ used internet-based tools to analyze accurately the available data about its target population. The situation where the data about internet users is available for manipulation is known as the ‘big data phenomenon’. With the help of internet tools, analysts can gather and manipulate data about a person or a group of people based on what they posted online via Facebook ‘likes’ and ‘retweets’ among others. Famous Swiss researcher, Michael Kosinski, believes that ‘big data’ paved the way for the Brexit, a view that has also been backed by Alexander James Ashburner Nix, the CEO of Cambridge Analytica (Doward & Gibbs 2017). It is important to note that Cambridge Analytica is the company that designed both the ‘leave camp’ and Trump campaigns. Analysts tracked online debates by the people regarding how they felt about the UK being a member of the EU. Thus, it emerged that certain people were for the exit depending on their age or socioeconomic status. Armed with such information, the ‘leave’ campaign managed to design powerful and emotional slogans to reach this segment of the UK population.

Unlike traditional media, social media is readily accessible by most individuals, regardless of their age and socio-economic status. This reachability enables the voice of those who are otherwise regarded as unimportant to be heard. To illustrate this claim, polls by the UK mainstream media showed that Brexit’s ‘stay camp’ was leading by a 2 percent margin only two weeks to the referendum (Ahmad 2016). Similarly, in the US election campaign, Hillary Clinton led Trump by nearly 6 percent margin in the few days running up to the election. Despite the statistics, Nix insisted that the seemingly unfavorable sides were going to win. This claim turned out to be the case in the end. According to Doward and Gibbs (2017), campaign strategists who relied on the traditional methods failed to reach the grassroots. In other words, the stay movement and the Hillary campaign, respectively, failed to connect with the actual voters. Instead, they would collect data through sampling a few potential voters.

The 2016 US Election

In the US election, the internet brought together large numbers of people who were dissatisfied with the traditional media. In recent times, there have been allegations that political establishments use mainstream media to foster their agenda. Particularly, in the 2016 US election campaign, Donald Trump numerously accused the US media of favoring the Democratic Party candidate. Consequently, Trump’s campaign chose social media as a suitable way to reach its target. The target population viewed social media as the channel that could not be influenced by the all-powerful government to present biased information about the campaign. Every time the CNN and other established media houses published a poll showing how the candidates were faring in the elections, Trump would declare it false and biased. As a result, Trump’s followers became united in a boycott against the mainstream media while at the same time embracing social media. Thus, the ability of social media to bring together different people to a common cause was witnessed in the boycott against the mainstream media.

The internet is gradually undermining the position of traditional media as the most reliable source of information. This situation can as can be seen in the case of the United States’ mainstream media, which is continually being viewed as biased. As a result, people are beginning to trust information published on the internet at the expense of the counterfeit news from the mainstream media. This situation arises from the growing belief that powerful individuals and organizations that have no interest in the truth own and control the traditional media (Holt 2016). This observation may explain why the US president chooses Twitter to communicate to the nation, as opposed to holding press conferences. To illustrate this new trend, the term ‘alternative facts’ has emerged to denote information from platforms other than the mainstream media. This term was popularised by President Trump’s counselor, Kellyanne Conway, who sought to defend the White House spokesperson, despite him stating an outright falsehood about the number of people who attended the president’s inauguration. Thus, the internet is overtaking the mainstream media as the most trusted source of information, even though internet information is not always verified.

The new tendency of the population to believe what it sees or reads on the internet while at the same time ignoring the truth being propagated by the mainstream media demonstrates the uniting power of the internet. While threats may arise that information from the internet could be unverified or may even be plain falsehood, masses are becoming willing to act based on the ‘alternative facts.’ The 2016 US election involved the two main candidates accusing each other of being a liar. However, if used correctly and in good faith, the internet can assist in building strong networks such as online campaigns to raise funds to help in eradicating hunger in developing countries. Many celebrities have run successful online fund drives to raise finances to help the needy in society. Consequently, the collective action enabled by the internet should be viewed positively when it comes to solving the world’s problems.

The internet eliminates the traditional costs associated with carrying out political polls. Traditionally, pollsters have to traverse the entire country in search of potential voters to survey them. The survey must be carried out by identifying a small sample of potential voters to avoid excessive costs. The problem is that such a small population cannot be representative of the true feelings of an entire population (Holt 2016). Hence, the traditional polls on the Brexit and US election, respectively, failed to reflect the true scenario on the ground. Conversely, ‘big data’ analysts can obtain information about every potential voter in the country who uses the internet. Through various tools, the Trump and the ‘leave’ campaigns were able to analyze this data from all potential voters without incurring any costs or physical exhaustion. Consequently, they obtained the true picture of the situation, allowing them to reach their target voters with ease.

The internet enforces a sense of belonging to a group by an individual based on shared values or the perception of being oppressed. In the case of the ‘leave’ and the Trump campaigns, a large number of populations in the UK and the US, respectively, felt alienated by their governments. The numbers included unemployed white people who felt their jobs had been taken by immigrants. Unfortunately, the mainstream media could not express the true feelings of the people, as it would appear to be targeting immigrants and minority populations (Arnorsson & Zoega 2016). On the other hand, social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook allow people to express their true feelings without the fear of being castigated. This situation may further be enhanced by the fact that the internet offers a level of anonymity that is not available when communicating in a real-life scenario. Because of this anonymity, different groups with extremist views such as the need to eject immigrants were able to come together to collectively push their agenda.

Supporters of the ‘leave’ and Trump campaigns believed the mainstream population and media unfairly targeted them to the extent of causing them to seek ways of becoming united. From the onset throughout the two campaigns, it was believed that the campaigns would lose the referendum and election, respectively. Instances were apparent when Trump supporters claimed they had been violated because of their political stand. Despite being rare, such instances served to bring together those who felt unfairly treated to support what they regarded as representing a better change for them. Therefore, the internet offered an appropriate channel to foster the union of the numerous fragments of like-minded voters. Similarly, the respective campaigns turned out to be emotionally driven seeking to present a certain segment of the population as neglected and often mistreated. The success of the two campaigns reveals the power of the internet to bring together people for collective action, despite physical constraints such as belonging to different states.

The Possibility of Misuse

True, the internet has enhanced the freedom of access to information by ensuring that the said information is not monopolized by the mainstream media. However, the danger of the same internet being utilized by people with ill motives to manipulate the masses is alive today. An illustration is an expression by many people that both the Brexit and the recently concluded US election were based on xenophobia and white supremacy (Ahmad 2016). While the mainstream media will deliberately avoid publishing political contents that are antagonizing in nature, the internet does not have such checks. The result is that any damaging information finds its way to the public. Further, dangerous agenda easily becomes the popular view, which may lead to dangerous trends. Thus, the collective action through the internet can result in widespread harm such as violence and the radicalization of a population.

While internet freedom is lauded as a way of empowering masses, governments need to find ways of curbing potential misuse. However, coming up with such measures could be termed as curtailing people’s freedom of expression. Nevertheless, society stands to benefit when people are more responsible for how they use their freedom. Politicians must not be allowed to use lies and abrasive messages to popularise vices such as xenophobia and racism.

Conclusion

The internet has become the basis of massive political and humanitarian campaigns in the world as evidenced by the Arab Spring, Brexit, and the two last US elections. It is viewed as the source of information that is otherwise unavailable via traditional media. Specifically, social media allows people of all ages and socio-economic status to connect and pursue a common front. Additionally, campaign strategists can collect and analyze ‘big data’ from the internet and use it to sway the masses. This data is available on internet sites that are frequented by people such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. If used appropriately, the data can be used to predict people’s political orientation with accuracy. The validity of the above claim was demonstrated in Brexit and the 2016 US campaign where the unlikely sides won, despite mainstream polls showing they were trailing behind their opponents.

Reference List

Ahmad, K 2016, Brexit: causes and questions, Web.

Arnorsson, A & Zoega, G 2016, On the causes of Brexit, Web.

Berrett, D, Albee, M, Cirrincione, C, Kollenkark, S, Mcclanahan, J, Patten, M & Weare, C 2015, Proximity detection for shared computing experiences, Web.

Doward, J & Gibbs A 2017, Did Cambridge Analytica influence the Brexit vote and the US election? Web.

Graham, M & Dutton, W 2014, Society and the internet: how networks of information and communication are changing our lives, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Holt, K 2016, Media criticism and mistrust in Swedish anti-immigration alternative media, Web.

Click Here To Order Now!