英语论文网

ings (Kanter, 2008). SNSs make the process easier.

A survey conducted in 2008 by Getting Political 5: The Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 10% of all Americans who use SNSs use them “for some kind of political activity” (Smith & Raine, 2008 as cited in Martin & Schmeisser, 2008). The report states that, of adults under 30 who have a social network profile, half use SNSs to get or share information about the candidates and the campaign. It demonstrates the growing political use of SNSs in the U.S., especially in the lives of young adults. There, SNSs are clearly becoming important in the political lives of their members.

Online groups were born soon after political campaigns penetrated the Internet. They may carry titles like “For Obama and Change”, which although digital and virtual, provide a venue for meaningful and substantive discussion among like-minded members (Martin & Schmeisser, 2008). Sometimes, they even become facilitators of heated debates between complete strangers (Martin & Schmeisser, 2008).

These social technologies like blogs and emails received “mainstream media attention” in the 2004 and 2006 elections in the U.S. (Kanter (2008).

Through the utilization of a network of “Friends” and the usage of “virtual word of mouth” strategies, SNSs have showcased the opportunity to deviate from the impersonal and “unfriendly” thrust of most media. The virtual world in general is being “invaded” by real-world, political issues and communication (Kanter, 2008).

Political candidates, who also use these technologies, have the opportunity to take advantage of the vastly intricate communication networks that each person possesses with his/her friends, personally and virtually addressing their friends and other people within their social circles, making them potential voters (Martin & Schmeisser, 2009).

Candidates have a new venue for making themselves visible and their parties' platforms, policies and programs available for scrutiny, as well as make users aware of the rules in voter registration and the location of various nearby precincts (Kanter, 2008). This results in a bundle of possibilities for candidates to interact among themselves and for the potential voters who otherwise cannot be reached for this purpose (Kanter, 2008). What makes these media more effective is that people from ages 18 to 29 have a higher chance of obtaining information of political nature from the Internet, according to survey data in the 2004 US elections (as cited in Martin & Schmeisser, 2008).

Gerber and Green's (2000) study concluded that when someone gives another person political information, that person is more likely to cast a vote. The authors recommended that candidates use SNSs instead of developing their own websites if they want a cheap and effective means for establishing substantial relationships with potential voters (Gerber & Green, 2000). Furthermore, due to the immense amount of profiling that these social networks enable, targeting an audience of specific preferences is much easier, as terms like “Liberal” or “Democrat” are searchable (Gerber & Green, 2000).

However, Gerber and Green's study also revealed that only a minority of the respondents contacted the candidates themselves in the online networks, despite the majority's high involvement in politics. The authors made