In a dark, air conditioned(!) room, bluish light emanates from two screens: one has the 2016 Presidential Debate streaming live from YouTube and another screen has Twitter on a constant refresh targeting the #DebateNight and #Debates hashtags. It’s 1:30AM in Dakar and while recovering from being hit by a motorcycle on my bike (another story for another time), I am watching Secretary Hillary Clinton and Mr. Donald Trump “compete” for our votes.
“Oh my GOD,” I yell, exasperated and exhausted. “Did he REALLY just say that?”
My attention flies to my iPhone, as I open a new tweet (Mom, that’s a 180 character post to Twitter.com). My thumbs fly across the screen, typing yet another indignant and offended tweet about the Republican nominee for the highest government office in our country.
After tweeting (Mom, “tweeting” means posting a “tweet” to Twitter), I refresh my feed to get the most updated tweets and scroll through, chuckling at the most clever and witty tweets. Here’s one of my personal favorites…
Trump supports Dolores Umbridge. Pass it on. #DebateNight #HarryPotter— The Dark Lord (@Lord_Voldemort7) September 27, 2016
“Crap.” Looking back at the debate, I know I just missed something about how Sec. Clinton started “birther” rumors (“birther” is apparently the short-hand for how Mr. Trump demanded President Obama’s birth certificate). I quickly review my Twitter feed to see what I missed. Not much–apparently Mr. Trump is still peddling the lie that Sec. Clinton started the “birther” rumors. Sigh. I check my clock. There’s still another half an hour of this “debate” left. Double sigh.
The debate and my indignant tweeting rages on.
In a time where we are “addicted to screens” and want our voices to be heard (and often validated) in response to events like the 2016 Presidential Debate, we have taken to live tweeting. But what is live tweeting, you ask?
Well, Mom, live tweeting is exactly what it sounds like. Similar to a “live broadcast,” live tweeting is posting pithy comments in 180 characters or less to an event in real time, whether it’s a Beyoncé concert, a protest in Ferguson, or in this case, a presidential debate. It is another way that we are experiencing events through multiple mediums at the same time–another way we chose to embrace sensory overload in the “information era.”
But does this multi-medium experience mean that we’re processing these events in a more or less meaningful way?
On one hand, the technology has made the world so much smaller and accessible: I’m interacting with hundreds of Twitter users, including friends back in the States, while I’m in Senegal. Reading their tweets are giving me other perspectives and interpretations of the event due to differences in upbringing, socioeconomic status, race, geographic location, etc. So aren’t I fulfilling my civic obligations of staying informed and engaging in a conversation about the candidates for Future President, in real time?
On the other hand, am I’m missing details of the event because my attention spans multiple screens? Am I only engaging with the Presidential debate enough to send out a sassy tweet or understand policy in a pop culture framework? Am I just talking to people who will validate my tweeted opinion? And is engaging through social media that only allows you to use 180 characters at one time, really engaging?
As I scroll through my social media feeds, stopping to click on a few interesting links, but blowing past all of the lengthy status updates, I have often have these ongoing, internal …#debates… of the value of civic engagement through social media. And I almost always come to the same conclusion: Continuing to engage on social media platforms, like Twitter, is great, but it’s not enough. Live tweeting, especially, is entertaining and for this particular event had high value, as Fact Checkers tweeted out in response to candidate’s claims, in real time. In this way, Twitter is an excellent tool, but it is up to the user to dig deeper. Ultimately, scrolling through your feed and only passively interacting with tweets or status updates is not enough. Nor should our stomach for civic engagement feel satiated after posting a strongly worded status update; it is not enough.
And at a time like this, when Mr. Misogyny Sexist Racist Bigot Xenophobe Homophobe Generally Intolerant Liar Trump is on the ballot for President of the United States of America, it is definitely not enough.
Don’t just retweet that interesting-sounding article [insert your favorite social commentator here] tweeted–actually read it, and carefully. Practice logical reasoning and form opinions–based on facts. And then talk to someone about it. Better yet, try to talk with someone who may not agree with you–and listen to understand, not just to respond. Maybe then we can all have a meaningful conversation and meet on some reasonable common ground.
So keep tweeting (Lord knows I will) and engaging on social media–it’s what it’s there for (and adorable puppy videos)! But don’t stop there. In fact…
VOTE!
That’s right, people! It’s the ultimate way to engage our political system–casting your ballot on (or in some cases, before) election day, November 8. It’s your civic duty. So do it. Duty. Do. It.
If you haven’t registered to vote yet, do so here. Good ol’ Twitter will even help you!
Note: I would love to hear your opinion about engaging on social media platforms, regarding civic engagement, politics, or any other topic worthy of meaningful discussion. Please post in the comments below!
P.S. And if civic duty isn’t your thing, rumor has it that actor Mark Ruffalo will appear naked in his next movie if people vote. All these famous people said so, so it must be true. See below.
Feature Image Credit: Twitter.com
Not All That Glitters Is Gold 