Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This vision did not come to fruition, though. Despite the possibility of mass participation offered by social
media, most people are still simple consumers - not creators - of content. The rule of thumb, as coined by
authors and bloggers Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba, is the ratio1:9:90. On any given social platform, 1%
of users will be high-volume content producers (an active blogger), while 9% will contribute occasionally (a
blog commenter), and 90% will consume but not produce content (a blog reader).
1
Still, the political impact of that highly-productive 1% should not underestimated. Active bloggers have real
power to set the political agenda. On the left, progressive blogs like Daily Kos, My DD, and Andrew
Sullivan's Daily Dish were critical in raising early support for Obama and for organizing the attempt to unseat
the centrist Senator Joe Lieberman in 2006. On the right, it is no coincidence that Eric Odom, one of the
leaders of the loosely coordinated Tea Party movement, is an Internet marketer by profession. These new
opinion-makers, producing for a mass audience at low cost, have joined the media landscape alongside the
traditional broadcast formats of radio, print, and television. The most popular political blogs have
readerships that rival the circulation rates of big city newspapers.
More interesting still is the influence of the 9%, the occasional contributors who, with the right contribution,
can be tremendously influential. Most of the high-impact content created by 9%-ers is video, the most
spreadable (viral) form of social media because it can be viewed quickly and can easily pack an emotional
punch . The prime examples of 9%-ers making a big political impact are the macaca video of former
Senator George Allen, the cell phone videos captured by Iranians during the post-election protests, and the
1984 Hillary Clinton satire video from the 2008 presidential campaign.
Though the 1%-ers have the most reliable impact on politics, the 9%-ers are potentially the most
destabilizing because their influence is rarely anticipated. We expect celebrity bloggers like Markos
Moulitsas to affect national politics. We do not expect campaign workers like S.R. Sidarth, who shot the
macaca video, to do so.
So what about the 90% of social media users who consume but do not
produce public content? They are the audience, but their role should not
be seen as passive. The audience today has a greater choice in the
media they consume than ever before and their choices are reshaping
the media landscape. A recent poll of online newspaper readership in the
UK (see image from The Economist, left) revealed that no paper held the
attention of a majority or even plurality of people who read news online.
Even a popular national paper like The Daily Telegraph had only 8% of
total online readership. Mid-market newspapers and news aggregators took a smaller cut, but no one
dominates the media conversation as was possible in the era of network TV where all eyes were watching
a handful of newscasts every night after dinner.
The 90% take advantage of this increased variety and divides its attention widely among different media
outlets. They are the king-makers in the age of social media politics because money and influence accrue to
2
the outlets that can attract the most attention. The competition is bitter and even traditionally powerful
media producers, especially newspapers, are finding it difficult to compete.
This, however, does not mean that the market for political news is
evenly divided. Though newspapers are now competing with
blogs and CNN is broadcasting YouTube videos to take advantage
of the popularity of citizen-generated media, there are still outlets
that are more influential than others. The new shape of the
political attention curve is called the long tail (see image from
Hubspot.com, left). A scientific principle popularized by author
Chris Anderson in his 2006 book of the same name, the long tail
refers to large amounts of content with small individual audiences. While the head of the tail refers to a few
media outlets with high popularity and attention a top blog by a 1%er, a television station, a national
magazine - most attention is spread over the many media outlets of the long tail content created by 9%-
ers. The 90% of Internet users who are consuming this media concentrate on the popular media outlets, but
they are promiscuous with their attention, likely to view a major news portal and family photo album on
Facebook in the same day.
Where national political media was once dominated by the big three television stations NBC, ABC, CBS
it is now fragmented. The atomization of attention has led to an atomization of identity, where people can
read exactly the type of media that appeals to them, whether it is radical progressivism, bourgeois
environmentalism, fiscal conservatism, pro-life values, or libertarianism. Each citizen can read the niche
political content that appeals to her. If she doesn't find what she is looking for, she can start a blog and
create her own. The long tail reigns supreme and users are creating new political content every day that
further fragments attention and identity. The age of majorities is over.
3
Every television station is trying to out-shock and out-pander to its chosen audience. On MSNBC, Rachel
Maddow mocks Tea Party activists as tea baggers (ask your teenage child what it means, it's not very
polite), while Glenn Beck of Fox News calls President Obama a racist. While we can definitely argue that this
strategy is not in the public interest, in the new media environment it is one of the few strategies that
remains competitive. Social media is often even worse, not even claiming to be fair and balanced, as Fox
News does, but openly targeting a niche: Huffington Post for the left, Red State for the right, BlogHer for
feminists, Change.org for activists.
At worst, targeting and segmenting results in dog whistle politics, where coded messages are used to
present a campaign differently to different segments in a cynical attempt to be all things to all people. At
best, it is simply a recognition of the current political landscape and the divided media that both reacts to
and reinforces these divided identities. In a political age without majorities, the goal is to add together
different segments until you get to 51%.
Who benefits from a politics without majorities? Strangely, both current elites and newcomers. Current
elites benefit because they have the resources to run segmented campaigns (which, in effect, means running
multiple campaigns). Yet newcomers also benefit. Because it is possible to use social media tools like a
Facebook group or a Twitter feed, to speak to particular segments at low cost it is possible for anyone to
grab a niche, a place in the long tail. However, there is a caveat for these newcomers. They are most likely
to succeed at issue-based campaigns, reaching deep into a single niche, as 350.org does in rallying people
4
who care about the environment, MoveOn.org does in rallying progressive activists, and Avaaz.org does in
rallying people how care about international human rights. These campaigns may succeed in reaching deep
into a given niche, but are unlikely to reach across multiple niches without increased resources.
This future is best illustrated by a network map of the American blogosphere (image above) created by
researchers Lada Adamic and Natalie Glance. It shows dense interlinking among left-leaning blue blogs and
right-leaning red blogs, but very little inter-linking across political perspectives. This research was published
in 2005, and since then we have seen social media segment the political conversation even further. There
are no longer only two poles, there are several. We are no longer merely a house divided, but a house
where everyone goes into their own room and stays there.
A more optimistic prognosis stresses the capacity of the divided media space to quickly surface new view
points, empowering the previously powerless and challenging the authority of traditional elites. There is
mobility within the long tail and as the previous sections showed, content from the occasionally creative 9%
can jump into the high-attention space traditionally dominated by the 1%-ers. Since the majority of
5
Americans (the75% with Internet access) have the capacity to publish content online, there is always a
chance that this information will prove salient to a large percentage of Americans, moving it from the long tail
of limited viewership to the head of high attention. Examples here are the anti-ACORN undercover videos
produced by young Republican activists, which became a touchstone for the American right, and the video of
the death of Neda Agha-Sultan, which became a rallying point for critics of the Iranian regime. Both videos
were produced by the former audience, citizens who were moved to become media-makers and
broadcasters and whose content subsequently affected national and international politics.
A democracy based on this kind of media production would be more egalitarian because a greater number
of people would have the ability to influence the political agenda. It would also be more unstable. The
dominance of current elites would be uncertain and groups of self-organized citizens would be able to make
credible threats to established institutions. (The current power struggle between the Tea Party activists and
the Republican Party is a fascinating case in point.) Whether a re-shuffling of the political power structure
would be positive or negative depends greatly on who is best able to take advantage of social media. Will it
be self-serving fringe groups or activists with a more public-spirited bent? It is too early to know.
In previous eras a lack of choice created majorities: with little competition, television, print and radio dictated
public opinion. In the current era of infinite choice, we can allow ourselves to be divided by those choices, to
wall ourselves off into echo chambers, or we can choose to look outward and consider the priorities of our
fellow citizens, who are able to express themselves as never before. The creation of our political future is
more participatory than ever before.
--------------------------------------------------------