Mediculture column

The election of Barack Obama, now the first African-American president of the United States, marks many firsts, many changes in our nation’s history. But one change perhaps overlooked is the expanded use of the Internet and social media to reach a greater number of people than previously, particularly younger voters.

Obama’s campaign proved revolutionary and effective in its use of social media such as Facebook, instant messaging, Twitter and YouTube. The idea behind social media is to create and encourage a community of users communicating with each other.

Now that he’s president, his staff is working to use this same media to promote broad changes in health care and environmental and fiscal policy, according to an article by Jim Rutenberg and Adam Nagourney in the Jan. 26 New York Times.

This marks a change in strategy for getting one’s agenda to the public. “Like George W. Bush before him, Mr. Obama is trying to bypass the mainstream news media and take messages straight to the public,” write Rutenberg and Nagourney.

For example, Obama has used such media for his weekly address to the nation. Under previous presidents, such a speech was recorded and released to radio stations on Saturday mornings. Obama records a video, and on Saturday it is posted on the White House Web site and on YouTube.

Macon Phillips, the “new media” director for Obama’s administration, says: “Historically the media has been able to draw out a lot of information and characterize it for people. And there’s a growing appetite from people to do it themselves.”

News media advocates have expressed concern about this approach. They are uncomfortable with “what effectively could become an informational network reaching 13 million people, or more, with an unchallenged, governmental point of view,” write Rutenberg and Nagourney.

“They’re beginning to create their own journalism, their own description of events of the day, but it’s not an independent voice making that description,” says Bill Kovach, the chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. “It’s troublesome until we know how it’s going to be used and the degree to which it can be used on behalf of the people, and not on behalf of only one point of view.”

What does this change mean for the rest of us?

That may depend upon our own use of such media. But it shouldn’t change how we should always approach what we read or hear or see. We need to approach all messages (including this one) with a critical sense. If we are interested in more than simply reinforcing our own opinions, we should check a variety of sources.

Another lesson for the church is to learn about social media and explore ways to use it in reaching people otherwise unknown to us. Behind social media lies an emphasis on community. But in this case community is often virtual—via the Internet rather than face to face. Such community is much more a part of people under 30, say, than over 30. But that may be changing.

Interestingly, behind Obama’s use of social media in his campaign and now in his new strategy is the hope that it leads to face-to-face communication (or at least texting). And word of mouth, as advertisers know, is an effective means of spreading information and ideas.

Can the church learn to use such media in spreading the good news of Jesus Christ? Parts of the church are doing just that, some more effectively than others. It seems at least worth exploring. The times are changing.