Forget Cambridge Analytica: some social media tactics may not be as effective as previously thought

Good article on how UK parties are moving on from 'microtargeting'

First of all, we need to set this in the context of the extent to which the media influences the outcome of elections.

In my experience the impact of the media is something that students initially think matters a great deal in British politics, but when we scratch beneath the surface, it's probably the case that its influence is peripheral, and ultimately it's probably only really important to professionals that work in the media or politics professions.

The role and significance of the media on politics

Of course, the debate on the influence of the media on UK elections hit a high-point in the immediate aftermath of the 1992 election.

But let’s provide a bit of context. What, historically, has driven election outcomes?

Politics post war: the twin anchors of class and party alignment

Peter Pulzer once said: "Class is the basis of British party politics; all else is embellishment and detail." (1967). The strongest social influence on party choice, it was argued, was occupational class with the middle classes heavily Tory and working class voters pro-Labour

But this didn’t explain everything, because Britain was at that time mostly working class, and so Labour should been carried to election victory for the whole of that time. We know, of course, that that wasn't the case. Digging deeper, and influenced by psephologists on the other side of the Atlantic, Butler and Stokes found that large minorities didn't follow the class based pattern and their research revealed that parties mattered as well. According to their model, party identification refers to a sense of attachment to a party, a feeling of commitment. Voters are akin to a supporter, and not just someone who votes for it from time to time. So in some ways it is psycho-sociological. A bit like following a football team. AND upwards of 40% of voters described themselves as STRONG supporters. So short term factors may have had an influence but, the tendency was towards electoral stability rather than volatility.

The case for newspaper influence

Then in more recent decades, as class and party alignment unwound, it was said that all votes were up for grabs and short term factors came to the fore. Among these is media influence. So what of 1992? In that year, there was a late swing to Tories meant Kinnock clutched defeat from jaws of victory, with approx. 59% of adults reading a daily newspaper in the early nineties and the biggest in terms of sales was the Murdoch owned Sun at circa 3m, but with readership estimated to be many times that number. Any more evidence that newspaper readership may have some effect? Five years later it was the Sun wot won it again, according to the newspaper headline, after Murdoch switched allegiance to Blair in-between elections. Ore evidence comes form a study by researchers at Loughborough University who found that between 1992 and 2010 party that wins most votes tends to have most press support in terms of circulation. And in 2010 as Labour were defeated, with a swing from Lab to Cons 5%, it was much greater, at 13.5%, among Sun readers. So this fits with agenda setting theory, i.e. that media filters and shapes public opinion.

The case against newspaper influence

On the other side of the debate is media reinforcement theory:

• Newspapers are a business and tend to reflect rather than shape public opinion
• Most tabloid readers at that time were “grazers” – often switching choice of tabloid depending on things like what was on the front page.
• The news/politics content of tabloids has not been a major component since the 1970s.
• In 1992 Sun readers thought the Sun was a Labour supporting paper!!
• In 1992 the swing towards Tories was as high among Daily Mirror readers as Sun readers.
• In the 1997 poll, it was Black Wednesday that was decisive (It’s the economy, stupid!) in determining the outcome.
• In 2010 the swing, according to Bob Worcester, mostly happened before the Sun’s endorsement of Cameron
• In 2015 the Sun backed Cameron in England but Sturgeon in Scotland and Tories actually made bigger gains north of the border.

The rise of new/social media

2015 was said to be the first ‘social media election’ on the basis that there was an upsurge in politics related content on the likes of Facebook and Twitter. So could this explain success of Cameron and Sturgeon?

The following facts would seem to support the idea that new media can be used un support of agenda setting theory:

• Politics most talked about topic on Facebook in that year – 78m interactions over 12m accounts
• All 56 SNP MPs on Twitter.
• 2017: Labour won the social media battle, outperforming >£1m spent by Conservatives on negative Facebook ads – said to have energised young voters.
• The “Corbyn too big a risk” struck a chord with swing voters.

But don’t overstate it

Yougov.com poll suggests traditional media outlets still matter more:

• 60% regularly get their political news from the BBC & 45% get their political news from a newspaper versus 15% Facebook & 8% Twitter See the data here.
• And most popular viral clips were initially on traditional media

See the yougov details here

Questions about the impact on voting intentions of the young raised in the yougov poll, to my mind, segue to what many see as the myth of Corbyn “youthquake”.

So, overall, I think there is a strong element of confirmation bias/media reinforcement/echo chamber ideas with regards to the impact of social media, and it is unlikely that it could sway the outcome of a general election.

So, to the recent article in the Guardian. The author writes:

"Don’t expect to see Cambridge Analytica-style microtargeted political adverts driven by personal data during this general election: the tactic is now considered by many to be an ineffective “red herring” and is increasingly being blocked by social media platforms.

Microtargeting is based on the idea that adverts are more effective if they are hyper-relevant to a person’s precise interests and political views. In theory, political parties could use Facebook user data to send one advert to a Lib Dem-voting dog owner who dislikes cycle lanes and is concerned about bin collections, and show a completely different advert to their Tory-leaning neighbour of the same age and gender who is mainly worried about the state of the NHS and immigration.

There was particular focus on the tactic in the wake of victories for Donald Trump and the Brexit campaign in 2016, especially after reporting in the Guardian and the Observer about the now defunct Cambridge Analytica. The political consultancy made big claims about its power to swing elections and change minds through targeted political campaigns, often aided by data that it had improperly gathered from Facebook users.

There are doubts within academia about the effectiveness of the old approaches of seeking ultra-niche audiences. Ben Tappin, a research fellow at Royal Holloway, University of London, said his research had found “mixed evidence for the claim that microtargeting changes voters’ minds”. As a result, he said, microtargeting “may be something of a red herring”."

The link to Tappin's research piece can be found here.

Activities

Define the following terms: 'old (traditional) media' and 'new media'

Explain the different ways in which the media seeks to persuade voters

Evaluate the view that the influence of the media is the most important factor that determines the success or failure of a political party at elections.