Howard Lee/

The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) is of the opinion that the May 2011 general elections cannot be termed the “Internet elections”.

It made this conclusion based on the results of a study it conducted following the general elections, which measured media use, trust and influence on voter choice. There were also other component research segments that rode on the back of the key survey, and these measured other qualities, such as online content generation and voter knowledge about opposition parties. The full results of the study were shared at a conference on 4 October attended by academia, politicians and media.

Some of the key findings that pointed to this conclusion were:

1) Only 30% of survey respondents used the Internet to obtain election information.

2) Of the 30%, more than 90% continue to use traditional media as a source of information on the elections (yes, that “ghettoising” comment).

3) While political parties have tried to use online media to reach out to voters, these efforts went largely unappreciated, as respondents demonstrated a general aversion towards using party websites as a source of information.

4) Measurements of media trust and influence did not indicate an unusual peak for online media over other channels.

That would be the quick and very rough preview of the survey, the bulk of which was presented by Tan Tarn How, senior research fellow at IPS. Now that I have stuffed that, let’s get to the crux question: Should we believe what IPS proposes? In other words, is 2011 the year where online media had a negligible impact on the elections?

I am not going to cast doubts on the results of the survey. Assuming that the research methodology was sound and that the survey sample of 2,000 was representative, there is every reason to believe that the data gathering was valid. Rather, it is the interpretation of the results that I take issue with. In fact, there were aspects of the interpretation that range from indifference to how the various media interact, to glaring presumptuous oversights, not all of which I care to discuss here.

Let’s look instead at the core. One of the qualities that the survey tried to measure was when voter choice was decided. It discovered that 57.6% of those who revealed how they voted have already decided who they want to vote for even before the elections date was announced. Ratings for influence on voting were also below average across all channels. These indicators suggests that 2011 might not even be a year for an “anything” elections, much less an Internet one.

Another problematic conclusion of the survey has to do with respondents’ trust of media sources, which indicated greater trust of traditional media over other sources. Was the survey referring to trust in the accuracy of the information, or the perceived fairness of information presented? The survey did not elaborate on this, which is unfortunate as it could have yielded very different results. More importantly, it should actually be the interplay of sources that allow media users to make that decision (i.e. you can’t in all honesty distrust what you do not know about or have not experienced), but that angle was not explored in the survey.

Instead, three outlying questions remain unanswered. If media did not inform their political outlook and choice, what did? How did they arrive at this conclusion for themselves? Did they then try to influence others about their votes, and how did they go about doing so?

If the researchers have expanded on these questions, they might have found an answer to the key question of the survey that provides greater insight into the multi-layered nature of social influence.

We do not simply refer to one source of information to make up our minds on who to vote. Neither do we make our voting choice based on information gathered around the hustings. We vote for political positions because of their influence on policy. Policy pervades the years leading up to each election. And in that duration, we would have discussed and debated many times over the merit of our policy makers, which in turn informs our votes for or against them.

As such, I believe the research made three assumptions that skewed, hopefully not the results of the survey, but how researchers approached the survey. First, it assumes that media influence can be measured merely by consumption patterns. This is wrong, as influence is only present at the point of assimilation.

Second, it assumes that decisions made on voting revolve around what happens during the elections. Perhaps it was technically impossible to research on years of media consumption, but this marginalises the effect that understanding on public policy has on voter preferences.

Third, the survey did not distinguish between alternative news content and alternative news media. This point was also picked up by some participants at the conference. The implications are obvious, as there is always cross-carriage of content between media, and it is content that determines assimilation and influence, not media type (you would agree only if you are as anti-MacLuhanistic as me).

If IPS has managed to shift focus to address these three aspects, then it would have begun to scratch the surface of what it called the “softer aspects” of online media, which Tan admitted that the survey found hard to quantify.

This energy of participation did not find its way into the research, and I would challenge that this effect is a better reflection of the impact of online media on local politics and social change. This impact deals with a wider spectrum of influence prevalent within society. It also accounts for the change in social perceptions that is driven by mutual influence of sources – traditional media with online media, word of mouth with social media, and so on.

A side chat with Tan in between the segments of the conference did confirm IPS’s awareness of the limitations of the survey, and that there can still be room for more in-depth research.

In fact, the welcome notes by Janadas Devan, director of IPS, probably said it best. Janadas indicated that we often exaggerated the immediate impact of new media on our culture and social life, but underestimated its long term effect. Indeed, it is this long term effect that advises the evolution of our media scene, gearing towards a political landscape that is already informed and influenced by the presence of online media, whatever the impact of that influence.

In fact, Tan opined during the question and answer session that in the last two years, online media was instrumental in putting a lot of issues up in the public domain. Tan believes that traditional media did cover such issues, but did not cover it in the persistent and snowballing way that online media did. This could allude to a spill-over effect that often underplays the influence of online media, as content and agendas become infused between types of media.

Via his tele-participation, IPR senior research fellow Cherian George also indicated that there is qualitative social contribution by some blogs that contribute to the wider political discourse in Singapore. While their editorial strategies differ, they all play a role in complementing what traditional media has to offer. He also indicated that when it comes to influence, recipients of ideas are not always aware of where the ideas are coming from, which enlightens my opinion that influence is usually multi-directional in nature.

It would seem that anecdotal evidence of news content and its use offers a better peek into spheres of influence happening in our society, political or otherwise. It is perhaps unfortunate that this evidence is never further explored to add value to the survey.

But if you think I am trying to counter-proof IPS’s conclusion and validate 2011 as the year of the Internet elections, you are wrong. Indeed, what I’m trying to suggest is whether there is even a need to determine this to begin with, and if so, whether we should focus so narrowly on the elections.

Online media is already a growing part of our social fabric. I would contest that there is no need to measure its influence – that is already a given. What is more pertinent is to discover how this influence disappears into our national psyche as we negotiate an evolving media space.

My concern, however, is with the intended readership of the survey and its research – from IPS, the study is supposed to be an informed read for academics, media representatives and most significantly, policy makers. If the simple conclusions are allowed to perpetuate within policy circles, the political elite would have no reason to pay attention to the online world. And we would all be more impoverished for it, because there is reason to believe that the dynamics of online media does play a critical role in developing the future of our socio-political landscape.

It will also be interesting to note how traditional media would cover the results, which in turn has an influence on policy makers. From the media briefing before and during the conference, it was clear that our friends from traditional media needed to deliver a story. They needed conclusive quotes – “The study by IPS indicated that…” – without imposing much valued judgment or analysis. Given the constraints of time and space they face, I don’t blame them.

As TOC writers, we always have the option of walking away without a story, if we found that the information provided made no logical sense. This sense of indifference is perhaps a unique trait of online media, and it surely adds an interesting dimension to our public discourse. Policy makers can only be worse off if they feel that they can ignore this substantially different conversation happening online, should they choose to believe that online media has little impact on elections.


Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

“新茅坑香三天”? 义顺交通枢纽启用第二日尖峰时段排长龙

上月,陆路交通管理局称义顺综合交通枢纽(ITH)在本月8日启用。 陆交局希望随着该巴士转换站的启用,能让使用地铁、到附近超市购物、和转车的居民提供更多便利。而早在两个月前,陆交局为义顺综合交通枢纽进行一系列的测试,包括巴士尖峰时段的应付能力,进出车站,以及乘客上下车等。 随着上述交通枢纽开放,原本通勤居民预计在周一能迎来更为顺畅的行程,不过,在昨日上述交通枢纽才刚启用第二天,在上午尖峰时段即出现堵塞现象。 Opening of the new Yishun Bus Interchange causes jam.…

Parts of lift ceiling fell and injured family at Pasir Ris Drive 4

Part of the lift’s ceiling at Block 480, Pasir Ris Drive 4,…

善心人置口罩消毒液供使用 电梯内散发温馨气息

武汉肺炎爆发后全球进入防疫行动,政府机构呼吁人们保持良好卫生习惯,而口罩和消毒液也成为今年年头的抢手物品,甚至多家商店售罄,然而有的善心人士却“处处留情”,在住宅区内放置有关的物品,让有需要的人们使用,让人倍感温馨。 脸书群组Collike昨日(2月3日)上传了一系列照片,包括有消毒液、口罩、消毒棉等,被人置放在电梯内的墙边。 这些消毒液和口罩包上或周围还张贴的小纸条,写道“回家前消消毒哦”、“危险区使用”、“戴上我,若需要请领取一个(wear me, pls take one if you need)”。 帖文中指出有民众在榜鹅场第267B座组屋的电梯内放置了以上物件,随后就有居民做出响应,纷纷捐出手术口罩、N95口罩和酒精消毒等。所展示的照片中有一些电话简讯截屏,只见民众纷纷感谢捐赠人士,并呼吁把这份“温情”继续传下去。 有关的帖文已经多次被转发,且获得多名网友按赞。…

不堪骚扰 礼貌要求对方离去 女网民遭男子打至下巴脱臼

女子在酒吧内遭认识的男性骚扰,礼貌要求对方离开,却遭对方用手肘打伤,导致下巴脱臼,男子也被逮捕。 署名Kylie Yun的网名于上周五(4日)在脸书帖文,指上周四清晨在布连拾街(Prinsep Street)夜店游玩时,遭到一名认识的男子骚扰。 帖文中指出,她当时和一名女性友人一起,但是因为不堪男子骚扰,就屡屡好声好气地要求对方离开。 岂料男子不但不领情,还一言不发地就用手肘挥向女子的脸部,导致她的下巴脱臼。 根据Kylie所上传,取自闭路电视的部分记录显示,一名女子和两名男子议论,身边围着四五名男女。当女子在说话时,穿着条纹衣服的男子忽然挥出手肘殴打女子。站在女子后方的人士立刻将女子抱紧,拉到后方,其余人士则趋前隔开两方人士,还有一名男子趋前劝架。 指男子非首次打人 Kylie在帖文中感谢其友人Natalia以及周围人士,目击了整个事件并陪伴在她的身旁,让她免受更大的伤害。 “这是一次非常痛苦的经历。没有人应该这样被对待。” 女子表示,她做出有关的分享,是因为她对有关事件感到惊悚害怕,也希望不要有人经历类似事件。 她也希望民众能够对涉嫌施暴的男子,保持高度警惕,“这并非他首次打人,也不是第一次打女人了……死性不改”。…