The Wardman Wire

Mark Pack argues that evidence shows that Twitter has potential for influence in local politics.

It’s become something of a truism for believers in the utility of Twitter in politics to say, “Of course it’s no good for local campaigning, but…” usually ending with a point about motivating activists or joshing with journalists.

Those certainly are uses for Twitter, but I’ve always been puzzled by the dismissal of Twitter’s local power. That is partly because I’ve found interesting but previously unknown to me people living nearby who I get fun or useful information from via Twitter. If I can find a local community for non-political purposes, surely a politician can too for their purposes, especially as they have a much readier supply of interesting local information to share?

It’s also partly because over the decade and more using the internet for political campaigning, almost every tool has been more useful at the local than at the national level. Perhaps Twitter is finally an exception to that rule, but what is the evidence?

Talking to some MPs and councillors who are serious Twitter users, it’s clear that there are many who do see it as a powerful local tool – if the skill and effort is put in to building up the audience. As with websites, simply being there on the internet does not get much of an audience; you need to win one over.

How effective can it be if you do this? Well, a survey carried out by Lynne Featherstone MP of her Twitter followers earlier this year gives a clue:

Do you live in my constituency?

• Yes: 40%
• No, but moving in: 1%
• No, but used to: 3%
• No, but live elsewhere in Haringey [the local authority]: 5%
• No: 51%

With over 2,400 followers and a majority to defend of 2,395 that suggests via Twitter Lynne Featherstone can reach around 960 people. Add in the ability of people on Twitter to pass on information and reputation more widely and we have a significant number.

(Details of this survey are taken from a talk I gave earlier this year at Nottingham University, where I also expanded on the point about the importance of the local audiences for internet campaigning.

You can read the talk and see the slides here.)

I’ve spent some time recently watching the dismantling of the forums over at the Richard Dawkins Foundation go up in flames, and the explusion/withdrawal of part of the community therefrom to form a new site at Rational Skepticism (which Simon Gardner – of the Servalan avatar – says now has more than 1000 members).

One thing I’ve discovered is this excellent “Dick to the Dawk to the Phd” video, which I missed first time round:

It’s a satirical video which can be read as being against “both sides” (as defined by Richard Dawkins), if you accept that a narrative based on “science” vs “religion” (actually creationism) is a valid framework to assert – I don’t accept this. I think it is just very well produced and funny.

If anyone doubts RD’s commitment to the ‘battle against religion’ (my wording), here is his comment – straight from the Groves of Academe:

If anyone can understand a single word of this, don’t bother to translate, just tell me whose side it’s on. I get the feeling (same with South Park) that there are people out there who assume that something that is obviously MEANT to be funny therefore must BE funny, and they immediately shower it with accolades such as “Wow”, “Hilarious”, “Awesome” and, most side-splitting of all, “LOL”.

Sorry, I seem to be showing my age. Enjoy yourselves LOLling away.

Richard

This was the statement made by one of the creators of the video, over at PZ Myers site:

Posted by: Michael Edmondson | December 1, 2009 1:32 PM

One year after anyone stopped caring…

It’s true… I’m not a creationist. In fact I am every bit the atheist Dawkins describes himself to be in “The God Delusion”. Hands from both “sides” went into making this thing. It’s not on a side. It was allowed to exist outside of the agenda of Expelled (*). We were allowed to create what we wanted as long as it was good. The original version would have been made fun of and still been the best part of the film.

I made the credits and a few other things for Expelled… but to be honest… I have not watched it beyond a working edit… and I have not even shown it to my mom… who is big on the Jesus.

I was contacted by the magazine that owns this blog as well as the discovery institute about making videos for them. Neither conversations ended up with a project. Which is too bad.

Excellent stuff.

There are some telling points in the video, for me particularly if you recall the campaign to defenestrate Michael Reiss from his job at the Royal Society, purely because he happens to be a “Reverend”, and on the basis of questionable newspaper reports and a hasty “rentaquote” reaction from various writers and scientists. I’ll say more on this another time, but I think the Reiss approach to creationism – discuss it and refute it rather than dismiss it as simple-headed – is the correct one.

(*) For any Brits not up to speed with the fine detail of the US creationist / intelligent design / atheism / science mud-pit, Expelled is a propaganda ‘documentary’ film contending that the idea of Intelligent Design – which I’d describe as “creationism pretending to have evolved a brain” – is deliberately marginalised in the academic world in the USA.