Abstract
Social media use by political leaders during presidential campaigns is a widespread phenomenon in the present-day world. However, this aspect of their activity is controversial due to the possibility of neglect of the ethical part of the matter. From this perspective, such leaders as Jair Bolsonaro can be considered as the people undermining the basic principles of democracy. In contrast to them, such politicians as Hillary Clinton tend to use social media platforms ethically while increasing their popularity solely with the help of positive facts ascribed to them. Nevertheless, it is still unclear what distinguishes appropriate and inappropriate use of online sources by politicians pursuing their goals. Therefore, this paper aims to analyze the difference between Jair Bolsonaro and Hillary Clinton in terms of their behavior on social media platforms.
Introduction
The rapid technological development of the world defines the preferences of political leaders in terms of the methods of disseminating information. From this perspective, the most favorable environment for their activity at different levels is social media. Politicians strive to dominate the daily news on online platforms, and their staffers develop the content and strategies for its publication. Due to the popularity of this approach, specific challenges related to the ethical aspect of the matter arise. As can be seen from the presidential campaigns in the United States and Brazil, their leaders try to show themselves from the best side. However, such attempts do not correspond to the principles of ethics, and the cases of Jair Bolsonaro and Hillary Clinton are explicit examples of appropriate and inappropriate use of social media by politicians.
Jair Bolsonaro’s Use of Social Media
The first person under consideration, the current president of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro, is mostly perceived as a leader whose approach to the use of online platforms during the presidential campaign was entirely improper. Such an opinion stems from the fact that he was known for spreading falsehoods about his opponents (Beauchamp, 2019). Even though the researchers claim that there is no evidence of the correlation between favoring one candidate over another resulting from these actions, his behavior happened to be efficient regarding the objective to gain popularity (Weeks et al., 2019). In this way, Bolsonaro managed to discredit his opponents, thereby solidifying his position in the political arena.
Considering this circumstance, his victory in the elections was greatly conditional upon the use of online platforms in a dishonest way. The primary reason why this conduct is seen as unethical is its consequences for the population. They include the increase in distrust of the citizens in social media and the dissemination of false information that negatively affects the role of these sources in the future of politics in the country (Beauchamp, 2019). The campaigns oriented toward inappropriate use of online platforms instill erroneous beliefs in people that can hardly be changed by numerous rebuttals (Beauchamp, 2019). From this point of view, the abuse of social media by Bolsonaro not only helped him win but also seriously hampered the attempts to correct the fabricated facts about his opponents.
Another example of unethical behavior of this political leader was the use of WhatsApp and Facebook to spread fake news from such a side that they looked as if they were neutral. This type of disinformation happened to be even more efficient than the direct attempts to discredit other candidates since people were more perceptive toward this variation of media bias (Beauchamp, 2019). As a result, Bolsonaro initially generated the image of an allegedly honest man sharing trustworthy information without adding his personal attitudes to it. In this way, this political leader’s campaign was focused on both direct and indirect methods of publishing misleading content.
These actions of Jair Bolsonaro were accompanied by the use of the population’s tendency to pay particular attention to socially sensitive issues. They are characterized by the feeling of anxiety and unease evoked by such news, and this decision was beneficial for the political leader (“Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s president,” 2019). Nevertheless, it can hardly be described as ethical, and this fact adds to the inappropriateness of current Brazil’s president’s behavior in social media. This type of popularity seems to be easy to gain, but it implies the need to support the status. Unfortunately, the continuation of the use of such methods will be inefficient. Moreover, it will lead to the loss of trust in the president’s actions and damage his reputation.
Taking the above into consideration, the combination of Bolsonaro’s initiatives in social media started to cause concerns of the country’s population about the privileged position of authoritarian political actors. Most people perceive it as a threat to democracy resulting from the dominant role of far-right populists in these sources (Beauchamp, 2019). They manage to win the elections with the help of unfair practices, and this situation is alarming not only from the perspective of a single victory like in the case of Bolsonaro. From this point of view, if such actions become a norm, the theoretical threat to the democratic population will become a real problem. Therefore, the unethical behavior of Jair Bolsonaro might cause the emergence of numerous politicians who believe these means of gaining popularity are justified by greater goals they are going to pursue.
The Brazil’s president is also known for demonstrating his alleged focus on minorities in social media publications. At the time of the campaign, this policy allowed him to not only earn the trust of citizens and inspire them with his future intentions in this regard but also receive the support of specific population groups (“Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s president,” 2019). In this case, Bolsonaro emphasized the needs of racial minorities, immigrants, and drug users (“Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s president,” 2019). Nevertheless, the absence of ethics in this situation is clearly seen from the gap between his promises and real actions (Beauchamp, 2019). Therefore, this approach can be considered as an example of inappropriate political publications on online platforms.
Alongside with spreading false information or so-called junk news, the Brazil’s president Jair Bolsonaro is also famous in the country for his tendency to openly criticize other public figures. Thus, one of the most known events was the situation of a journalist from the newspaper Estado de S. Paulo, who was writing about his son and consequently excoriated by the Bolsonaro (“Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s president,” 2019). In this way, he shares his personal views about various events without taking into consideration the impact of such behavior on his future career. This fact adds to the improper use of social media while pursuing his goals as an individual rather than a political leader.
The general suspicion around the Brazil’s president stemming from his actions specified above is complemented by his tendency to avoid appearance in public. Jair Bolsonaro is known for the refusal to cooperate with main television stations while being active in social media (“Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s president,” 2019). Even though its spread indicates the necessity to reckon with this source of information, the reputation of a political actor still significantly depends on official media. The opposite conduct contributes to the creation of an inappropriate image, and the situation is especially alarming when it comes to elections. However, these considerations, alongside with the unethical use of social media platforms, do not stop Bolsonaro from neglecting the public perceptions.
Hillary Clinton’s Use of Social Media
The second person under consideration, Hillary Clinton, is quite the opposite of the previous political figure in terms of the use of online sources. Even though there is hardly a leader whose actions can be viewed as entirely ethical, her behavior is much closer to the optimal decision-making process. It is primarily expressed in the activity of this person on Twitter and the proper selection of published content by her staffers (Yack, 2016). Thus, for example, when Donald Trump started to criticize the support of Obama for Clinton during the presidential campaign, she did not engage in the dialogue by replying to the accusations (Ruiz, 2016). As a result, her tweets concerning this subject gained more popularity than Trump’s messages.
Moreover, Hillary Clinton cares not about quantity but quality, and this position is clearly seen from the analysis of her personal accounts. In 2016, she had fewer subscribers on Twitter and Facebook than Donald Trump, but they happened to be more active in supporting the candidate (Ruiz, 2016). Therefore, the ethical aspect of her conduct is to address people’s needs efficiently rather than attract as many followers as possible. This policy was accompanied by a particular focus on less popular platforms, such as Quora and Pinterest (Ruiz, 2016). By doing so, Clinton managed to remain closer to citizens than her opponent and promote her views without involving in excessive discussions.
The favorable position of Hillary Clinton in social media was partially explained by her orientation not on offense but the combination of offense and defense in discussing problems. This achievement was possible solely due to the hard work of her team, and it led to the increased attention of target organizations, volunteers, and voters (Ruiz, 2016). In contrast to Donald Trump, who was willingly accusing her in the attempts to gain more support with the help of inappropriate methods, she chose to refrain from adopting his model of behavior (Yack, 2016). Instead, Clinton preferred only to reply the messages, and this conduct was perceived as less aggressive.
Another aspect of her online activity is the refusal to make direct Internet jokes about other candidates, and it adds to the ethics of her policies. Hillary Clinton’s team realized that such attempts complemented by similar initiatives of Donald Trump will only amuse the public but will not help her gain popularity among voters (Ruiz, 2016). Therefore, they preferred to use other methods and contrast them to ridiculous approaches employed by the opponent (Ruiz, 2016). This position did not improve much of her image but helped avoid unnecessary criticism from serious voters who need factual information instead of an online show.
However, it does not mean that Clinton did not take any actions against Trump, but she did not do it openly so that they could not be directly associated with her. One of such initiatives was launching a Spanish-language website and Twitter account presenting lawsuit cases associates with her principal opponent (Ruiz, 2016). This activity cannot be considered ethical as such, but the situation was less severe since the information was presented as impartial as possible. Another example was the creation of TrumpYourself, which was the tool allowing users to overlay Trump’s citations over their profile photos (Ruiz, 2016). As in the case of the website with lawsuits, all information was provided by Donald Trump, and no facts were fabricated.
Another factor that allows considering the actions of Hillary Clinton in social media as ethical and appropriate is the emphasis of her team on social sharing. This phenomenon is known for its role in political processes, and it indicates the shift in voters’ attention to the information presented on online platforms rather than in official media (Ruiz, 2016). It served as a basis for Clinton’s sharing policies and allowed her to become a candidate viewed not only as a politician but also as a member of society that faces similar challenges as other people. Nevertheless, this initiative was complicated by a previously unfavorable representation of this candidate.
In order to overcome the perception of Hillary Clinton as impersonal and unethical, her team intended to increase her social media presence regarding her personal life. It was made for creating a well-suited image of the leader for online platforms since this aspect can have a crucial role during the elections (Ruiz, 2016). Clinton was earlier seen as an extremely conservative person, which correlates with being inauthentic to people (Ruiz, 2016). Therefore, the change was made with regard to the need to humanize her image and thereby increase the efficiency of her further actions. For this, she started posting videos in which she interacts with people, such as in the case with a crying little girl whose parents have been deported (Ruiz, 2016). In this way, the perception of the candidate was changed ethically.
At last, the official messages assigned by Clinton were complemented by posts emphasizing her values, the benefits of her direct communication style, and her sense of humor. From this point of view, she looked more favorable than her primary opponent Donald Trump, who published various accusations and criticized others together with posts about his decisions (Yack, 2016). The orientation of Clinton’s content was reflected in her speech, in which she said that a good political campaign for her is publishing the content, which is suitable for the Internet (Ruiz, 2016). Thus, the savvy use of social media by her team allowed viewing the candidate as a leader appropriately using online platforms for her benefit.
Comparison of the Two Approaches
The analysis of political figures regarding their use of the Internet during presidential campaigns clearly indicates that they can be compared as the leaders known for proper and improper use of online sources. The first characteristic that allows distinguishing Jair Bolsonaro and Hillary Clinton from the perspective of the ethical decision-making process is the type of information presented by them to the audience. As can be seen from above, the former was famous for focusing on criticism of other people and published half-truth and neutral facts. They demonstrated other candidates in such a way that they were perceived in a negative light, and their image was damaged. The latter, in turn, also presented the data concerning her opponents, but she did not add any personal evaluation or false details.
Another difference contributing to the ethical and unethical conduct of Clinton and Bolsonaro accordingly is the varying attitudes towards social media presence. From this point of view, Clinton had a more favorable position since her team put much effort into the attempts to humanize her and restore her previously negative reputation. Hence, she did not ignore the need for public people, especially for politicians, to be known as humane and authentic in order to increase her popularity. In contrast to her, Bolsonaro preferred to neglect the impact of social media on his personality and avoided public appearance. This policy resulted in the perception of him as quite an aggressive person winning through the use of rigorous measures. He was oriented solely on his actions, whereas Clinton efficiently used social media for her representation.
The next characteristic indicating the inappropriate use of social media by Jair Bolsonaro in contrast to Hillary Clinton’s fair methods is the former’s orientation on specific socially sensitive issues and target groups. He was continuously speaking about the problems of society that should be solved by authorities, and his support was conditional upon the alleged desire to help drug users and racial minorities. However, as can be seen from his actions, once he became a president, Bolsonaro did not address the specified issues in his political career, and this fact adds to the breach of ethics (“Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s president,” 2019). As for Hillary Clinton, she did not use this approach at all and preferred to speak about her good intentions in general rather than targeting minorities and gaining their support.
Moreover, the actions of Bolsonaro and Clinton in social media are considered as appropriate and inappropriate on the basis of their impact on the institution of democracy as a whole. Among other facts, the Brazil’s president was famous for holding authoritarian views as opposed to the Clinton’s purely democratic approach. This circumstance defines their principal difference from the ethical perspective, and its consequences are more severe as they have a tremendous impact on citizens’ perceptions of politics in the country. Thus, the aggressive communication style of Bolsonaro correlates with the violation of other candidates’ rights for fair competition, whereas Clinton’s soft approach is focused on her personality and contributes to the credibility of the elections.
The final characteristic that contrasts the political decisions of Jair Bolsonaro and Hillary Clinton in terms of social media use is the former’s focus on offense and the latter’s preference of defense. It is explicitly seen in the way they communicated with other candidates and the public in general. Bolsonaro showed himself remarkably uncompromising when it comes to personal affairs, and his communication style can be defined as straightforward and oriented on offense as in the cases when he reacted to newspaper articles (“Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s president,” 2019). Clinton, in turn, did not try to respond to negative messages of her opponents by accusing them. She only used specific techniques for her defense, and this fact makes her use of social media more ethical than in the situation of Bolsonaro.
Conclusion
By and large, the comparison of the policies of Hillary Clinton and Jair Bolsonaro in social media allowed concluding on a number of characteristics typical for appropriate and inappropriate use of online platforms. Thus, the leaders who spread falsehoods about their opponents and fake news disguised as neutral facts and focus exclusively on socially sensitive issues and minorities undermine the institution of democracy. In contrast to them, political figures who carefully select the publish content, do not resort to offenses, present the human part of their personalities, and share their achievements act mostly in an ethical way. This conclusion implies that the application of the aforementioned characteristics to the posts of politicians in social media can reveal their actual attitude towards their opponents and voters. In this way, their activity will correspond to democratic principles.
References
Beauchamp, Z. (2019). Social media is rotting democracy from within. Vox.
Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s president, is a master of social media. (2019). The Economist.
Ruiz, R. (2016). How the Clinton campaign is slaying social media. Mashable UK.
Weeks, B. E., Kim, D. H., Hahn, L. B., Diehl, T. H., & Kwak, N. (2019). Hostile media perceptions in the age of social media: Following politicians, emotions, and perceptions of media bias. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63(3), 374-392.
Yack, A. (2016). Clinton campaign’s social media strategy was more effective than Trump’s. National Review.