Right now, I’m working on the next Project Arcadia report. For this, I immersed myself in all the polls that have been done on the presidential and legislative elections. This allowed me to come across a rather interesting fact.
Politicians and “young people”: a bastion to be conquered
If you read the electoral programs, you will see that the politicians, generally on the left, are desperately trying to flirt with young voters, namely the 18-25 age group. This is less true on the right – in the broad sense – this family relying instead on an elderly electorate. The young, this poorly identified object of electoral desire, is the subject of all the attention of polling institutes.
This is how the IFOP carried out on behalf of the National Association of Councils for Children and Young People (ANACEJ) an extremely comprehensive study – 205 pages – on young people and the presidential election. Many elements have been scrutinized, but it is the way young people get information that caught my attention.
“Among the following means, which ones do you mainly use to inform you about the progress of the presidential election campaign? First ? Secondly ? Third ? “. The first means is television. Next come family discussions and informational websites. The various social networks arrive much later, first Instagram, then Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, TikTok and finally Twitch. It is not exclusive to politics. In another study, which is not available online, but which was echoed in the press, 40% of 16 to 30 year olds follow the news on traditional media.
Strategic error
If you follow politics, especially parliamentary life with assiduity — I’m sure ZDNet readers also read Project Arcadia — you might have noticed that elected officials love to spruce up their social media accounts. This is how, instead of seeing them in the constituency, we see them thanking Internet users because they are XX XXX following them on [insérer le réseau social à la mode].
So much so that some have started doing live-Twitch in the middle of the hemicycle, which only adds chaos to the mess of night sessions. For some totally unknown reason, many politicians remain convinced that one click = one vote, whereas the last two presidential elections have clearly shown that this was not the case. This is even less so for the legislative elections. Even for French people living abroad, the only thing that will really come into play is direct contact. The voters forgive an absence in the hemicycle. They do not forgive at all the absence at the inauguration of the third roundabout of Trifouillis the Three Ducks, 253 inhabitants and 700 goats.
It is therefore perfectly useless to try to become an influencer on social networks if you want to succeed in your political career. The young don’t care, the older ones too. And for good reason: they will favor a channel that comes to them. The problem with social networks is that you have to reach out to Internet users, to encourage them to participate, to get information, etc. The great strength of television and radio is that they deliver the requested information to the home.
Filters and editorial requirements
Much has been said about the filter bubbles of social networks, denouncing the algorithms that would lock us into particular thought patterns. Except that the reasoning is valid for television channels – generalist or continuous news. The only element that vaguely saves television from this accusation is our legislation concerning the speaking time of politicians. To avoid suffering the wrath of ARCOM, television channels and radio stations are required to respect a certain balance of speaking time.
The fact that young people remain attached to television, in particular to learn about the elections, is perhaps a sign that they are sensitive to these rules for organizing debates. My personal point of view is obviously biased: on the whole, I find the debates mediocre and the journalists who animate them far too nice. They are not incisive enough nor sharp enough. I recognize that I am absolutely not representative of the population, being a cameo in political debates.
Somehow, these two studies reassure me, both as a parliamentary journalist – without a press card – and as a technician. I was close to an overdose of hearing communications officers and politicians trumpeting “we are going to hack politics”, “we are going to hack political debate”. These assertions were enough to show that they had understood nothing, neither about computers nor about politics. Can we hope that they stop running after influencers of all kinds? Honestly, I’m not sure. The great tragedy of our current parliamentarians and ministers is that they have made a mistake. They want to be loved. No one does politics to be liked. I would go so far as to say that wanting to be liked when you are political is a sign of weakness.
A strategy to review?
You have not followed the debates on the planning and orientation law of the Ministry of the Interior. Considering the general level, you were right because it was appalling. But, it was during this text that the deputies Bernalicis and Léaument decided to do live-twitch. They were slapped on the knuckles several times. Advanced argument? This allows for education. Except that if we look at the studies in question, we realize that the argument does not hold.
First of all, apart from the pissed off people like me, who watches the debates in the National Assembly on a Friday evening, until 3:35? Secondly, the National Assembly streams the debates on its website as well as on its Twitter account. So there is no need to replace the official channel, unless you absolutely want to maintain your little personal glory.
Perhaps it would also be time for the television channels, first and foremost, LCP to pick up some color. I have lost count of the number of times Internet users of all ages have been surprised that the parliamentary channel does not broadcast the debates in public session, making them dependent on an Internet connection, which is sometimes risky. This is valid for Public Senate.
Computing is not just code or techniques. They are also uses and the way in which people appropriate a technology. The positive point of these two studies is that they ultimately show the disconnect between those who speak and those who do. If streaming platforms have revolutionized our consumption of entertainment, the Internet has not changed information to the point that the channels of the 20th century have totally disappeared.