How the internet will impact the 2010 election

Money, gotchas and independent sensations . . .

To a Demos/Prospect debate last night to discover (once again) whether the internet is changing politics. The answer (once again): sort of, but perhaps not as much as you might think.

Towards the end of the night the four panellists were asked what impact the web will have during the forthcoming general election, and this solicited perhaps the most interesting replies of the night.

For John Lloyd, contributing editor at the Financial Times, it was all about the money. As Barack Obama showed during 2007 and 2008, small(ish) internet donations add up. "Forty per cent of the biggest take ever is a lot of money," said Lloyd, who expects the UK parties to follow suit.

Tom Watson, Labour MP for West Bromwich East and noted blogger, said he expected that an "independent candidate will become an internet sensation, probably in a university town, probably from the Pirate Party".

In a similar vein, Evgeny Morozov of Georgetown University said one of the biggest beneficiaries of the web will be fringe movements: "These are the ones most often shut off from the mainstream media."

And Risha Saha, the man who will lead the Tories' online campaign as head of new media, predicted that there will be "two or three 'gotcha' moments that will carry the news media for two or three days at a time".

Get ready, he said, for our very own Joe the Plumber.

Saha -- who also outlined his party's net strategy -- claimed that during the 2005 general election, "every party seemed to make a tacit deal that the internet didn't exist". Not so this time.

As Watson noted, "The parties will be on broadcast mode." The trouble for them, he added, is that the voters "will be in 'right back at you mode' ". Bring it on.

Jon Bernstein, former deputy editor of New Statesman, is a digital strategist and editor. He tweets @Jon_Bernstein. 

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.