Image over ideology: political communication in the era of social media

Lots of times, when I’m casually doomscrolling, I come across videos or pictures that refer to politics. Usually I laugh  or get upset over how ridiculous they are but I don’t think much of it. They’re satire, of course, probably posted by a  bored teenager, right? Then I stare at the username and the “verified badge”. That is the moment when I send the  TikTok or Instagram Reel to my friend with a simple comment: ”No way this is really their official account.”.  

There is ongoing debate whether media ”colonise” politics or vice versa. We have witnessed a brutal shift – from  politicians only being interviewed by professional journalists to them creating their own social media content or being  guests on biased, low-quality podcasts. Now your prime minister is also an influencer, members of your parliament are  making ”spend the day with me” videos, and suddenly you’re watching an edit of the president of the United States  posted from his party’s verified TikTok account. Many think it’s entertaining but it is a carefully scripted strategy for  building your political stance. It is a new stage of mediatisation of politics – in which the overall logic of media is  altering not only the way political events are reported, but also the whole policy-making process. During the previous  century, we observed this phenomenon when radio access increased and then when television became widespread, so  this is not something previously unknown. So, undoubtedly, traditional media are nowhere near becoming totally  unimportant.  

Nevertheless, conquering social media became inevitable for political figures, because of the growing feeling that they  do not pay enough attention to the needs of young adults. In 2024, the Ważne Sprawy Foundation and More In Common  Poland conducted a survey that showed that 77% of people aged 18-24 and 85% of people aged 25-29 believe the  government is more invested in the situation of senior citizens. With the level of disappointment this high among the  aforementioned group action had to be taken. Thus, the political scene had to change its format to become more  attractive to the young electorate, since it relies heavily on social media when gathering information. Or perhaps should  I say: having information thrown in one’s face by an algorithm. That is where politicians recognise the opportunity to  finally reach young people. When you’re using social media you cannot particularly control or choose what content you  see – the algorithm decides for you. It rewards the potential to go viral but also can cause one’s For You page to become  monotonous by showing just one type of content. Both examples can be convenient: the first reaches a new potential  supporter, and the second reinforces their opinion. This way of influencing young people is quite appealing – it does not  generate a lot of new costs and focuses mainly on keeping track of pop culture.  

I first realised the enormous scale of this during the 2024 presidential campaign in the United States.  

 After Joe Biden’s late resignation, there had to be some serious PR campaign conducted for Kamala Harris, since she  had very little time left in the presidential race. Even though she did not win, her team did an objectively incredible job  of meeting her up with celebrities and basing her virtual presence on Charli XCX’s newest album at the time which was  called Brat. The constant online arguments between two hubs – Kamala HQ (now Headquarters) and Republicans on  TikTok, aimed specifically at a Gen Z audience – reached not only American voters but also people from all around the  world. It has been two years since the election and I still see the teams responsible for running those accounts react so  quickly to all new trends and their opponents’ statements. The things they post may not be the most serious or detailed  when it comes to specific events but it seems like the strategy works – they persistently gain more followers and what’s  important: they ignite strong emotions in their viewers. I notice similar dynamics on the Polish side of TikTok and  Instagram between the two major parties in the parliament – Koalicja Obywatelska and Prawo i Sprawiedliwość. They  both use trending audios and memes to make themselves look like the better option, promote their specific actions, and  describe the other side as incompetent. Other political groups followed in their footsteps so we ended up with many  different perspectives but none of them is actually explained well – they are mainly based on criticism. The question is:  to what extent is this reasonable?  

I am aware that politics now is just an endless battle for new voters with any other side effects of a political campaign  being completely overlooked. However, do we really want to live in a world in which diplomacy boils down to a 15- second-long video? Is it what we want to look at and consider a reliable source of information? It may be memorable  and easy to comprehend but it is far too short to be substantive. It draws attention away from the complexity of modern day problems, describing them as superficial and easy to solve under one condition: the messenger has to be in power.  Some things should not be trivialised, especially by officials. Nowadays, some people view public debate as  entertainment, whereas, ideally, it could be the strongest, most efficient tool used by citizens to protect their rights and  present their beliefs in a civilised society. If political communication continues to be reduced to short clips or graphics  optimised for engagement, its very function is undermined. We are left with no arguments to evaluate because the  comment sections are not decent enough, and we only get to rely on impressions. The danger, then, is not the fact that  politicians use social media, but that their logic risks replacing the logic of politics itself – what cannot be compressed  into its format gets pushed out of the conversation. This also leads to a reshaping of the voters’ choice. There is less  comparing policies or trade-offs and more judging candidates by their personalities, authenticity, or the ability to ”be  relatable” for the audience. Points built around real long-term consequences are just unable to compete against a well edited video of a charismatic populist cracking a joke. The result is a subtle substitution of accountability by likability.  

We usually feel more sympathy towards people we think are similar to us, find hilarious, or who share some interests  with us. So, there is also a more insidious risk hidden behind the friendly image politicians cultivate online: a slow 

evolution from support to idolisation. When a candidate is presented primarily as a personality voters can relate to them  the same way they do with influencers or celebrities. They compare a person seeking public office to someone whose  job is to entertain others. Then, criticism is perceived as a personal betrayal, rather than legitimate disagreement,  making loyalty become the most valuable trait. It becomes difficult to question somebody once their image has been  designed to be liked rather than judged. A healthy democracy needs politicians who can be challenged by the public –  not politicians who are adored by it. The Internet doesn’t need more officials showing their daily life through Instagram  Stories and giving subtle hints on who we should vote for – you can be either a lifestyle influencer or a legislator. But  you cannot aspire to be both on your official account. I would really like to see more reliable content on the actual  changes (or efforts to bring changes) introduced by specific people, and not just another caption about how somebody  else is ruining the country. If so, do something with it!  

This way of reaching younger people doesn’t provide a comprehensive overview of the situation. Fine, some of them  will change their mind about how tedious politics is, maybe they will even go and vote in the next elections (which, for  example, they have never done before). The urge to mobilise the greatest number of citizens will be fulfilled but the  concept of building an engaged civil society certainly won’t. Instead, it is crucial to uncover any manipulation or simply  fake news to prevent it from spreading. Educating on how to recognise what has been created by AI, what a deepfake is,  or just how to be curious or even skeptical of what we are shown – this should be our strength. Because showing anyone  in power that we are vulnerable, easy to manipulate, and don’t question anything, etc. is the worst thing to do now. A  citizenry that scrolls past claims is not an engaged public – it is just an audience that can be managed more easily than  represented. Nowadays, media literacy should definitely be the foundation of civic education: the ability to ask who  benefits from a message or to think before sharing. Only then can virality stop being used on us as a tool.  

Politicians’ presence on social media does not create new mechanisms, but rather radicalises what we have been seeing  for quite some time now: them shouting over each other on television and in the parliament, stating false claims, and  using unprofessional language. From one’s perspective, this might be funny, but let’s not forget those are people who  desire to rule a whole country. Let’s not normalise praising them for being ”authentic” or ”straightforward” while  they’re clearly being disrespectful. The mediatisation of politics has made us care more about a different set of traits in  a candidate; to some extent, this may be sensible. It’s just important to keep in mind their eventual future  responsibilities and whether they act like somebody worth entrusting them to.