The Battle For Public Opinion

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

This week’s topic in Online Communication is the “The Battle for Public Opinion.” This idea describes the conflict of people, organizations, and governments as they communicate through social media channels to garner the public’s opinion. To some, this battleground can seem less about genuine connections or discussions and more about status, about stirring up emotional responses, or even about purposely generating conflicts to become famous because of something outrageous they posted.

Before the age of technology, people had to form their opinions from their peers, library research, the local newspaper, word of mouth, and writing to—or physically meeting with—editors and politicians. Nowadays, however, the formation of public opinion is generally more internet based. Social media is easily accessed, impersonal, and not as "threatening" as an in-person environment. If a person is proactive, they might voluntarily research an opinion or topic in depth, but if they are not proactive, a person can quickly form impressions from those they follow online without ever feeling the need to double-check their source's veracity.

Some key factors driving the online battle for public opinion lie within Gratification Theory, which states the reasons why people use social media in the first place—to fulfill Cognitive Needs, Effective Needs, Personal Integrative Needs, Social Integrative Needs, and Tension Free Needs. Since the desire of public opinion and winning arguments stem from motivations such as self-esteem, status, credibility, and so on, the highest contender among these five needs for contributing to the online battle for public opinion would likely be Personal Integrative Needs.  

The potential implications of this for society, democracy, and interpersonal relationships is that the world is becoming dependent on the virtual beliefs of others. It is starting to fuel their actions, their sense of self-worth, and may end up shaping the values of nations around the globe.   

A example of a successful online campaign that influenced public opinion is the #LikeAGirl campaign. This campaign challenged people to take the phrase, "do it like a girl”—which traditionally implied a weak, subpar attempt at something—and re-frame it so that "being a girl" was not a slur and to encourage young girls to just be themselves in whatever activity they do. 

The main communication tactics used in the #LikeAGirl ad campaign were narrative paradigm (storytelling in order to persuade) and—to use one of Aristotle's appeals—pathos (emotion). They did this in a powerful video display of asking boys and older girls what it meant to do something like girl and contrasted it to little girls’ views of the term, which were quite contrasting and without bias against themselves. The ad plays out its story in a way that disarms their audience and gets them to think about the connotations of the term "do it like a girl." The campaign uses youth and children as the key players in the ad, which for adults might generate a protective feeling, and for children, might show them peers and role models. In a twist ending, the ad's story reveals the campaign's true intentions, to take the audience out of their own preconceived notions and step into a young girl's shoes to see just how damaging that phrase can be and why that should change.  

The ad for this campaign can be seen via their YouTube channel, Girls Can Do :: Event Series, below:

Lastly, when participating in this battle for public opinion online, individuals and organizations should pause before "hitting send" and consider the ethics of their content. Just as doctors have the motto “do no harm,” individuals and organizations might contemplate that same advice and do all they can to avoid spreading misinformation, to thoroughly checking their sources, and to post with the intention of being genuine rather than inflammatory.