Election on Twitter

Much focus has been placed on the importance of television in the UK General Election (as for the first time there have been three live TV debates between the leaders of the main political parties) - This however has occurred at a time when the internet has played a major role in the election.

The "digital election" has been well reported, from interesting (though at times silly) blogs, more series articles on the phenomenon, as well as the websites and social media accounts of candidates.

One example of Web2.0 at work in the election is this attempt by the Guardian for readers to assess the campaigning in their constituency. Readers simply enter their post code, the party campaigning and a rating from 1-5 of how "active" that political party has been. The map is formed by users tweeting the data to them:

Tweet your score, postcode and the party abbreviation with the hashtag #ukvote - eg N1 LAB 3 #ukvote or CV32 CON 4 #ukvote -

What does this have to do with digital history? Isn't this simply election journalism in the internet age? Well I thought about this for a while, is this really something of historical value?

I think that this is of historical value as it potentially shows us where political parties are focusing on, it provides a lot of data albeit in a rather simplistic way. In twenty years time if we were to assess the 2010 UK General Election it might be of use to look at a collaborative effort such as this to see where campaigns were highly fought.

Twitter in Elections:

The screen shot above is from my Twitter account, while I was using a Google Chrome extension for Twitter. The image is annotated to show the differing tweets from those involved in the General Election.

Tweeting History

Previously I looked at the role of Twitter, today I wanted to go back to one of the underlying themes running though my blog, the issue of recording history, looking at how Twitter presents challenges and opportunities for historians.

In background reading on the importance of Twitter I came across many articles articulating the value of Twitter for historical research. Shown best by the decision of the US Library of Congress to archive "the collected works of Twitter" stating that "tweets are becoming part of history.”

As mentioned in my previous blog on Twitter most tweets are rather banal, relate to only few individuals and probably have little or no use to any historian.

As a student of diplomatic history I am all to aware that I often ignore the importance of historical resources simply because they do not relate to my notion of a valuable sources. Historical studies which look a the wider society, role of popular culture etc. will potentially see huge benefit in the recording of tweets.

Why are tweets of historical value?

Future studies looking at attitudes towards Sarah Palin during the 2008 US Presidential election may find some benefit in looking through tweets made during her vice-presidential debate with Joe Biden, by then perhaps more efficient methods of analysing huge quantities of data will have emerged allowing for trends to be spotted.

Because tweets are short (a maximum of 140 characters), time stamped and made by so many individuals they are perfect for meta data analysis (if that is not already a term it ought to be...) which is so useful to many historians.

An abundance of information

My thesis topic (NATO Expansion under President Clinton) is relatively modern, focusing mostly on the last half of the 1990s; so far the biggest difference between my thesis research and my dissertation research last year (on the US opposition to Salvador Allende in Chile) has been the volume of data available online.

I remember having one excellent book, "The Pinochet File" by a NSA archivist, Peter Kornbluh. The book compiled a significant amount of pertinent US documents which had been declassified in 1998 by President Clinton under pressure from Secretary of State, Madeline Albright.

The book was by no means perfect, firstly I can't tell you how many times I wished I had the ability to "Ctrl+f" (to search the text) it is only when you are used to using online texts do you realise how inadequate the index in most books are! Also as the book was a compilation of documents Kornbluh had to decide what documents to include. Although it is 590 pages long there was a limit to the amount of material he could include.

So far my MA thesis research has been mostly online, I decided to familiarise myself with the history of NATO in the 1990s by reading almost every article connected to the organisation in the period. Thanks to still being free to use, I didn't have to pay to access the New York Times archive (although from 2011 you will have to subscribe) or The Times, The Guardian, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.

I can access the newspapers archive, and simply search for key terms such as "Nato" and there in front of me is everything I need from that website. It is so easy to find sources for my research this year that a new problem has emerged - deciding what resources are of value.

The abundance of information online presents a bigger problem for historians in the future - how are we protecting our digital history for the future. This is something I have read a little bit about today in the newspaper, and I will blog on it once I have done some reading on the issue.