Social media is an irreplaceable tool for following politics. “It takes Gallup five days to say what Twitter can tell us instantly,” said Zach Green, a pioneer in studying social media and political campaigns.

Why wait for the Gallup polls? Why listen to Twitter?

Our political process is more democratic and, frankly, more interesting because of social media. For the first time, Americans are subsidizing their presidential debate watch with social media. With one eye on the candidates and the other on their Twitter feeds, Americans now occupy a social media spin room during debates.

While social media reactions are brief, sarcastic and entertaining, they do little to push intelligent analysis during debates. Largely superficial and skewed toward the partisan fringes of our political spectrum, social media is the siren song of 21st-century American politics.

By constantly reading tweets and crafting witty 140-character observations, Americans are distracted from the drama and excitement of debates. Our opinions about candidates should be shaped by personal reflection, as well as close study of style and substance. It’s our nation’s most esteemed and elite office, and deserves our utmost attention.

But attention to detail is something social media misinterprets. The Twitterverse doesn’t miss a trick — every tie knot, water break and pop culture reference becomes a trending topic. Social media tends to amplify trivial moments from debates, missing broader themes affecting the narrative of the campaign.

Our democratic process may select the leader of the free world, but @BillMaher and @PaulRyanGosling — an account of political quips that makes Rep. Paul Ryan seem like a Hollywood heartthrob — remain some of our most trusted pundits, according to social media.

Social media is driving online opinion based on snap reactions. Social media channels have grown because they’re not tied to traditional news gatekeepers, but Americans should rely on those experienced in the campaign process to provide insight on debates. Leave it to the journalists and analysts, not fake Twitter accounts, to give perspective.

Surprisingly, these journalists bucked the trends on social media for the first two debates. Without emotional partisan rhetoric, the nondigital reaction downplayed the effect of President Barack Obama’s poor performance and qualified Vice President Joe Biden’s strong conversational approach with tried and true electoral information.

What won as trending topics will not decide the election. Social media can offer little objective perspective in real time. The best accounts to follow for debates are journalists and fact-checking institutions. Unfortunately, college students choose to engage differently. Social media feeds dominated by high school friends’, celebrities’ and candidates’ accounts add little to the political discourse.

Some 70 million people watched the first of three presidential debates between Obama and Mitt Romney. Americans who watched the debate on television saw a well-prepared challenger dominate a timid and seemingly disinterested incumbent. Social media had the same reaction, but focused on Romney’s Big Bird layoff, as well as Obama’s sunken looks and the “five-second cutoff.”

There are just two more opportunities for Americans to see the presidential candidates face to face. Debates are political chess matches, best enjoyed with a bowl of popcorn and a hearty understanding of the issues.

Settle in, turn off the smartphone and don’t let Big Bird block the view.

Jared Kraham is a senior political science and broadcast journalism major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at jmkraham@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @JaredKraham.

Published on October 14, 2012 at 11:56 am