Vietnam's newest law

In honor of it being Thanksgiving, I think we can all agree that we are thankful to be living in America, one of the freest countries in the world. Vietnamese officials just passed a new law which will fine or imprison anyone who criticizes the government on social media. http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1367302/vietnam-announces-big-fines-social-media-propaganda . If anyone is caught criticizing the government in Vietnam, they will be fined 100 million dong (US$4,734) or sentenced to jail. Not only will they fine for criticisms, but if someone posts a map of Vietnam that is inconsistent with the country's sovereignty claims, they will be fined as well.

We are fortunate enough that we live in a place where we (as citizens) would never let our government do this; it also helps that we are guaranteed this right by the 1st Amendment. Of 90 million citizens in Vietnam, 1/3 of whom use the internet, 20 million of them have Facebook accounts. I'm not sure what the government could do if all 20 million people spoke out against the government at once. 

This kind of reminds me of Egypt when the social media was taken away and the people took to the streets where a revolution occurred. I just wonder how long the Vietnamese people or world leaders will allow this kind of treatment to continue. In the digital age, it is not good for a country to be known as an enemy if the internet, just as Vietnam is. This kind of treatment will only last for so long before 20+ million people take to the streets. 

A template for social media when big events occur

In remembrance of 50 years since JFK was assassinated, USA Today came out with an interesting story of what it would be like if social media was around when this tragic event occurred: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/rieder/2013/11/21/if-kennedy-had-been-shot-in-the-social-media-era/3663465/

What I find most interesting about this is that this is more of a template for tragic events that occur. Something of this importance will have people who report false information or who will report something as fact before having enough credible sources.

There will be a ton of speculation of what happened by both the media and citizens. People can instantaneously disagree or argue about what they think happened without having actually been there. Social media can actually make situations worst because of false information. In 1963, most people had to wait to hear a news update either from the morning paper or on the nightly news station. This gave the media more time to produce accurate information. If the President were to be assassinated today, a frenzy and chaos would occur because of all of the false information put out there. Also, people who did not support the president would make jokes about it (there are always ignorant people out there) which would cause fights between people. There would be so much confusion because of all of the different stories and speculations.

This article did a pretty good job of reenacting the JFK assassination in social media terms. In order for chaos not to follow in a similar situation today, the government would have to immediately come out with a statement and the mass media would have to be careful about what "facts" they tell people.

Anything you say on social media can and will be used against you in a court of law

I've previously written how the government tracking people's posts on social media can be a good thing in terms of cutting personnel costs and improving the efficiency of government. On the flip side, there are many negatives about the government being able to track people's posts. In the digital age where everything we post can essentially be seen by anyone in the world, one must carefully think before they post. In Texas, a 19 year old has been jailed for 5 months and faces a sentence of 2 to 10 years for a post he made on Facebook: http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/teen-jailed-facebook-comments-out-bail-thanks-anonymous-donor-6C10619428 . 

Yes, his post was stupid and careless, but he was being sarcastic about the Sandy Hook situation. The authorities saw the post and arrested the teen for making a terroristic threat. I agree that any type of threat needs to be investigated, but for him to face these kinds of consequences for a sarcastic comment defies his civil liberties. 

Schools are even paying companies to track social media posts by their students in order to look at cyber-bullying and potential suicide posts. All of that is good, but when a kid gets expelled for dropping a few F-bombs in a tweet, the line has been crossed. If it does not happen on school grounds, I do not think the school has any business getting involved in these types of situations. At most, the school should alert the child's parents so that they can handle it the way they want to. Who knew that a child's parents could punish them better than the government/school? This gets to a point where the government is having too much control and access to people's lives. http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/careful-what-you-tweet-police-schools-tap-social-media-track-4B11215908

At any rate, people need to understand that whatever they post on social media sites can and probably will be seen by the government. If you've read George Orwell's 1984, this all may be sounding really familiar. It should not even be an issue, but people need to start thinking before they Tweet. If you make a threat of some sort, even if you are being sarcastic, the government will find you and punish you accordingly. 

Social Media During an Election

Social media during an election has its clear benefits, as successfully shown by President Obama in 2008 and 2012, but it also has its drawbacks, as shown by Anthony Weiner. This article, http://phys.org/news/2013-08-social-media-double-edged-sword-politicians.html , discusses how social media is a double-edged sword for politicians. Social media is a great way for a politician to get their message and name out there, but a negative tweet outweighs the benefits of a positive tweet. A negative tweet can be the difference between winning and losing an election, or can even cost a politician their career, as seen in Anthony Weiner's case (as discussed in another blog post).

A big problem for politicians and candidates is their social media accounts getting hacked. Even if they did not send the tweet, it reflects negatively upon them. If a candidate is leading in the polls and already has name recognition, such as an incumbent usually would, then it might be wise for them to not even have a social media account because one negative tweet could cost them an election. 

Last week, Obama's twitter got hacked by a Syrian group called the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA). The SEA posted a link on Obama's twitter that led people to a YouTube video about terrorism in Syria. Although the link was quickly fixed, it shows that even the President's twitter account is not completely hack-proof. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-obama-twitter-account-compromised-syrian-group-hacks-link-shortener-article-1.1499201 . 

In addition to politicians and candidates' twitter's being hacked, news organizations have the same problem. This is actually more harmful to the public than politicians' accounts being hacked. If a politician's account gets hacked, then it just causes harm to that politician, but if a news organization's account gets hacked, it could cause chaos in public. In 2011, Fox News' twitter got hacked and the hacker posted that the President was assassinated. Although false, if people read this live, then it could create pandemonium. For these reasons, social media is a double-edged sword for politicians during an election. 

The Government Monitoring Social Media Conversations to Improve Benefits

When we think of social media, usually it is a way in which we keep in touch with our friends or to follow celebrities; however, social media's potential has not yet been reached. In this article, http://www.lgcplus.com/opinion/how-social-media-can-unlock-hidden-benefits/5064822.article?blocktitle=Latest-Comment-from-LGC's-Partners&contentID=13274 , it discusses the future of social media and government benefits. Citizens are constantly looking for assistance from the government, whether it be for passport services, healthcare questions, or how to register to vote, we look to the government on how to solve these issues.

Often times, however, citizens do not know where to begin to solve these problems. This is where the future of social media comes in. A digital monitoring center will monitor social media conversations and posts and will look for keywords to help solve problems before it gets too late or worse. The posts will be monitored by looking for key words or phrases. Once these key words or phrases are identified, the monitoring system will automatically send that person information on the topic they are looking for.

For example, if I send a tweet saying, "I need a passport but am not sure what I need to do," the monitoring system will pick up the key words "passport" and "what to do" and will instantly send me information and websites to look at. This is a great way to save taxpayers time and money, as well as the government officials' time. Any government program or assistance will automatically be monitored so that services and programs are improved.

The future of social media has a lot of potential, especially concerning the link between government services and citizens' needs.

Using Social Media and Celebrities to gain support

I was on Twitter a few weeks ago, and noticed the trending topic: #GetCovered. Wondering what it meant and where it started from, I came across a lot of articles that discussed how President Obama's staff met with celebrities to ask them to promote the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/312747-obama-asks-hollywood-celebs-to-help-pitch-obamacare

We are in the age of the digital revolution, so this idea of using social media to promote policies is very new. Previously, in order to promote a policy, president's and politicians had to wait for a news network to pick up the story and hope they would be on their side. Obama was the first Presidential candidate to fully implement a successful social media strategy in his election campaign. It comes as no surprise then that Obama received 60% of the vote from 18-29 year old's. Also, it comes as no surprise that Obama is implementing social media as a way of promoting policies.

In order for Obamacare to be successful, it needs healthy young people to sign up to pay for the costs of the unhealthy old people. So far, the numbers are low for healthy individuals who have signed up. Although I do not support parts of Obamacare, such as the individual mandate, I think Obama is brilliant in using celebrities to promote it via social networking sites. Since Obama is trying to appeal to young individuals, and they are almost all on social networking sites, it is a brilliant strategy to combine celebrities and social media. Obama is setting a precedent for future president's as to successfully implementing the power of the social media. 

Social Media and First Amendment Rights

It is known, or at least should be known, that when somebody posts something to a social media site, it becomes public, thus, it is no longer private. Yes, there are privacy settings, but there are ways for people to get around those settings. For example, a friend of the person posting can share it with other people or they can Retweet it for other people to see. I heard this story last year, and it is becoming more relevant today with the increased use of social media sites. Here is a link to the story: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304811304577366121551396072

Basically the story is about Gary Stein, a Sergeant in the U.S. Marines, who posted some criticisms about Obama on Facebook and was later discharged from the Marines because of doing so. The Facebook post said: "Screw Obama and I will not follow all orders from him." Stein later clarified the statement by saying he would not follow unlawful orders. The ACLU and many groups alike have joined Stein's side by saying he was talking in a hypothetical manner and was not referring to any current orders. Also, it is Stein's First Amendment Right to voice his opinion. David Loy of the ACLU said, "Service members do not lose their free-speech rights as private citizens to engage in political speech; they just don't." 

This brings up my point as to how social media sites are being used by the government to track people and their opinions and using it against them. In court cases today, the Court is accepting posts from social media sites as evidence. I guess the question becomes, do posts on social media sites fall under the protection of the First Amendment? My answer is yes. Therefore, Stein should not have been discharged.

On the counter-argument, military personnel said that Stein was undermining his chain of command. A former Army Colonel says that in order to understand and support the chain of command, members of the military need to recognize that their freedom of speech is limited. This new age of technology and use of social media makes everything we post become public. The average citizen will not be affected by posting their political beliefs, however, this is clearly a grey area for members of the military. 

Social Media as a way of influencing politicians

I came across this article about how social media is playing a role in the government shutdown http://kansan.com/news/2013/10/08/social-media-plays-role-in-response-to-government-shutdown/ It discusses the various strategies that politicians and people are taking in order to resolve the shutdown. For example, an Obama Action Committee sent out an e-mail to its subscribers to mass tweet Speaker John Boehner. If one person sends a tweet out to a politician, it is unlikely that it will have any effect on their decision making; however, if thousands of people send similar tweets to one politician, it is likely that they will consider a change of action. This is another way in which Obama's team is successfully implementing social media into their strategy.

Politicians also look at trending topics on social media sites as a way of making decisions; trending topics are recognized in the form of a hashtag, or #. Both parties are trying to create trending topics so that the other party will concede and finally resolve the shutdown. In this picture, you can see John Boehner next to a podium with a sign that says #Time4Solutions

Anyone who was watching the speech would tweet about it with the hashtag #Time4Solutions. This is a great way for starting trending topics. If you watch a TV show, most of the time you will now see a hashtag with either the name of the TV show or whatever that episode is about. When the last shutdown happened in the 90's, people did not have this method of communication to connect with politicians or other people. They either had to take time out of their day to make a personal visit, make a phone call, or write a letter to their Congressman. All in all, it was a lot of work and not many people took the time to do this. Now, it is easier than ever to communicate with members of Congress, especially in times of importance such as during a government shutdown. It's amazing how public support is now measured via social media sites in the form of trending topics or number of tweets a Congressman will get.

Social Media as a way of political involvement.

For those of us who have an account with Facebook or Twitter, we know how most everybody we follow has an opinion about the big political event at the time. I enjoy engaging in political discussions with my friends over social networking sites, but when their posts are ignorant and so far from the "truth" I usually get annoyed and unfriend them. Harsh, I know, but if they are going to take the time to write a post, I would expect them to do some research on their own first. One of the best and worst times to be on social media sites is during a Presidential election. I say best, because it shows me that people are somewhat concerned with politics. I say worst, because the posts I see are so ignorant and hateful that it cannot even be considered political dialogue. During the 2012 election, if my friend voted for or supported Obama, they would make some post about how happy they were, and then I would see a comment from a Romney supporter saying how stupid the Obama person was and then a fight would ensue, usually involving hateful words and personal attacks. The same goes for someone who makes a Romney post. For most people, it's not even about the candidate, it's about the party affiliation. If Romney was a Democrat and Obama a Republican, the person who voted for Obama when he was a Democrat would now vote for Romney. That is the problem with political parties, that people do not do their research on the candidate. With that said, I prefer the party system to a no party system. Most recently, I see a lot of discussion on Facebook and Twitter about the government shut down. My Democratic friends are blaming the Republicans and my Republican friends are blaming the Democrats. Rather than discussing what could be done by both sides in a compromise, it is full blame on one or the other. This same thing is happening in Congress.

What I am getting at is that people are so quick to suggest their opinion that they fail to do the research first. This results in viral fights filled with personal and unwarranted attacks. These kind of actions, although they may seem minuscule compared to the rest of the country, shows how party polarized Americans are. Republicans hate Democrats no matter what the issue and Democrats hate Republicans. If we can just act rationally and do our own research on issues, we may not be so polarized and could be able to compromise the extremes.

Social Media on the Local Level

Typically when I think of news organizations I think of it on a national level such as CNN, Fox News, ABC News, etc... But what I have been realizing lately is that the local media and local government are just as active, if not more active than the national news organizations. The great thing about local government partaking in social media is that information can be distributed to a lot of people in an instant without each individual having to call or find this information somewhere on their website. The city of Kennesaw has joined Twitter and they tweet information such as when events are being held or just need to know information for local citizens. Here is a link to their Twitter: https://twitter.com/citykennesaw

Just as important, if not more important, local law enforcement are joining social networks. Kennesaw Police has joined Twitter, and they tweet crime information, what to look out for, traffic updates, and some general information. Here is a link to their twitter page: https://twitter.com/KennesawPolice

Most people have access to the internet, especially on their mobile devices, so getting an important update from the local government or law enforcement can play a crucial role in society. Also, it keeps local citizens involved in government. If you have a local issue that needs to be addressed, instead of having to make a phone call or go see the government official, all someone has to do now is tweet that local office. It has never been easier for citizens to be involved in local government. The link between social media and local government allows citizens to be up to date on important issues while being involved at the same time. 

Social Polling

I came across this article that talks about the intersection between social media and polling, a term called "social polling." http://techland.time.com/2012/02/20/polling-and-social-media-collide-with-social-polling/

Typically, polls are conducted based on a random sample of people. This has been fairly effective in the past but can be very costly and time consuming. Now, thanks to the internet and social media sites, it is easier than ever to conduct a poll. Social polling is not replacing the traditional way of polling anytime soon, rather, it is an extension to the way we conduct polling. Social media sites are primarily used by people aged in the early teens to those in their 50's. Although we are seeing a growing trend in people 65 and over using social media sites, the numbers are not there yet to represent an accurate number of that demographic group. One day, we will be there, but for now, we cannot just rely on social polling. John Zogby, an independent pollster, "believes the country will “absolutely” get there, just as people eventually accepted the major shift in the polling world in the 1970s: the change from knocking on people’s doors to calling landline phones––and later, cell phones—to gather public opinion." 

There are social polling companies popping up, such as Quipol and GoPollGo, who are hired by companies or campaign groups to conduct polls on social media sites. These companies work with Facebook to put these polls on certain individual's Facebook page depending on their demographics. For example, I saw a poll the other day on Facebook that asked me if I had heard about the new Xbox One that is coming out. Just like I play Xbox, someone who lists "cooking" in their interests might see polls about restaurants in their area. This is similar to commercials on TV that try to reach certain demographics. If you've ever stayed home sick or just watch the Price is Right, you'll notice that pretty much all of the commercials are aimed at people over 65 years old or an ad for an attorney if you've been injured in an accident. Social Polling has the potential to bring social media and politics to the next level. Politicians can instantly see how certain people polled on hot issues rather than waiting for a polling group to call or go out and poll individual people. Social media is becoming more than just a way of staying connected with friends, it is becoming an outlet for people to influence what decisions are being made in D.C. 

President Obama Encouraging the Use of Social Media

On September 10th, President Obama addressed the nation regarding the issue in Syria. In his address, he said that no one doubts the use of chemical weapons in Syria not only because of the scientific tests, but also because of the "thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack. (Here is a link to his full speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbIrm42zYTU ; the part on social media begins at about 2:27). In the past, POTUS has had to rely on journalists and the media to spread the message of what was going on in the world. During WWII, the attack of Pearl Harbor was announced via newspapers and a speech given by FDR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0PW1Jhuu2Q . President Harry Truman announced to America/the world that we dropped atomic bombs on Japan over a live television report http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0PW1Jhuu2Q . During Vietnam, if people wanted to hear about what was going on in the war, they turned their TV to CBS and watched the Walter Cronkite special documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3mfXnFtwQc . Now, we are less dependent on news organizations and lean more towards social media, as President Obama suggests (at 13:55 in the first video, Obama urges the American people to watch these videos from social media). One such video, of hundreds if not thousands, that Obama urges us to look at is from a Syrian who uploaded it on YouTube. Just a warning, this video is very graphic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5bM8kTOsOk . 

We live in a time where we (ordinary people) break news stories to the rest of the world via or computers or mobile phones. If a major event such as a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or any other crisis is going on, all we have to do is take out our cell phones and start recording. Once we record, the video or picture can be on the internet in a matter of seconds for the world to see. This is the new age of reporting news. Social Media is how we are finding out about what is going on in the rest of the world. During WWII before we became involved, Americans had the impression that we should stay out of the war because it did not affect us since it was happening across the Atlantic. Since people did not see or witness it first hand, it did not affect them. Although we are not witnessing it first hand, we feel as though what is going on in the rest of the world, for example the chemical weapons in Syria, is affecting us because we see the tweets and posts by people over there. When Egypt was having their revolution, social media erupted over there and people over here became greatly involved. Social media connects the world without having to physically be there. Although social media was just beginning when the terror attacks happened on 9/11, it is a big factor now and is a way to connect Americans on that day. We hear stories of heroism and of tragedy from that day via social networks. This is one of the most famous photos from that day, and it was one of the most shared pictures on this last anniversary 

No longer do we have to rely on news organizations to tell us what is going on in politics or the world. We can find any information we want to know from the internet, and specifically, social media sites. President Obama is setting the precedent for future President's (until whatever the next technological boom is) to urge Americans and Congressmen to use social media sites as a way of forming their own opinion on an issue and then deciding what the next course of action should be.

Social Media: A Digital Extension to the News

I came across this story of a company called "Storyful" who verifies that social media posts, pictures, and videos are real. Here is the story:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/rieder/2013/09/05/storyful-verifying-video-on-social-media-from-syria/2771029/

This type of company is especially relevant today because there are so many editing software's that people could easily forge a picture or video and upload it to a social networking site and it could go viral. Some of their clients include: BBC, Yahoo News, and The Wall Street Journal. With everything going on in Syria right now, the use of social media is crucial because the government is only allowing a select few journalists to enter, and those who are there are limited to what they can report. Social Media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are crucial in keeping the rest of the world informed as to what is actually going on over there. So a company like Storyful is important to news organizations because they can verify the validity or falsehood of a post.

This article discusses how social media sites are being used by Syrian citizens to speak out against the government and show what kind of corruption and violence is going on over there: http://www.mediameasurement.com/the-role-of-social-media-in-the-syrian-civil-war/

Social Media sites are the only way that Syrian citizens can speak out against the government without being harmed or killed. Most of the time people will post footage as an anonymous user, so again, it is important to verify this footage. Syria is considered the most dangerous country in the world for journalists. Since the beginning of 2012, 52 journalists have died covering the war in Syria. Because of this danger, social media sites are now being used as an extension to news sites. This is a long YouTube video, but you can watch just a few minutes of it to see how important individual citizens' video footage is for news organizations. This video shows various videos compiled together that is shown on different news sites: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vdkyJ0cjgo

News organizations track Twitter and Facebook to see the kind of traffic that is going on in a certain area. If traffic (posts) is high, then they know something is going on. For example, the news found out that chemical weapons were being used on Syrians from a YouTube video. This video showed chemical weapons being used on dozens of people. Often times a news story will break on social media sites before it even gets to the news stations. One of the biggest recent examples was the killing of Osama Bin Laden back in 2011. A man by the name of Sohaib Athar was living in Abbottabad, Pakistan at the time of the raid, and was tweeting at 1 A.M. about all of the helicopters and fire fighting that was going on. He did not know exactly what was going on, but he knew that it had to be big. Any news organization seeing this tweet would have had a good guess that it had to do with Bin Laden. Here is a timeline of events of the Bin Laden tweets: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/05/02/osama.twitter.reports/index.html

Social Media is no longer just being used for keeping friends connected, it is being used as a digital extension to the news and it provides information to the government to help them make a decision. When Congress votes next week on whether or not to intervene in Syria, I imagine that they will be viewing (except McCain who will be playing poker on his phone; poor joke, I know) tweets, YouTube videos, and pictures from all of these social media sites from people who are experiencing the effects of the Syrian war firsthand. Social Media sites are also being used by citizens and military men and women to voice their opinions about the war. You better believe that Congressmen will be seeing how their constituents feel. This is a picture of a Marine voicing his opinion over Twitter

The power of the news media to break a political career

Mass Media and Politics have a mutual dependency on each other. Mass media began as a provider of important governmental issues in a non-partisan way, but has now shifted into providing entertainment news in the form of scandals. These scandals date back to the days of JFK and Marilyn Monroe, and have only gotten more extreme and numerous from then on. Watergate was a true scandal worth reporting at its time; it was a real scandal that resulted in real consequences (the resignation of Nixon). Today, it seems as if there is a new scandal every week, and these stories can make or break a political career. Being in the digital age, we are obsessed with getting up to the minute news and we want every detail (of the entertainment news, at least) possible. People can't wait to hear how many vacation days the President has taken, or what kind of dog will the First Family adopt. Unfortunately, this is what the news media has come to, and it is nothing but a distraction from the real issues going on in government. This new form of entertainment news has put even more of a spotlight on politicians and candidates, and is forcing them to take a responsive approach during their campaigns and time in office. During Bill Clinton's time in office, the digital age was just beginning, and he felt the full effect of its power with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The public craved information on the scandal, and the news media was pretty much forced to air this information or they would lose viewers to a station that would. Scandals have become the norm in the news media, and like I said earlier, it is taking away from real issues that are going on. On a side note, I was switching back and forth between CNN and Fox News this past week, and all they were talking about was Miley Cyrus' performance at the VMA's. Based on watching the news, you would never know that we were almost $15 trillion in debt or that we are on the verge of intervening in Syria. 

As I said, the news media can make or break a political career. Regardless whether the information is true or not, if the media talks about it, people will believe what they hear without doing their own research. A perfect example of information ruining a political career was during the 2012 Republican Presidential primaries, with candidate Herman Cain. The news media flooded the airwaves with a scandalous story that Cain had multiple affairs on his wife. Cain denied all allegations and it got to be too much for him and his family that he withdrew from the race. Eventually, Cain came out and said the affair was true, and that his wife knew nothing of the 13 year relationship until the media came out with it. Whether you supported Cain or not, this kind of event is unfortunate because it could be taking away good politicians from holding office. This is a prime example of the media fishing for a scandal story. Here is a link to the timeline of events for the Cain scandal:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068817/Herman-Cain-admits-DID-cash-affair-woman-Ginger-White.html . On the other hand, some politicians are ignorant enough to feed the media a story. In 2011, Congressman Anthony Weiner tweeted a picture of his "manhood" to a woman he was seeing on the side. At first, Weiner denied that it was his picture and said his account got hacked, until multiple women came forward with stories and evidence of Weiner sending them inappropriate pictures and messages. When a politician is stupid enough to make his private life public, he cannot expect the media to do anything less. He was forced to resign from office in 2011. Recently, Weiner tried to get back into the political arena by putting his name on the mayoral ticket of New York City. The media has had a field day with bringing up Weiner's past scandals during this election. Weiner came out with statements that bashed the media for their actions towards him. You can read his remarks here: http://news.yahoo.com/weiner-trashes-the-media-for-focusing-on-his-sexting-scandal-000943506.html . He has no one to blame but himself, and he knows that, but he wants the media to focus on his political platform rather than his personal life. While I couldn't agree more because I think we should focus our attention on what a candidate stands for on issues, he made the story public by tweeting pictures. If a candidate is going to do these kinds of scandalous activities, he should do it in a private manner rather than over a social media site. This is another great example of the media taking a story and ending a political career. 

The intersection between the news media and politics has never been more prevalent. With the advancements made in technology during the digital age, stories can be broken to the public in a matter of minutes. And unfortunately, the media cares mostly about viewership numbers, and the best stories that receive the most attention are scandal stories.