Hi, I'm Mrs. Allchin, and I'm going to be taking you through the Citizenship lesson today.

I'm going to give you all the information that you need to be able to take part in the lesson, and I'll also pause and tell you when you need to complete an activity or complete a check for understanding.

I hope you enjoy the lesson.

This lesson is called "Is digital media causing the end of free and fair elections?" And it comes from the unit "How is social media changing our view of democracy?" And by the end of this lesson, you'll be able to evaluate the positive and negative impacts of digital media within free and fair elections.

So these are our keywords.

We've got election, which is the voting process to select a person for a public position, engagement, which is the level of interest, attention, or involvement someone shows in an activity, interaction, or relationship, and influence, the power to affect or change someone's thoughts, actions, or decisions.

This is the lesson outline for the lesson "Is digital media causing the end of free and fair elections?" We're going to look at what is a free and fair election, how did social media impact the 2024 election, and what power and influence can influencers have? So let's start by looking at free and fair elections.

So, free and fair elections are a vital aspect of democracy, as they ensure we're able to freely and fairly vote for people to represent us in local and national government without fear, without manipulation, and without interference.

So Lucas is saying, "Well, what would you expect to happen during a free and fair election?" So pause and have a think about this yourselves.

Let's have a quick check for understanding to see if you can work out the missing word to help you with your understanding of free and fair elections.

So, free and fair elections are a vital aspect of, something, as they ensure we are able to freely and fairly vote for people to represent us in local and national government without fear, manipulation, or interference.

So what is the missing word? And the missing word was democracy.

So in a free and fair election, these is what you'd expect to see.

So with a free election, that means that citizens can vote without being coerced by people in power or intimidated to vote a certain way or be subjected to any verbal or physical abuse at the polling station.

So they should be able to be free to make that decision.

Also, voter registration should be straightforward and well explained, and the access to polling stations must be inclusive and clear.

So for example, by ensuring that all citizens can easily access the building.

So, you would have to use a building that had completely full ability to access that building, or if not, that's not going to be a free election because it's not going to be inclusive.

So in the UK, we have free elections as the voting booths are confidential, so there's not that intimidation and coercion by others.

There are clear rules in place to ensure respectful behaviour.

And polling stations make use of accessible buildings within communities so they're easy to access.

And registration information is clearly publicised in the lead up to an election.

So Lucas is asking, "Well, okay, what is classed as a fair election?" So what do you think? What is a fair election? So fair elections means that all candidates and political parties are treated equally and new political parties can be created.

All parties have balanced access to the media and equal opportunities to campaign with the electorate.

And vote counting is fair, and it's overseen by a presiding officer.

So someone's basically in charge of that and making sure that everyone's doing it properly and no one's trying to cheat and count votes incorrectly.

Elections also need to be transparent, and that means that the electoral processes, including the vote counting and the reporting, must be open.

And it's important that citizens can observe this taking place as it builds trust.

It builds trust in the process, and it means as citizens, we can trust that that is being done transparently and fairly.

And that's why during an election there is live footage of vote counting and results coming in for citizens to watch.

And you might have watched this yourself at the last election.

You can literally see people all sat at tables counting the votes.

You can see when votes come in.

You can see when there's been a candidate announced as the winner.

And citizens can also volunteer to be a teller, and that's the name of the person that actually volunteers to count votes.

There also needs to be no interference, which means that the government must not interfere with the election process by manipulating voters or suppressing their opposition.

Citizens must be free to make an informed decision without any interference.

So Lucas is saying, "Well, wait.

I've seen members of the government debate with their opposition." And it's important that we remember that suppression is different from open debate.

Absolutely, the government is absolutely allowed to debate and challenge the opposition, and vice versa, but if a party or candidate is suppressed, it means they are not given a voice.

So the government is not allowed to silence the opposition in the run up to an election 'cause all of those opinions need to be heard.

So let's have a check for understanding.

You're going to match the election term to its correct description.

So we've got free, fair, transparent, and no interference.

And then the descriptions, we've got all candidates and political parties are treated equally, citizens can vote without coercion, voting is straightforward and well explained, the government must not suppress the opposition or manipulate voters, and voting processes must be open and observable.

So pause and have a go at matching the terms. So we've got free, which is citizens can vote without coercion, voting is straightforward and well explained.

Fair, all candidates and political parties are treated equally.

Transparent, voting processes must be open and observable.

And no interference, government must not suppress the opposition or manipulate voters.

Digital media has created both advantages and disadvantages in maintaining free and fair elections.

So, the advantages are that it provides citizens with information so they can make informed voting decisions.

It can also be used to advertise information about voting registration and logistics, including how to register online.

But it does also have some disadvantages.

It can be used to spread misinformation and disinformation, which can manipulate voters.

It can spread polarising content.

And it can also create echo chambers, meaning it's difficult for citizens to access opposing political views.

Let's have a check.

So which is not an advantage of digital media in a free and fair election? Is it A, provides information about who to vote for, B, can be used for online registration, or C, provides polarising content? It's C, provides polarising content.

So for task A, part one, I'd like you to describe a free and fair election, and I want you to try and use the following terms that we've looked at so far.

So we've got free, fair, transparent, and no interference.

So pause while you complete this part of the task.

So your description of a free and fair election may have included, a free election means everyone can vote without being pressured or influenced.

For an election to be fair, the rules must treat everyone equally.

Votes need to be counted honestly, and all candidates and parties should have the same chances to share their ideas.

Transparency's also really important in free and fair elections because it means the process is open and citizens can see that it's being carried out properly.

There should also be no interference on governments or anyone else trying to manipulate voters or stop others from having their say.

The second part of this task, I'd like you to identify, so just identify, you don't need to explain, identify three advantages and three disadvantages of digital media in relation to free and fair elections.

So you may have put for your advantages and disadvantages, for the advantages, provides information about who to vote for, provides logistics about where to vote, and can be used for online registration.

For disadvantages, you might have said it provides misinformation and disinformation, it provides polarising content, and it can create echo chambers.

We're now going to look at how did social media impact the 2024 election? So Alex is saying, "How was social media used during the UK 2024 general election?" So pause and think about this for yourselves.

So it could be argued that social media played an important role in voting beliefs and behaviour during the election.

Social media platforms influenced public opinion, they amplified political messages, and they became an open platform for candidates and citizens with opposing political views to debate.

This was both positive due to information being freely available, but it could also be negative due to misinformation and disinformation being spread.

Social media was used to engage younger voters, and it transformed how political campaigns reached out to and inspired youth participation in the voting process.

So politicians and political parties created and posted highly visual, engaging, and sometimes humorous content.

And this was likely to appeal to young voters who are used to engaging with fast-paced online content.

So for example, some candidates filmed "a day in the life of" videos, and some even posted online challenges and memes to really appeal to the younger voter.

And the aim of this online engagement was to make politics, and therefore the candidates involved in politics, come across as approachable and relatable.

So, they were less intimidating for younger people and other people, and it made the whole process seem like something that people could get engaged with.

So Lucas is asking, "Were there any political parties that used social media in a particular way?" So you might know the answer to this yourself, so have a little bit of a think.

So although all political parties used social media to some degree, Reform UK were very strategic in how they used certain social media platforms. So they created lots of short, relatable videos that covered key political issues, such as immigration, but also showed their leader, Nigel Farage.

Their strategy gained them a huge social media following on one video-sharing platform, with 776,000 followers, which was much higher than the other political parties.

So clearly, this engagement by creating these short, relatable videos and showing their speaker, Nigel Farage, was really having an impact and it was gaining them a lot of followers.

Let's have a check for understanding.

So on one video-sharing platform, Reform UK's number of followers was, A, much higher than other political parties, B, much lower than other political parties, or C, roughly similar to other political parties.

And it was A, much higher than other political parties.

So Alex is saying, "I don't follow Reform UK on social media.

What kind of videos did they post?" So if you want to, pause and discuss this yourselves.

So social media posts often featured Nigel Farage, the leader of the party, taking part in popular online trends.

So things that lots of people were doing on social media, we know that that was engaging for young people and lots of young people were following it.

They were getting involved with these trends.

So for example, this included lip-syncing to hip-hop songs, which, going by the engagement figures, were proving really popular with young followers.

So lots of young followers were following, were engaging, were liking these sorts of posts.

And Reform UK party candidates also created videos that addressed issues that were priority for many young voters, such as things like affordable housing and job opportunities.

So Alex is saying, "Okay, that sounds like a really positive idea." And engaging young voters is important.

In a democracy, you would hope for a high turnout, and that means the number of people turning out to vote amongst all age groups, including younger people.

However, some of the ways in which Reform UK used social media were seen as controversial.

And this was due to three main areas.

So simplification, misinformation and disinformation, and also cultural criticism.

So Reform UK often posts simplified messages to engage younger audiences.

So the party created videos that summarised really complex and emotive and quite challenging policies, such as immigration policies, into 15-second clips.

And these short videos received high engagement with young voters, which is fantastic.

You know, high engagement is really good, but some people were also concerned that 'cause they were so short and snappy, the videos were trivialising and oversimplifying serious political topics because in 15 seconds, it's impossible to really get to the roots of a particular policy.

The videos also had specific statements in it that some thought were quite controversial.

So for example, one of the videos stated, "If you want mass immigration, vote Conservative," without actually really going into detail and exploring the immigration topic from both sides of the argument.

And this could suggest that young voters were being influenced more by simplified information and answers rather than informed debate.

And some Reform UK social media posts were criticised for spreading misinformation and disinformation that was unverified, misleading, and potentially divisive.

So one viral video suggested that the immigration policies of other parties would "open the floodgates" to uncontrolled migration.

This statement was deemed as misleading by fact-checking organisations and of not providing the true picture of the different political parties' immigration policies.

Although some videos were reported by fact-checking groups, it was still viewed by thousands of people before any corrections were made.

And Reform UK's strategy of engaging with social media trends was met by cultural criticism by some people as well.

And that's mainly because the online persona that was shown in the viral videos was very different from the public persona that was being shown by politicians during news interviews or live debates, which was more traditional in its nature.

And this led to some people viewing Nigel Farage's social media posts as inauthentic, so that was some people's opinion.

However, other people viewed Reform UK's tactics as a fantastic way to engage younger voters in politics and for using media sources which they were familiar with so that political information was accessible.

So let's have a check for understanding.

I'd like you to match the concern regarding Reform UK's digital content to its description.

So we've got simplified messages, misinformation and disinformation, and we've got cultural criticism.

And then for the descriptions, we've got online personas did not always match in-person personas, which some felt was inauthentic.

We've got videos lacked detail about complex political issues.

And we've got some videos contained statements that were not verified and were disputed by fact-checking organisations.

Let's see if you got those correct.

So, simplified messages, videos lacked detail about complex political issues.

Misinformation and disinformation, some videos contained statements that were not verified and were disputed by fact-checking organisations, which means that cultural criticism was online personas did not always match in-person personas, which some felt was inauthentic.

For task B, I'd like you to consider how Reform UK used social media during the UK 2024 general election.

I want you to describe Reform UK's strategy, including one specific example, explain one reason why some people were concerned with their strategy, and explain one reason why some people applauded their strategy, so thought their strategy was good.

So pause while you have a go at this task.

So your consideration of how Reform UK used social media during the UK 2024 general election could have included, Reform UK's strategy was to use short, snappy online videos to engage with young voters in a way that was familiar to them.

They used the videos to appeal to young people and come across as approachable and relatable candidates.

For example, by taking part in social media trends, such as lip-syncing to hip-hop songs.

And your answer could have also continued on to say, some people were concerned with Reform UK's strategy as they felt the short videos, which were often only 15 seconds, oversimplified complex topics, such as immigration.

There was also a concern that the videos used language which was misleading, and this was found to be the case by some fact-checking groups.

Some people applauded Reform UK's strategy as they felt the party were using modern and familiar ways to communicate with young voters and ensure that they were accessing and engaging with political information in the run-up to the general election.

We're now going to move on to the final part of the lesson outline, which is looking at what power and influence can influencers have? So Alex is asking, "What do we mean by the term influencer?" So pause and have a go at defining this yourself.

So anyone that can change the behaviour of others is an influencer.

And in this context, in the context of this lesson today, we're talking about a person with the ability to influence voting behaviours by promoting or recommending certain political parties or candidates to their many followers on social media.

So ultimately, an influencer is someone that has lots and lots of followers on social media, and therefore potentially they've got the power to be influential.

In the run-up to a general election, many celebrities and influencers publicly support different politicians and different political parties, and this has the potential to influence people to vote a certain way.

An example of this was in the run-up to the 2019 general election when the famous British rapper Stormzy publicly endorsed the Labour Party and the then-leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Stormzy posted videos on his social media platforms stating that he would be voting Labour in the election.

He also posted that then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson had "a long record of lying and policies that have absolutely no regard for the people that our government should be committed to helping and empowering." And according to a report in "The Times" newspaper, 366,000 people registered to vote on that day, with approximately 150,000 of those registrations coming from individuals under the age of 25.

So it could be that Stormzy's very public postings on social media about politics in general, about the fact that he was voting, could have had a real, clear influence.

Another example is the reality star Georgia Toffolo, who has appeared in "Made in Chelsea" on Channel 4, "Celebs Go Dating" on Channel 4, and she also won "I'm a Celebrity.

Get Me Out of Here!" which is an ITV programme, in 2017.

And Georgia has spoken publicly about being a member of the Conservative Party since she was 18.

And she even formed a close friendship with Boris Johnson's father and former Conservative Party member Stanley Johnson while in the jungle for "I'm a Celebrity.

Get Me Out of Here!" Georgia has also spoken publicly on social media about wanting to make politics more accessible for young people.

And she said in an interview with Business Insider, "I hate that politics is associated with middle-aged, greying men." So another example there of an influencer, someone that's got celebrity status, talking about politics and being open about her political beliefs herself.

So Lucas is saying, "In what ways are power and influence that influencers have a positive thing for free and fair elections?" So pause and have a think about this yourself.

So it can be a positive thing due to an increase in voter engagement, raised awareness of political issues, and increased public debate.

So in terms of increased voter engagement, influencers and celebrities often have millions of online followers.

So when a person with this level of reach posts about politics, this will reach a high number of citizens, many of which will be young voters.

And this can encourage people to engage in politics.

This is evidenced by the increase in voter registration following Stormzy's political posts.

In terms of raising awareness of political issues, it's important that citizens are aware of political issues, as how the different political parties aim to address these issues can be a really crucial decider in how a person decides to vote in an election.

If influencers engage with these issues, awareness is increased.

And we saw this.

This was evidenced with footballer Marcus Rashford's free school meals campaign, which when he was posting about this a lot as an influencer, as a famous person, it did actually successfully lead to a government policy change.

And increased public debate.

This increase in awareness and engagement can open up debate between citizens, as more people are aware of political issues.

And followers can also engage with social media posts by liking, sharing, and commenting, so it really does increase that public debate.

So Lucas is saying, "It all sounds great! Anything that engages citizens in politics is a positive thing, isn't it?" And Alex is saying, "It can also be negative due to reducing informed decision-making, the potential for misinformation, and financial motivations." So let's have a check for understanding.

Which is not a potential advantage of influencers posting about politics? Is it A, increased public debate, B, financial motivations, C, increased voter engagement, or D, increased awareness of political issues? And it's B, financial motivations is not a potential advantage.

So let's look at these in more detail.

So reducing informed decision-making.

So followers may follow influencers' opinions without researching policies or considering their own views.

And this could mean that the most popular influencers are instantly believed due to their popularity, but not necessarily due to their knowledge.

If you think about it, many influencers actually make money from persuading people to buy certain products.

That's literally how many, many influencers make their money.

So therefore, they are really skilled within this area, so there is the risk there that people might just read what they're posting or watch what they're posting and just instantly believe that as fact without doing their own research.

There's also the potential for misinformation.

Influencers are free to post what they like on their social media accounts.

This information's not regulated, it's not verified, and it could be incorrect.

And this could lead to people basing their political behaviour, so literally who they're choosing to vote for, on misinformation, and the spreading of incorrect information as well.

So that can be potentially a really negative thing to happen in a democracy, in particular, in the lead up to an election.

There could also potentially be, for some influencers, financial motivations.

So people might also argue that some influencers could be posting about politics to remain relevant because it's what people are talking about, or they want to go viral or they want to spark controversy because all of this will lead to more followers.

And ultimately, the more followers, the more of an increase in financial benefit if you're an influencer.

Or they might post in a way that aligns with what their followers want rather than posting what they truly believe.

So it's that understanding that actually, if you're an influencer, you make a lot of your money, potentially, by the number of people that follow you on social media, and that could impact what you post and why.

So let's have a check for understanding.

Which is not a potential disadvantage of influencers posting about politics? Is it A, financial motivations, B, reducing informed decision-making, C, potential for misinformation, or D, increased public debate? And it's D, increased public debate is not a potential disadvantage; that's an advantage.

So for task C, I would like you to read through the text and use your knowledge from this lesson to find the missing words.

I'm going to read through this text, and I'm going to raise my hand every time there's a space just to help you along.

So influencers can increase voter engagement, particularly among people, encouraging them to participate in the democratic process.

They also help raise of issues by communicating topics in engaging ways.

Also, their high-profile endorsements can encourage public.

However, influencers may unintentionally reduce decision-making as their followers might fail to research the issue themselves.

There is also the risk of, especially if influencers share unverified claims or oversimplify issues.

Also, motivations can raise ethical concerns.

So there's quite a lot of writing there to go through, so pause while you have a go at working out the missing words.

So let's have a look again.

Influencers can increase voter engagement, particularly among young people, encouraging them to participate in the democratic process.

They also help raise awareness of issues by communicating complex topics in engaging ways.

Also, their high-profile endorsements can encourage public debate.

However, influencers may unintentionally reduce informed decision-making, as their followers might fail to research the issues themselves.

There is also the risk of misinformation, especially if influencers share unverified claims or oversimplify issues.

Also, financial motivations can raise ethical concerns.

So hopefully you got those words correct.

So in summary of the lesson "Is digital media causing the end of free and fair elections?" Free and fair elections are a key part of democracy.

They allow people to vote for their representatives without fear, manipulation, or interference, ensuring that everyone's voice can be heard equally.

Digital media had an impact on voting beliefs and behaviour during the UK 2024 election.

It shaped public opinion, amplified political messages, and provided a platform for debate between candidates and citizens with differing views.

Influencers can increase voter engagement, raise awareness of political issues, and encourage public debate.

However, they can also reduce informed decision-making, spread misinformation, and raise concerns about financial motivations behind endorsements.

That brings us to the end of this lesson.

I hope you enjoyed this lesson and that you'll be back for more Citizenship learning in the future.

Thank you so much for listening.