TV wins it - for now?

The statistics would appear to say it all. TV has beaten not just social media but the whole of the internet by three knockout blows to nil to win the title of 'most influential source of information' on the Election for voters.

With 8 million watching the third and final showdown between the party leaders, compared to just 33,000 people Tweeting during that crucial 90 minutes, it's more like Mike Tyson against my granny than a fair fight.

And research conducted in the first weeks of the campaign into the overall media habits of the British electorate seems to suggest that old media's pre-eminence has been bolstered rather than undermined by the rise of new media.

Media analysis firm Echo Research has published the result of a poll that puts TV at the top of the list of 'most trusted' sources during the Election. A total of 47% of respondents named TV as their most reliable source of information - next most reliable was word of mouth (15%), then family and friends (12%).

Perhaps worryingly for them, newspapers and radio - the other two bastions of old media - came in after that at 10% and 9% respectively

The web scored only 8%, while social media tied with 'the pub' as the least reliable source - named by just 1%.

Interestingly, even though people don't appear to consider social media reliable, it doesn't stop them referring to it: the same poll suggested a fifth of respondents would still use it during the election campaign as a source of information. TV again came out top for usage - with 85%; a long way ahead of newspapers (60%), radio (54%) and the web (48%).

And voters are also reporting an increased use of the web - by almost half for Lib Dem supporters. It's a sharper increase than in any other platform. Lib Dem and Tory supporters both reported the increase in their use of online sources outstripped the increase in their use of newspapers, TV and radio. It was only Labour supporters who said they increased their use of TV more than the web to find out about the Election.

The larger parties have been unashamed in their digital and social media strategy - transferring old media tactics into the new media environment with the simple aim of owning the turf.

Although Echo also argues that social media shows a better reflection of voter concerns than mainstream media (see graphic below), the parties have shown limited interest in openly engaging with the electorate in these spaces.

Rather than trying to persuade or even argue their case with voters as they might on a real doorstep, the parties have largely chosen to remain in megaphone mode, just as if they were in a TV studio. The online spin operation after the leaders' debates, or even after #bigotgate, has underlined the reluctance of the parties to engage in open dialogue.

The parties are doing this because they recognise the role that social media is playing as an auxiliary to mainstream media in this campaign. They know how effectively they can use it to reach and influence both the debate and key opinion formers.

Winning the battle of the blogs is therefore an important part of winning the argument and the keys to Downing Street. Genuine engagement with voters through social networks is a secondary priority.

It's a strategy that runs counter to the conclusions of two Hansard Society reports published earlier this year that found voters were fed up with "passive, broadcast-only relationships with their MPs". Instead, they "want to communicate and to engage, to track and to contribute to the democratic debate" and the tools they want MPs to use are "those that engage them directly with the people".

Regardless of what has happened during the campaign, the events of 6 May and the days that follow will mean that, because of the way the parties have been using social media to get their message across, it will continue to play an important role. 

But whether this leaves the voter better off, better informed or better engaged in the longer term is anyone's guess.

Matthew Eltringham Tweets as mattsays