Social media sites like Twitter and Facebook have been derided by onlookers as “big wastes of time,” but Massachusetts politicians are looking to harness the power of “tweets” and “status updates” to help them reach a special destination: elected office.

It is important to note that a politician using social media is not an entirely new concept. In the 2004 presidential election, America watched as blogs took over the political landscape, and, in 2008, candidates sparred on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

But the Massachusetts gubernatorial candidates are working differently in the run up to the November election. Instead of instructing campaign staff members to tweet from one account, volunteers and family members of Gov. Deval Patrick, Republican Charles Baker and independent Timothy Cahill are going solo, taking their individual messages to the Internet—with their campaign’s seal of approval.

Baker, along with his staff, has documented each stop on the “Had Enough?” bus tour, punctuating messages about taxes and Gov. Patrick with musings about Boston sports. For the Cahill campaign, each member of the Cahill family and campaign is part of “Tim’s Team,” writing about endorsements, sometimes while watching the FOX television show “GLEE.”

Robert Willington, web and political strategist for the Scott Brown for Senate campaign, said that Twitter’s ultimate purpose is to humanize the candidates. “Our number one mission is reality campaigning,” he said. “We’re showing what’s going on behind the scenes and getting to know the volunteers and activists.”

Local politicians and journalists discussed the pros and cons of social media Monday at “Social Distortion: Is Social Media Helping or Hurting Government and Politics?” a panel hosted by the public relations firm MS&L Boston. While panelists occasionally disagreed on the minutiae of the situation, they all agreed on one thing: social networking in politics is very, very important.

Sen. Benjamin Downing (D-Pittsfield) said that social networking’s biggest draw is in the numbers. “I always say, ‘Would you dismiss this number of people in another place?’” he said. “You’d go if it was the town parade or the biggest chicken dinner in history.”

The numbers, in turn, are agreeing with Downing: “microblogging” site Twitter draws over 20 million unique visitors per month, who “tweet,” or post 140-character messages, over 1 billion times per month, according to social media website Mashable.

On the social networking site Facebook, which draws users to post interesting or informative content to their profiles, connect with friends and family, and “like” popular people, places, or things, the numbers are even more striking. “There are some serious numbers,” said Willington.“If it was its own country, Facebook would be the fourth-largest country on the planet.”

For politicians using social media, however, those people are not merely a captive audience. “I try in Brookline to remember that it’s a two-way conversation,” said Jesse Mermell, a selectman from Brookline. “It’s easy to think that it’s one-way, just telling people about something you have to offer, but the people that post on your Facebook page really want to engage in a dialogue.”

With ease of communication comes difficulty, however.

For some, having many different people tweeting for one campaign can occasionally mean “too many cooks in the kitchen,” muddling the message. Or, as the Boston Herald noted, it can occasionally devolve into petty fighting (“Turning up the tweet,” May 25, 2010).

“You have so many different people controlling your message and trying to stay aligned,” said Makena Cahill, daughter of the treasurer and gubernatorial candidate, who tweets as part of “Tim’s Team.” “A lot of people out there might not be aligned with your overall message,” she said. “Meanwhile, the candidate has no idea what’s going on.”

Twitter’s promise of delivering many messages also makes it a great target for journalists. It’s a situation that, politicians say, can augment one’s successes but also amplify their failures. “The good, the bad, the ugly, it’s all on the record,” said David Guarino, vice president and director of public affairs at MS&L Boston, and the panel’s moderator.

One need not look far to find this: Rick Gorka, communications director for Baker, and Alec Loftus, his counterpart at Lt. Gov. Tim Murray’s campaign, made headlines after sparring on Twitter in April about whose candidate was more out-of-touch with the middle class. Since then, employees of all three campaigns have called out rivals, sometimes using “mentions” (which publicly directs a message at another person’s account) to converse with—or gripe at—their opponents.

Guarino said the incidences like the one between Gorka and Loftus show that the political landscape on Twitter is moving at a more frenetic pace. “Campaigns are much more willing to engage in a back and forth, and kind of name names than they would in their press releases and even quotes to reporters,” he said.

Guarino said he was unsure if off-color or combative “tweets” coming from a candidate’s staff will have staying power with the voting public, however. “I sort of have a hard time believing that real people are going to follow Charlie Baker’s driver,” he said. “They’re probably writing for the hyper-engaged politicos like reporters.”

Gaffes aside, however, Twitter and Facebook have become undeniably important to the campaign scene and to candidates. Cahill said that social media in politics is unavoidable. “It has become a barrier to entry,” she said. “You either have a presence or you’re behind the ball.”

Below are Twitter feeds for each of the three major gubernatorial campaigns.