Social:Political communication

From HandWiki
Revision as of 13:09, 5 February 2024 by WikiEditor (talk | contribs) (fixing)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Short description: Subfield of communication and political science
President George W. Bush during his speech on immigration in Glynco, Georgia.

Political communication is a subfield of communication and political science that is concerned with how information spreads and influences politics, policy makers, the news media, and citizens.[1] Political Communication is an international journal, published quarterly, that features cutting-edge theory-driven empirical research at the intersection of politics and communication. Since the advent of the World Wide Web, the amount of data to analyze has exploded and researchers are shifting to computational methods to study the dynamics of political communication. In recent years, machine learning, natural language processing, and network analysis have become key tools in the subfield. It deals with the production, dissemination, procession and effects of information, both through mass media and interpersonally, within a political context. This includes the study of the media, the analysis of speeches by politicians, those that are trying to influence the political process, and the formal and informal conversations among members of the public, among other aspects. The media acts as a bridge between government and public. Political communication can be defined as the connection concerning politics and citizens and the interaction modes that connect these groups to each other. Whether the relationship is formed by the modes of persuasion, Pathos, Ethos or Logos.[2]

Defining the term

The study and practice of communication focuses on the ways and means of expression of a political nature. Robert E. Denton and Gary C. Woodward, two important contributors to the field of Political Communication in America, characterize it as the ways and intentions of message senders to influence the political environment. This includes public discussion (e.g. political speeches, news media coverage, and ordinary citizens' talk) that considers who has authority to sanction the allocation of public resources, who has authority to make decisions, as well as social meaning like what makes someone American. In their words, "the crucial factor that makes communication 'political' is not the source of a message, but its content and purpose." David L. Swanson and Dan Nimmo, also key members of this sub-discipline, define political communication as "the strategic use of communication to influence public knowledge, beliefs, and action on political matters." They emphasize the strategic nature of political communication, highlighting the role of persuasion in political discourse. Brian McNair provides a similar definition when he writes that political communication is "purposeful communication about politics." For McNair, this means that this not only covers verbal or written statements, but also visual representations such as dress attire, make-up, hairstyle or logo design. In other words, it also includes all those aspects that develop a "political identity" or "image". According to Harald Borgebund, the author of Political Communication and the Realities of Democracy, "Political communication is essential in a democratic polity."

Reflecting on the relationship between political communication and contemporary agenda-building, Vian Bakir defines Strategic Political Communication (SPC) as comprising 'political communication that is manipulative in intent, utilizes social scientific techniques and heuristic devices to understand human motivation, human behavior and the media environment in order to inform effectively what should be communicated – encompassing its detail and overall direction – and what should be withheld, with the aim of taking into account and influencing public opinion, and creating strategic alliances and an enabling environment for government policies – both at home and abroad'.[3]

To further expand on why political communication can be viewed as manipulative, Michael Gurevitch and Jay G. Blumber, contributors of Political Communication Systems and Democratic Values stated that "the very structure of political communication involves a division between movers and shakers at the top and bystanders below." However, one way that contemporary media has tried to combat the imbalances of political communication is through the creation of public access television. According to a study done, Access Television and Grassroots Political Communication in the United States, by Dr. Laura Stein "public access has opened up a space for grassroots political communication on television" this is because public access communication has allowed for an open space in a variety of fields of communication no matter the speakers ideological view points.

There are many academic departments and schools around the world that specialize in political communication. These programs are housed in programs of communication, journalism and political science, among others. The study of political communication is clearly interdisciplinary.[citation needed]

Contemporary examples of strategic political communication

Strategic communication "which is defined as the purposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfill its mission."[4]

In this case, the organization (political leaders) use campaigns as their form of communicating and advocacy in order to obtain support from their countries people whether it is for ethical reasons or not. The examples below will demonstrate how strategic communication has been used in history.

In the United States

The Bush Administration's torture-for-intelligence policy, initiated soon after 9/11, was kept secret for several years, as remains the level of complicity of many other nation-states' governments. While this secret policy was gradually revealed from 2004 onwards, initiated by the Abu Ghraib torture photos, the Bush administration engaged in SPC to publicly reframe and protect its secret policy. SPC included silencing and persuasive discursive activity.[5]

  • Discursive activity aimed at generating silences comprised plea bargains that silenced detainees, censoring Guantánamo detainees’ descriptions of their own torture in pre–trial hearings, deals with journalists to censor or withhold information that affected national security, weeding out personal sousveillance of torture online, suppression of visual sousveillance of torture while courts–martial and criminal investigations proceeded; destruction of videotapes of CIA interrogations; and withholding key information from intelligence oversight committees. These position those in the know as part of an elite force policing the public sphere to keep the wider public and their representatives ignorant of unpalatable but necessary official practices, relegating the likely emotional and/or moral public dissent towards such practices as unaffordable niceties.[2]
  • Persuasive discursive activity included the propagation and repetition of a few key messages consistently over time, with the aim of misdirecting public attention from the silence–generating activities. Key Bush Administration messages were that detainees were evil, dangerous terrorists; that the practice of extraordinary rendition was normal and pragmatic; that interrogation techniques, although harsh, were legal (apart from isolated acts of abuse), necessary and successful in preventing future acts of terror; and that Guantánamo was a model prison. Key British Administration messages were of initial ministerial ignorance (until 2004) of American intelligence agencies’ new interrogation strategies, after which intelligence agencies’ guidelines were tightened; and of no direct involvement of British intelligence agencies in extraordinary rendition. Key messages common to both British and American Administrations were that the Abu Ghraib sousveillance and similar visual evidence involving British soldiers were examples of isolated abuse rather than a torture policy from which lessons had been learned regarding Army training and interrogation guidance (new Army guidelines on interrogation were produced under the Bush and Blair Administrations). These key messages were propagated through a range of discursive activity (including press conferences and media interviews, authorized leaks, real–time reporting, official investigations and public inquiries) and were periodically bolstered by selective public release of once–secret documents. The consistency of key messages over time, together with the offering up of specific evidence, gives the appearance of official disclosure and truth–telling, positioning the public as a force to which political administrations willingly hold themselves accountable. However, the strategic generation of key messages and selectivity of supporting information presented across all these discursive modes means that full accountability is avoided, while the public is potentially fooled into thinking that justice has been served, all–the–while being constant targets of manipulation.[citation needed]

In the United Nations

The United Nations is another example of how important and the high impact strategical political communication has on the organization and on the world. With today's complex international landscape, diverse political views and agendas can easily promote unwanted tension within people, political parties, and in this case, world peace. The United Peace Operations (UNPOs) play a crucial role in maintaining peace with peacekeeping being one of the most effective tools available to the UN in order to assist host countries navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace.[6]

  • Peace operations are more than likely to stay as one of the key aspects for continued world peace and seems to be an indelible feature of the international system in the future. whether it be for missions led by men, women, the police force, military or even civilians, all will need to understand that:[7]
  1. Strategic communication is a vital component to successful UN strategies,
  2. how communication has changed over the course of time in regard to how the audience interprets information,
  3. UN leadership is in charge to oversee and monitor this as a form of command responsibilities[7]
  • According to Jake Sherman and Albert Trithart, “United Nations peace operations often struggle to communicate their messages to the local population and the broader global community.”35 It argued, therefore, that “the outdated public information approach of the United Nations must be transformed into more dynamic communications efforts.” This required missions to better understand key audiences, make better use of national staff, embrace technology, train leaders in effective communication, proactively engage with local populations, and tailor both the message and means of communication to particular audiences."[8]

In the Middle East

In the Middle East, there appears to be a disconnect between political officials and the citizens of the nation. The idea of clear political communication and how information spreads to the masses could be seen as flawed and are rippled by the effects of the Arab Spring. In the Middle East, “even those supported by a U.S. administration, are at best visionary and without any real practical use”.[9] As explained by Hussein Amin from the American University of Cairo, “because many people view censorship as a sign of social responsibility, civil society has a deep distrust of itself.  While admitting that political communication in the mass media has diversified and developed some more liberal patterns in recent years”.[9] In general, “Mass media have long been linked to the historical development and emergence of national identities and the modern nation-state by creating bounded spaces of political communication and discourse".[10]

Many forms of spreading information like radio, social media, and television have become heavily popularized in the Middle East, while also being ridiculed. In cases of on-going war like Syria and Palestine, the majority of media formats are censored towards the Middle East in order to avoid further catastrophization of an event, possibly by the West. For example, in Syria, “the rebel Free Syrian Army'' was created as an opposition to Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship.[11] Citizens let the government know where they are lacking, the elected officials of the governments are required to reflect and adapt citizens' needs and rights.

In Latin America

Latin America's political communication over the last decades has evolved through the mediatization of politics, which refers to the process by which the political environment has moved to the media. Within the region, one of the most common ways for media to reach the region is through the entertainment industry, especially telenovelas, which are one of the most popular genre of television shows that usually address political topics in their stories. Latin America as a region shares the increase in mediatization of politics due to its common history and, in some cases, cultural similarities. Each nation within the region poses its own challenges when it comes to how successful the use of media is in achieving its political goals.[12]  Political communication studies in Latin America continue to experience a lack of theory, concept, and methodology of investigation.[13]

In Africa

Political communication in Africa in recent years has been mostly appreciated through the interactions with in social media. However, more than the increased of social media it is also possible to see the rise of fake news, social media shutdowns, and censorship of criticism from political activist.[14]

Political Persuasion

Political communication has long been understood through the role of political persuasion and its presence in political appearances in the media. Political figures have long understood the role of the media in gaining the acceptance of voters.[15] For example, political communication deliver through social media tends to be accompanied with social interaction and public opinion.[16]

Logos, Ethos, and Pathos are the part of the three pillars of public speaking:[17]

  • Logos refers to the ability of the speaker to provide a logical argument that the audience can believe in.
  • Ethos relates to the credibility of the speaker.
  • Pathos is about the emotional connection the speaker can create with the audience through the tone of their speech.[18]

Fields and areas of study

The field of political communication is focused on 4 main areas[citation needed]:

  • Election campaigns - Political communications involved in campaigning for elections.
  • Government operations - This role is usually fulfilled by a Ministry of Communications, Information Technology or similar political entity. Such an entity is in charge of maintaining communication legislation and would be responsible for setting telecommunications policy and regulations as well as issuing broadcasting licenses, comments press releases, etc...
  • Media content - The interaction between politics, media content and the public.
  • Communication processes - How people communicate about politics.[2]

According to James Chesebro, there are five critical approaches to contemporary Political communications:[19]

  1. Machiavellian - i.e. power relationships
  2. Iconic - symbols are important
  3. Ritualistic - Redundant and superficial nature of political acts - manipulation of symbols.
  4. Confirmation - political aspects looked at as people we endorse
  5. Dramatistic - politics is symbolically constructed. (Kenneth Burke)[19]

Role of social media

Main page: Social:Social media use in politics

Social media has become one of the greater tools for political communication as it is one of the main platforms from which individuals acquired there news content, as well as it allows them to interact with news through comments and shares.[20] It has dramatically changed the way in which modern political campaigns are run.[21][22] With more digital native citizens coming into the voting population, social media have become important platforms on which politicians establish themselves and engage with the voters.[23] In the digital age, evidence across the world has showcased the increasing importance of social media in electoral politics.[24]

Taking Australia as an example below: 86% of Australians access the Internet, and with a 17,048,864 voting age population,[25] around 14,662,023 voting population has access to Internet, and 65% of them use social media, which means 9,530,314 Australian voters use social media. (The 2013 Yellow™ Social Media Report found that among internet users 65% of Australians use social media, up from 62% last year).[26]

With almost half of Australian voting population active on social media, political parties are adapting quickly to influence and connect with their voters.[27] Studies have found that journalists in Australia widely use social media in a professional context and that it has become a viable method of communication between the mainstream media and wider audiences.[28]

Social media experience relies heavily on the user themselves due to the platforms' algorithms which tailor consumer experience for each user. This results in each person seeing more like-minded news due to the increase in digital social behavior. Additionally, social media has changed politics because it has given politicians a direct medium to give their constituents information and the people to speak directly to the politicians. This informal nature can lead to informational mistakes because it is not being subjected to the same "fact-checking processes as institutional journalism."[29]

Social media creates greater opportunity for political persuasion due to the high number of citizens that regularly engage and build followings on social media. The more that a person engages on social media, the more influential they believe themselves to be, resulting in more people considering themselves to be politically persuasive.[30]

See also

References

  1. ↑ "Archived copy". https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/Political%20Communications%20encyclopedia2.pdf. 
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Sutanto, Haryo; Purbaningrum, Dwi (2022-12-29). "Representation of Power and Ideology on Jokowi's Speech" (in en). WACANA: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Komunikasi 21 (2): 238–251. doi:10.32509/wacana.v21i2.2143. ISSN 2598-7402. https://journal.moestopo.ac.id/index.php/wacana/article/view/2143. 
  3. ↑ Bakir, V. (2013). Torture, Intelligence and Sousveillance in the War on Terror: Agenda–Building Struggles. Farnham: Ashgate. pp. 3. ISBN 9781472402554. 
  4. ↑ Hallahan, Kirk (2007). "Defining Strategic". International Journal of Strategic Communication 1: 3–35. doi:10.1080/15531180701285244. 
  5. ↑ Bakir, V. Torture, Intelligence and Sousveillance in the War on Terror: Agenda–Building Struggles. Farnham: Ashgate (2013)
  6. ↑ "What is peacekeeping" (in en). https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/what-is-peacekeeping. 
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Birnback, N. (2019). Under the Blue Flag: Leadership and Strategic Communications in UN Peace Operations (policy brief 2019:4). https://www.challengesforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Policy-Brief-2019-4-Leadership-and-Strategic-Communications-in-UN-Peace-Operations.pdf
  8. ↑ Ibid., paras. 307–308. Technology was also emphasized in the 2014 final report of the Expert Panel on Technology and Innovation in UN Peacekeeping: “A more modern approach to strategic communications can enhance the mission's ability to deliver across its mandate. In addition, social media, crowdsourcing, big data and traditional public media sources must also be incorporated into the mix, and peacekeeping should maximize its use of open source information and analysis tools.” United Nations, “Performance Peacekeeping: Final Report of the Expert Panel on Technology and Innovation in UN Peacekeeping,” 2015. See also: Ingrid A. Lehmann, “Still Caught in the Crossfire? UN Peace Operations and Their Information Capacities,” in Communication and Peace, Julia Hoffmann and Virgil Hawkins, eds. (London: Routledge, 2015).
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Hafez, Kai (April 2002). "Guest Editor's Introduction: Mediated Political Communication in the Middle East" (in en). Political Communication 19 (2): 121–124. doi:10.1080/10584600252907399. ISSN 1058-4609. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584600252907399. 
  10. ↑ Nisbet, Erik C.; Myers, Teresa A. (2010-10-29). "Challenging the State: Transnational TV and Political Identity in the Middle East" (in en). Political Communication 27 (4): 347–366. doi:10.1080/10584609.2010.516801. ISSN 1058-4609. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2010.516801. 
  11. ↑ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON DC (2000-09-15). The Army Public Affairs Program. Fort Belvoir, VA. doi:10.21236/ada407635. http://dx.doi.org/10.21236/ada407635. 
  12. ↑ Waisbord, Silvio (2012), The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication, London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 437–449, doi:10.4135/9781446201015, ISBN 9781847874399, https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_politicalcomm/n35.xml, retrieved 2023-05-09 
  13. ↑ Bolaño, César; Mastrini, Guillermo; Sierra, Francisco (2004-01-01). "A Latin American Perspective For The Political Economy of Communications". Javnost - the Public 11 (3): 47–58. doi:10.1080/13183222.2004.11008859. ISSN 1318-3222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2004.11008859. 
  14. ↑ Gore, Christopher D. (2023-01-02). "The politics of the internet and social media in Africa: three bases of knowledge for advancing research". Canadian Journal of African Studies 57 (1): 201–217. doi:10.1080/00083968.2022.2058038. ISSN 0008-3968. https://doi.org/10.1080/00083968.2022.2058038. 
  15. ↑ Perloff, Richard M. (2012), The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice (2 ed.), Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc., pp. 258–277, doi:10.4135/9781452218410, ISBN 9781412983136, https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_persuasion2ed/n16.xml, retrieved 2023-05-09 
  16. ↑ Gil de Zúñiga, Homero; Barnidge, Matthew; Diehl, Trevor (2018-11-15). "Political persuasion on social media: A moderated moderation model of political discussion disagreement and civil reasoning". The Information Society 34 (5): 302–315. doi:10.1080/01972243.2018.1497743. ISSN 0197-2243. 
  17. ↑ Mshvenieradze, Tamar (2013). "Logos Ethos and Pathos in Political Discourse". Theory and Practice in Language Studies 3 (11): 1939–1945. doi:10.4304/tpls.3.11.1939-1945. http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol03/11/01.pdf. 
  18. ↑ Demirdöğen, Ülkü D (2010). "The Roots of Research in (political) Persuasion: Ethos, Pathos, Logos and the Yale Studies of Persuasive Communications". International Journal of Social Inquiry 3 (1): 189–201. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/164133. 
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Chesebro, J. W. (1974, February 28). ERIC - ED089379 - Theoretical Approaches to Political Communication. 1974-Mar. https://Eric.Ed.Gov/?Id=ED089379. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED089379
  20. ↑ Park, Chang Sup (2019-05-27). "Learning Politics From Social Media: Interconnection of Social Media Use for Political News and Political Issue and Process Knowledge". Communication Studies 70 (3): 253–276. doi:10.1080/10510974.2019.1581627. ISSN 1051-0974. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2019.1581627. 
  21. ↑ Foster, Steven (2010). Political communication. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-3114-8. OCLC 650304204. https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/650304204. 
  22. ↑ Enli, Gunn (2017). "Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election". European Journal of Communication 32 (1): 50–61. doi:10.1177/0267323116682802. 
  23. ↑ Kreiss, Daniel (2016). "Seizing the moment: The presidential campaigns' use of Twitter during the 2012 electoral cycle". New Media & Society 18 (8): 1473–1490. doi:10.1177/1461444814562445. 
  24. ↑ Wei, Ran; Xu, Larry Zhiming (2019). "New Media and Politics: A Synopsis of Theories, Issues, and Research". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.104. ISBN 9780190228613. 
  25. ↑ "Voter turnout data for Australia (Parliamentary) | Voter Turnout | International IDEA". http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=AU. 
  26. ↑ "Political Campaign and Social Media". Political Marketing. http://www.politicalmktg.net. 
  27. ↑ "Benefits of Social Media for Business | the Social Savior". 28 November 2015. http://www.thesocialsavior.com/benefits-of-social-media-for-business/. 
  28. ↑ Cision (2012). Journalists Views and Usage of Social Media. http://mb.cision.com/Public/329/9316712/8978ed4b0993062c.pdf
  29. ↑ Graber, Doris A.; Dunaway, Johanna (2017-07-20) (in en). Mass Media and American Politics. CQ Press. ISBN 9781506340227. https://books.google.com/books?id=d2NCDgAAQBAJ&q=political+communication+in+media+society&pg=PP1. 
  30. ↑ Weeks, Brian E.; Ardèvol-Abreu, Alberto; Gil de Zúñiga, Homero (2015-12-31). "Online Influence? Social Media Use, Opinion Leadership, and Political Persuasion" (in en). International Journal of Public Opinion Research 29 (2): edv050. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edv050. ISSN 0954-2892. https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/29/2/214/2981869#88132648. 

External links



Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Social:Political_communication&oldid=3302375"