Jump to content

Political communication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the academic journal, see Political Communication (journal).
Pericles- Greek politician

Political communication is the "production and impact of persuasive political messages, campaigns, and advertising, often concerning the mass media".[1] It is an interdisciplinary field that draws from communication, journalism and political science. Political communication is concerned with ideas such as: information flow, political influence, policy making, news, and the effect on citizens.[2] Since the advent of the World Wide Web, the amount of data to analyze has increased and researchers are shifting to computational methods to study the dynamics of political communication. A key theorised system within political communication in advanced economies is the concept of the propaganda having the capacity to be organically spread, via self selection systems in democratic capitalist countries via the propaganda model. In recent years, machine learning, natural language processing, and network analysis have also become key tools in the field. The field also includes: the study of the media, the analysis of speeches by politicians, those that are trying to influence the political process, and conversations among members of the public. Today many universities offer courses in political communication.[3]

History

[edit]

The ancient world

[edit]

Political communications origins are tied to the history of persuasion and propaganda. The roots of political communication can be traced back to ancient civilizations where rulers used symbols and monuments to communicate their power and authority to the masses. In ancient Greece, public speeches such as those delivered by Pericles in Athens, played a crucial role in shaping political discourse and rallying public support.[4]

During the era of the Roman Empire, political communication took on a much more sophisticated form with the use of propaganda, rhetoric, and public spectacles in order to try and influence public opinion.[5] Figures such as Cicero mastered the art of persuasion through their speeches and writing.

The printing press and the modern era

[edit]

The creation of mass media in the 20th century transformed political communication, giving rise to new forms of propaganda, advertising, and public relations.[6] Political leaders such as Winston Churchill and Franklin. D. Roosevelt utilized radio broadcasts to reach millions of listeners during times of crisis and war.

Spin doctors

[edit]

During the 1990s and the early 2000s (off the back of many incredibly successful campaigns by corporate advertising companies) political spin started to come into mainstream usage. This started with the governments of Tony Blair in The United Kingdom and George W. Bush.[7] Alistair Campbell, a journalist turned Downing Street Press Secretary (who was referred to as a 'spin doctor' in the media,[8] whose job it was to deflect or 'spin' bad situations that showed the government in a 'bad light', via press briefings with the british media[9]), with Campbell becoming an influential and controversial addition to the political communication toolkit of Tony Blair's Labour government in the United Kingdom. This practice has now become standard in subsequent governments in Western countries like the United Kingdom[10] and the United States.

The digital age

[edit]

In the digital age, political communication has shifted to online platforms with social media playing a central role in shaping political discourse and mobilizing supporters. Barack Obama's presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012 are notable, as they helped innovate the use of social media to engage voters and raise funds.[11] Volodymyr Zelenskyy's 2019 Presidential Campaign also featured heavy usage of social media.[12]

Today, Political communication continues to evolve quickly, as new technologies such as AI and big data analytics have begun reshaping how campaigns can target and persuade voters. However, this has led to large concerns regarding misinformation, echo chambers, and online polarization, therefore presenting pressing challenges for the future of political communication.[13]

President George W. Bush during his speech on immigration in Glynco, Georgia.
Part of the Politics series
Politics
Primary topics
Political systems
Academic disciplines
Public administration
Policy
Government branches
Related topics
Subseries
icon Politics portal

Definitions

[edit]

The study and practice of political communication focuses on the ways and means of expression of a political nature. Robert E. Denton and Gary C. Woodward, via their work in Political Communication in America,[14] 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.

"...the crucial factor that makes communication 'political' is not the source of a message, but its content and purpose."[15]

David L. Swanson and Dan Nimmo define political communication as "the strategic use of communication to influence public knowledge, beliefs, and action on political matters."[16] 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."[17]

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'.[18]

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[19] 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"[20] 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.

Strategic communication

[edit]

Strategic communication is defined as "the purposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfill its mission."[21] In this case, the given agents (political leaders) use campaigns as a form of communication in order to obtain support from citizens.

The United States

[edit]
Main article: Social media and political communication 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.[22]

  • 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.[23]
  • 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]

The United Nations

[edit]

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.[24]

  • 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:[25]
  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[25]
  • 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."[26]

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”.[27] 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”.[27] 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".[28]

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.[29] 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.

Latin America

[edit]

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.[30]  Political communication studies in Latin America continue to experience a lack of theory, concept, and methodology of investigation.[31]

Africa

[edit]

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.[32]

Image of the collection of flags belonging to the United Nations

Political persuasion

[edit]

Political communication has long used political persuasion. Political figures have long understood the role of the media in gaining the acceptance of voters.[33] For example, political communication delivered through social media tends to be accompanied with social interaction and public opinion.[34] Logos, ethos, and pathos are three areas of political public speaking that have also been outlined as important and regularly occurring within such communication.[35]

The propaganda model

[edit]
Main article: Propaganda model

A core theoretical model in political communication during the modern era is the propaganda model.[36] In 1988 Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky theorised that the interests of elites within a globalized context was warping the journalistic integrity of the mass media and its attempts to communicate news. They suggest that the political consent of the electorate would also be damaged by this type of political communication in the mass media:

The more elusive or imaginary the foe, the better for manufacturing consent. The picture of the world that's presented to the public has only the remotest relation to reality.[37]

In terms of political communication, the propaganda model is generally used in the context of the globalized american corporate media and how it organically acts in the interests of corporate elites, in an anti-democratic way. Therefore Herman and Chomsky argue that the interests of the corporate elite (trying to profit maximise) are not often interested in the democratic rights of citizens and therefore create a new form of propaganda (via the mass media of privately owned news corporations), which has damaging effects on different democratic governments for example The United States Government.[38]

Fields and areas of study

[edit]

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

According to James Chesebro, there are five critical approaches to contemporary Political communications:[39]

  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 that are endorsed
  5. Dramatistic - politics is symbolically constructed. (Kenneth Burke)[39]

Role of social media

[edit]
Main article: Social media use in politics

Social media has become an increasingly important tool for political communication. For certain demographics it is one of the main platforms from which individuals acquire their news, and allows them to interact with it via commenting and sharing.[40] Social media has dramatically changed the way in which modern political campaigns are run.[41][42] With more digital native citizens coming into the voting population, social media has become an important medium where politicians can establish themselves and engage with voters.[43] In an increasingly digitized world, new research has shown that social media is becoming increasingly important in electoral politics.[44]

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. [45]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."[46]

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.[47]

Australia

[edit]

In Australia 86% of Australians access the Internet, and with a 17,048,864 voting age population,[48] around 14,662,023 voting population has access to Internet, and 65% of them use social media, with 9,530,314 Australian voters using social media. The 2013 Yellow™ Social Media Report also found that among internet users, 65% of Australians use social media, up from 62% in 2014.[49]

With almost half of the Australian voting population active on social media, political parties are adapting quickly to influence and connect with their voters.[50] 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.[51]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Chandler, D. (2011). A Dictionary of Media and Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199568758.
  2. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-10-09. Retrieved 2016-06-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  3. ^ Science, London School of Economics and Political. "MSc Politics and Communication". London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  4. ^ Jerry L. Miller & Raymie E. McKerrow (2010) History of Political Communication, Review of Communication, 10:1, 61-74, DOI: 10.1080/15358590903370233
  5. ^ Political communication - scholar commons. (n.d.). https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=comm
  6. ^ Cited examples required here.
  7. ^ Greenberg, David (September 24, 2006). "Spin Doctors". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 14, 2024.
  8. ^ Barrett, Patrick (2003-06-25). "Campbell lambasts BBC over Iraq 'lies'". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  9. ^ White, Michael (2000-03-15). "Inside story of a Campbell briefing". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  10. ^ "Gordon Brown's former spin doctor is set for a surprise return to frontline politics". The Independent. 2016-02-19. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  11. ^ Source/ linked example required.
  12. ^ Varshalomidze, Tamila (16 April 2019). "Ukraine media demands access to runoff frontrunner Zelensky". Al Jazeera.
  13. ^ Reinemann, C., & Reinemann, C. (2014). Political Communication / (C. Reinemann, Ed.). De Gruyter Mouton,. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238174
  14. ^ Reference for listed work needed.
  15. ^ Reference for quote needed.
  16. ^ Reference needed.
  17. ^ Reference needed.
  18. ^ Bakir, V. (2013). Torture, Intelligence and Sousveillance in the War on Terror: Agenda–Building Struggles. Farnham: Ashgate. p. 3. ISBN 9781472402554.
  19. ^ Reference needed.
  20. ^ Reference needed.
  21. ^ Hallahan, Kirk (2007). "Defining Strategic". International Journal of Strategic Communication. 1: 3–35. doi:10.1080/15531180701285244. S2CID 145081551.
  22. ^ Bakir, V. Torture, Intelligence and Sousveillance in the War on Terror: Agenda–Building Struggles. Farnham: Ashgate (2013)
  23. ^ a b Sutanto, Haryo; Purbaningrum, Dwi (2022-12-29). "Representation of Power and Ideology on Jokowi's Speech". WACANA: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Komunikasi. 21 (2): 238–251. doi:10.32509/wacana.v21i2.2143. ISSN 2598-7402. S2CID 255654982.
  24. ^ "What is peacekeeping". United Nations Peacekeeping. Retrieved 2021-12-10.
  25. ^ a b 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
  26. ^ 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).
  27. ^ a b Hafez, Kai (April 2002). "Guest Editor's Introduction: Mediated Political Communication in the Middle East". Political Communication. 19 (2): 121–124. doi:10.1080/10584600252907399. ISSN 1058-4609. S2CID 144202049.
  28. ^ Nisbet, Erik C.; Myers, Teresa A. (2010-10-29). "Challenging the State: Transnational TV and Political Identity in the Middle East". Political Communication. 27 (4): 347–366. doi:10.1080/10584609.2010.516801. ISSN 1058-4609. S2CID 5548665.
  29. ^ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON DC (2000-09-15). "The Army Public Affairs Program". Fort Belvoir, VA. doi:10.21236/ada407635. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  30. ^ Waisbord, Silvio (2012), The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication, London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 437–449, doi:10.4135/9781446201015, ISBN 9781847874399, retrieved 2023-05-09
  31. ^ 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. hdl:11441/25021. ISSN 1318-3222. S2CID 141306671.
  32. ^ 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. S2CID 249081339.
  33. ^ 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, retrieved 2023-05-09
  34. ^ 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. S2CID 59248808.
  35. ^ Mshvenieradze, Tamar (2013). "Logos Ethos and Pathos in Political Discourse" (PDF). Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 3 (11): 1939–1945. doi:10.4304/tpls.3.11.1939-1945.
  36. ^ Harcup, Tony (2014-09-18), "propaganda model", A Dictionary of Journalism, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acref/9780199646241.001.0001, ISBN 978-0-19-964624-1, retrieved 2024-04-14
  37. ^ S. Herman, Edward (and Chomsky, Noam) (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (3rd ed.). New York: New York Pantheon Books. ISBN 0-375-71449-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  38. ^ Herman, E.S., and Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (3rd ed.). New York: New York Pantheon Books. ISBN 0-375-71449-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  39. ^ a b Chesebro, J. W. (1974, February 28). Theoretical Approaches to Political Communication. 1974-Mar. ERIC ED089379
  40. ^ 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. S2CID 151230215.
  41. ^ Foster, Steven (2010). Political communication. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-3114-8. OCLC 650304204.
  42. ^ 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. hdl:10852/55266. S2CID 149265798.
  43. ^ 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. S2CID 206728421.
  44. ^ 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.
  45. ^ Freelon, D., & Wells, C. (2020). Disinformation as Political Communication. Political Communication, 37(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1723755
  46. ^ Graber, Doris A.; Dunaway, Johanna (2017-07-20). Mass Media and American Politics. CQ Press. ISBN 9781506340227.
  47. ^ Weeks, Brian E.; Ardèvol-Abreu, Alberto; Gil de Zúñiga, Homero (2015-12-31). "Online Influence? Social Media Use, Opinion Leadership, and Political Persuasion". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 29 (2): edv050. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edv050. ISSN 0954-2892.
  48. ^ "Voter turnout data for Australia (Parliamentary) | Voter Turnout | International IDEA". Archived from the original on 2016-03-06. Retrieved 2016-06-10.
  49. ^ "Political Campaign and Social Media". Political Marketing. Archived from the original on 2014-01-16. Retrieved 2014-01-16.
  50. ^ "Benefits of Social Media for Business | the Social Savior". 28 November 2015.
  51. ^ Cision (2012). Journalists Views and Usage of Social Media. http://mb.cision.com/Public/329/9316712/8978ed4b0993062c.pdf
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_communication&oldid=1229176305#Role_of_social_media"