Advertisement

An Intermedia Understanding of the Networked Twitter Ecology

The 2012 Local Elections in Belgium
  • Evelien D’heerEmail author
  • Pieter Verdegem
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 13)

Abstract

The chapter will focus on the use of Twitter during the 2012 local elections in Belgium. Via a multi-method approach we aim to understand how the Twitter debate links up to mainstream media outlets and how political actors, media actors and citizens interact in this decentralized and interactive Twitter sphere. In doing so, we elaborate on the role of Twitter (as one of the most popular social media platforms) in the agenda setting and building processes between politicians, media and public opinion. Further, we discuss the role of social media, and Twitter in particular, in the rejuvenation of democracy.

Keywords

Media Actor Political Actor Agenda Setting Media Outlet Audiovisual Material 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  4. Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, wikipedia, second life and beyond. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  5. Bruns, A. (2012). How long is a tweet? Mapping dynamic conversation networks on Twitter using Gawk and Gephi. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 1323–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2011). #Ausvotes: How twitter covered the 2010 Australian federal election. Communication, Politics and Culture, 4, 37–56.Google Scholar
  7. Chaffee, S. H., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). The end of mass communication? Mass Communication and Society, 4, 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman, S. (2003). A tale of two hourses: The house of commons, the Big Brother house and the people at home. Parliamentary Affairs, 56, 733–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curran, J., Fenton, N., & Freedman, D. (2012). Misunderstanding the Internet. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Dearing, J. W., & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Deller, R. (2011). Twittering on: Audience research and participation using Twitter. Participations, 8, 216–245.Google Scholar
  12. Elmer, G. (2012). Live research: Twittering an election debate. New Media & Society, 15, 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Epping, L., De Smedt, J., Walgrave, S., et al. (2013) Gemeenteraadsverkiezingen 2012: Er werd vooral over de N-VA gesproken. Media-aandacht voor politici in de gemeenteraadsverkiezingsprogramma’s van 2012 op de VRT. Het Steunpunt Media.Google Scholar
  14. Fenton, N. (2012). The internet and social networking. In J. Curran, N. Fenton, & D. Freedman (Eds.), Misunderstanding the internet (pp. 123–148). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hermans, L., & Vergeer, M. (2012). Personalization in e-campaigning: A cross-national comparison of personalization strategies used on candidate websites of 17 countries in EP elections 2099. New Media & Society, 15, 72–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hermida, A. (2010). Twittering the News: the emergence of ambient journalism. Journalism Practice, 4, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Honeycutt, C. & Herring, S. C. (2009). Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. Forty-Second Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Larsson, A., & Moe, H. (2012). Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedisch election campaign. New Media & Society, 14, 729–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewis, S. C., Zamith, R., & Hermida, A. (2013). Content analysis in an era of big data: A hybrid approach to computational and munual methods. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57, 34–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. Meraz, S. (2011). Using time series analysis to measure intermedia agenda setting influence in traditional media and political blog networks. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 176–194.Google Scholar
  23. Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society, 11, 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Prior, M. (2006). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rosanvallon, P. (2008). Counter-democracy. Politics in an age of distrust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Singer, J. B. (2014). User-generated visibility: Secondary gatekeeping in a shared media space. New Media and Society, 16(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skovsgaard, M., & Van Dalen, A. (2013). Dodging the gatekeepers? Social media in the campaign mix during the 2011 Danish elections. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 737–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Aelst, P. (2008). De lokale verkiezingscampagne: tussen huisbezoek en televisiestudio. In J. Buelens, B. Rihoux, & K. Deschouwer (Eds.), Tussen Kiezer en hoofdkwartier. Brussel: VUBPRESS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Group for Media and ICT, Department of Communication SciencesiMinds–MICT—Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Research Group for Media and ICT, Department of Communication SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations