Conversations and Campaign Dynamics in a Hybrid Media Environment: Use of Twitter by Members of the German Bundestag

Abstract

This article examines how Members of the German Bundestag (MdBs) used Twitter in the context of the country's 2013 federal elections. In particular, we explore the dynamics in the MdBs' use of Twitter during different periods of the electoral term: How do the tweeting habits of MdBs differ by party before and during the election campaign in (a) public versus personal communication and (b) campaign versus policy messages? How are the selection of interaction partners, centralization on leading actors, and reciprocity of the MdBs' Twitter networks affected by election campaigning? We address these questions by conducting a content analysis combined with a network analysis of interaction patterns. The comparative application of both methods explains the differences of MdBs' networks. The comparison clearly exhibits election campaign-driven changes related to the amount of activity and the character of tweeted messages. During the campaign period, MdBs' tweets clearly discussed specific policies less than before. Tweeting about one's personal life occurred also less frequently in the final campaign stage. Instead, the MdBs mainly complement other forms of election campaigning through a vivid metacommunication on campaign developments. Network relations reflect these variations and were less often reciprocated in proximity to the election and showed a higher degree of group homophily. We also found a substantial representation of print and broadcast media actors in the examined @reply networks. It is likely that these interactions and conversations with journalists are part of an MdB's individual performance of "news management."

Politicians’ Self-Reported Social Media Activities and Perceptions: Results From Four Surveys Among German Parliamentarians

“…Empirical studies show that the majority of politicians have adopted social media within short time periods (e.g., Gibson & McAllister, 2015;Gulati & Williams, 2013). However, many politicians use social media only occasionally and less in an interactive way (e.g., Enli & Skogerbø, 2013;Nuernbergk & Conrad, 2016;Pontzen, 2013), with usage decreasing shortly after election campaigns (e.g., Enli & Skogerbø, 2013;Nuernbergk & Conrad, 2016). Furthermore, politicians adapt and use Facebook and Twitter in different ways (e.g., Enli & Skogerbø, 2013;Larsson & Kalsnes, 2014;Quinlan, Gummer, Roßmann, & Wolf, 2018).…”

From hybrid media system to hybrid-media politicians: Danish politicians and their cross-media presence in the 2015 national election campaign

“…From the perspective of political campaigning, these changes in the news media and political system have made Danish politics increasingly mediatised in recent decades (Ørsten, 2005;Hjarvard, 2008;Esmark & Blach-Ørsten, 2011;Skovsgaard & Van Dalen, 2013;Blach-Ørsten, 2016). Mediatised politics are largely driven by the media logic of the news media (Ørsten, 2005;Strömbäck 2008) and its adoption by politicians (Strömbäck & Van Alest, 2013;Esmark & Blach-Ørsten, 2011;Nuernbergk & Conrad, 2016). In the Danish context, news values such as conflict, identification and power figure prominently in the media logic (Skovsgaard & Van Dalen, 2013;Blach-Ørsten, 2016).…”

“…Based on this reasoning, this article is structured as follows. The next section presents the theoretical argument merging media-systems theory (Hallin & Mancini, 2004;Strömbäck, Ørsten & Aalberg, 2008) and hybrid-media theory (Chadwick, 2013;Moe & Larsson, 2013;Nuernbergk & Conrad, 2016). The discussion then moves to the particulars of the Danish electoral system and the study methodology of large-scale content analysis of both traditional news-media outlets and Twitter.…”

Ideological differences in engagement in public debate on Twitter

“…This approach is useful if one is solely interested in tweets that include a certain keyword, while full conversations in a reply thread between users are not accessible with the method. Aragón, Kappler, Kaltenbrunner, Laniado and Volkovich [ 41 ] and Nuernbergk and Conrad [ 43 ] employ a user-centered collection and construct a reply network, but only between politicians on Twitter and hence do not capture debate among a more general public. Since the data sets in the present contribution include the complete reply trees below each post of one of the seed users, it was possible to gain a more general perspective on public debate that did not only include certain elites.…”