Public Perception of Social Media as a Platform for Political Campaigns: An Analysis in the Digital Era
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37899/mjdpp.v1i3.102Keywords:
Social Media, Political Campaigns, Targeted Advertising, Public PerceptionAbstract
In this research, the hypothesis is explored using the perception of people about social media as a campaign system with regard to the efficiency and moral consequences of the targeted advertising. By applying the qualitative methods, the study examines the user reaction towards emotive political advertisements and the effects of emotive political advertisements on political system trust. The results indicate that although targeted advertising serves as an effective way to make the voters interested in the immediate future, it frequently results in long-term disengagement and distrust. The respondents also raised serious concerns regarding any breach of privacy and the control of emotions appeals pointing out that there should be more regulation and transparency in political advertising. The study is relevant to the existing literature because it gives insights into the emotional and ethical aspects of digital political campaigning, the need to encourage actual political participation in the digital age.
References
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of economic perspectives, 31(2), 211-236.
Bakir, V., & McStay, A. (2018). Fake news and the economy of emotions: Problems, causes, solutions. Digital journalism, 6(2), 154-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1345645
Baldwin-Philippi, J. (2015). Using technology, building democracy: Digital campaigning and the construction of citizenship. Oxford University Press.
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, communication & society, 15(5), 739-768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
Bode, L. (2016). Political news in the news feed: Learning politics from social media. Mass communication and society, 19(1), 24-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1045149
Borgesius, F. J. Z., Möller, J., Kruikemeier, S., Fathaigh, R. Ó., Irion, K., Dobber, T., ... & De Vreese, C. (2018). Online political microtargeting: Promises and threats for democracy. Utrecht Law Review, 14(1), 82-96.
Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 388-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00130.x
Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P. N. (2018). Challenging truth and trust: A global inventory of organized social media manipulation. The computational propaganda project, 1, 1-26.
Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P. N. (2018). The global organization of social media disinformation campaigns. Journal of International Affairs, 71(1.5), 23-32.
Chadwick, G. (2013). A systems view of planning: towards a theory of the urban and regional planning process. Elsevier.
Dean, D., & Croft, R. (2001). Friends and relations: long‐term approaches to political campaigning. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1197-1217. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006482
Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2017). Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication: PERSONALIZED CAMPAIGNS IN PARTY-CENTRED POLITICS Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication. In Social Media and Election Campaigns (pp. 131-133). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315680439
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of consumer research, 21(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1086/209380
Ghosh, B., Krishna, M. C., Rao, S., Kozarević, E., & Pandey, R. K. (2018). Predictability and herding of bourse volatility: An econophysics analogue. Investment Management & Financial Innovations, 15(2), 317.
Gorwa, R. (2019). What is platform governance?. Information, communication & society, 22(6), 854-871. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573914
Guess, A. M., Lerner, M., Lyons, B., Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Sircar, N. (2020). A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(27), 15536-15545. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920498117
Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Weber, C. (2007). The political consequences of perceived threat and felt insecurity. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 614(1), 131-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207305951
Isaak, J., & Hanna, M. J. (2018). User data privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and privacy protection. Computer, 51(8), 56-59. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2018.3191268
Kalsnes, B. (2016). The social media paradox explained: Comparing political parties’ Facebook strategy versus practice. Social Media+ Society, 2(2), 2056305116644616. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116644616
Karpf, D. (2016). Analytic activism: Digital listening and the new political strategy. Oxford University Press.
Kim, J. (2018). Philosophy of mind. Routledge.
Kreiss, D. (2016). Seizing the moment: The presidential campaigns’ use of Twitter during the 2012 electoral cycle. New media & society, 18(8), 1473-1490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814562445
Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2018). Technology firms shape political communication: The work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with campaigns during the 2016 US presidential cycle. Political Communication, 35(2), 155-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1364814
Kruikemeier, S. (2014). How political candidates use Twitter and the impact on votes. Computers in human behavior, 34, 131-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.025
Lilleker, D. G., & Jackson, N. A. (2010). Towards a more participatory style of election campaigning: The impact of Web 2.0 on the UK 2010 general election. Policy & internet, 2(3), 69-98. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1064
Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 301-315. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669312
Nielsen, C. (2012). Animal evolution: interrelationships of the living phyla. Oxford University Press.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. penguin UK.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. penguin UK.
Theocharis, Y., Barberá, P., Fazekas, Z., & Popa, S. A. (2020). The dynamics of political incivility on twitter. Sage Open, 10(2), 2158244020919447. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020919447
Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barberá, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., ... & Nyhan, B. (2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. Political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature (March 19, 2018).
Valentino, N. A., Brader, T., Groenendyk, E. W., Gregorowicz, K., & Hutchings, V. L. (2011). Election night’s alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation. The journal of politics, 73(1), 156-170.
Waisbord, S. (2018). Truth is what happens to news: On journalism, fake news, and post-truth. Journalism studies, 19(13), 1866-1878. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1492881
Zimmer, A. (2010). Urban political ecology: Theoretical concepts, challenges, and suggested future directions. Erdkunde, 343-354.
Zuboff, S. (2019, January). Surveillance capitalism and the challenge of collective action. In New labor forum (Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 10-29). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1095796018819461
Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., Möller, J., Kruikemeier, S., Ó Fathaigh, R., Irion, K., Dobber, T., ... & de Vreese, C. H. (2018). Online political microtargeting: Promises and threats for democracy. Utrecht Law Review, 14(1), 82-96
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Moccasin Journal De Public Perspective
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This journal provides direct open access to it's content on the principle that research is freely available to the public supporting a greater global exchange of knowledge. All articles published by Open Access will soon and forever be free for everyone to read and download. The license options defined for this journal are Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA)
