By considering the Facebook activity of 52 party leaders during national election campaigns held in 18 Western democracies that went to the polls between 2013 and 2017, we study users’ engagement with popularization and with populist leaders. Applying negative binomial hierarchical models on original data of party leaders’ Facebook pages, we find that elements of popularization in leaders’ posts are associated with an increase in users’ acknowledgement (number of likes), decreases in redistribution (number of shares), while they do not affect discursive interactions (number of comments). Our research also shows that, irrespective of their content, messages published by populist leaders are more capable of increasing both acknowledgement and redistribution, while they do not generate more comments than those published by non-populists. Finally, we find that when populist leaders adopt popularization as a communicative style, they do not achieve any extra gain vis-a-vis non-populist actors.
AalbergTEsserFReinemannC, et al. (eds) (2017) Populist Political Communication in Europe. London: Routledge.
2.
AnspachNM (2017) The new personal influence: How our Facebook friends influence the news we read. Political Communication34(4): 590–606.
3.
BarrRR (2009) Populists, outsiders and anti-establishment politics. Party Politics15(1): 29–48.
4.
BaymNKboydd (2012) Socially mediated publicness: An introduction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media56(3): 320–329.
5.
BlockENegrineR (2017) The populist communication style: Toward a critical framework. International Journal of Communication11: 178–197.
6.
boyddGolderSLotanG (2010) Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. In: HICSS’10: Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Honolulu, HI, 5–8 January, pp. 1–10. New York: IEEE.
7.
BraccialeRMartellaA (2017) Define the populist political communication style: The case of Italian political leaders on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society20(9): 1310–1329.
8.
CampusD (2017) Marine Le Pen’s peopolisation: An asset for leadership image-building?French Politics15(2): 147–165.
9.
ChadwickA (2013) The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
De NooyWKleinnijenhuisJ (2013) Polarization in the media during an election campaign: A dynamic network model predicting support and attack among political actors. Political Communication30(1): 117–138.
11.
DenemarkDBowlerS (2002) Minor parties and protest votes in Australia and New Zealand: Locating populist politics. Electoral Studies21(1): 47–67.
12.
EngesserSFawziNLarssonAO (2017) Populist online communication: Introduction to the special issue. Information, Communication & Society20(9): 1279–1292.
13.
EnliGSSkogerbøE (2013) Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication. Information, Communication & Society16(5): 757–774.
14.
ErnstNEngesserSBüchelF, et al. (2017) Extreme parties and populism: An analysis of Facebook and Twitter across six countries. Information, Communication & Society20(9): 1347–1364.
15.
GansHJ (2009) Can popularization help the news media. In: ZelizerB (ed.) The Changing Faces of Journalism: Tabloidization, Technology and Truthiness. London: Routledge, pp. 17–28.
16.
GelmanAHillJ (2006) Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
GerbaudoP (2014) Populism 2.0: Social media activism, the generic internet user and interactive direct democracy. In: TrottierDFuchsC (eds) Social Media, Politics and the State: Protests, Revolutions, Riots, Crime and Policing in the Age of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. London: Routledge, pp. 67–87.
18.
GerodimosRJustinussenJ (2014) Obama’s 2012 Facebook campaign: Political communication in the age of the like button. Journal of Information Technology & Politics12(2): 113–132.
19.
GibsonRCantijochM (2013) Conceptualizing and measuring participation in the age of the internet: Is online political engagement really different to offline?The Journal of Politics75(3): 701–716.
20.
GilDeZúñigaHMolyneuxLZhengP (2014) Social media, political expression, and political participation: Panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication64(4): 612–634.
21.
HalupkaM (2014) Clicktivism: A systematic heuristic. Policy & Internet6(2): 115–132.
22.
HeissRSchmuckDMatthesJ (2018) What drives interaction in political actors’ Facebook posts? Profile and content predictors of user engagement and political actors’ reactions. Information, Communication & Society22(10): 1497–1513.
23.
JenkinsHFordSGreenJ (2013) Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York: NYU Press.
24.
KreissDMcGregorSC (2018) Technology firms shape political communication: The work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with campaigns during the 2016 US presidential cycle. Political Communication35(2): 155–177.
25.
LangerAI (2010) The politicization of private persona: Exceptional leaders or the new rule? The case of the United Kingdom and the Blair effect. The International Journal of Press/Politics15(1): 60–76.
26.
LarssonAO (2017) Going viral? Comparing parties on social media during the 2014 Swedish election. Convergence23(2): 117–131.
27.
LarssonAOKalsnesB (2014) ‘Of course we are on Facebook’: Use and non-use of social media among Swedish and Norwegian politicians. European Journal of Communication29(6): 653–667.
28.
LeeEJOhSYLeeJ, et al. (2018) Up close and personal on social media: When do politicians’ personal disclosures enhance vote intention?Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly95(2): 381–403.
29.
McAllisterI (2007) The personalization of politics. In: DaltonRJKlingemannH-D (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 571–588.
30.
McGregorSCLawrenceRGCardonaA (2017) Personalization, gender, and social media: Gubernatorial candidates’ social media strategies. Information, Communication & Society20(2): 264–283.
31.
ManciniP (2011) Between Commodification and Lifestyle Politics: Does Silvio Berlusconi Provide a New Model of Politics for the Twenty-First Century?Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford.
MarwickAboydd (2011) To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter. Convergence17(2): 139–158.
34.
MazzoleniG (2008) Populism and the media. In: AlbertazziDMcDonnellD (eds) Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 46–64.
35.
MoscaLVaccariCValerianiA (2016) An internet-fuelled party? The Movimento 5 Stelle and the web. In: TronconiF (ed.) Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement: Organisation, Communication and Ideology. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 127–151.
36.
MuddeC (2004) The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition39(4): 542–563.
37.
OliverJERahnWM (2016) Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 election. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences667(1): 189–206.
38.
PhillipsW. (2015), This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
39.
PriorM (2007) Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
RiederB (2013) Studying Facebook via data extraction: The Netvizz application. In: Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM web science conference, pp. 346–355. New York: ACM. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2464464.2464475.
41.
RoweI (2015) Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society18(2): 121–138.
42.
StanyerJ (2013) Intimate Politics: Publicity, Privacy and the Personal Lives of Politicians in Media Saturated Democracies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
43.
StanyerJSalgadoSStrömbäckJ (2017) Populist actors as communicators or political actors as populist communicators: Cross-national findings and perspectives. In: AalbergTEsserFReinemannC, et al. (eds) Populist Political Communication in Europe. New York: Routledge, pp. 353–364.
44.
StreetJ (2015) Popularization of politics. In: MazzoleniGBarnhursKGIkedaK, et al. (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 1–5.
45.
SuhBHongLPirolliP, et al. (2010) Want to be retweeted? Large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in twitter network. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE second international conference on social computing, Minneapolis, MN, 20–22 August, pp. 177–184. New York: IEEE.
46.
TheocharisY (2015) The conceptualization of digitally networked participation. Social Media + Society1(2): 1–14.
47.
VaccariCValerianiABarberáP, et al. (2013) Social media and political communication: A survey of Twitter users during the 2013 Italian general election. Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica43(3): 381–410.
48.
Van AelstPSheaferTStanyerJ (2012) The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism13(2): 203–220.
49.
Van Der BrugWMughanA (2007) Charisma, leader effects and support for right-wing populist parties. Party Politics13(1): 29–51.
50.
Van ZoonenL (2006) The personal, the political and the popular: A woman’s guide to celebrity politics. European Journal of Cultural Studies9(3): 287–301.
WirzDS (2018) Persuasion through emotion? An experimental test of the emotion-eliciting nature of populist communication. International Journal of Communication12: 1114–1138.
53.
WojcieszakMEMutzDC (2009) Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?Journal of Communication59(1): 40–56.
54.
WrightS (2012) From ‘third place’ to ‘third space’: Everyday political talk in non-political online spaces. Javnost – The Public19(3): 5–20.
