Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The domination of mass media is exemplified by candidates’ camps attempting to gain media exposure as a top priority of their campaign strategies; however, the popularity of social media has gradually changed this trend. This article used the 2012 Taiwan presidential election to examine the relationship between social media and mass media. By interviewing campaign staffers, journalists, and scholars, this article developed the concept of the candidate’s frame to distinguish from the media frame and employed frame contest to view the interplay. The findings demonstrate that candidates attempted to view their Facebook pages as the headwaters of mass media and intermediation can be broadened under this situation.

Keywords

Election campaign Facebook frame contest social media Taiwan

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

McCorkindale

(2013) Dialogue and transparency: a content analysis of how the 2012 presidential candidates used twitter. Public Relations Review 39: 357–359.

Aparaschivei

(2011) The use of new media in electoral campaigns: analysis on the use of Blogs, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the 2009 Romanian presidential campaign. Journal of Media Research 4: 39–60.

Babbie

(2004) The Practice of Social Research. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Ben-Porath

(2005) Framing the candidates: the role of questions in political debates. Annual Meeting of International Communication Association. New York: International Communication Association, pp. 1–31.

Berg

(2001) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Pearson Education Company.

Bimber

Davis

(2003) Campaigning Online: The Internet in the U.S. Elections. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Borah

(2011) Conceptual issues in framing theory: a systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication 61: 246–263.

boyd

Ellison

(2008) Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13: 210–230.

Broersma

Graham

(2011) Social media as beat. Journalism Practice 6: 403–419.

10.

Brundidge

Rice

(2009) Political engagement online: do the information rich get richer and the like-minded more similar? In: Chadwick

Howard

(eds) Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 144–156.

11.

Carragee

Roefs

(2004) The neglect of power in recent framing research. Journal of Communication 54: 214–233.

12.

Chircu

Kauffman

(1999) Strategies for Internet middlemen in the intermediation/disintermediation/reintermediation cycle. Electronic Markets 9: 109–117.

13.

Compton

(2008) Mixing friends with politics: a functional analysis of '08 presidential candidates social networking profiles. Conference Papers – National Communication Association: 1.

14.

Dahlberg

(2007) The Internet, deliberative democracy, and power: radicalizing the public sphere. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics 3: 47–64.

15.

Dahlgren

(2001) The public sphere and the net: structure, space, and communication. In: Bennett

Entman

(eds) Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future od Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35–55.

16.

De Vreese

Peter

Semetko

(2001) Framing politics at the launch of the Euro: a cross-national comparative study of frames in the news. Political Communication 18: 107–122.

17.

Dustin

Tremayne

(2007) Programmed by the people: the intersection of political communication and the YouTube generation. The Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association. San Francisco.

18.

Entman

(1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43: 51–58.

19.

Entman

Rojecki

(1993) Freezing out the public: elite and media framing of the U.S. anti-nuclear movement. Political Communication 10: 155–173.

20.

Erikson

(2008) ‘Hillary is my friend’: myspace and political fandom. Rocky Mountain Communication Review 5: 3–16.

21.

Facebook.com (2012) Available at: https://www.facebook.com/#!/MaYingjeou; https://www.facebook.com/#!/tsaiingwen (accessed 12 January 2012).

22.

Finlayson

(2005) Habermas: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

23.

Franch

(2013) (Wisdom of the Crowds)2: 2010 UK election prediction with social media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 10: 57–71.

24.

Gamson

(1992) Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

25.

Goffman

(1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

26.

GoogleTrends (2012) Available at: http://trends.google.com/websites?q=facebook.com&geo=TW&date=all&sort=0 (accessed 25 February 2012).

27.

Gunaratne

(2006) Public sphere and communicative rationality: interrogating Habermas’s eurocentrism. Journalism & Communication Monographs 8: 93–156.

28.

Haas

Deetz

(2000) Between generalized and the concrete other: apparoaching organizational ethics from feminist perspectives. In: Buzzanell

(ed) Rethinking Organisational and Managerial Communication from Feminist Perspectives. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc, pp. 24–46.

29.

Habermas

(1984) The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press.

30.

Hanson

Haridakis

Cunningham

. (2010) The 2008 presidential campaign: political cynicism in the age of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. Mass Communication and Society 13: 584–607.

31.

Hess

Walter

(2006) Toward content intermediation: shedding new light on the media sector. The International Journal on Media Management 8: 2–8.

32.

Himelboim

Lariscy

Tinkham

. (2012) Social media and online political communication: the role of interpersonal informational trust and openness. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56: 92–115.

33.

Holbert

Benoit

(2009) A theory of political campaign media connectedness. Communication Monographs 76: 303–332.

34.

Holt

Shehata

Strömbäck

. (2013) Age and the effects of news media attention and social media use on political interest and participation: do social media function as leveller? European Journal of Communication 28: 19–34.

35.

Huntington

(1991) The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

36.

Jensen

(2002) The qualitative research process In: Jensen

(ed) A Handbook of Media and Communication Research Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies. London: Routledge, pp. 235–254.

37.

Kaid

(2004) Political advertising. In: Kaid

(ed) Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 155–203.

38.

Kim

(2008) Theorizing dialogic deliberation: everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue. Communication Theory 18: 51–70.

39.

Klinger

(2013) Mastering the art of social media. Information, Communication & Society 16: 717–736.

40.

Klotz

(2007) Internet campaigning for grassroots and astroturf support. Social Science Computer Review 25: 3–12.

41.

Langsdorf

(2000) The real conditions for the possibility of communicative action. In: Hahn

(ed) Perspectives on Habermas. Peru, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, pp. 21–50.

42.

Luther

Xiang

(2005) Within the boundaries of politics: news framing of SARS in China and the United States. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 82: 857–872.

43.

Macnamara

(2011) Pre and post-election 2010 online: what happened to the conversation? Communication, Politics & Culture 44: 18–36.

44.

Macnamara

Kenning

(2011) E-electioneering 2010: trends in social media use in Australian political communication. Media International Australia 139: 7–22.

45.

Maras

(2000) The Rhetoric of Interactivity. Australian Screen Education 23: 36–44.

46.

Meyer

(1995) Framing national security: elite public discourse on nuclear weapons during the cold war. Political Communication 12: 173–192.

47.

Nelson

Clawson

Oxley

(1997) Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. The American Political Science Review 91: 567–583.

48.

Pan

Kosicki

(1993) Framing analysis: an approach to news discourse. Political Communication 10: 55–75.

49.

Plot

(2009) Communicative action’s democratic deficit: a critique of Habermas’s contribution to democratic theory. International Journal of Communication 3: 825–852.

50.

Reporters Without Borders (2014) World Press Freedom Index 2014. Available at: http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php (accessed 26 June 2014).

51.

Rhee

(1997) Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: a social cognitive account of framing effects. Journal of Communication 47: 26–48.

52.

Robertson

Vatrapu

Medina

(2009) The social life of social networks: Facebook linkage patterns in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Social Networks: Making Connections between Citizens, Data and Government

53.

Sarkar

Butler

Steinfield

(1995) Intermediaries and cybermediaries: Sarkar, Butler and Steinfield. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 1: 0.

54.

Scheufele

(1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 49: 103–122.

55.

Schutt

(2004) Investigating The Social World: The Process and Practice of Research. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

56.

Skovsgaard

Van Dalen

(2013) Dodging the gatekeepers? Information, Communication & Society 16: 737–756.

57.

Stake

(2010) Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work. New York: The Guilford Press.

58.

Sweetser

Lariscy

(2008) Candidates make good friends: an analysis of candidates’ uses of Facebook. International Journal of Strategic Communication 2: 175–198.

59.

Takens

van Atteveldt

van Hoof

. (2013) Media logic in election campaign coverage. European Journal of Communication 28: 277–293.

60.

Tankard

(2001) The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In: Reese

Gandy

Grant

(eds) Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 95–106.

61.

Tewksbury

Jones

Peske

. (2000) The interaction of news and advocate frames: manipulating audience perceptions of a local public policy issue. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 77: 804–829.

62.

Valenzuela

Park

Kee

(2008) Lessons from Facebook: the effect of social network sites on college students' social capital. The 9th International Symposium on Online Journalism. Austin, Texas.

63.

Valkenburg

Senetko

De Vreese

(1999) The effects of news frames on readers' thoughts and recall. Communication Research 26: 550–569.

64.

Van Gorp

(2007) The constructionist approach to framing: bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication 57: 60–78.

65.

Vitak

Smock

Zube

. (2009) “Poking” people to participate: Facebook and political participation in the 2008 election. International Communication Association. 1–41.

66.

Wicks

Souley

(2003) Going negative: candidate usage of Internet web sites during the 2000 presidential campaign. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 80: 128–144.

67.

Wiklund

(2005) A Habermasian analysis of the deliberative democratic potential of ICT-enabled services in Swedish municipalities. New Media & Society 7: 247–270.

68.

Williams

Gulati

GJJ

(2012) Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the congressional elections of 2006 and 2008. New Media & Society 15: 52–71.

69.

Woolley

Limperos

Oliver

(2010) The 2008 presidential election, 2.0: a content analysis of user-generated political Facebook groups. Mass Communication and Society 13: 631–652.

70.

(2009) Facebook politics: an exploratory study of American youth’s political engagement during the 2008 presidential election. International Communication Association. 1–23.

71.

Zillmann

Chen

Knobloch

. (2004) Effects of lead framing on selective exposure to Internet news reports. Communication Research 31: 58–81.

Convergence in election campaigns

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References