Social media are said to be a core driver of populists’ current success. Yet, our knowledge of how populist politicians use social media is limited. We argue that they can use Twitter and Facebook, politically the most important platforms, as a “double-barreled gun,” each serving a different target. Based on the architecture of the platforms and the populist ideology, we expect that Twitter is used to name and shame journalists publicly, Facebook to activate anger among citizens. Both types of use are examined by studying the Members of Parliament (MPs) of Austria, The Netherlands, and Sweden. We collected 9852 tweets for the 475 MPs on Twitter and 10,355 Facebook posts from the 287 MPs with a Facebook Page. Using negative binomial regression and content analyses, we find that populists seem eager to activate anger. They are not more likely to @-mention media accounts, but “shame” them roughly three times more often.
AlbertazziDMcDonnellD (2005) The Lega Nord in the second Berlusconi government: in a league of its own. West European Politics28(5): 952–972.
2.
BodlosAPlesciaC (2018) The 2017 Austrian snap election: a shift rightward. West European Politics41(6): 1354–1363.
3.
BolinN (2016) Green parties in Finland and Sweden: successful cases of the North? In: Van HauteE (ed.) Green Parties in Europe. Milton, ON, Canada: Routledge.
4.
BondRFarissCJonesJ, et al. (2012) A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature489(7415): 295–302.
5.
BossettaM (2018) The digital architectures of social media: comparing political campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 US Election. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly95(2): 471–496.
6.
BoydDEllisonNB (2007) Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13(1): 210–230.
7.
BraderT (2005) Striking a responsive chord: how political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science49(2): 388–405.
8.
BronsteinJ (2013) Like me! Analyzing the 2012 presidential candidates’ Facebook pages. Online Information Review37(2): 173–192.
9.
BrüggemannMEngesserSBucheiF, et al. (2014) Hallin and Mancini revisited: Four empirical types of western media systems. Journal of Communication64(6): 1037–1065.
10.
BuzogányAScherhauferP (2018) Austrian Greens: from pyrrhic presidential victory to parliamentary exit. Environmental Politics27(3): 566–571.
11.
ChadwickA (2013) The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
De VreeseCEsserFAalbergT, et al. (2018) Populism as an expression of political communication content and style: a new perspective. The International Journal of Press/politics23(4): 423–438.
13.
DolezalM (2015) Online campaigning by Austrian political candidates: determinants of using personal websites, Facebook, and Twitter. Policy & Internet7(1): 103–119.
14.
EberlJMTolochkoPGreussingE, et al. (2017a) Emotional reactions on Austrian parties’ Facebook pages during the 2017 Austrian Parliamentary Election. Computational communication science lab report, University of Vienna, Vienna, October.
EngesserSErnstNEsserF, et al. (2017a) Populism and social media: how politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information, Communication & Society20(8): 1109–1126.
17.
EngesserSFawziNLarssonA (2017b) Populist online communication: introduction to the special issue. Information, Communication & Society20: 1279–1292.
18.
ErnstNEngesserSBüchelF, et al. (2017) Extreme parties and populism: an analysis of Facebook and Twitter across six countries. Information, Communication & Society20(9): 1347–1364.
19.
FarajSAzadB (2012) The materiality of technology: an affordance perspective. In: LeonardiPMNardiBKallinikosJ (eds) Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 237–258.
20.
GibsonRMcAllisterI (2015) Normalising or equalising party competition? Assessing the impact of the web on election campaigning. Political Studies63(3): 529–547.
21.
GroshekJKoc-MichalskaK (2017) Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign. Information, Communication & Society20(9): 1389–1407.
22.
HallinDManciniP (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HawkinsKKaltwasserCAndreadisI (2018) The activation of populist attitudes. Government and Opposition 55(2): 283–307. DOI: 10.1017/gov.2018.23.
24.
HeissRSchmuckDMatthesJ (2018) What drives interaction in political actors’ Facebook posts? Profile and content predictors of user engagement and political actors’ reactions. Information, Communication & Society22: 1497–1513.
25.
InglehartRNorrisP (2017) Trump and the populist authoritarian parties: the silent revolution in reverse. Perspectives on Politics15(2): 443–454.
JacobsKSpieringsN (2016) Social Media, Parties, and Political Inequalities. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
28.
JacobsKSpieringsN (2018) A populist paradise? Examining populists’ Twitter adoption and use. Information, Communication & Society22: 1681–1696.
29.
JungherrA (2016) Twitter use in election campaigns: a systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics13(1): 72–91.
30.
KatzensteinS (2013) Reverse-rhetorical entrapment: naming and shaming as a two-way street. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law46: 1079–1099.
31.
KrämerB (2017) Populist online practices: the function of the Internet in right-wing populism. Information, Communication & Society20(9): 1293–1309.
32.
LarssonA (2015) Pandering, protesting, engaging. Norwegian party leaders on Facebook during the 2013 “Short campaign.”Information, Communication & Society18(4): 459–473.
33.
MajchrzakAFarajSKaneGC, et al. (2013) The contradictory influence of social media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication19(1): 38–55.
34.
MuddeC (2004) The populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition39(4): 541–563.
35.
MuddeC (2016) Europe’s populist surge: a long time in the making. Foreign Affairs95: 25–30.
36.
MuddeCKaltwasserC (2017) Populism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
37.
RicoGGuinjoanMAnduizaE (2017) The emotional underpinnings of populism: how anger and fear affect populist attitudes. Swiss Political Science Review23(4): 444–461.
38.
RooduijnM (2018) What unites the voter bases of populist parties? Comparing the electorates of 15 populist parties. European Political Science Review10(3): 351–368.
39.
SpieringsNJacobsK (2018) Political parties and social media campaigning. Acta Politica54: 145–173.
40.
SpieringsNJacobsKLindersN (2018) Keeping an eye on the people: who has access to MPs on Twitter?Social Science Computer Review37: 160–177.
41.
StanyerJSalgadoSStröbäckJ (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.
42.
StrandbergK (2008) Online electoral competition in different settings: a comparative meta-analysis of the research on party websites and online electoral competition. Party Politics14(2): 223–244.
TrombleR (2018a) Thanks for (actually) responding! How citizen demand shapes politicians’ interactive practices on Twitter. New Media & Society20(2): 676–697.
45.
TrombleR (2018b) The great leveler? comparing citizen —politician Twitter engagement across three Western democracies. European Political Science17: 223–239.
46.
Van KesselSCasteleinR (2016) Shifting the blame. Populist politicians’ use of Twitter as a tool of opposition. Journal of Contemporary European Research12(2): 594–614.
Wahl-JorgensenK (2018) Media coverage of shifting emotional regimes: Donald Trump’s angry populism. Media, Culture & Society40(5): 766–778.
49.
WaisbordSAmadoA (2017) Populist communication by digital means: presidential Twitter in Latin America. Information, Communication & Society20(9): 1330–1346.
50.
WellsCShahDPevehouseJ, et al. (2016) How Trump drove coverage to the nomination: hybrid media campaigning. Political Communication33(4): 669–676.
51.
ZulianelloMAlbertiniACeccobelliD (2018) A populist Zeitgeist? The communication strategies of Western and Latin American political leaders on Facebook. The International Journal of Press/Politics23(4): 439–457.
