This article presents a longitudinal, structural study where party and citizen activity on Facebook is studied over a 10-year period, outlining the growing importance of audio-visual content for online campaigning purposes – as well as the rise of populist parties on the same platform. The study shows that an overall increased focus on video as a means of communication emerges as especially pertinent for native Facebook functionalities. This could have repercussions for how online political communication messages are fashioned – and also for the dependencies on platforms that are supposedly strengthened as parties make choices regarding where to invest their campaign resources. In terms of citizen engagement, the results indicate the dominance of populist parties, who have strengthened their positions on the studied platform. The dominance of populist actors will likely have repercussions for the algorithmic spread of political messages – as well as for the ways in which political messages are shaped.
Baldwin-PhilippiJ (2018) The technological performance of populism. New Media & Society21(2): 376–397.
4.
BeneM (2017) Sharing is caring! Investigating viral posts on politicians’ Facebook pages during the 2014 general election campaign in Hungary. Journal of Information Technology & Politics14(4): 387–402.
5.
BenoitKWatanabeKWangH, et al. (2018) quanteda: an R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data. Journal of Open Source Software3(30): 774.
6.
BlumlerJG (2016) The fourth age of political communication. Politiques de communication6(1): 19–30.
7.
BlumlerJGKavanaghD (1999) The third age of political communication: influences and features. Political Communication16(3): 209–230.
8.
BrüggerNLaursenD (2018) Historical studies of national web domains. In: BrüggerNMilliganI (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Web History. London: SAGE, pp. 413–427.
9.
BrunsA (2019) After the ‘APIcalypse’: social media platforms and their fight against critical scholarly research. Information, Communication & Society22(11): 1544–1566.
10.
BrunsABurgessJ (2012) Notes towards the scientific study of public communication on Twitter. In: TokarABeurskensMKeunekeS, et al. (eds) Science and the Internet. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press, pp. 159–169.
11.
BrunsAMoonB (2018) Social media in Australian Federal Elections: comparing the 2013 and 2016 campaigns. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly95(2): 425–448.
12.
BucherT (2012) Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society14(7): 1164–1180.
13.
BurgessJGreenJ (2018) Youtube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Cambridge: Polity.
14.
CarlsonTStrandbergK (2008) Riding the Web 2.0 Wave: candidates on YouTube in the 2007 Finnish National Elections. Journal of Information Technology & Politics5(2): 159–174.
15.
CeccobelliDQuarantaMValerianiA (2020) Citizens’ engagement with popularization and with populist actors on Facebook: a study on 52 leaders in 18 Western democracies. European Journal of Communication. Epub ahead of print 19March. DOI: 10.1177/0267323120909292.
16.
ChadwickA (2013) The Hybrid Media System – Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
ChadwickAStromer-GalleyJ (2016) Digital media, power, and democracy in parties and election campaigns. The International Journal of Press/Politics21(3): 283–293.
de VreeseCHEsserFAalbergT, 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.
20.
DimitrovaDVMatthesJ (2018) Social media in political campaigning around the world: theoretical and methodological challenges. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly95(2): 333–342.
21.
DriscollKWalkerS (2014) Working within a black box: transparency in the collection and production of big Twitter data. International Journal of Communication8: 1745–1764.
22.
DruckmanJNKiferMJParkinM (2007) The technological development of congressional candidate web sites. Social Science Computer Review25(4): 425–442.
23.
ElmerGLangloisGMcKelveyF (2012) The Permanent Campaign: New Media, New Politics. New York: Peter Lang.
24.
EngesserSErnstNEsserF, et al. (2017) Populism and social media: how politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information, Communication & Society20(8): 1109–1126.
25.
EngesserSFawziNLarssonAO (2017) Populist online communication: introduction to the special issue. Information, Communication & Society20: 1279–1292.
26.
EnliG (2017) Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. European Journal of Communication32(1): 50–61.
27.
ErnstNEngesserSBüchelF, et al. (2017) Extreme parties and populism: an analysis of Facebook and Twitter across six countries. Information, Communication & Society20(9): 1347–1364.
28.
FeltM (2016) Social media and the social sciences: how researchers employ Big Data analytics. Big Data & Society3(1): 1–15.
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.
31.
GibsonR (2004) Web campaigning from a global perspective. Asia-Pacific Review11(1): 95–126.
32.
GibsonR (2012) From Brochureware to ‘MyBo’: an overview of online elections and campaigning. Politics32(2): 77–84.
33.
GibsonRKLusoliWWardS (2008) Nationalizing and normalizing the local? A comparative analysis of online candidate campaigning in Australia and Britain. Journal of Information Technology & Politics4(4): 15–30.
34.
GulatiGJWilliamsCB (2013) Social media and campaign 2012: developments and trends for Facebook adoption. Social Science Computer Review31(5): 577–588.
35.
HalavaisA (2019) Overcoming terms of service: a proposal for ethical distributed research. Information, Communication & Society22(11): 1567–1581.
36.
HameleersMBosLde VreeseCH (2017) ‘They Did It’: the effects of emotionalized blame attribution in populist communication. Communication Research44(6): 870–900.
37.
HanuschFBrunsA (2016) Journalistic branding on Twitter. Digital Journalism5: 26–43.
38.
HayesRACarrCTWohnDY (2016) One click, many meanings: interpreting paralinguistic digital affordances in social media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media60(1): 171–187.
39.
HelsperEGerberMM (2012) The plausibility of cross-national comparisons of Internet use types. The Information Society28(2): 83–98.
40.
InglehartRNorrisP (2016) Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: economic have-nots and cultural backlash. HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, Harvard John F. Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA.
41.
JagersJWalgraveS (2007) Populism as political communication style: an empirical study of political parties’ discourse in Belgium. European Journal of Political Research46(3): 319–345.
42.
JenkinsHFordSGreenJ (2013) Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York: New York University Press.
43.
JungherrA (2015) Twitter use in election campaigns: a systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics13(1): 72–91.
44.
JungherrA (2016) Four functions of digital tools in election campaigns. The International Journal of Press/Politics21(3): 358–377.
45.
JungherrASchoenHJürgensP (2016) The mediation of politics through Twitter: an analysis of messages posted during the campaign for the German Federal Election 2013. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication21(1): 50–68.
KarpfD (2019) Two provocations for the study of digital politics in time. Journal of Information Technology & Politics17: 87–96.
48.
KingJL (1982) Local government use of information technology: the next decade. Public Administration Review42(1): 25–36.
49.
Koc-MichalskaKLillekerDGSmithA, et al. (2016) The normalization of online campaigning in the web.2.0 era. European Journal of Communication31(3): 331–350.
KreissD (2016) Prototype Politics: Technology-intensive Campaigning and the Data of Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
52.
KreissDMcGregorSC (2017) Technology firms shape political communication: the work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with campaigns during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Cycle. Political Communication35(2): 155–177.
53.
KreissDLawrenceRGMcGregorSC (2017) In their own words: political practitioner accounts of candidates, audiences, affordances, genres, and timing in strategic social media use. Political Communication35(1): 8–31.
54.
LampinenA (2015) Deceptively simple: unpacking the notion of ‘Sharing’. Social Media + Society. Epub ahead of print 11May. DOI: 10.1177/2056305115578135.
55.
LarssonAO (2013) ‘Rejected Bits of Program Code’: why notions of ‘Politics 2.0’ remain (Mostly) unfulfilled. Journal of Information Technology & Politics10(1): 72–85.
56.
LarssonAO (2017) Going viral? Comparing parties on social media during the 2014 Swedish election. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies23(2): 117–131.
LarssonAO (2019) Right-wingers on the rise online: insights from the 2018 Swedish elections. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 15November. DOI: 10.1177/1461444819887700.
59.
LauRR (1982) Negativity in political perception. Political Behavior4(4): 353–377.
60.
LillekerDGKoc-MichalskaKNegrineR, et al. (2017) Social media campaigning in Europe: mapping the terrain. Journal of Information Technology & Politics14(4): 293–298.
61.
LillekerDGKoc-MichalskaKSchweitzerEJ, et al. (2011) Informing, engaging, mobilizing or interacting: searching for a European model of web campaigning. European Journal of Communication26(3): 195–213.
62.
LingRS (2004) The Mobile Connection: The Cell Phone’s Impact on Society. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
63.
LisiM (2013) The professionalization of campaigns in recent democracies: The Portuguese case. European Journal of Communication28(3): 259–276.
64.
MaginMPodschuweitNHaßlerJ, et al. (2016) Campaigning in the fourth age of political communication. A multi-method study on the use of Facebook by German and Austrian parties in the 2013 national election campaigns. Information, Communication & Society20(11): 1698–1719.
65.
ManciniP (1999) New frontiers in political professionalism. Political Communication16(3): 231–245.
66.
MoffittB (2016) The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
67.
MoscaLVaccariCValerianiA (2015) 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, pp. 127–151.
68.
MuddeC (2004) The populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition39(4): 541–563.
69.
NaiA (2018) Fear and loathing in populist campaigns? Comparing the communication style of populists and non-populists in elections worldwide. Journal of Political Marketing. Epub ahead of print 28September. DOI: 10.1080/15377857.2018.1491439.
70.
NorrisP (2000) A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71.
OliverJERahnWM (2016) Rise of the Trumpenvolk: populism in the 2016 election. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science667(1): 189–206.
72.
PolkJRovnyJBakkerR, et al. (2017) Explaining the salience of anti-elitism and reducing political corruption for political parties in Europe with the 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey data. Research & Politics. Epub ahead of print 1January. DOI: 10.1177/2053168016686915.
73.
Porten-CheéPHasslerJJostP, et al. (2018) Popularity cues in online media: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Studies in Communication and Media7(2): 210–230.
74.
PuschmannC (2019) An end to the wild west of social media research: a response to Axel Bruns. Information, Communication & Society22(11): 1582–1589.
75.
QuandtT (2018) Dark participation. Media and Communication6(4): 36–48.
RiederB (2013) Studying Facebook via data extraction: the Netvizz application. In: Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference. Paris, France: ACM. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2464464.2464475
78.
RooduijnM (2019) State of the field: how to study populism and adjacent topics? A plea for both more and less focus. European Journal of Political Research58(1): 362–372.
79.
RooduijnMVan KesselSFroioC, et al. (2019) The PopuList: An Overview of Populist, Far Right, Far Left and Eurosceptic Parties in Europe. Available at: https://popu-list.org
80.
RussmannUSvenssonJ (2017) Introduction to visual communication in the age of social media: conceptual, theoretical and methodological challenges. Media and Communication. Epub ahead of print 21December. DOI: 10.17645/mac.v5i4.1263.
81.
SchweitzerEJ (2008) Innovation or normalization in E-Campaigning? A longitudinal content and structural analysis of German party websites in the 2002 and 2005 national elections. European Journal of Communication23(4): 449–470.
82.
StrömbäckJ (2007) Political marketing and professionalized campaigning. Journal of Political Marketing6(2–3): 49–67.
83.
TenscherJ (2013) First- and second-order campaigning: evidence from Germany. European Journal of Communication28(3): 241–258.
84.
TownerTLDulioDA (2011) An experiment of campaign effects during the YouTube election. New Media & Society13(4): 626–644.
85.
VaccariC (2008) Research note: Italian parties’ websites in the 2006 elections. European Journal of Communication23(1): 69–77.
86.
VaccariC (2012) From echo chamber to persuasive device? Rethinking the role of the Internet in campaigns. New Media & Society15(1): 109–127.
87.
van AtteveldtWPengT-Q (2018) When communication meets computation: opportunities, challenges, and pitfalls in computational communication science. Communication Methods and Measures12(2–3): 81–92.
VenetiAJacksonDLillekerDG (2019) Visual Political Communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
90.
VergeerMHermansL (2013) Campaigning on Twitter: microblogging and online social networking as campaign tools in the 2010 general elections in the Netherlands. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18(4): 399–419.
91.
WeylandK (2001) Clarifying a contested concept: populism in the study of Latin American politics. Comparative Politics34(1): 1–22.
92.
WijffelsJ (2019) udpipe: Tokenization, parts of speech tagging, lemmatization and dependency parsing with the ‘UDPipe’ ‘NLP’ toolkit. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/udpipe/.
WirthWKolbS (2004) Designs and methods of comparative political communication research. In: PfetschBEsserF (eds) Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–112.
95.
WodakR (2015) The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. London: SAGE.
96.
XenosMAMacafeeTPoleA (2015) Understanding variations in user response to social media campaigns: a study of Facebook posts in the 2010 US elections. New Media & Society19(6): 826–842.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
