The transnationalization of political issues has led to a greater need for multinational solutions and has increased the relevance of public diplomacy (PD). Although scholars have identified different approaches to digital PD, comparative research is lacking. This study addresses this gap by examining whether United States (US) embassies vary in their reliance on various PD instruments. Furthermore, it explores whether such variation aligns with contextual target audience variables, specifically different facets of political and cultural proximity. Based on a dataset that includes all Twitter accounts operated by US embassies over a year-long period (n = 176,372 posts), the results suggest that embassies vary in their use of PD instruments. Moreover, the prevalence of PD instruments and advocacy topics covary with some of the analyzed facets of political and cultural proximity. Consequentially, the study suggests that US embassies partially tailor their messages to the interests of target audiences.
BjolaCCassidyJAManorI (2020) Digital public diplomacy: business as usual or a paradigm shift? In: SnowNCullNJ (eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy. New York; London: Routledge, pp. 405–412.
2.
BürknerPC (2017) Brms: an R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software80(1): 1–28.
3.
BurscherBVliegenthartRDe VreeseCH (2015) Using supervised machine learning to code policy issues: Can classifiers generalize across contexts?The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science659(1): 122–131.
4.
CollinsSDDeWittJRLeFebvreRK (2019) Hashtag diplomacy: Twitter as a tool for engaging in public diplomacy and promoting US foreign policy. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy15: 78–96.
5.
CullNJ (2008) Public diplomacy: taxonomies and histories. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science616(1): 31–54.
6.
CullNJ (2013) The long road to public diplomacy 2.0: the Internet in US public diplomacy. International Studies Review15(1): 123–139.
De VriesESchoonveldeMSchumacherG (2018) No longer lost in translation: Evidence that Google Translate works for comparative bag-of-words text applications. Political Analysis26(4): 417–430.
9.
DoddMDCollinsSJ (2017) Public relations message strategies and public diplomacy 2.0: an empirical analysis using Central-Eastern European and Western Embassy Twitter accounts. Public Relations Review43(2): 417–425.
10.
EntmanRM (1991) Framing United States coverage of international news: contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran air incidents. Journal of Communication41(4): 6–27.
11.
EntmanRM (2008) Theorizing mediated public diplomacy: the US case. The International Journal of Press/Politics13(2): 87–102.
12.
GamsonW (1992) Talking Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
HuangZAWangR (2019) Building a network to “tell China stories well”: Chinese diplomatic communication strategies on Twitter. International Journal of Communication13: 2984–3007. Available at: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/11221
14.
JungblutM (2017) Between sealed borders and welcome culture: Analyzing mediated public diplomacy during the European migrant crisis. Journal of Communication Management21(4): 384–398.
15.
JungblutMJungblutJ (2024) Spreading information or engaging the public? The German police’s communication on Twitter. Public Management Review26(5): 1201–1222
16.
JungblutMKümpelASSteerR (2024) Social media use of the police in crisis situations: A mixed-method study on communication practices of the German police. New Media & Society26(8): 4647–4668.
17.
KampfRManorISegevE (2015) Digital diplomacy 2.0? A cross-national comparison of public engagement on Facebook and Twitter. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy10(4): 331–362.
18.
KnillC (2013) The study of morality policy: Analytical implications from a public policy perspective. Journal of European Public Policy20(3): 309–317.
19.
KoopmansRVliegenthartR (2011) Media attention as the outcome of a diffusion process – A theoretical framework and cross-national evidence on earthquake coverage. European Sociological Review27(5): 636–653.
20.
KruckebergDVujnovicM (2005) Public relations, not propaganda, for US public diplomacy in a post-9/11 world: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Communication Management9(4): 296–304.
21.
LemoineNP (2019) Moving beyond noninformative priors: why and how to choose weakly informative priors in Bayesian analyses. Oikos128(7): 912–928.
22.
LindFHeidenreichTKraljC, et al. (2021) Greasing the wheels for comparative communication research: supervised text classification for multilingual corpora. Computational Communication Research3(3): 1–30.
23.
LowiTJ (2011) Foreword: New dimensions in policy and politics. In: TatalovichRDaynesBW (eds) Moral controversies in American politics. 4th ed. Routledge, pp. xi–xxvii.
24.
MaierDWaldherrAMiltnerP, et al. (2018) Applying LDA topic modeling in communication research: toward a valid and reliable methodology. Communication Methods and Measures12(2–3): 93–118.
25.
ManorI (2016) Are we there yet: Have MFAs realized the potential of digital diplomacy? Results from a cross-national comparison. Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy1(2): 1–110.
26.
MarschlichS (2022) Content analysis in the research field of public diplomacy. In: Oehmer-PedrazziFKesslerSHHumprechtESommerK, et al. (eds) Standardized Content Analysis in Communication Research: A Handbook. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 329–337.
27.
MazumdarBT (2024) Digital diplomacy: internet-based public diplomacy activities or novel forms of public engagement?Place Branding Public Diplomacy20: 24–43.
28.
NyeJSJr. (2008) Public diplomacy and soft power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science616(1): 94–109.
29.
PammentJ (2014) Strategic narratives in US public diplomacy: a critical geopolitics. Popular Communication12(1): 48–64.
30.
PammentJ (2016) Digital diplomacy as transmedia engagement: aligning theories of participatory culture with international advocacy campaigns. New Media & Society18(9): 2046–2062.
31.
PilnyAMcAninchKSloneA, et al. (2019) Using supervised machine learning in automated content analysis: an example using relational uncertainty. Communication Methods and Measures13(4): 287–304.
32.
RothutSSchulzeHRiegerD, et al. (2024) Mainstreaming as a meta-process: a systematic review and conceptual model of factors contributing to the mainstreaming of radical and extremist positions. Communication Theory34(2): 49–59.
33.
RowlingCMJonesTSheetsP (2011) Some dared call it torture: cultural resonance, Abu Ghraib, and a selectively echoing press. Journal of Communication61(6): 1043–1061.
34.
SevinEIngenhoffD (2018) Public diplomacy on social media: analyzing networks and content. International Journal of Communication12: 3663–3685.
35.
SevinEMetzgarETHaydenC (2019) The scholarship of public diplomacy: analysis of a growing field. International Journal of Communication13: 4814–4837.
36.
ShahinSHuangQE (2019) Friend, ally, or rival? Twitter diplomacy as “technosocial” performance of national identity. International Journal of Communication13: 5100–5118.
37.
SheaferTShenhavSR (2009) Mediated public diplomacy in a new era of warfare. The Communication Review12(3): 272–283.
38.
SheaferTShenhavSRTakensJ, et al. (2014) Relative political and value proximity in mediated public diplomacy: the effect of state-level homophily on international frame building. Political Communication31(1): 149–167.
39.
SobelMRiffeDHesterJB (2016) Twitter diplomacy? A content analysis of eight US embassies’ Twitter feeds. The Journal of Social Media in Society5(2): 75–107.
VancAMFitzpatrickKR (2016) Scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars, 1990–2014. Public Relations Review42(3): 432–440.
42.
Van HamP (2003) War, lies, and videotape: public diplomacy and the USA’s war on terrorism. Security Dialogue34(4): 427–444.
WhiteCRadicD (2014) Comparative public diplomacy: message strategies of countries in transition. Public Relations Review40(3): 459–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.012
45.
YarchiMBadenCKligler-VilenchikN (2021) Political polarization on the digital sphere: a cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication38(1–2): 98–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067
46.
ZaharnaRS (2008) Mapping out a spectrum of public diplomacy initiatives: information and relational communication frameworks. In: SnowNTaylorPM (eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy. New York: Routledge, pp. 86–100.
47.
ZhongXLuJ (2013) Public diplomacy meets social media: a study of the US Embassy’s blogs and micro-blogs. Public Relations Review39(5): 542–548.
