New media in political communication: general approaches

Abstract

Abstract. Nowadays, in transformation of the realm of political communication, a more important part is given to the so-called «new social media». Previously, political communication was seen as a process of production, dissemination and perception of political information for the purpose of achieving a consent regarding one or another political action. Additionally, communication appeared as a mechanism of one-way information exchange. Under new conditions, political communication becomes a tool of ensuring the process of preparation, making and implementing political decisions. In a modern understanding, an informational message is built by means of specific cooperation between communicants. In this regard, information sources appear as a specific base for state actions. This paper deals with old (traditional) and new social media and lists several characteristics that help distinguish these media. It also shows how authorities and representatives of political opposition can use social media to achieve their political purposes. This article analyses not only benefits but also drawbacks in the application of new information technologies in politics, considering a problem of manipulation as a main disadvantage. It also compares the use of social networks by authorities in Russia and abroad. Because of differences in political culture, social networks are not popular with Russian authorities. However, the number of social networking users among Russian politicians is increasing year by year. Moreover, the most popular network with them is Twitter. A conclusion can be drawn that new media play an important role in creating a system of rules of conduct on the Internet and in establishing a specific culture of electronic communication between representatives of authority and society.Nowadays, in the western political science, state governance is more often seen as a system of selforganized networks that are characterized by interdependence, resource exchange, special rules of cooperation and significant autonomy from the state [1]. At the same time J. Kooiman [2] defines state governance as «the wholeness of state and public cooperation as regards solution of different social problems and creation of possibilities»; in other words, he draws attention to interactions that are understood as a specific form of action undertaken by actors of political communication in order not only to solve problems but also to create new courses of development. Principles of interactions based on certain worldview categories and moral values are becoming more important together with the role of collaborating institutes. This is, for example, the problem of transparency of political communication in terms of agreement between governmental and non-governmental institutes.The requirements for the efficiency of political decision-implementing process, submitted by non-state participants, have political and communicative grounds. Ideally, communicants' interests must be mutually shared. In its turn, the demand for a bigger transparency of ...

¿La arquitectura discursiva de las plataformas digitales influye en la participación política? Un estudio nacional diferenciado

“…Esta última posición ha sido desarrollada por los académicos de la deliberación online, quienes postulan el concepto de arquitectura discursiva, que se define como paquetes de características tecnológicas que trabajan en su conjunto para ofrecer disponibilidades de expresión e interacción, así como posibilidades y oportunidades de acción política online. Tales disponibilidades permiten, o bien limitan, la materialización de normas democráticas en el plano comunicativo y, en consecuencia, los alcances de la deliberación pública en el entorno digital (Chekunova et al, 2016;Freelon, 2015;Halpern et al, 2017;Vaast et al, 2017;Zhang & Pérez-Tornero, 2022).…”

Digital Revolution and the Prospects for Online Political Communication

“…During the 2015 parliamentary elections in Venezuela, opposition parties used social media such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and SMS to mobilize voters and managed to secure two-thirds of the National Assembly (Surotchak& Macdonald, 2020). In the United States, politicians use Twitter and Facebook to communicate their political positions (Chekunova, et al, 2016). Political parties are also using social media for funds mobilization, especially during election campaign periods (Olson & Nelson, 2010).…”

Análisis De Las Potencialidades De Facebook Como Herramienta Electoral: Estudio De Caso De Las Elecciones Presidenciales Mexicanas en 2018

“…En la actualidad están presentes en gran cantidad de aspectos cotidianos de los ciudadanos, desde cuestiones ligadas al ocio y al entretenimiento, hasta otras más importantes que implican una evolución en términos democráticos. Es aquí donde se encuentra la vinculación de dichas redes con el contexto político, ya que se han convertido en una herramienta ineludible de información y participación desde su doble dimensión, que afecta tanto a los partidos y sus políticos, como a la sociedad-electorado (Boulianne, 2015;Chekunova et al, 2016;Farrington, 1991;Orkibi, 2015;Sierra et al, 2018;Tolbert & McNeal, 2003). Las redes sociales, como objeto de estudio dentro del citado contexto, requieren un abordaje multidisciplinar que abarca diversas perspectivas y enfoques académicos.…”