Political communication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
President George W. Bush during his speech on immigration in Glynco, Georgia.

Political communication is a subfield of communication and political science that is concerned with how information spreads and influences politics, policy makers, the news media, and citizens.[1] Since the advent of the World Wide Web, the amount of data to analyze has exploded and researchers are shifting to computational methods to study the dynamics of political communication. In recent years, machine learning, natural language processing, and network analysis have become key tools in the subfield. It deals with the production, dissemination, procession and effects of information, both through mass media and interpersonally, within a political context. This includes the study of the media, the analysis of speeches by politicians, those that are trying to influence the political process, and the formal and informal conversations among members of the public, among other aspects. The media acts as a bridge between government and public. Political communication can be defined as the connection concerning politics and citizens and the interaction modes that connect these groups to each other. Whether the relationship is formed by the modes of persuasion, Pathos, Ethos or Logos.[citation needed]

Defining the concept[edit]

The study and practice of communication focuses on the ways and means of expression of a political nature. Robert E. Denton and Gary C. Woodward, two important contributors to the field of Political Communication in America, characterize it as the ways and intentions of message senders to influence the political environment. This includes public discussion (e.g. political speeches, news media coverage, and ordinary citizens' talk) that considers who has authority to sanction the allocation of public resources, who has authority to make decisions, as well as social meaning like what makes someone American. In their words, "the crucial factor that makes communication 'political' is not the source of a message, but its content and purpose."[2] David L. Swanson and Dan Nimmo, also key members of this sub-discipline, define political communication as "the strategic use of communication to influence public knowledge, beliefs, and action on political matters."[3] They emphasize the strategic nature of political communication, highlighting the role of persuasion in political discourse. Brian McNair provides a similar definition when he writes that political communication is "purposeful communication about politics." For McNair, this means that this not only covers verbal or written statements, but also visual representations such as dress attire, make-up, hairstyle or logo design. In other words, it also includes all those aspects that develop a "political identity" or "image".[4]

Reflecting on the relationship between political communication and contemporary agenda-building, Vian Bakir defines Strategic Political Communication (SPC) as comprising 'political communication that is manipulative in intent, utilizes social scientific techniques and heuristic devices to understand human motivation, human behavior and the media environment in order to inform effectively what should be communicated – encompassing its detail and overall direction – and what should be withheld, with the aim of taking into account and influencing public opinion, and creating strategic alliances and an enabling environment for government policies – both at home and abroad'.[5]

There are many academic departments and schools around the world that specialize in political communication. These programs are housed in programs of communication, journalism and political science, among others. The study of political communication is clearly interdisciplinary.[citation needed]

Contemporary examples of strategic political communication[edit]

Strategic communication "which is defined as the purposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfill its mission."[6]

In this case, the organization (political leaders) use campaigns as their form of communicating and advocacy in order to obtain support from their countries people whether it is for ethical or reasons or not. The examples below will demonstrate how strategic communication has been used in history.

In the United States[edit]

The Bush Administration's torture-for-intelligence policy, initiated soon after 9/11, was kept secret for several years, as remains the level of complicity of many other nation-states' governments. While this secret policy was gradually revealed from 2004 onwards, initiated by the Abu Ghraib torture photos, the Bush administration engaged in SPC to publicly reframe and protect its secret policy. SPC included silencing and persuasive discursive activity.[7]

  • Discursive activity aimed at generating silences comprised plea bargains that silenced detainees, censoring Guantánamo detainees’ descriptions of their own torture in pre–trial hearings, deals with journalists to censor or withhold information that affected national security, weeding out personal sousveillance of torture online, suppression of visual sousveillance of torture while courts–martial and criminal investigations proceeded; destruction of videotapes of CIA interrogations; and withholding key information from intelligence oversight committees. These position those in the know as part of an elite force policing the public sphere to keep the wider public and their representatives ignorant of unpalatable but necessary official practices, relegating the likely emotional and/or moral public dissent towards such practices as unaffordable niceties.[citation needed]
  • Persuasive discursive activity included the propagation and repetition of a few key messages consistently over time, with the aim of misdirecting public attention from the silence–generating activities. Key Bush Administration messages were that detainees were evil, dangerous terrorists; that the practice of extraordinary rendition was normal and pragmatic; that interrogation techniques, although harsh, were legal (apart from isolated acts of abuse), necessary and successful in preventing future acts of terror; and that Guantánamo was a model prison. Key British Administration messages were of initial ministerial ignorance (until 2004) of American intelligence agencies’ new interrogation strategies, after which intelligence agencies’ guidelines were tightened; and of no direct involvement of British intelligence agencies in extraordinary rendition. Key messages common to both British and American Administrations were that the Abu Ghraib sousveillance and similar visual evidence involving British soldiers were examples of isolated abuse rather than a torture policy from which lessons had been learned regarding Army training and interrogation guidance (new Army guidelines on interrogation were produced under the Bush and Blair Administrations). These key messages were propagated through a range of discursive activity (including press conferences and media interviews, authorized leaks, real–time reporting, official investigations and public inquiries) and were periodically bolstered by selective public release of once–secret documents. The consistency of key messages over time, together with the offering up of specific evidence, gives the appearance of official disclosure and truth–telling, positioning the public as a force to which political administrations willingly hold themselves accountable. However, the strategic generation of key messages and selectivity of supporting information presented across all these discursive modes means that full accountability is avoided, while the public is potentially fooled into thinking that justice has been served, all–the–while being constant targets of manipulation.[citation needed]

In the United Nations[edit]

The United Nations is another example of how important and the high impact strategical political communication has on the organization and on the world. With today's complex international landscape, diverse political views and agendas can easily promote unwanted tension within people, political parties, and in this case, world peace. The United Peace Operations (UNPOs) play a crucial role in maintaining peace with peacekeeping being one of the most effective tools available to the UN in order to assist host countries navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace.[8]

  • Peace operations are more than likely to stay as one of the key aspects for continued world peace and seems to be an indelible feature of the international system in the future. whether it be for missions led by men, women, the police force, military or even civilians, all will need to understand that:[9]
  1. Strategic communication is a vital component to successful UN strategies,
  2. how communication has changed over the course of time in regard to how the audience interprets information,
  3. UN leadership is in charge to oversee and monitor this as a form of command responsibilities[9]
  • According to Jake Sherman and Albert Trithart, “United Nations peace operations often struggle to communicate their messages to the local population and the broader global community.”35 It argued, therefore, that “the outdated public information approach of the United Nations must be transformed into more dynamic communications efforts.” This required missions to better understand key audiences, make better use of national staff, embrace technology, train leaders in effective communication, proactively engage with local populations, and tailor both the message and means of communication to particular audiences."[10]

In the Middle East:

In the Middle East, there appears to be a disconnect between political officials and the citizens of the nation. The idea of clear political communication and how information spreads to the masses could be seen as flawed and are rippled by the effects of the Arab Spring. In the Middle East, “even those supported by a U.S. administration, are at best visionary and without any real practical use”.[11] As explained by Hussein Amin from the American University of Cairo, “because many people view censorship as a sign of social responsibility, civil society has a deep distrust of itself.  While admitting that political communication in the mass media has diversified and developed some more liberal patterns in recent years”.[11] In general, “Mass media have long been linked to the historical development and emergence of national identities and the modern nation-state by creating bounded spaces of political communication and discourse".[12]

Many forms of spreading information like radio, social media, and television have become heavily popularized in the Middle East, while also being ridiculed. In cases of on-going war like Syria and Palestine, the majority of media formats are censored towards the Middle East in order to avoid further catastrophization of an event, possibly by the West. For example, in Syria, “the rebel Free Syrian Army'' was created as an opposition to Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship.[13] Citizens let the government know where they are lacking, the elected officials of the governments are required to reflect and adapt citizens' needs and rights.

Fields and areas of study[edit]

The field of political communication is focused on 4 main areas[citation needed]:

According to James Chesebro, there are five critical approaches to contemporary Political communications:[14]

  1. Machiavellian - i.e. power relationships
  2. Iconic - symbols are important
  3. Ritualistic - Redundant and superficial nature of political acts - manipulation of symbols.
  4. Confirmation - political aspects looked at as people we endorse
  5. Dramatistic - politics is symbolically constructed. (Kenneth Burke)[14]

Role of social media[edit]

Social media has dramatically changed the way in which modern political campaigns are run.[15] With more digital native citizens coming into the voting population, social media have become important platforms on which politicians establish themselves and engage with the voters.[16] In the digital age, evidence across the world has showcased the increasing importance of social media in electoral politics.[17]

Taking Australia as an example below: 86% of Australians access the Internet, and with a 17,048,864 voting age population,[18] around 14,662,023 voting population has access to Internet, and 65% of them use social media, which means 9,530,314 Australian voters use social media. (The 2013 Yellow™ Social Media Report found that among internet users 65% of Australians use social media, up from 62% last year).[19]

With almost half of Australian voting population active on social media, political parties are adapting quickly to influence and connect with their voters.[20] Studies have found that journalists in Australia widely use social media in a professional context and that it has become a viable method of communication between the mainstream media and wider audiences.[21]

Social media experience relies heavily on the user themselves due to the platforms' algorithms which tailor consumer experience for each user. This results in each person seeing more like-minded news due to the increase in digital social behavior. Additionally, social media has changed politics because it has given politicians a direct medium to give their constituents information and the people to speak directly to the politicians. This informal nature can lead to informational mistakes because it is not being subjected to the same "fact-checking processes as institutional journalism."[22]

Social media creates greater opportunity for political persuasion due to the high number of citizens that regularly engage and build followings on social media. The more that a person engages on social media, the more influential they believe themselves to be, resulting in more people considering themselves to be politically persuasive.[23]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-10-09. Retrieved 2016-06-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  2. ^ Denton R.E., Woodward G.C. (1998). Political Communication in America. New York: Praeger. p. 11. ISBN 978-0275957834.
  3. ^ Swanson, D. & Nimmo D. "New Directions in Political Communication: A Resource Book." Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1990, p. 9.
  4. ^ McNair, Brian (2018). An introduction to political communication. London New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-73942-9. OCLC 993962596. p.24
  5. ^ Bakir, V. (2013). Torture, Intelligence and Sousveillance in the War on Terror: Agenda–Building Struggles. Farnham: Ashgate. p. 3. ISBN 9781472402554.
  6. ^ Hallahan, Kirk (2007). "Defining Strategic Communication". International Journal of Strategic Communication. 1: 3–35. doi:10.1080/15531180701285244. S2CID 145081551.
  7. ^ Bakir, V. Torture, Intelligence and Sousveillance in the War on Terror: Agenda–Building Struggles. Farnham: Ashgate (2013)
  8. ^ "What is peacekeeping". United Nations Peacekeeping. Retrieved 2021-12-10.
  9. ^ a b Birnback, N. (2019). Under the Blue Flag: Leadership and Strategic Communications in UN Peace Operations (policy brief 2019:4). https://www.challengesforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Policy-Brief-2019-4-Leadership-and-Strategic-Communications-in-UN-Peace-Operations.pdf
  10. ^ Ibid., paras. 307–308. Technology was also emphasized in the 2014 final report of the Expert Panel on Technology and Innovation in UN Peacekeeping: “A more modern approach to strategic communications can enhance the mission's ability to deliver across its mandate. In addition, social media, crowdsourcing, big data and traditional public media sources must also be incorporated into the mix, and peacekeeping should maximize its use of open source information and analysis tools.” United Nations, “Performance Peacekeeping: Final Report of the Expert Panel on Technology and Innovation in UN Peacekeeping,” 2015. See also: Ingrid A. Lehmann, “Still Caught in the Crossfire? UN Peace Operations and Their Information Capacities,” in Communication and Peace, Julia Hoffmann and Virgil Hawkins, eds. (London: Routledge, 2015).
  11. ^ a b Hafez, Kai (April 2002). "Guest Editor's Introduction: Mediated Political Communication in the Middle East". Political Communication. 19 (2): 121–124. doi:10.1080/10584600252907399. ISSN 1058-4609. S2CID 144202049.
  12. ^ Nisbet, Erik C.; Myers, Teresa A. (2010-10-29). "Challenging the State: Transnational TV and Political Identity in the Middle East". Political Communication. 27 (4): 347–366. doi:10.1080/10584609.2010.516801. ISSN 1058-4609. S2CID 5548665.
  13. ^ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON DC (2000-09-15). "The Army Public Affairs Program". Fort Belvoir, VA. doi:10.21236/ada407635. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  14. ^ a b Chesebro, J. W. (1974, February 28). ERIC - ED089379 - Theoretical Approaches to Political Communication. 1974-Mar. https://Eric.Ed.Gov/?Id=ED089379. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED089379
  15. ^ Enli, Gunn (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 Communication. 32 (1): 50–61. doi:10.1177/0267323116682802. hdl:10852/55266. S2CID 149265798.
  16. ^ Kreiss, Daniel (2016). "Seizing the moment: The presidential campaigns' use of Twitter during the 2012 electoral cycle". New Media & Society. 18 (8): 1473–1490. doi:10.1177/1461444814562445. S2CID 206728421.
  17. ^ Wei, Ran; Xu, Larry Zhiming (2019). "New Media and Politics: A Synopsis of Theories, Issues, and Research". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.104. ISBN 9780190228613.
  18. ^ "Voter turnout data for Australia (Parliamentary) | Voter Turnout | International IDEA". Archived from the original on 2016-03-06. Retrieved 2016-06-10.
  19. ^ "Political Campaign and Social Media". Political Marketing. Archived from the original on 2014-01-16. Retrieved 2014-01-16.
  20. ^ "Benefits of Social Media for Business | the Social Savior". 28 November 2015.
  21. ^ Cision (2012). Journalists Views and Usage of Social Media. http://mb.cision.com/Public/329/9316712/8978ed4b0993062c.pdf
  22. ^ Graber, Doris A.; Dunaway, Johanna (2017-07-20). Mass Media and American Politics. CQ Press. ISBN 9781506340227.
  23. ^ Weeks, Brian E.; Ardèvol-Abreu, Alberto; Gil de Zúñiga, Homero (2015-12-31). "Online Influence? Social Media Use, Opinion Leadership, and Political Persuasion". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 29 (2): edv050. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edv050. ISSN 0954-2892.

External links[edit]