Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Buchtitelbild

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

1. Communication in the Age of Twitter: The Nature of Online Deliberation

verfasst von : Gwen Bouvier, Judith E. Rosenbaum

Erschienen in: Twitter, the Public Sphere, and the Chaos of Online Deliberation

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In the past decade, Twitter has become the space where politicians, activists, and regular citizens voice their opinions, seek out like-minded others, and spar with political opponents. The sociocultural impact of hashtags such as #MeToo and #BlackLivesmatter have led many scholars to take an optimistic approach regarding the nature and quality of communication that takes place on Twitter. At the same time, there is ample research that provides reason for caution when it comes to the role of Twitter in contemporary democracy. This book should be seen as a part of that scholarship. This chapter provides an overview of the various, often contradictory positions regarding Twitter’s potential for political communication, highlighting what questions still need answered to understand whether Twitter functions as a public sphere.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Nächstes Kapitel Going “Rogue”: National Parks, Discourses of American Identity and Resistance on Twitter
Literatur
Al-Tahmazi, T. H. (2015). The pursuit of power in Iraqi political discourse: Unpacking the construction of sociopolitical communities on Facebook. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 10(2), 163–179.CrossRef
Arlt, D., Rauchfleisch, A., & Schäfer, M. (2019). Between fragmentation and dialogue. Twitter communities and political debate about the Swiss “Nuclear withdrawal initiative”. Environmental Communication, 13(4), 440–456.CrossRef
Bartlett, J. (2014). Populism, social media and democratic strain. In C. Sandelind (Ed.), European populism and winning the immigration debate (pp. 99–116). Falun: Scandbook.
Baumgaertner, B. O., Tyson, R. C., & Krone, S. M. (2016). Opinion strength influences the spatial dynamics of opinion formation. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 40(4), 207–218.CrossRef
Borgatti, S., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013.CrossRef
Bouvier, G. (2015). What is a discourse approach to twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media: Connecting with other academic fields. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 10(2), 149–162.CrossRef
Bouvier, G. (2019). How journalists source trending social media feeds: A critical discourse perspective on twitter. Journalism Studies, 20(2), 212–231.CrossRef
Bouvier, G. (2020, forthcoming). From ‘echo chambers’ to ‘chaos chambers’: Discursive coherence and contradiction in the #MeToo twitter feed. Critical Discourse Studies
Brock, A. (2012). From the Blackhand side: Twitter as a cultural conversation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 56(4), 529–549.CrossRef
Brunner, E. (2017). Wild public networks and affective movements in China: Environmental activism, social media, and protest in Maoming. Journal of Communication, 67, 665–677.CrossRef
Bruns, A., & Highfield, T. (2013). Political networks on twitter: Tweeting the Queensland state election. Information, Communication, & Society, 16(5), 667–691.CrossRef
Bruns, A., Highfield, T., & Burgess, J. (2013). The Arab spring and social media audiences: English and Arabic twitter users and their networks. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(7), 871–898.CrossRef
Burgess, J., Foth, M., & Klaebe, H. (2006). Everyday creativity as civic engagement: A cultural citizenship view of new media. Paper presented at the Communication Policy & Research Forum, September 25–26, Sydney, Australia.
Castells, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age. London: Polity.
Carney, N. (2016). All lives matter but so does race: Black lives matter and the evolving role of social media. Humanity and Society, 40(2), 180–199.CrossRef
Chan, M. (2018). Networked counterpublics and discursive contestation in the agonistic public sphere: Political jamming a police force Facebook page. Asian Journal of Communication, 28(6), 561–578.CrossRef
Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64, 317–332.CrossRef
Conover, M. D., Ratkiewicz, J., Gonçales, B., Flammmini, A., & Menczer, F. (2011). Political polarization on Twitter. Proceedings of the fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media.
Creemers, R. (2017). Cyber China: Upgrading propaganda, public opinion work and social management for the twenty-first century. Journal of Contemporary China, 26(103), 85–100.CrossRef
Dahlberg, L. (2007). The internet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public sphere. International Journal of Media and Culture Politics, 3(1), 47–64.CrossRef
Dahlgren, P. (2018). Public sphere participation online: The ambiguities of affect. International Journal of Communication, 12, 2052–2070.
Del Valle, M. E., & Borge Bravo, R. (2018). Echo chambers in parliamentary twitter networks: The Catalan case. International Journal of Communication, 12, 1715–1735.
Dutton, W. H. (2009). The fifth estate emerging through the network of networks. Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, 27(1), 1–15.CrossRef
Enli, G. (2015). Mediated authenticity: How the media constructs reality. New York: Peter Lang.CrossRef
Enli, G. (2017a). New media and politics. Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(3–4), 220–227.CrossRef
Enli, G. (2017b). Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: Exploring the social media campaigns of trump and Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. European Journal of Communication, 32(1), 50–61.CrossRef
Enli, G., & Simonsen, C. A. (2018). ‘Social media logic’ meets professional norms: Twitter hashtags usage by journalists and politicians. Information, Communication & Society, 8, 1081–1096.CrossRef
Engesser, S., Ernst, N., Esser, F., & Büchel, F. (2016). Populism and social media; how politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information, Communication & Society, 20(8), 1109–1126.CrossRef
Florini, S. (2019). Beyond hashtags: Racial politics and black digital networks. New York: New York University Press.
Florini, S. (2014). Tweets, tweeps and signifyin’: Communication and cultural performance on ‘black twitter’. Television & New Media, 15(3), 223–237.CrossRef
Flynn, J. (2004). Communicative power in Habermas’s theory of democracy. European Journal of Political Theory, 3(4), 433–454.CrossRef
Foxman, A., & Wolf, C. (2013). Viral hate: Containing its spread on the internet. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fuchs, C. (2017). Donald Trump: A critical theory-perspective on authoritarian capitalism. TripleC, 15(1), 1–72.CrossRef
Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary activism. London: Pluto Press.
Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & van ’t Haar, G. (2013). Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters: The use of twitter during the 2010 UK general election campaign. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 692–716.CrossRef
Graham, T., Jackson, D., & Broersma, M. (2016). New platforms, old habits? Candidates’ use of twitter during the 2016 British and Dutch general election campaigns. New Media & Society, 18(5), 765–783.CrossRef
Guerrero-Solé, F. (2018). Interactive behavior in political discussions on twitter: Politicians, media, and citizens’ patterns of interaction in the 2015 and 2016 electoral campaigns in Spain. Social Media + Society, 2018, 1–16.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16, 411–426.CrossRef
Hall Jamieson, K., & Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heikkilä, N. (2017). Online antagonism of the alt-right in the 2016 election. European Journal of American Studies, 12(2), 1–22.CrossRef
Hermida, A., Lewis, S. C., & Zamith, R. (2014). Sourcing the Arab spring: A case study of Andy Carvin’s sources on twitter during the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 479–499.CrossRef
Huey, L. (2015). This is not your mother’s terrorism: Social media, online radicalization, and the practice of political jamming. Journal of Terrorism Research, 6(2), 1–16.CrossRef
Himelboim, I., Sweetser, K. D., Tinkham, S. F., Cameron, K., Danelo, M., & West, K. (2016). Valence-based homophily on twitter: Network analysis of emotions and political talk in the 2012 presidential election. New Media & Society, 18(7), 1382–1400.CrossRef
Horowitz, L. S. (2013). Toward empathic agonism: Conflicting vulnerabilities in urban wetland governance. Environment and Planning, 45, 2344–2361.CrossRef
Jacobs, K., & Spierings, N. (2018). A populist paradise? Examining populists’ twitter adoption and use. Information, Communication & Society, 22(12), 1681–1696.CrossRef
Jackson, S. J., Bailey, M., & Foucault Welles, B. (2020). #HashtagActivism: Networks of race and gender justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRef
Jackson, S. J., & Banaszczyk, S. (2016). Digital standpoints: Debating gendered violence and racial exclusions in the feminist counterpublic. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 40(4), 391–407.CrossRef
Jansen, F. (2010). Digital activism in the Middle East: Mapping issues networks in Egypt, Iran, Syria and Tunisia. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 6(1), 37–52.CrossRef
Kane, G. C., Alavi, M., Labianca, G. J., & Borgatti, S. P. (2014). What’s different about social media networks: A framework and research agenda. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 274–304.CrossRef
Karpf, D. (2010). Online political mobilization from the advocacy’s group perspective: Looking beyond clicktivism. Policy & Internet, 2(4), 7–41.CrossRef
Kim, J., & Kim, E. J. (2008). Theorizing dialogic deliberation: Everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue. Communication Theory, 18, 51–70.CrossRef
Klein, A. (2019). From twitter to Charlottesville: Analyzing the fighting words between the alt-right and Antifa. International Journal of Communication, 13, 297–318.
Kreiss, D. (2016). Seizing the moment: The presidential campaigns’ use of twitter during the 2012 electoral cycle. New Media & Society, 18, 1473–1490.CrossRef
Kruse, L. M., Norris, D. R., & Flinchum, J. R. (2018). Social media as a public sphere? Politics on social media. The Sociological Quarterly, 59(1), 62–84.CrossRef
Krzyěanowski, M., & Ledin, P. (2017). Uncivility on the web: Populism in/and the borderline discourses of exclusion. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(4), 566–581.
Kuo, R. (2018). Racial justice activist hashtags: Counterpublics and discourse circulation. New Media & Society, 20(2), 495–515.CrossRef
Larsson, A. O., & Ihlen, Ø. (2015). Birds of a feather flock together? Party leaders on twitter during the 2013 Norwegian elections. European Journal of Communication, 30, 666–681.CrossRef
Lilliker, D. G., & Jackson, N. (2010). Towards a more participatory style of election campaigning: The impact of web 2.0 on the UK 2010 general election. Policy & Internet, 3(4), 71–98.
MacKinnon, R. (2011). Liberation technology: China’s “networked authoritarianism”. Journal of Democracy, 22(2), 32–46.CrossRef
McGuian, J. (2005). The cultural public sphere. European Journal of Culture Studies, 8, 427–443.CrossRef
Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: How not to liberate the world. London: Penguin.
Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.
Mouffe, C. (2000). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Political Science Series, 72, 1–17.
Müller, F., & Hermes, J. (2010). The performance of cultural citizenship: Audiences and the politics of multicultural television drama. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 27(2), 193–208.CrossRef
Neumayer, C., & Valtysson, B. (2013). Tweet against Nazis? Twitter, power, and networked publics in anti-fascist protests. MedieKultur, 29(55), 3–20.CrossRef
Ott, B. L. (2017). The age of twitter: Donald J. trump and the politics of debasement. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 34(1), 59–68.CrossRef
Page, R. (2012). The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 181–201.CrossRef
Papacharissi, Z. (2016). Affective publics and structure of storytelling: Sentiment, events and mediality. Information, Communication and Society, 19(3), 307–324.CrossRef
Papacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Paparachissi, Z. (2009). The virtual sphere 2.0: The internet, the public sphere, and beyond. In A. Chadwick & P. N. Howard (Eds.), Routledge handbook of internet politics (pp. 230–245). New York: Routledge.
Papacharissi, Z., & de Fatima Oliveira, M. (2012). Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on #Egypt. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 266–282.CrossRef
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. London: Penguin.
Penney, J., & Dadas, C. (2013). (Re)tweeting in the service of protest: Digital composition and circulation in the Occupy Wall street movement. New Media & Society, 16(1), 74–90.CrossRef
Poell, T., & Borra, E. (2012). Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr as platforms of alternative journalism: The social media account of the 2010 Toronto G20 protests. Journalism, 13(6), 695–713.CrossRef
Poell, T., & van Dijck, J. (2015). Social media and activist communication. In C. Atton (Ed.), The Routledge companion to alternative and community media (pp. 527–537). London: Routledge.
Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. New York: Penguin Books.
Rane, H., & Salem, S. (2012). Social media, social movements, and the diffusion of ideas in the Arab uprisings. Journal of International Communication, 18(1), 97–111.CrossRef
Rambukkana, N. (2015a). Hashtags as technosocial events. In N. Rambukkana (Ed.), Hashtag publics: The power and politics of discursive networks (pp. 1–10). New York: Peter Lang.CrossRef
Rambukkana, N. (2015b). From #RaceFail to #Ferguson: The digital intimacies of race-activist hashtag publics. The Fibreculture Journal, 26, 159–188.
Ronzhyn, A. (2014). The use of Facebook and twitter during the 2013–2014 protests in Ukraine. In A. Rospigliosi (Ed.), Proceedings of the European conference on social media: ECSM 2014 (pp. 442–449). Curran Associates.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (2018). Constructing digital cultures: Tweets, trends, race, and gender. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Schofield Clark, L. (2016). Participants on the margins: #BlackLivesMatter and the role that shared artifacts of engagement played among minoritized political newcomers on snapchat, Facebook, and twitter. International Journal of Communication, 10, 235–253.
Siapera, E., Hunt, G., & Lynn, T. (2015). #Gazaunderattack: Twitter, Palestine and diffused war. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 1297–1319.CrossRef
Sills, S., Pickens, C., Beach, K., Jones, L., Calder-Dawe, O., Benton-Greig, P., & Gavey, N. (2016). Rape culture and social media: Young critics and a feminist counterpublic. Feminist Media Studies, 16(6), 935–951.CrossRef
Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L. (2013). Emotions and information diffusion in social media—Sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 217–247.CrossRef
Theocharis, Y., Barberá, P., Fazekas, Z., Popa, S. A., & Parnet, O. (2016). A bad workman blames his tweets: The consequences of citizens’ uncivil twitter use when interacting with party candidates. Journal of Communication, 66, 1007–1031.CrossRef
Tromble, R. (2018). Thanks for (actually) responding! How citizens’ demand shapes politicians’ interactive practices on twitter. New Media & Society, 20(2), 676–697.CrossRef
Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Van Laer, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2010). Internet and social movement action repertoires. Opportunities and limitations. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8), 1146–1171.CrossRef
Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2018). The emotional architecture of social media. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self and platforms, stories, connections (pp. 77–93). New York: Routledge.CrossRef
Wang, C., Zhou, Z., Jin, X.-L., Fang, Y., & Lee, M. O. (2017). The influence of affective cues on positive emotion in predicting instant information sharing on microblogs: Gender as a moderator. Information Processing and Management, 53(3), 721–734.CrossRef
Yang, G. (2014). Internet activism and the party-state in China. Daedalus, 143(2), 110–123.CrossRef
Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J., Trilling, D., Möller, J., Bodó, B., de Vreese, C., & Helberger, N. (2016). Should we worry about filter bubbles? Internet Policy Review, 5(1), 1–15.
Metadaten
Titel
Communication in the Age of Twitter: The Nature of Online Deliberation
verfasst von
Gwen Bouvier
Judith E. Rosenbaum
Copyright-Jahr
2020
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Buch
Twitter, the Public Sphere, and the Chaos of Online Deliberation

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-41420-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-41421-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2020

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41421-4_1