Selling Insecurity via Twitter: Ukrainian President’s Posts and Modern Political Discourse

• Authors: Nataliia Steblyna

Title variants

PL

Propagowanie poczucia braku bezpieczeństwa na Twitterze: posty prezydenta Ukrainy i współczesny dyskurs polityczny

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In modern political discourse, the topics of foreign aggression and insecurity are strongly influencing voter perceptions. In the unpredictable and polarizing environment of Twitter, references to crisis events may be used without justification. The character of tweeting during the peak phase of a crisis may differ, and it is possible to identify such differences analyzingthe tweets. To compare the pre-election period with the period of foreign aggression, and to study the manner of tweeting of a political leader, the Twitter account of the fifth Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko was observed between November 2018 (Azov crisis) and July 2019 (early presidential election). A total of 2,519 tweets were content-analyzed (the character of references to Russian aggression, newsbreaks, intensity, language justification were studied). Tweeting during the Azov crisis was an everyday activity with a large number of tweets over a long period. Pre-election tweeting included commenting on specially created events (commemorations, celebrations) with a large number of mentions for short periods of time and constant online presence with a small number of tweets posted even without a special occasion. Approximately one out of three tweets was written without reference to any newsbreak. Among the most popular newsbreaks, traditional subjects dominated (meetings, signings of laws etc.). Thus, the term “aggression” was mainly exploited during specially created events after the crisis. Additionally, the stylistic features (authentic language, amateurism, unpredictability, breaking rules, incivility and impoliteness) that are widespread across social networks arenot typical of Poroshenko. A “polarization” of the political discourse, however, emerges. It is possible to observe it especially before the second round of elections, when the polls were predicting victory to Poroshenko’s opponent.

PL

We współczesnym dyskursie politycznym tematyka agresji zagranicznej i braku bezpieczeństwa silnie wpływa na percepcję wyborców. W nieprzewidywalnym i polaryzującym środowisku Twittera bez uzasadnienia można się odnosić do wydarzeń kryzysowych. Rodzaj tweetów zamieszczanych w szczytowej fazie kryzysu może być różny, co można stwierdzić drogą analizy. Porównując okres poprzedzający wybory z okresem zagranicznej agresji i badając sposób w jaki tweetował przywódca polityczny, od listopada 2018 r. (kryzys azowski) do lipca 2019 r. (przedterminowe wybory prezydenckie) obserwowano konto piątego prezydenta Ukrainy Petra Poroszenki na Twitterze. Przeanalizowano pod względem treści w sumie 2519 tweetów (zbadano charakter odniesień do rosyjskiej agresji, doniesień prasowych, intensywność i język). Podczas kryzysu azowskiego tweetowanie odbywało się codziennie przyjmując formę dużej liczby tweetów zamieszczanych przez długi czas. Tweetowanie przedwyborcze obejmowało komentowanie specjalnie stworzonych wydarzeń (rocznice, uroczystości) poprzez dużą liczbę wzmianek przez krótkie okresy i stałą obecność w Internecie, kiedy zamieszczano niewielką liczbę tweetów nawet bez specjalnej okazji. Około jedną trzecią tweetów zamieszczono bez odniesienia do jakichkolwiek wydarzeń. Wśród najpopularniejszych wydarzeń dominowały tematy tradycyjne (spotkania, podpisywanie ustaw itp.). Dlatego też termin „agresja” był używany głównie podczas specjalnie stworzonych wydarzeń po kryzysie. Ponadto stwierdzono, że języka Poroszenki nie charakteryzują typowe dla sieci społecznościowych cechy stylistyczne (autentyczny język, amatorstwo, nieprzewidywalność, łamanie zasad, nieuprzejmość i brak manier). Pojawia się jednak „polaryzacja” dyskursu politycznego. Można to zaobserwować zwłaszcza przed drugą turą wyborów, kiedy sondaże zapowiadały zwycięstwo przeciwnika Poroszenki.

Keywords

EN

modern political discourse; Twitter; Poroshenko; Ukraine; foreign aggression; Azov crisis; modern political discourse; Twitter; Poroshenko; Ukraine; foreign aggression; Azov crisis

PL

współczesny dyskurs polityczny; Twitter; Poroszenko; Ukraina; obca agresja; kryzys azowski

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Przegląd Strategiczny
• Year: 2020
• Issue: 13
• Pages: 317-331

Dates

published

2020-12-31

Contributors

author

Nataliia Steblyna

References

• Baldwin-Philippi J. (2019), The technological performance of populism, “New Media & Society”, 21 (2).
• BBC (2019), Editorial Guidelines, https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines (4.04.2020).
• Blassnig S. et al. (2019), Populism in Online Election Coverage, “Journalism Studies”, 20 (8).
• Bossetta M. (2018), The Digital Architectures of Social Media: Comparing Political Campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 U.S. Election, “Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly”, 95 (2).
• Broersma M., Graham T. S. (2013), Twitter as a news source: How Dutch and British newspapers used Tweets in their news coverage, 2007–2011, “Journalism Practice”, 7 (4).
• Camaj L., Northup T. (2019), Dual-Screening the Candidate Image during Presidential Debates: The Moderating Role of Twitter and Need to Evaluate for the Effects on Candidate Perceptions, “Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media”, 63 (1).
• Cappelletti A. (2019), Between Centrality and Re-scaled Identity: A New Role for the Chinese State in Shaping China’s Image Abroad: The Case of the Twitter Account, “Chin. Polit. Sci. Rev.”, 4 (3).
• Dogu B., Mat H. O. (2019), Who Sets the Agenda? Polarization and Issue Ownership in Turkey’s Political Twittersphere, “International Journal of Communication”, 13.
• Entman R. (2003), Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame After 9/11, “Political Communication”, 20.
• Ernst N. et al. (2019), Populists Prefer Social Media Over Talk Shows: An Analysis of Populist Messages and Stylistic Elements Across Six Countries, “Social Media + Society”, https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118823358.
• Ernst N., Esser F., Blassnig S., Engesser S. (2019), Favorable Opportunity Structures for Populist Communication: Comparing Different Types of Politicians and Issues in Social Media, Television and the Press, “The International Journal of Press/Politics”, 24 (2).
• Fukuyama F. (2018), The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, New York.
• Garcia-Ortega C., Zugasti-Azagra R. (2018), The management of the candidates’ Twitter accounts in the Spanish 2016 general elections: Between self-referentiality and media hybridization, “El Profesional de la Información”, 27 (6).
• Genovese F. (2019), International Crises and Political Patterns of Papal Tweets, “Political Science & Politics”, 52 (1).
• Gerbaudo P. (2015), Populism 2.0: Social Media Activism, the Generic Internet User and Interactive Direct Democracy, in: Social Media, Politics and the State. Protests, Revolutions, Riots, Crime and Policing in the Age of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, New York–London.
• 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”, https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118808776.
• Heiss R., von Sikorski C., Matthes J. (2019), Populist Twitter Posts in News Stories: Statement Recognition and the Polarizing Effects on Candidate Evaluation and Anti-Immigrant Attitudes, “Journalism Practice”, 13.
• Kelm O., Dohle M., Bernhard U. (2019), Politicians’ Self-Reported Social Media Activities and Perceptions: Results From Four Surveys Among German Parliamentarians, “Social Media + Society”, https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119837679.
• Lee J., Xu W. W. (2018), The more attacks, the more Retweets: Trump’s and Clinton’s agenda setting on Twitter, “Public Relations Review”, 44 (2).
• López-Rabadán P., Mellado C. (2019), Twitter as a space for interaction in political journalism. Dynamics, consequences and proposal of interactivity scale for social media, “Communication & Society”, 32 (1).
• Matuszewski P., Szabó G. (2019), Are Echo Chambers Based on Partisanship? Twitter and Political Polarity in Poland and Hungary, “Social Media + Society”, https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119837671.
• McGranahan C. (2019), A Presidential Archive of Lies: Racism, Twitter, and a History of the Present, “International Journal of Communication”, 13.
• McLaughlin B. (2019), Becoming a Presidential Candidate: Social Media Following and Politician Identification, “Mass Communication and Society”, 22 (5).
• Ott B. L. (2017), The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement, “Critical Studies in Media Communication”, 34 (1).
• Pain P., Chen G. (2019), The President Is in: Public Opinion and the Presidential Use of Twitter, “Social Media +Society”, https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119855143.
• Park C. S., Kaye B. K. (2019), Expanding Visibility on Twitter: Author and Message Characteristics and Retweeting, “Social Media + Society”, https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119834595.
• Pérez-Curiel C., Naharro P. L. (2019), Political influencers. A study of Donald Trump’s personal brand on Twitter and its impact on the media and users, “Comunicacion y Sociedad”, 32 (1).
• Schneiker A. (2019), Telling the Story of the Superhero and the Anti-Politician as President: Donald Trump’s Branding on Twitter, “Political Studies Review”, 17 (3).
• Spierings N., Jacobs K. (2019), Political parties and social media campaigning: A qualitative comparative analysis of parties’ professional Facebook and Twitter use in the 2010 and 2012 Dutch elections, “Acta Politica”, 54 (1).
• Stetka V., Surowiec P. (2019), Facebook as an Instrument of Election Campaigning and Voters’ Engagement: Comparing Czechia and Poland, “European Journal of Communication”, 34 (2).
• Tari Z. G., Emamzadeh Z. (2018), An Analysis of the Media Messages during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election: A Thematic Comparison between CNN News and Donald Trump’s Tweets, “Journal of Politics and Law”, 11 (2).
• Thompson M. (2016), Enough Said: What’s Gone Wrong with the Language of Politics?, New York.
• van Aelst P. et al. (2017), Political Communication in a High-Choice Media Environment: A Challenge for Democracy?, “Annals of the International Communication Association”, 47.
• Villar S., María J. (2019), The use of blogs as social media tools of political communication: citizen journalism and public opinion 2.0, “Communication & Society”, 32 (1).
• Zhang Y. et al. (2019), Whose Lives Matter? Mass Shootings and Social Media Discourses of Sympathy and Policy, 2012–2014, “Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication”, 24 (4).
• Zhang Y., Wells C., Wang S., Rohe K. (2018), Attention and amplification in the hybrid media system: The composition and activity of Donald Trump’s Twitter following during the 2016 presidential election, “New Media & Society”, 20 (9).

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/ps.2020.1.19