Tag Political Communication

Entries 37 Total

Die Lektionen der SPD aus dem us-amerikanischen Präsidentschaftswahlkampf 2012

Apr 14, ’13 4:47 PM

Heute öffnete die SPD eine ihrer kampagnenunterstützenden Onlineplattform mitmachen.spd.de. An der Plattform und der begleitenden Rhetorik durch Parteispitze und Onlinecampaigner werden wesentliche Unterschiede zwischen den Lektionen – bzw. den offen kommunizierten Lektionen – deutlich, die Kampagnenmacher der SPD und CDU aus dem vergangenen US amerikanischen Präsidentschaftswahlkampf gezogen haben.

Andrea Nahles spricht bereits seit einigen Monaten immer wieder von der Betonung des Tür-zu-Tür Wahlkampfs in der Planung der bevorstehenden SPD-Kampagne. Dabei fällt immer wieder die Zahl von 4 Millionen geplanten Hauskontakten. Zusätzlich soll die Wahlkreisarbeit durch professionelle “Campaigner” koordiniert werden, die in Absprache mit dem Willy-Brandt-Haus mehrere Wahlkreise betreuen sollen. Mit Sicherheit tut man gut daran, Aussagen von politischem Spitzenpersonal über ihre geplanten Wahlkampfvorhaben mit etwas gesunder Skepsis zu lesen, aber dennoch zeigen diese Äußerungen und Planungen, dass die SPD – zumindest in der Rhetorik über ihre Kampagnen – entscheidende Lektionen aus dem Erfolg der Kampagnen von Barack Obama in 2008 und 2012 gezogen haben. Wie auch hier schon mehrmals betont, liegen diese Lektionen nicht in der kreativen Nutzung von Twitter oder Facebook durch Barack Obamas Kampagnenstab, sondern in der effektiven Nutzung von Onlinetools für die Unterstützung des Fundraising der Kampagne und der Mobilisierung von Wählern an der Tür.

Ein weiteres Indiz dafür, dass die Aussagen von Andrea Nahles ernst genommen werden sollten, ist ein Blogpost von Mathias Richel, einem der Onlinekampagnenberatern der SPD, mit dem er die Öffnung der mitmachen.spd.de Plattform begleitete. Hierin spricht Richel über die der Plattform zugrundeliegenden Ziele, die Designprinzipien und die Ausrichtung der Plattform über den Bundestagswahlkampf 2013 hinaus.

Jetzt muss natürlich abgewartet werden, ob all die rhetorisch richtig gesetzten Punkte sich tatsächlich in den Kampagnenalltag übertragen lassen. Dennoch besteht hier die Möglichkeit, dass die SPD mit dieser Ausrichtung die Kampagnenfähigkeit ihrer Verbände weit über die Bundestagswahl 2013 hinaus deutlich stärkt. Für diese Stärkung ist es übrigens völlig unabhängig, ob Peer Steinbrück die kommende Bundestagswahl gewinnt oder verliert. Für die Stärkung der Kampagneninfrakstruktur der SPD ist nur wichtig wie erfolgreich die “Campaigner” vor Ort agieren, wie gut der Tür-zu-Tür Wahlkampf in den Wahlkreisen angenommen wird und wie erfolgreich die Evaluation der einzelnen Kampagnenelemente in einen wahlkampfüberschreitenden Lernprozess übertragen werden.

Comments (1)

Neuer Artikel zu Twitter in der deutschen Politik

Mar 1, ’13 9:50 AM

Heute erscheint in der Zeitschrift Internationale Politik ein neuer Artikel von mir zu der Nutzung von Twitter durch deutsche Politiker, Aktivisten und Journalisten. Der Text ist gibt einen schnellen Überblick und versucht einige systematische Nutzungsmuster aufzuzeigen.

Andreas Jungherr. 2013. “Schleppender Beginn: Deutsche Politiker entdecken Twitter nur zögerlich.” Internationale Politik 2013 März/April: 54-59. [Preprint]

Comments (0)

Das Internet in Wahlkämpfen

Feb 6, ’13 4:19 PM

Jungherr, Schoen (2013) Das Internet in Wahlkämpfen - Cover

Das Internet gehört inzwischen zu den Standard-Elementen in jeder politischen Kampagne. Wahlkämpfer nutzen das Internet gezielt, um für ihre Kandidaten zu werben und Netznutzer kommentieren das politische Geschehen unterstützend oder kritisch. Es wird informiert, koordiniert und kritisiert. Trotz der stetig zunehmenden politischen Aktivität im Netz besteht noch vielerorts Unsicherheit über die tatsächliche Rolle des Internets in Wahlkämpfen. Haben wir es mit einer Revolution des politischen Geschäfts zu tun oder stellt das Internet nur eine Ergänzung der klassischen Kampagnenführung dar?

Die öffentliche Debatte zu diesen Fragen wird oft hitzig geführt. Hier dominiert meistens die Diskussion über neue Dienste oder Erfolgsgeschichten aus den USA. Eine etwas ausgewogenere Perspektive auf die Frage wie das Internet in Wahlkämpfen tatsächlich genutzt wird und welche Potentiale es verspricht bietet die Wissenschaft. Leider ist die einschlägige Literatur über verschiedene Fachbereiche und wissenschaftliche Schulen verstreut, so dass der aktuelle Wissensstand nicht auf den ersten Blick erkennbar ist.

Im Auftrag der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung haben Harald Schoen und ich ein kurzes Buch geschrieben mit dem wir einen Überblick der aktuelle wissenschaftlichen Literatur zur Rolle des Internets in politischen Kampagnen bieten. Mit Das Internet in Wahlkämpfen: Konzepte, Wirkungen und Kampagnenfunktionen wollen wir einen leichten Einstieg in die relevante wissenschaftliche Literatur bieten wollen. Besonders wichtig war es für uns, verschiedene Positionen der angelsächsischen Literatur für die deutschsprachige Diskussion aufzuarbeiten.

Wir hoffen, dass unser Text etwas Aufregung aus der aktuellen Debatte nimmt. Wir vermuten, dass eine pragmatische Diskussion der tatsächlichen Nutzung, Wirkung und Funktionsweisen des Internets in politischen Kampagnen – eine Diskussion, die also nicht zwischen den Extrempolen Revolution und Wirkungslosigkeit schwankt – vielleicht publizistisch nicht ganz so attraktiv erscheint, den tatsächlichen Veränderungsprozessen aber eher auf die Spur kommen wird.

Andreas Jungherr and Harald Schoen. 2013. Das Internet in Wahlkämpfen: Konzepte, Wirkungen und Kampagnenfunktionen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS bei amazon.de, Springer VS und bei Springer Link.

[Update: 2013/04/28]
Andreas Hirstein: “Die digitale Welt als Wahlhelfer.” NZZ am Sonntag – Beilage: Bücher am Sonntag. 28/04/2013. p.17.

[Update: 2013/03/21]
Besprechung des Buchs bei politik-digital.de.

Comments (0)

Gastbeitrag für politik-digital.de: “Die Rückkehr der Freiwilligen: Die steigende Bedeutung von GOTV in amerikanischen Kampagnen”

Oct 29, ’12 6:02 PM

Für politik-digital.de habe ich einen kurzen Gastbeitrag über die Bedeutung des personalisierten GOTV in US-Kampagnen geschrieben:

Die Rückkehr der Freiwilligen: Die steigende Bedeutung von GOTV in amerikanischen Kampagnen

Wer mehr Informationen zu diesem Thema erfahren möchte seien die aktuellen Arbeiten von Rasmus Kleis Nielsen ( “Ground Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns“) und Sasha Issenberg (“The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns”) empfohlen.

Comments (0)

Syllabus: Political Communication Winter Term 2012/3

Oct 22, ’12 1:30 PM

Another semester, another syllabus. This winter I’ll be teaching an introductory course to political communication again. Since the winter semesters are a bit longer in Germany than the summer semester I had the chance to add a few topical sessions. The biggest change is probably the addition of the session on “Personalized Political Communication” (to borrow a the term by Rasmus Kleis Nielsen). The session deals with the increasing use of personal contacts in US campaigns.

As always, if you have advice on the syllabus or if you think I’m missing crucial texts or concepts, please let me know.

General Readings
Denis McQuail. 2010. “News Public Opinion and Political Communication,” in: McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. 6. Auflage. London: Sage, 503-536.

Donald R. Kinder. 2003. “Communication and Politics in the Age of Information,” in: David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy and Robert Jervis (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 357-393.

Holli A. Semetko. 2004. “Media, Public Opinion, and Political Action,” in: John D. H. Downing, Denis McQuail, Philip Schlesinger and Ellen Wartella (eds.). The Sage Handbook of Media Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 351-374.

Winfried Schulz. 2011. Politische Kommunikation: Theoretische Ansätze und Ergebnisse empirischer Forschung. 3rd Edition. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

How To Do Presentations
Garr Reynolds. 2008. Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery. Berkeley: New Riders.

Nancy Duarte. 2008. slide: ology: The Art and Science of Presentation Design. Beijing (a.o.): O’Reilly.

Nancy Duarte. 2010. resonate: Present Visual Stories that Transform Audiences. Hoboken (a.o.): John Wiley & Sons.

Introduction
Werner J. Severin and James W. Tankard. 1992. “Scientific Method,” in: Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media. 3. Auflage. New York: Longman, 19-35.

Werner J. Severin and James W. Tankard. 1992. “Effects of Mass Communication,” in: Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media. 3. Auflage. New York: Longman, 247-268.

Strong Media Effects and Propaganda
Mandatory Reading:
Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton. 1949. “Studies in Radio and Film Propaganda,” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 6, 58-79. Reprinted in: Robert K. Merton (ed.). 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press, 563-582.

Presentation on:
Harold D. Laswell. 1971 [1927]. “Chapter 1: The Matter in Hand“, „Chaper 8: Conditions and Methods of Propaganda: A Summary”, “Chapter 9: The Results of Propaganda.” Propaganda Technique in World War 1. Cambridge, MA, u.a.: The M.I.T. Press, 1-18; 185-213; 214-222.

Samuel J. Eldersveld. 1956. “Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior,” The American Political Science Review 50 (1), 154-165.

Klaus Merten. 2000. “Struktur und Funktion von Propaganda,” Publizistik 45 (2), 143-162.

Limited Effects: Opinion Leaders and Two-Step-Flow of Communication
Mandatory Reading:
Bernard R. Berelson, Paul F. Lazarsfeld and William N. McPhee. 1954. “Social Process: Small Groups and Political Discussion.” In: Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 88-117.

Steven H. Chaffee and John L. Hochheimer. 1982. “The Beginnings of Political Communication Research in the US: Origins of the Limited Effects Model”, in: Everett M. Rogers and Francis Balle (eds.). The Media Revolution in America and Western Europe. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 263-283.

Presentation on:
John P. Robinson. 1976. “Interpersonal Influence in Election Campaigns: Two Step-Flow Hypotheses.” Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (3), 304-319.

W. Lance Bennett and Jarol B. Manheim. 2006. “The One-Step Flow of Communication.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 608, 213-232.

Duncan Watts and Peter Sheridan Dodds. 2007. “Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation.” Journal of Consumer Research 34, 441-458.

Limited Effects: Reinforcement and Selectivity
Mandatory Reading:
Joseph T. Klapper. 1960. “Reinforcement, Minor Change, and Related Phenomena,” in: The Effects of Mass Communication. New York: Free Press, 15-52.

David O. Sears and Jonathan L. Freedman. 1965. “Selective Exposure to Information: A Critical Review,” Public Opinion Quarterly 31 (2), 194-213.

Presentation on:
Wolfgang Donsbach. 1991. “Exposure to Political Content in Newspapers: The Impact of Cognitive Dissonance on Readers’ Selectivity.” European Journal of Communication 6 (2), 155-186.

Natalie Jomini Stroud. 2008. “Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure,” Political Behavior 30 (3), 341-366.

Shanto Iyengar and Kyu S. Hahn. 2009. “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use,” Journal of Communication 59 (1), 19-39.

Return to the Concept of Powerful Mass Media: Spiral of Silence
Mandatory Reading:
Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. 1991. “The Theory of Public Opinion: The Concept of the Spiral of Silence,” in: James A. Anderson (ed.). Communication Yearbook 14. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 256-287.

Serge Moscovici. 1991. “Silent Majorities and Loud Minorities,” in: James A. Anderson (ed.). Communication Yearbook 14. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 298-308.

Presentation on:
Diana C. Mutz and Joe Soss. 1997. “Reading Public Opinion: The Influence of News Coverage on Perceptions of Public Sentiment,” Public Opinion Quarterly 61 (3), 431-451.

Carroll J. Glynn, Andrew F. Hayes, James Shanahan [@JamesShanahan]. 1997. “Perceived Support for One’s Opinion and Willingness to Speak Out,” Public Opinion Quarterly 61 (3), 452-463.

Dietram A. Scheufele and Patricia Moy. 2000. “Twenty-Five Years of the Spiral of Silence: A Conceptual Review and Empirical Outlook.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 12 (1), 3-28.

Agenda Setting
Mandatory Reading:
Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw. 1972. “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media,” Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (2), 176-187.

Everett M. Rogers and James W. Dearing. 1988. “Agenda-Setting Research: Where has it been? Where is it Going?” In: James A. Anderson (Ed.). Communication Yearbook 11, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 555-594.

Presentation on:
Stephen D. Reese. 1991. “Setting the Media’s Agenda: A Power Balance Perspective.” In: James A. Anderson (Ed.). Communication Yearbook 14. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 309-340.

Marilyn Roberts and Maxwell McCombs. 1994. “Agenda Setting and Political Advertising: Origins of the News Agenda.” Political Communication 11 (3), 249-262.

Russell J. Dalton, Paul Allen Beck, Robert Huckfeldt and William Koetzle. 1998. “A Test of Media-Centered Agenda Setting: Newspaper Content and Public Interest in a Presidential Election.” Political Communication 15 (4), 463-481.

Stefan Walgrave and Peter Van Aelst. 2006. “The Contingency of the Mass Media’s Political Agenda Setting Power: Toward a Preliminary Theory.” Journal of Communication 56 (1), 88-109.

Framing
Mandatory Reading:
Dennis Chong and James N. Druckman. 2007. “Framing Theory,” Annual Review of Political Science 10, 103-126.

Robert M. Entman. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm,” Journal of Communication 43 (4), 51-58.

Presentation on:
Robert M. Entman. 2003. “Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame after 9/11.” Political Communication 20 (4), 415-432.

James N. Druckman. 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects,” American Political Science Review 98 (4), 671-686.

Dietram A. Scheufele [Blog] [@dietram] and David Tewksbury. 2007. “Framing, Agenda-Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media-Effects Models,” Journal of Communication 57 (1), 9-20.

Adam F. Simon and Jennifer Jerit. 2007. “Toward a Theory Relating Political Discourse, Media, and Public Opinion.” Journal of Communication 57 (2), 254-271.

Knowledge Gap and Digital Divide
Mandatory Reading:
Philip J. Tichenor, George A. Donohue and Clarice N. Olien. 1970. “Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge,” Public Opinion Quarterly 34 (2), 159-170.

Maria Elizabeth Grabe, Rasha Kamhawi and Narine Yegiyan. 2009. “Informing Citizens: How People with Different Levels of Education Process TV, Newspaper and Web News.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 53 (1), 90-111.

Presentation on:
Kasisomayajula Viswanath and John R. Finnegan. 1996. “The Knowledge Gap Hypothesis: Twenty-Five Years Later.” In: Brant R. Burleson (Ed.). Communication Yearbook 19. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 187-227.

Stephen Earl Bennett, Richard S. Flickinger, John R. Baker, Staci L. Rhine and Linda L. M. Bennett. 1996. “Citizens’ Knowledge of Foreign Affairs.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 1 (2), 10.29.

Eszter Hargiatti [Blog] [@eszter] and Amanda Hinnant. 2008. “Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults’ Use of the Internet,” Communication Research 35 (5), 600-621.

The Selection of News and the Construction of Reality
Mandatory Reading:
Hans Mathias Kepplinger. 1989. “Theorien der Nachrichtenauswahl als Theorien der Realität,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B15, 3-16.

W. Lance Bennett. 1990. “Towards a Theory of Press-State Relations in the United States,” Journal of Communication 40 (2), 103-125.

Presentation on:
Hans Mathias Kepplinger and Johanna Habermeier. 1995. “The Impact of Key Events on the Presentation of Reality.” European Journal of Communication 10 (3), 371-390.

Jens Woelke. 2003. “Rezeption von Fernsehnachrichten – Befunde zum Nachrichtenwert und zur Relevanz von Nachrichtenfaktoren.” In: Georg Ruhrmann, Jens Woelke, Michaela Maier and Nicole Diehlmann (Ed.). Der Wert von Nachrichten im deutschen Fernsehen: Ein Modell zur Validierung von Nachrichtenfaktoren. Opladen: Leske+Budrich, 163-199.

W. Lance Bennett, Victor W. Pickard, David P. Iozzi, Carl L. Schroeder, Taso Lago and C. Evans Caswell. 2004. “Managing the Public Sphere: Journalistic Constructions of the Great Globalization Debate,” Journal of Communication 54 (3), 437-455.

Mass Media and Politics
Mandatory Reading:
Michael J. Robinson. 1976. “Public Affairs Television and the Growth of Political Malaise: The Case of The Selling of the Pentagon,” American Political Science Review, 70, 409-43.

Hans Mathias Kepplinger. 2002. “Mediatization of Politics: Theory and Data.” In: Journal of Communication 52, 972-986.

Presentation on:
Christina Holtz-Bacha. 1989. “Verleidet uns das Fernsehen die Politik? Auf den Spuren der Videomalaise,” in: Max Kaase and Winfried Schulz (eds.). Massenkommunikation. Theorien, Methoden, Befunde. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 239-252.

Mitchell S. McKinney and Diana B. Carlin. 2004. “Political Campaign Debates.” In: Lynda Lee Kaid (Ed.). Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 203-234.

Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck and Katrin Voltmer. 2007. “The Mass Media in Third-Wave Democracies: Gravediggers or Seedsmen of Democratic Consolidation?” In: Richard Gunther, José Ramón Montero and Hans-Jürgen Puhle (Ed.). Democracy, Intermediation, and Voting on Four Continents. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 75-134.

Winfried Schulz and Reimar Zeh. 2010. “Die Protagonisten in der Fernseharena: Merkel und Steinmeier in der Berichterstattung über den Wahlkampf 2009.” In: Christina Holz-Bacha (Ed.). Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf: Das Wahljahr 2009. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 313-338.

Political Learning: Hard News vs Soft News
Mandatory Reading:
James Curran, Shanto Iyengar, Anker Brink Lund and Inka Salovaara-Moring. 2008. “Media System, Public Knowledge and Democracy: A Comparative Study,” European Journal of Communication 24 (1), 5-26.

Matthew A. Baum and Angela S. Jamison. 2006. “The Oprah Effect: How Soft News Helps Inattentive Citizens Vote Consistently,” Journal of Politics 68 (4), 946-959.

Presentation on:
Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris. 2006. “The Daily Show Effect: Candidate Evaluations, Efficacy, and American Youth,” American Politics Research 34 (3), 341- 367.

W. Lance Bennett. 2005. “Beyond Pseudoevents: Election News as Reality TV,” American Behavioral Scientist 49 (3), 1-15.

Mass Media and and Campaigning
Mandatory Reading:
Klaus Schönbach and Edmund Lauf. 2002. “The Trap Effect of Television and its Competitors,” Communication Research 29 (5), 564-583.

Pippa Norris and David Sanders. 2003. “Message or Medium? Campaign Learning during the 2001 British General Election,” Political Communication 20 (3), 233-62.

Presentation on:
Jürgen Wilke and Carsten Reinemann. 2006. “Die Normalisierung des Sonderfalls? Die Wahlkampfberichterstattung der Presse 2005 im Langzeitvergleich,” in: Christina Holtz-Bacha (ed.). Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf: Die Bundestagswahl 2005. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 306-337.

Winfried Schulz and Reimar Zeh. 2010. “Die Protagonisten in der Fernseharena: Merkel und Steinmeier in der Berichterstattung über den Wahlkampf 2009.” In: Christina Holtz-Bacha (Hrsg.). Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf: Das Wahljahr 2009. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 313-338.

Personalized Political Communication
Mandatory Reading:
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2012. “Chapter 1: Personalized Political Communication in American Campaigns.” & “Chapter 2: The Gorund War Enters the Twenty-First Century.” In: Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. Ground Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 4-33 & 34-62.

Presentation on:
Donald P. Green, Alan S. Gerber und David W. Nickerson. 2003. “Getting Out the Vote in Local Elections: Results from Six Door-to-Door Canvassing Experiments.” The Journal of Politics 65(4): 1083-1096.

Elizabeth M. Addonizio, Donald P. Green und James M. Glaser. 2008. “Putting the Party Back into Politics: An Experiment Testing Whether Election Day Festivals Increase Voter Turnout.” PS: Political Science & Politics 40(4), 721-727.

Political Communication Online
Mandatory Reading:
Christian Vaccari. 2010. “Technology is a Commodity: The Internet in the 2008 United States Presidential Election.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7 (4), 318-339.

Andrew Chadwick. 2011. “The Political Information Cycle in a Hybrid News System: the British Prime Minister and the “Bullygate” Affair.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 16 (1), 3-29.

Presentation on:
Matthew Hindman. 2005. “The Real Lessons of Howard Dean: Reflections on the First Digital Campaign,” Perspectives on Politics 3 (1), 121-128.

Eva Johanna Schweitzer. 2010. “Normalisierung 2.0: Die Online-Wahlkämpfe deutscher Parteien zu den Bundestagswahlen 2002-2009.” In: Christina Holtz-Bacha (Ed.). Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf: Das Wahljahr 2009. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag, 189-244.

Terri L. Towner and David A. Dulio. 2011. “The Web 2.0 Election. Does the Online Medium Matter?” Journal of Political Marketing 10 (1-2), 165-188.

So, what is missing?

Comments (0)

GOTV in International Campaigns?

Sep 3, ’12 1:07 AM

Yesterday the blog “Mobilizing Ideas” published “Is GOTV a Universally Applicable Answer for Campaigns to the Challenge of Fragmented Audiences?” a short piece I wrote on the applicability of US GOTV tactics in international campaigns. The essay is part of a larger discussion on the blog inspired by Rasmus Kleis Nielsen's new book “Ground Wars” (2012), in which he portrays the state of the art of GOTV in the US-Congressional campaign 2008. If your are interested in the topic be sure to check out his book. Also participating in the blog-discussion are Dave Karpf (The MoveOn Effect) and Daniel Kreiss (Taking Our Country Back), themselves authors of two recent excellent additions to the online campaigning literature.

 

Comments (0)

New Article: “Online campaigning in Germany: The CDU online campaign for the general election 2009 in Germany”

Aug 28, ’12 1:55 PM

A few days back “German Politics” published the iFirst version of my paper “Online campaigning in Germany: The CDU online campaign for the general election 2009 in Germany“. In this paper I describe the attempts of the German conservatives to include Web 2.0 elements in their campaign of 2009. It's a little light on theory but I hope that the rich description in the paper helps the reader in getting a feeling for the present state of Web 2.0 campaigning in Germany. Please let me know what you think.

The paper was first prepared for the MPSA meeting in 2010, which as it turned out I could not attend because of a rather temperamental volcano on Iceland. Early in 2012 I presented another early version of the paper during a workshop organized by Rachel Gibson and Andrea Römmele at the ECPR joint session in Antwerp, Belgium. So this paper has a bit of milage on it but I'm happy that it's finally out.

Here is the abstract:

The German election year 2009 saw the first attempts by political parties to include Web 2.0 services in their online campaigns. The 2009 election therefore offers the opportunity to examine how political parties outside the USA – where online campaigning has become commonplace – choose to use online tools in their campaigns. This paper examines the online campaign of the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU) with a special focus on the campaign's use of Web 2.0 services. The different elements of the campaign will be discussed with regard to three basic functions of online campaigning provided by the relevant literature: 1) presence in the online information space; 2) support of the infrastructure of politics; 3) creation of symbols for political support and participation. This paper shows that these functions were all present in the CDU's use of online tools in the campaign of 2009.

Andreas Jungherr. 2012. (Online First). “Online campaigning in Germany: The CDU online campaign for the general election 2009 in Germany.” German Politics.

 

Comments (0)

The German federal election of 2009: The challenge of participatory cultures in political campaigns

Jun 15, ’12 9:25 AM

Today my article “The German federal election of 2009: The challenge of participatory cultures in political campaigns” was published in a special issue on Fan Activism of the journal “Transformative Works and Cultures” edited by Henry Jenkins and Sangita Shresthova. In the article I present three case studies from the campaign for the federal election of 2009 in Germany.

Abstract: Increasingly, political actors have to act in online communication environments. There they meet overlapping networked publics with different levels of participatory cultures and varying expectations of participation in the (re)making and co-production of political content. This challenges political actors used to a top-down approach to communication. Meanwhile, online users are increasingly politically involved as legislatures all over the world become more active in regulating communication environments online. These new political actors often share participatory practices and have high levels of new media skills. Now they are challenged to adapt these bottom-up participatory cultures to the traditional political environment. This paper examines these adaption processes by examining three examples from the campaign for the German federal election of 2009. These examples include the attempt of Germany’s conservative party (CDU) to encourage their supporters to adapt participatory practices, the German Social Democrats’ (SPD) top-down production and distribution of online content that mimicked the look and feel of user-generated content, and the bottom-up emergence of political flash mobs.

Andreas Jungherr. 2012. “The German federal election of 2009: The challenge of participatory cultures in political campaigns.” Transformative Works and Cultures 10. doi:10.3983/twc.2012.0310.

Comments (0)

Social Media Nutzung in öffentlichen Verwaltungen

Apr 19, ’12 4:22 PM

Für die aktuelle Ausgabe des Magazins move moderne verwaltung habe ich einen Artikel zu den Chancen und Herausforderungen der Nutzung von Social Media in öffentlichen Verwaltungen geschrieben. Das Heft ist inzwischen erschienen und den Artikel kann der geneigte Leser hier finden.

Andreas Jungherr. 2012. “Spannende Ergänzung.” move moderne verwaltung 10(2): 30-33.

Comments (0)

Syllabus: Political Communication Summer Term 2012

Apr 16, ’12 9:47 PM

Another semester, another syllabus. This summer I’ll be teaching an introductory course to political communication again. For this semester I revised the syllabus a bit since some of the texts of last semester did not seem to work all that well for the students. Let’s see if this version improves on that. As always, if you have advice on the syllabus or if you think I’m missing crucial texts or concepts, please let me know.

General Readings
Denis McQuail. 2010. “News Public Opinion and Political Communication,” in: McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. 6. Auflage. London: Sage, 503-536.

Donald R. Kinder. 2003. “Communication and Politics in the Age of Information,” in: David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy and Robert Jervis (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 357-393.

Holli A. Semetko. 2004. “Media, Public Opinion, and Political Action,” in: John D. H. Downing, Denis McQuail, Philip Schlesinger and Ellen Wartella (eds.). The Sage Handbook of Media Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 351-374.

Winfried Schulz. 2008. Politische Kommunikation: Theoretische Ansätze und Ergebnisse empirischer Forschung. 2. Auflage. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

How To Do Presentations

Garr Reynolds. 2008. Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery. Berkeley: New Riders.

Nancy Duarte. 2008. slide: ology: The Art and Science of Presentation Design. Beijing (a.o.): O’Reilly.

Nancy Duarte. 2010. resonate: Present Visual Stories that Transform Audiences. Hoboken (a.o.): John Wiley & Sons.

Introduction
Werner J. Severin and James W. Tankard. 1992. “Scientific Method,” in: Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media. 3. Auflage. New York: Longman, 19-35.

Werner J. Severin and James W. Tankard. 1992. “Effects of Mass Communication,” in: Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media. 3. Auflage. New York: Longman, 247-268.

Strong Media Effects and Propaganda
Mandatory Reading:
Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton. 1949. “Studies in Radio and Film Propaganda,” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 6, 58-79. Reprinted in: Robert K. Merton (ed.). 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press, 563-582.

Presentation on:
Harold D. Laswell. 1971 [1927]. “Chapter 1: The Matter in Hand“, „Chaper 8: Conditions and Methods of Propaganda: A Summary”, “Chapter 9: The Results of Propaganda.” Propaganda Technique in World War 1. Cambridge, MA, u.a.: The M.I.T. Press, 1-18; 185-213; 214-222.

Samuel J. Eldersveld. 1956. “Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior,” The American Political Science Review 50 (1), 154-165.

Klaus Merten. 2000. “Struktur und Funktion von Propaganda,” Publizistik 45 (2), 143-162.

Limited Effects: Opinion Leaders and Two-Step-Flow of Communication

Mandatory Reading:
Bernard R. Berelson, Paul F. Lazarsfeld and William N. McPhee. 1954. “Social Process: Small Groups and Political Discussion.” In: Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 88-117.

Steven H. Chaffee and John L. Hochheimer. 1982. “The Beginnings of Political Communication Research in the US: Origins of the Limited Effects Model”, in: Everett M. Rogers and Francis Balle (eds.). The Media Revolution in America and Western Europe. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 263-283.

Presentation on:
John P. Robinson. 1976. “Interpersonal Influence in Election Campaigns: Two Step-Flow Hypotheses.” Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (3), 304-319.

W. Lance Bennett and Jarol B. Manheim. 2006. “The One-Step Flow of Communication.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 608, 213-232.

Duncan Watts and Peter Sheridan Dodds. 2007. “Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation.” Journal of Consumer Research 34, 441-458.

Limited Effects: Reinforcement and Selectivity

Mandatory Reading:
Joseph T. Klapper. 1960. “Reinforcement, Minor Change, and Related Phenomena,” in: The Effects of Mass Communication. New York: Free Press, 15-52.

David O. Sears and Jonathan L. Freedman. 1965. “Selective Exposure to Information: A Critical Review,” Public Opinion Quarterly 31 (2), 194-213.

Presentation on:
Wolfgang Donsbach. 1991. “Exposure to Political Content in Newspapers: The Impact of Cognitive Dissonance on Readers’ Selectivity.” European Journal of Communication 6 (2), 155-186.

Natalie Jomini Stroud. 2008. “Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure,” Political Behavior 30 (3), 341-366.

Shanto Iyengar and Kyu S. Hahn. 2009. “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use,” Journal of Communication 59 (1), 19-39.

Return to the Concept of Powerful Mass Media: Spiral of Silence

Mandatory Reading:
Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. 1991. “The Theory of Public Opinion: The Concept of the Spiral of Silence,” in: James A. Anderson (ed.). Communication Yearbook 14. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 256-287.

Serge Moscovici. 1991. “Silent Majorities and Loud Minorities,” in: James A. Anderson (ed.). Communication Yearbook 14. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 298-308.

Presentation on:
Diana C. Mutz and Joe Soss. 1997. “Reading Public Opinion: The Influence of News Coverage on Perceptions of Public Sentiment,” Public Opinion Quarterly 61 (3), 431-451.

Carroll J. Glynn, Andrew F. Hayes, James Shanahan [@JamesShanahan]. 1997. “Perceived Support for One’s Opinion and Willingness to Speak Out,” Public Opinion Quarterly 61 (3), 452-463.

Dietram A. Scheufele and Patricia Moy. 2000. “Twenty-Five Years of the Spiral of Silence: A Conceptual Review and Empirical Outlook.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 12 (1), 3-28.

Agenda Setting

Mandatory Reading:
Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw. 1972. “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media,” Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (2), 176-187.

Everett M. Rogers and James W. Dearing. 1988. “Agenda-Setting Research: Where has it been? Where is it Going?” In: James A. Anderson (Ed.). Communication Yearbook 11, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 555-594.

Presentation on:
Stephen D. Reese. 1991. “Setting the Media’s Agenda: A Power Balance Perspective.” In: James A. Anderson (Ed.). Communication Yearbook 14. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 309-340.

Marilyn Roberts and Maxwell McCombs. 1994. “Agenda Setting and Political Advertising: Origins of the News Agenda.” Political Communication 11 (3), 249-262.

Russell J. Dalton, Paul Allen Beck, Robert Huckfeldt and William Koetzle. 1998. “A Test of Media-Centered Agenda Setting: Newspaper Content and Public Interest in a Presidential Election.” Political Communication 15 (4), 463-481.

Stefan Walgrave and Peter Van Aelst. 2006. “The Contigency of the Mass Media’s Political Agenda Setting Power: Toward a Preliminary Theory.” Journal of Communication 56 (1), 88-109.

Framing

Mandatory Reading:
Dennis Chong and James N. Druckman. 2007. “Framing Theory,” Annual Review of Political Science 10, 103-126.

Robert M. Entman. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm,” Journal of Communication 43 (4), 51-58.

Presentation on:
Robert M. Entman. 2003. “Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame after 9/11.” Political Communication 20 (4), 415-432.

James N. Druckman. 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects,” American Political Science Review 98 (4), 671-686.

Dietram A. Scheufele [Blog] [@dietram] and David Tewksbury. 2007. “Framing, Agenda-Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media-Effects Models,” Journal of Communication 57 (1), 9-20.

Adam F. Simon and Jennifer Jerit. 2007. “Toward a Theory Relating Political Discourse, Media, and Public Opinion.” Journal of Communication 57 (2), 254-271.

Knowledge Gap and Digital Divide

Mandatory Reading:
Philip J. Tichenor, George A. Donohue and Clarice N. Olien. 1970. “Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge,” Public Opinion Quarterly 34 (2), 159-170.

Maria Elizabeth Grabe, Rasha Kamhawi and Narine Yegiyan. 2009. “Informing Citizens: How People with Different Levels of Education Process TV, Newspaper and Web News.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 53 (1), 90-111.

Presentation on:
Kasisomayajula Viswanath and John R. Finnegan. 1996. “The Knowledge Gap Hypothesis: Twenty-Five Years Later.” In: Brant R. Burleson (Ed.). Communication Yearbook 19. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 187-227.

Stephen Earl Bennett, Richard S. Flickinger, John R. Baker, Staci L. Rhine and Linda L. M. Bennett. 1996. “Citizens’ Knowledge of Foreign Affairs.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 1 (2), 10.29.

Eszter Hargiatti [Blog] [@eszter] and Amanda Hinnant. 2008. “Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults’ Use of the Internet,” Communication Research 35 (5), 600-621.

The Selection of News and the Construction of Reality

Mandatory Reading:
Hans Mathias Kepplinger. 1989. “Theorien der Nachrichtenauswahl als Theorien der Realität,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B15, 3-16.

W. Lance Bennett. 1990. “Towards a Theory of Press-State Relations in the United States,” Journal of Communication 40 (2), 103-125.

Presentation on:
Hans Mathias Kepplinger and Johanna Habermeier. 1995. “The Impact of Key Events on the Presentation of Reality.” European Journal of Communication 10 (3), 371-390.

Jens Woelke. 2003. “Rezeption von Fernsehnachrichten – Befunde zum Nachrichtenwert und zur Relevanz von Nachrichtenfaktoren.” In: Georg Ruhrmann, Jens Woelke, Michaela Maier and Nicole Diehlmann (Ed.). Der Wert von Nachrichten im deutschen Fernsehen: Ein Modell zur Validierung von Nachrichtenfaktoren. Opladen: Leske+Budrich, 163-199.

W. Lance Bennett, Victor W. Pickard, David P. Iozzi, Carl L. Schroeder, Taso Lago and C. Evans Caswell. 2004. “Managing the Public Sphere: Journalistic Constructions of the Great Globalization Debate,” Journal of Communication 54 (3), 437-455.

Mass Media and Politics

Mandatory Reading:
Michael J. Robinson. 1976. “Public Affairs Television and the Growth of Political Malaise: The Case of The Selling of the Pentagon,” American Political Science Review, 70, 409-43.

Hans Mathias Kepplinger. 2002. “Mediatization of Politics: Theory and Data.” In: Journal of Communication 52, 972-986.

Presentation on:
Christina Holtz-Bacha. 1989. “Verleidet uns das Fernsehen die Politik? Auf den Spuren der Videomalaise,” in: Max Kaase and Winfried Schulz (eds.). Massenkommunikation. Theorien, Methoden, Befunde. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 239-252.

Mitchell S. McKinney and Diana B. Carlin. 2004. “Political Campaign Debates.” In: Lynda Lee Kaid (Ed.). Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 203-234.

Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck and Katrin Voltmer. 2007. “The Mass Media in Third-Wave Democracies: Gravediggers or Seedsmen of Democratic Consolidation?” In: Richard Gunther, José Ramón Montero and Hans-Jürgen Puhle (Ed.). Democracy, Intermediation, and Voting on Four Continents. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 75-134.

Winfried Schulz and Reimar Zeh. 2010. “Die Protagonisten in der Fernseharena: Merkel und Steinmeier in der Berichterstattung über den Wahlkampf 2009.” In: Christina Holz-Bacha (Ed.). Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf: Das Wahljahr 2009. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 313-338.

Political Communication Online
Mandatory Reading:
Christian Vaccari. 2010. “Technology is a Commodity: The Internet in the 2008 United States Presidential Election.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7 (4), 318-339.

Birgit van Eimeren and Beate Frees. 2011. “Drei von vier Deutschen im Netz – ein Ende des digitalen Grabens in Sicht?” Media Perspektiven 7-8, 334-349.

Presentation on:
Matthew Hindman. 2005. “The Real Lessons of Howard Dean: Reflections on the First Digital Campaign,” Perspectives on Politics 3 (1), 121-128.

Eva Johanna Schweitzer. 2010. “Normalisierung 2.0: Die Online-Wahlkämpfe deutscher Parteien zu den Bundestagswahlen 2002-2009.” In: Christina Holtz-Bacha (Ed.). Die Massenmedien im Wahlkampf: Das Wahljahr 2009. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag, 189-244.

Terri L. Towner and David A. Dulio. 2011. “The Web 2.0 Election. Does the Online Medium Matter?” Journal of Political Marketing 10 (1-2), 165-188.

So, what is missing?

Comments (0)