Tag Political Communication

Entries 28 Total

Interview für Kommune21

Jan 5, ’11 12:47 PM

In der aktuellen Ausgabe des Magazins Kommune21 findet sich ein Interview mit mir zum Thema Onlinekommunikation für Städte und Gemeinden. Natürlich fiel auch das Stichwort “Stuttgart 21″. Anbei der Text des Interviews oder hier als pdf.

Herr Jungherr, als Mitglied der Arbeitsgemeinschaft KampagnenPraxis zeigen Sie Organisationen, wie sie das Internet für ihre Kommunikation erfolgreich nutzen können. Haben insbesondere Institutionen der öffentlichen Hand hier Nachholbedarf?

Ja. Dieser Nachholbedarf ist mit dem scheinbar geringen Anpassungsdruck von Kommunen an das Internet erklärbar. Politische Akteure waren spätestens seit dem Superwahljahr 2009 gezwungen, aktive Online-Präsenzen zu entwickeln. Verantwortlich dafür war die öffentliche Berichterstattung über die Online-Erfolge der Obama- Kampagne im Jahr 2008 und die damit plötzlich gestiegenen Erwartungen. Firmen haben ebenfalls ein großes Interesse daran, im Netz präsent zu sein, sei es zur Darstellung und Inszenierung der eigenen Marke oder um Kunden eine Dialogplattform zu bieten. Beispiele wie Dell-Hell oder United Breaks Guitars haben dazu geführt, dass viele Firmen Online-Kommunikation inzwischen sehr ernst nehmen. In den genannten Fällen sahen sich die Unternehmen Dell und United Airlines plötzlich heftiger Kritik im Netz gegenüber. Dieser Protest wurde so stark, dass die Firmeninhalte fast vollständig von den Inhalten der Kritiker verdrängt wurden. Die öffentliche Hand hat es da etwas leichter, weil sie quasi in zweiter Reihe steht. Wenn es in einer Kommune Probleme gibt, richtet sich der öffentliche Protest in der Regel erst einmal gegen die politischen Köpfe. Hier ist es interessant, ob Stuttgart 21 zu einer Änderung führt.

Wie verändern soziale Netzwerke das Kommunikationsverhalten der Bürger?

Soziale Netzwerke übernehmen gerade in jüngeren Altersgruppen zunehmend die Rolle von Informationsfiltern. Immer mehr Kommunikationsinhalte erreichen die Nutzer in Form von Links über ihre Freunde oder Kontakte auf dem jeweiligen Netzwerk. Dies gilt für Musikvideos und Angebote klassischer Medien ebenso wie für Materialien von politischen Akteuren. Und all diese Inhalte konkurrieren um die begrenzte Aufmerksamkeit der Nutzer. Der Nachrichtenwert wird dabei um einen sozialen Wert ergänzt: Die Frage ist nicht mehr, wie wichtig die Nachricht ist, sondern wer die Information verschickt hat.

Bürgerproteste gegen Großprojekte organisieren sich zunehmend in solchen Netzwerken. Wie können Kommunen hier gegenhalten?

Indem sie präsent sind. Momentan finden viele Diskussionen im Netz über Infrastrukturprojekte oder Kommunen fast ausschließlich ohne Beteiligung der Städte und Gemeinden statt. Das lässt sich sehr leicht erklären: Wenn eine Kommune ein Projekt kommunizieren will, beruft sie eine Pressekonferenz ein. Bürgerinitiativen haben es da schwerer, die öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit zu erregen. Deshalb haben sie schon früh den Weg ins Netz gefunden und informieren auf eigenen Web- Seiten und in sozialen Netzwerken über ihre Anliegen. Dies tun Kommunen nur unzureichend. Der interessierte Bürger trifft im Web also meist nur auf die Informationen der Kritiker von umstrittenen Projekten. Hier gilt es für Städte und Gemeinden, frühzeitig auf eigenen Internet-Seiten und Profilen in sozialen Netzwerken mit verständlich aufbereiteten Inhalten über ihre Projekte zu informieren.

Wie würden Sie eine Kampagne für ein bei Bürgern umstrittenes Vorhaben einer Stadt aufsetzen?

Kommunen müssen frühzeitig mögliche Streitpunkte identifizieren. Hier bieten sich demoskopische Umfragen mit offenen Fragen bei von dem Projekt betroffenen Bürgern an. Auf Basis dieser Ergebnisse sollte entweder die Projektplanung angepasst werden oder frühzeitig Informationsveranstaltungen stattfinden, welche die Streitpunkte adressieren und entschärfen. Im eher fortgeschrittenen Stadium sollte das Projekt auf einer Internet-Seite ausführlich und verständlich dargestellt werden. Eine eigene Projektpräsenz in sozialen Netzwerken ist in den meisten Fällen wahrscheinlich übertrieben. Allerdings sollten die Informationen auf der Web-Seite leicht verlinkbar sein, sodass Unterstützer sie in sozialen Netzwerken verwenden können. Zusätzlich sollten Stadt oder Projektplaner verfolgen, ob und wie im Netz über das Vorhaben gesprochen wird. Wenn sich dort gesteigertes Interesse zeigt, ist es entscheidend, dass Stadt oder Planer aktiv auf die vorgebrachten Kritikpunkte reagieren.

Wie muss eine Kommunikationsstrategie aussehen, um die Bürger zu überzeugen?

Ziel sollte es sein, bei interessierten Bürgern um Zustimmung für das Projekt zu werben. Hierzu gilt es, relevante Informationen verständlich und leicht zugänglich zu präsentieren. Wichtig ist aber auch, dass der Prozess nicht irgendwann auf halber Strecke als abgeschlossen betrachtet wird. Die Stadt muss über den gesamten Verlauf der Planung und Umsetzung eines Projektes versuchen, Ängste und Sorgen der Bürger zu identifizieren und dazu klar Stellung zu beziehen.

Welche technischen Hilfsmittel empfehlen Sie?

Inzwischen gibt es sehr gute und einfach zu bedienende Hilfsmittel, um online zu kommunizieren. Allerdings ist die technische Entwicklung so schnell, dass es wenig hilft, einzelne Anbieter zu empfehlen. Bei der Wahl der Hilfsmittel oder Online-Plattformen sollten sich Kommunen vielmehr zwei Fragen stellen: Wo lassen sich Informationen umfassend und leicht zugänglich bereitstellen und wo halten sich die Adressaten der Kommunikationsinhalte auf? Als Antwort auf die erste Frage bietet sich momentan das Betreiben einer eigenen Web-Seite an. Um die zweite Frage zu beantworten, muss geprüft werden, welche sozialen Netzwerke in der Region stark genutzt werden.

Wie beurteilen Sie die Wirkung von Social Media, führen soziale Netzwerke zu neuen Formen der politischen Partizipation oder wird deren Einfluss überschätzt?

Die zunehmend aktive Nutzung von Social Media, wie zum Beispiel Blogs, Podcasts und Videos, in Kombination mit der steigenden Popularität von sozialen Netzwerken führt zu einer stärkeren Sichtbarkeit von politischem Protest. Interpretiert man dies positiv, führen originelle Videos, Poster-Remixe und hohe Unterstützerzahlen auf Facebook dazu, dass die politische Elite stärker basisdemokratisch kontrolliert wird. Interpretiert man es negativ, führt es dazu, dass durch polarisierende Inhalte und hohe Unterstützerzahlen für Ad-hoc-Kampagnen ein quasi-plebiszitäres Element in den politischen Prozess drängt, das durch das Grundgesetz in dieser Form bewusst nicht vorgesehen war. Welche Wertung man der Entwicklung auch gibt, öffentliche Akteure sehen sich einer volatileren öffentlichen Meinung gegenüber, in der auch Anliegen von Kleingruppen plötzlich eine hohe Sichtbarkeit und Unterstützung erfahren können. Vor diesem Hintergrund langfristige und nachhaltige Projekte umzusetzen, ist eine neue Herausforderung.

Das Interview führte Alexander Schaeff.

Präsent sein. Ein Interview von Alexander Schaeff mit Andreas Jungherr. Kommune21. 1/2011. S.20f.

Comments (1)

Call for papers for next year’s ECPR general conference

Nov 10, ’10 1:13 PM

For this year’s general conference of the ECPR in Reykjavik Darren Lilleker [@DrDGL] from the University of Bournemouth and I are hosting a panel on uses of social media in political campaigns. If you are interested in this topic and have some work done on it please consider reacting to this call for papers:

Supporter Networks, Blogs, Tweets, and YouTube Videos: Political Campaigns Online

Social media tools have become common features in election campaigns around the world. Still, their adoption varies from country to country and campaign to campaign. This offers a valuable opportunity for researchers interested in political communication and political campaigns. Campaigns exist in specific political, cultural and technological contexts. These contexts determine the way political actors use social media tools in their campaigns. By comparing online campaigns in different countries and of different political leanings we can learn more about the nature of political communication online independent of specific local contexts. To this end the panel “Supporter Networks, Blogs, Tweets, and YouTube Videos: Political Campaigns Online” invites papers that examine recent political campaigns and their use of online channels and social media tools in their specific political, cultural or technological contexts. Questions that might be addressed are: Which social media tools did the campaign in question choose to use and why? How were these decisions grounded, in specific local contexts or advice from international campaigning professionals? Did the campaign achieve its goals and how was this evaluated? From a methodological perspective we are open to different approaches, be it in the form of qualitative case studies, quantitative analysis or work based on the digital methods approach. Also we invite papers that connect specific campaigns to concepts from communication theory, be it for example a discussion in the context of professionalization, mobilization, the digital divide or political learning.

Comments (0)

“Social Media in political campaigns in Germany” at #pdfeu

Oct 6, ’10 8:38 AM

Damn, Barcelona is hard to leave! This year’s Personal Democracy Forum Europe again took place in Barcelona, which in early autumn is a wonderful place to be. I just returned from there to the more central European version of autumn here in Germany. This post is not to reflect on the whole PDF EU experience, this will have to wait for a later time, but to briefly sketch the panel I was involved in.

The panel was called “Online Political Organizing in Regional and Local Campaigns” and moderated by Antonella Napolitano [@svaroschi]. With Nicolas Vanbremeersch [@versac] from France, Dino Amenduni [@doonie] from Italy, and Lluis Recorder [@lluisrecoder] from Spain we discussed short case studies in which we tried to illustrate the potential of social media for campaigns on a regional or local level.

Nicolas talked about his experiences using social media to facilitate closer contact between citizens and regional branches of the French government. Dino talked about the highly media centered campaigns he did with the Italian agency Proforma for two Italian politicians, Michele Emiliano and Nichi Vendola. Lluís Recorder, mayor of Sant Cugat del Vallès, talked about his experiences in using social media channels and their influence on his governing practice. These talks were highly stimulating and the presented cases illustrated the potential of social media in different European and political contexts. If you are interested there is an audio recording of the panel available on the PDF Europe site.

On the panel I talked about the social media elements in three recent CDU campaigns – Hessen 2009, the general election 2009 and Nordrhein-Westfalen 2010. In the presentation I tried to highlight the continuity between the campaigns, which exemplify an interesting cycle of campaign learning that build on the lessons of the preceding campaigns. As my presentation design focuses on visuals I hope the recording of the panel gives you the context you need for the slides above.

[Update: 2010/10/15]
Antonella Napolitano has posted a written a little wrap up on the session on the PDF Europe blog: From PdF Europe 2010: Online Political Organizing in Regional and Local Campaigns.

Comments (1)

Political Communication Winter Term 2010-11 – Syllabus

Sep 20, ’10 4:42 PM

It’s this time of year again. The winter term is just about to start and so I had a look at the seminar I’m about to give in the coming months and revised it a bit. I’ll be teaching an introductory course in political communication for first and second year students of political science at Bamberg University. The aim of the course is to familiarize students with some of the major theories and topics of political communication. Below you find a draft of the syllabus with the assigned readings. It would be great to know what you guys think of the syllabus and especially if in your opinion I am missing crucial elements that an introductory course in political communication should have.

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.

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

Opinion Leaders and Two-Step-Flow of Communication

Mandatory Reading:
Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson and Hazel Gaudet. 1944. “The Nature of Political Influence,” in: The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Duell Sloan and Pearce, 150-158.

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.

Minimal Effects: Reinforcement and Slectivity

Mandatory Reading:
Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson and Hazel Gaudet. 1944. “The Types of Changes,” in: The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Duell Sloan and Pearce, 65-104.

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

Presentation on:
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.

Agenda Setting and Priming

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

Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder. 1987. “A Primordial Power?” in: News that Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1-5.

Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder. 1987. “The Priming Effect,” in: News that Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 63-72.

Presentation on:
Lutz Erbring, Edie N. Goldenberg and Arthur H. Miller. 1980. “Front-Page News and Real-World Cues: A New Look at Agenda-Setting by the Media,” American Journal of Political Science 24 (1), 16-49.

Steven H. Chaffee and Miriam J. Metzger. 2001. “The End of Mass Communication?” Mass Communication and Society 4 (4), 365-79.

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:
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.

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.

Pippa Norris [Blog]. 2001. “Civic Engagement,” in: Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 217-232.

Presentation on:
Cecilie Gaziano. 1997. “Forecast 2000: Widening Knowledge Gaps,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 74 (2), 237-264.

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:
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.

Harvey Molotch and Marily J. Lester. 1974. “News as Purposive Behavior: On the Strategic Use of Routine Events, Accidents, and Scandals,” American Sociological Review 39 (1), 101-112.

Mass Media and Politics

Mandatory Reading:
Winfried Schultz. 2004. “Reconstructing Mediatization as an Analytical Concept,” European Journal of Political Communication 19 (1), 87-102.

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.

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.

Joseph N. Capella. 2002. “Cynicism and Social Trust in the New Media Environment,” Journal of Communication 52 (1), 229-241.

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:
Ken Goldstein and Paul Freedman. 2002. “Lessons Learned: Campaign Advertising in the 2000 Elections,” Political Communication 19 (1), 5-28.

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.

Political Communication Online
Mandatory Reading:
Sara Bentivegna. 2006. “Rethinking Politics in the Age of ICTs,” European Journal of Communication 21 (3), 331-344.

Birgit van Eimeren and Beate Frees. 2010. “Fast 50 Millionen Deutsche online – Multimedia für alle?” 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.

So guys, what’s missing?

Comments (0)

Fundraising Akademie Alumnitreffen Wrap-Up

Jun 2, ’10 12:45 AM

On her blog Adler-Auge Alexandra Ripken gives a short wrap-up to my talk on the recent CDU social media campaigns in Hessen 2009, for the German general election 2009 and the campaign in Nordrhein-Westfalen 2010, which I gave at a recent alumi meeting of the Fundraising Akademie. It’s nice to hear that the talk went well.

Comments (0)

KampagnenPraxis

May 15, ’10 3:32 PM

In the coming months I will be joining the team of KampagnenPraxis. KampagnenPraxis is a nonpartisan working group of German online campaigning professionals. The aim of this group is to collect use cases of succesful online campaigns in Germany. My first reports will deal with the use of newsletters by the CDU during the campaign for the election in Nordrhein-Westfalen in early 2010 and the volunteer team NRW für Rüttgers during the same campaign.

[Update 2010/08/06]
Meanwhile my first report has been published:

Andreas Jungherr, Malte Krohn and David J. Ludwigs: Neues Kleid macht alten Newsletter erfolgreich.

Comments (0)

Interview on the state of the CDU online campaign in NRW

Apr 28, ’10 1:06 PM

A few days ago Malte Krohn [@malte_politicus] from the blog Homo Politicus interviewed me on the state of the CDU online campaign in Nordrhein-Westfalen which I advise on their use of online tools. This is the result:

If you are interested in the campaign, I also wrote about it here, here and here.

Comments (0)

Twitter in Politics at CHI 2010 – The Presentation

Apr 13, ’10 3:09 PM

This sunday I participated in the workshop Microblogging: What and How Can We Learn Form It? at CHI 2010 in Atlanta, Georgia. During the workshop I presented my position paper Twitter in Politics: Lessons Learned during the German Superwahljahr 2009 in an ignite talk.

The workshop was organized by Julia H. Grace [@jewelia], Dejin Zhao [@djzaho] and danah boyd [@zephoria]. It was a great experience and very interesting to discuss the research challenges that microblogging poses with an international and highly interdisciplinary crowd of researchers. I‘ll post my thoughts on the workshop later this day. In this post I‘ll make my presentation and the rough draft of my talk available.

Since I tend to speak freely in presentations this draft might not be exactly what I said, still it should be pretty close. Anyhow this talk was meant as an appetizer to the position paper on the same topic. So, if you‘re looking for something to cite, kindly have a look at said position paper.

Twitter in Politics: Lessons Learned during the German Superwahljahr 2009

by Andreas Jungherr

Draft v.1.0
2010/04/13

In this ignite talk I want to take you on a short trip through my position paper Twitter in Politics: Lessons Learned during the German Superwahljahr 2009, so that by the end of this presentation, you‘ll have an idea on how and why the German party CDU used Twitter in the campaigns of 2009 like it did.

2009 was a special year for political campaigners in Germany. This had two reasons:

One was the relative high density of high-profile elections in this year. In 2009 there were elections in five important Bundesländern, elections to the European parliament, the election of the German Bundespräsident and in autumn, the German general election.This lead to the term Superwahljahr – the year of the super election.

The second reason was Barack Obama, or rather the things Obama did to win the US presidential election, or rather the things the media thought he was doing to win the election.

The German media was quick to identify the microblogging service Twitter as a key element to Obama‘s victory. And while one can find good reasons to disagree with their assessment, Twitter suddenly became the thing to do for up and coming politicians.

As anyone knows who worked with politicians, politicians tend to be like kids with regard to the adoption of knew technology. At first they want nothing to do with anything new, but when the cool kids are flashing a new toy there is nothing more important to them than to possess exactly THAT toy. This is exactly what happened with regard to Twitter in the German political scene from late 2008 onwards.

During 2008 most German politicians kept as far away from Twitter as humanly possible only to flock to the service in the aftermath of the press-storm about the online magic the Obama campaign managed to conjure up. In late 2008 and early 2009 many German politicians regardless of party and age found their inner Twitterer – or the inner Twitterer of a lucky staff member – and started a Twitter account.

This led to considerable concern in all parties since suddenly the campaigns had a social media component that was new to German campaigns. Fortunately the high frequency of campaigns in 2009 proved to be very fortunate for exactly this challenge. Campaigns on the state and European level could be used as prototypes for elements of social media campaigning. So by the time the national campaign went into its hot phase most German parties had had the chance to get acquainted with social media and incorporate it in some way in their grand strategy.

This proved to be a very interesting time to work for political campaigns in Germany. In early 2009 I entered the campaign to reelect the Ministerpräsident of Hessia, Roland Koch. During that campaign my work focused pretty much on the use of Twitter by our online campaign, the webcamp09. Later that year I entered the national campaign for the general elections. There I also worked on the use of Twitter by the campaign but I also worked on the approach the campaign took to social media in general.

This already hints at the way the CDU treated their campaigns in the Bundesländer. These campaigns were not isolated but were used as test cases and prototypes for the use of Twitter and social media in general. Two of the most valuable prototypes for the national campaign proved to be the online campaigns in the Bundesländern Hessia and Saarland. Both campaigns centered their online campaigns with their respective volunteer campaigns, the webcamp09 and the Peter Müller Team 09. Both campaigns used Twitter feeds under the names [@webcamp09] and [@pmt09]. The experiences with these accounts led the national campaign to start a Twitter feed [@teAMDeutschland]. And in turn the lessons learned during the campaign for the general elections in 2009 led to the way the campaign to reelect the Ministerpräsident Jürgen Rüttgers uses their Twitter account [@nrwruettgers] in early 2010, a campaign which I advise on their online activities.

So which were some of the lessons learned? Twitter proved a very important tool to do some classic community building. The Twitter feeds [@webcamp09] and [@teAMDeutschland] were both used to get online supporters in contact with each other and to react to their comments or critiques.

Twitter proved to be a very successful channel for the distribution of social objects (after Hugh MacLeod). Most of the time these social objects were not content designed by the campaign but content that was either created by supporters or party candidates who strayed from the official CI.

Twitter proved also to be a very useful backchannel to campaign events. It was possible for supporters and critics alike to follow and comment on campaign events, political TV shows or the debate between Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel and the SPD candidate Frank-Walter Steinmeier through Twitter. This proved to be valuable addition to classical campaign events.

Still, the experiences with Twitter during the campaign were not completely unproblematic. One of the biggest issues raised through the widespread adoption of Twitter was a sudden surge in negative campaigning. The content that was distributed the widest through Twitter was mostly negative in nature or contained attacks on the the political opponent. This was true for all political parties. This leads to fundamental questions about the political use of social media and how we can avoid that widespread political use of social media leads to a surge in negative campaigning.

So how are the Twitter efforts of these campaigns to be evaluated. Did they decide the election? Probably not. Personally I think the most important element in the political twittering of 2009 was the active learning process that it started in the party CDU. In the final account it is nor all that important which campaign did use Twitter the best or had the most followers. In the end it matters which political party is able after a campaign to clearly articulate lessons learned and to establish processes that guarantee perpetual learning and prototyping to ensure that said party keeps in contact with its online supporters and online critics.

This was a little appetizer to the content covered in the position paper. For a more detailed discussion of the issues raised in this presentation please have a look at the position paper itself.

Thank you.

Comments (1)

Twitter in Politics at CHI 2010

Apr 4, ’10 7:12 PM

Next Sunday I will participate in one of the workshops leading up to this year’s CHI 2010 in Atlanta, Georgia. The workshop is called Microblogging: What and How Can We Learn From It. It is organized by Julia H. Grace [@jewelia], Dejin Zhao [@djzhao] and danah boyd [@zephoria]. The position papers for the workshop are already online and promise an exiting day.

During the workshop I will present my position paper Twitter in Politics: Lessons learned during the German Superwahljahr 2009 in a short Ignite Talk. Although I have a narrative in mind which could fill the presentation I want to give the old unknown unknown a chance. Therefore I want to ask you which are the points you would be interested in hearing in an Ignite Talk about a paper called “Twitter in Politics: Lessons learned during the German Superwahljahr 2009?”

Comments (0)