French Politics

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 206–233 | Cite as

Coproduction or cooptation? Real-time spin and social media response during the 2012 French and US presidential debates

  • Chris Wells
  • Jack Van Thomme
  • Peter Maurer
  • Alex Hanna
  • Jon Pevehouse
  • Dhavan V Shah
  • Erik Bucy
Original Article

Abstract

Major political events now unfold in a hybrid political information cycle: even as millions of citizens tune in to television broadcasts, many also comment – and receive others’ comments – over social media. In previous research, we have described how biobehavioral cues spur Twitter discussion of candidates during American presidential debates. Here we extend that research to also account for other elements of the communication environment – in particular, messages from political and media elites reaching them via a ‘second screen’ such as mobile phone or tablet – and we apply our analyses to debates in both the United States and France. Specifically, we examine the relationship between the Twitter posts of 300 politicians, organizations and media figures from each country and the relevant messages of the larger Twitterverse during the debates. Our findings reveal commonalities in social media response in the two countries, particularly the powerful role of party figures and pundits in spurring social media posting. We also note differences between the social media cultures of the two countries, including the finding that French elites commanded relatively more attention (in the form of retweets) than their American counterparts. Implications for debate evaluations and online expression are discussed.

Keywords

social media Twitter debate second screen 

References

  1. Anstead, N. and O’Loughlin, B. (2011) The emerging viewertariat and BBC question time: Television debate and real-time commenting online. The International Journal of Press/Politics 16 (4): 440–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailly, P. (2012) Audience, profil, TF1, France 2: quelques leçons du débat Hollande/Sarkozy, http://blog.lefigaro.fr/philippe-bailly/2012/05/audience-profil-tf1-france-2-quelques-lecons-du-debat-hollande-sarkozy.html, accessed 3 May.
  3. Bennett, W.L. and Manheim, J.B. (2006) The one-step flow of communication. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 608 (1): 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumler, J.G. and Kavanagh, D. (1999) The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication 16 (3): 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyadjian, J. (2014) Twitter, un nouveau « baromètre de l'opinion publique » ? Participations 8 (1): 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broersma, M. and Graham, T. (2012) Social media as beat: Tweets as a news source during the 2010 British and Dutch elections. Journalism Practice 6 (3): 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calderone, M. (2012) For 2012 Presidential debates, campaigns speed up the spin, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/2012-presidential-debates-spin-room_n_1929185.html, accessed 1 October.
  8. Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Castells, M. (2009) Communication Power. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chadwick, A. (2013) The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chadwick, A. (2010) Britain’s first live televised party leaders’ debate: From the news cycle to the political information cycle. Parliamentary Affairs 64 (1): 1–21.Google Scholar
  12. CNN. (2012) The second presidential debate drinking game, http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/10/politics/debate-drinking-game/index.html, accessed 22 June 2015.
  13. Cockerell, M. (2010) Why leaders have never debated on TV. BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8612153.stm, accessed 10 April.
  14. Conway, B.A., Kenski, K. and Wang, D. (2015) The rise of Twitter in the political campaign: Searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects in the presidential primary. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20 (4): 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dayan, D. and Katz, E. (1992) Media Events. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Driscoll, K. et al (2013) Big Bird, Binders, and Bayonets: Humor and live-tweeting during the 2012 U.S. Presidential Debates. Selected Papers of Internet Research, 3(0), http://spir.aoir.org/index.php/spir/article/view/736.
  17. Duggan, M. and Brenner, J. (2013) The Demographics of Social Media Users – 2012. Washington DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  18. Elmer, G. (2013) Live research: Twittering an election debate. New Media & Society 15 (1): 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freelon, D. and Karpf, D. (2015) Of big birds and bayonets: Hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 presidential debates. Information, Communication & Society 18 (4): 390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giglietto, F. and Selva, D. (2014) Second screen and participation: A content analysis on a full season dataset of tweets. Journal of Communication 64 (2): 260–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gil de Zúñiga, H., Garcia-Perdomo, V. and McGregor, S.C. (2015) What is second screening? Exploring motivations of second screen use and its effect on online political participation. Journal of Communication 65 (5): 793–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gurevitch, M., Coleman, S. and Blumler, J.G. (2009) Political communication-old and new media relationships. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 625: 164–181. http://doi.org/10.1177/0002716209339345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanna, A., Wells, C., Maurer, P., Friedland, L., Shah, D. and Matthes, J. (2013) Partisan Alignments and Political Polarization Online: A Computational Approach to Understanding the French and US Presidential Elections. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Politics, Elections and Data. pp. 15–22. ACM, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2508438.
  24. Hawthorne, J., Houston, J.B. and McKinney, M.S. (2013) Live-tweeting a presidential primary debate: Exploring new political conversations. Social Science Computer Review 31 (5): 552–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hindman, M. (2009) The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Howard, P.N. (2006) New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. IFOP. (2012) L’observatoire des réseaux sociaux 7, http://www.ifop.com/media/poll/2050-1-study_file.pdf, accessed 13 December 2013.
  28. Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Jungherr, A. (2014) The logic of political coverage on Twitter: Temporal dynamics and content. Journal of Communication 64 (2): 239–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kreiss, D. (2014) Seizing the moment: The presidential campaigns’ use of Twitter during the 2012 electoral cycle. New Media & Society, http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814562445.
  31. Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B. and Gaudet, H. (1948) The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes up his Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lilleker, D.G. and Jackson, N.A. (2010) Towards a more participatory style of election campaigning: The impact of Web 2.0 on the UK 2010 general election. Policy & Internet 2 (3): 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lilleker, D. and Jackson, N. (2013) Political Campaigning, Elections and the Internet: Comparing the US, UK, France and Germany. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Lilleker, D.G., Tenscher, J. and Štětka, V. (2015) Towards hypermedia campaigning? Perceptions of new media’s importance for campaigning by party strategists in comparative perspective. Information, Communication & Society 18 (7): 747–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lin, Y.-R., Keegan, B., Margolin, D. and Lazer, D. (2014) Rising tides or rising stars?: Dynamics of shared attention on Twitter during media events. PLoS ONE 9 (5): e94093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maarek, P. (ed.) (2009) Introduction. La victoire de la démocratie representative sur la démocratie participative. In: La communication politique de la présidentielle de 2007. Participation ou représentation? Paris, France: L’Harmattan, pp. 5–15.Google Scholar
  37. Margolis, M. and Resnick, D. (2000) Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace ‘Revolution’. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. McKinney, M.S., Houston, J.B. and Hawthorne, J. (2014) Social watching a 2012 Republican presidential primary debate. American Behavioral Scientist 58 (4): 556–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mercier, A. and Pignard-Cheynel, N. (2012) Enquête sur les usages des réseaux sociaux par les journalistes français, http://obsweb.net/blog/2012/05/14/enquete-sur-les-usages-des-reseaux-sociaux-par-les-journalistes-francais/, accessed 1 September 2015.
  40. Morstatter, F., Pfeffer, J., Liu, H. and Carley, K.M. (2013) Is the Sample Good Enough? Comparing Data from Twitter’s Streaming API with Twitter’s Firehose. International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media; pp. 400–408, AAAI, http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5204.
  41. Papacharissi, Z.A. (2010) A Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  42. Prior, M. (2007) Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Riutort, P. (2007) Sociologie de la communication politique. Paris, France: Éditions de la Découverte.Google Scholar
  44. Schudson, M. (1998) The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life. New York: Martin Kessler Books.Google Scholar
  45. Shah, D.V., Culver, K.B., Hanna, A. and Yang, J. (2015) Computational approaches to online political expression: Rediscovering a ‘science of the social’. In: S. Coleman and D.G. Freelon (eds.) Handbook of Digital Politics. London: Routledge, pp. 281–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shah, D.V. et al (forthcoming) Dual screening during presidential debates: Political nonverbal and volume and valence of online expression. American Behavioral Scientist, in press.Google Scholar
  47. Shah, D.V., Hanna, A., Bucy, E.P., Wells, C. and Quevedo, V. (2015) The power of television images in a social sedia age: Linking biobehavioral and computational approaches via the second screen. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 659 (1): 225–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sharp, A. (2012a) Dispatch from the Denver debate. Twitter blogs, http://blog.twitter.com, accessed 4 October.
  49. Sharp, A. (2012b) The final 2012 presidential debate. Twitter blogs, http://blog.twitter.com, accessed 23 October.
  50. Stelter, B. (2012) Presidential debate drew more than 70 million viewers, http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/presidential-debate-drew-more-than-70-million-viewers/, accessed 4 October.
  51. Tarde, G.de (1903) The Laws of Imitation. New York: Henry Hold.Google Scholar
  52. Trilling, D. (2015) Two different debates? Investigating the relationship between a political debate on TV and simultaneous comments on Twitter. Social Science Computer Review 33 (3): 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turkle, S. (2012) Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  54. Vaccari, C. (2013) Digital Politics in Western Democracies: A Comparative Study. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.Google Scholar
  55. Vaccari, C., Chadwick, A. and O’Loughlin, B. (2015) Dual screening the political: Media events, social media, and citizen engagement. Journal of Communication 65 (6): 1041–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vaccari, C. and Valenturi, A. (2013) Follow the leader! Direct and indirect flows of political communication during the 2013 general election campaign. New Media & Society 17 (7): 1025–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wu, S., Hofman, J.M., Mason, W.A. and Watts, D.J. (2011) Who Says What to Whom on Twitter. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web. New York: ACM, pp. 705–714, http://doi.org/10.1145/1963405.1963504.

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Wells
    • 1
  • Jack Van Thomme
    • 2
  • Peter Maurer
    • 3
  • Alex Hanna
    • 4
  • Jon Pevehouse
    • 2
  • Dhavan V Shah
    • 1
  • Erik Bucy
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Journalism & Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-MadisonWIUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonWIUSA
  3. 3.Institut für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Universität WienAustria
  4. 4.Department of SociologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonWIUSA
  5. 5.Department of AdvertisingTexas Tech UniversityTX

Personalised recommendations