Advertisement

Greek Political Leaders on Instagram: Between “Soft” and “Hard” Personalization

  • Stamatis Poulakidakos
  • Iliana Giannouli
Chapter

Abstract

Personalization has always been a feature of politics, but it seems to have been gaining momentum in recent decades. The increased attention to politicians as individuals implies that “they don’t only act more often as spokespersons for their respective parties, but also that they embody the party brand through their personal life and personality” (Olsson, 2017, p. 100). Contrary to the age of the traditional mass media—especially television—when journalists would mainly choose which images of the politicians would be published, Instagram provides politicians with the ability to actively form their public image. In this sense, the research presented in this chapter is a first attempt to examine Instagram as a political communication tool in Greece, offering an insight in the similarities and differences of political performance strategies via the Instagram platform.

Keywords

Instagram Personalization Public image Strategy Politicians Greece 

References

  1. Abbott, W., Donaghey, J., Hare, J., & Hopkins, P. (2013). An Instagram is worth a thousand words: An industry panel and audience Q&A. Library Hi Tech News, 30(7), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Accetti, C. I., & Wolkenstein, F. (2017). The crisis of party democracy, cognitive mobilization, and the case for making parties more deliberative. American Political Science Review, 111(1), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adam, S., & Maier, M. (2010). Personalization of politics a critical review and agenda for research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 34(1), 213–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, K. E. (2016). Getting acquainted with social networks and apps: Instagram’s instant appeal. Library Hi Tech News, 33(3), 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avedissian, K. (2016). Clerics, weightlifters, and politicians: Ramzan Kadyrov’s Instagram as an official project of Chechen memory and identity production. Caucasus Survey, 4(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balmas, M., Rahat, G., Sheafer, T., & Shenhav, S. R. (2014). Two routes to personalized politics: Centralized and decentralized personalization. Party Politics, 20(1), 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balmas, M., & Sheafer, T. (2015). Personalization of politics. In G. Mazzoleni (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of political communication (pp. 1–9). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berelson, B. (1971). Content analysis in communication research. New York: Hafner Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  10. Bjerling, J. (2012). The personalisation of Swedish politics. Party leaders in the election coverage 1979–2010. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  11. Boumans, J. W., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Vliegenthart, R. (2013). Media personalisation in context: A cross-national comparison between the UK and the Netherlands, 1992–2007. Political Studies, 61(1), 198–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caprara, G. V. (2007). The personalization of modern politics. European Review, 15(2), 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caprara, G. V., & Zimbardo, P. (2004). Personalizing politics. A congruency model of political preference. American Psychologist, 59(7), 581–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekman, M., & Widholm, A. (2017). Political communication in an age of visual connectivity: Exploring Instagram practices among Swedish politicians. Northern Lights, 15, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Field, A. (2017). Discovering statistics using the SPSS (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA, London, New Delhi, Singapore, and Washington, DC: Sage Edge.Google Scholar
  16. Garzia, D. (2017). Personalization of politics between television and the internet: Leader effects in the 2013 Italian parliamentary election. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 14(4), 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graham, T., Jackson, D., & Broersma, M. (2017, May 25–29). Exposing themselves? The personalization of tweeting behavior during the 2012 Dutch general election campaign. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA (Unpublished).Google Scholar
  18. Greek Ministry of Interior. (2015). September 2015 election results. Retrieved from http://ekloges.ypes.gr/current/v/public/index.html?lang=en#{%22cls%22:%22main%22,%22params%22:{}}
  19. Holtz-Bacha, C., Langer, A. I., & Merkle, S. (2014). The personalisation of politics in comparative perspective: Campaign coverage in Germany and the United Kingdom. European Journal of Communication, 29(2), 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Insomnia.gr. (2018). Instagram: 1 billion users and attack to YouTube with IGTV app (in Greek). Retrieved from https://www.insomnia.gr/articles/internet/instagram/1-billion-users-for-instagram-and-new-igtv-app-for-videos/
  21. Jebril, N., Albaek, E., & De Vreese, C. H. (2013). Infotainment, cynicism and democracy: The effects of privatization vs personalization in the news. European Journal of Communication, 28(2), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media. Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York and London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jung, Y., Tay, A., Hong, T., Ho, J., & Goh, Y. H. (2017). Politician’s strategic impression management on Instagram. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2195–2201).Google Scholar
  24. Kanaouti, S. (2018). The tourism of photography: Monuments without memory in Instagram (in Greek). Kaboom: Diaries Before the Great Explosion, 4, 49–66.Google Scholar
  25. Karadimitriou, A., & Veneti, A. (2016). Political selfies: Image events in the new media field. In A. Karatzogianni, D. Nguyen, & A. Serra (Eds.), The digital transformation of the public sphere: Conflict, migration, crisis, and culture in digital networks. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Karvonen, L. (2010). The personalization of politics: A study of parliamentary democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kyriazi, Ν. (2001). Sociological research. Critical overview of the methods and techniques (in Greek). Athens: Greek Letters.Google Scholar
  28. Lalancette, M., & Raynauld, V. (2017). The power of political image: Justin Trudeau, Instagram, and celebrity politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 1–37.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764217744838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Langer, A. I. (2010). The politicization of private persona: Exceptional leaders or the new rule? The case of the United Kingdom and the Blair effect. International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(1), 60–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, E., Lee, J. A., Moon, J. H., & Sung, Y. (2015). Pictures speak louder than words: Motivations for using Instagram. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 18(9), 552–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liebhart, K., & Bernhardt, P. (2017). Political storytelling on Instagram: Key aspects of Alexander Van der Bellen’s successful 2016 presidential election campaign. Media and Communication, 5(4), 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999). “Mediatization” of politics: A challenge for democracy? Political Communication, 16(3), 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McAllister, I. (2007). The personalization of politics. In R. J. Dalton & H.-D. Klingemann (Eds.), The Oxford handbooks of political science: The Oxford handbook of political behaviour (pp. 571–588). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Miles, J. G. (2014). Instagram power. Build your brand and reach more customers with the power of pictures. New York, Chicago, IL, San Francisco, Athens, London, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, New Delhi, Singapore, Sydney, and Toronto: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, L. R., & Brewer, J. D. (Eds.). (2003). The A-Z of social research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Olsson, E.-K. (2017). How journalists portray political leaders: The personalization of prime ministers and the connection to party affiliation in Swedish news coverage. In B. Kjos Fonn, H. Hornmoen, N. Hyde-Clarke, & Y. B. Hågvar (Eds.), Putting a face on it: Individual exposure and subjectivity in journalism (pp. 99–119). Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.Google Scholar
  38. Poulakidakos, S., & Veneti, A. (2016). Political communication and Twitter in Greece: Jumping on the bandwagon or an enhancement of the political dialogue? In T. Deželan & I. Vobic (Eds.), (R)evolutionizing political communication through social media (pp. 119–146). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Poulakidakos, S., & Veneti, Α. (2017). The use of Twitter and the quality of political dialogue (in Greek). In Ν. Demertzis (Ed.), Information society. Governance and the internet (pp. 121–142). Athens: National Centre for Social Research.Google Scholar
  40. Rahat, G., & Sheafer, T. (2007). The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949–2003. Political Communication, 41(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reichart-Smith, L., & Sanderson, J. (2015). I’m going to Instagram it! An analysis of athlete self-presentation on Instagram. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 59(2), 342–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reinemann, C., & Wilke, J. (2007). It’s the debates, stupid! How the introduction of televised debates changed the portrayal of chancellor candidates in German press, 1949–2005. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12(4), 92–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sheldon, P., & Bryant, K. (2016). Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and contextual age. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7andn=17
  45. van Aelst, P., Sheafer, T., & Stanyer, J. (2011). The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Santen, R. A., & Van Zoonen, L. (2010). The personal in political television biographies. Biography, 33(1), 46–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Zoonen, L. (2006). The person, the political and the popular. A woman’s guide to celebrity politics. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 9(3), 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Zoonen, L., Vis, F., & Mihelj, S. (2010). Performing citizenship on YouTube: Activism, satire and online debate around the anti-Islam video Fitna. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(4), 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zappavigna, M. (2016). Social media photography: Construing subjectivity in Instagram images. Visual Communication, 15(3), 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stamatis Poulakidakos
    • 1
  • Iliana Giannouli
    • 1
  1. 1.National and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations