Media Logic Revisited. The Concept of Social Media Logic as Alternative Framework to Study Politicians’ Usage of Social Media During Election Times

Part of the Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research book series (TCSCMR)


This study investigates two tendencies that characterize the transformation of political communication; i.e. mediatization and de-centralization. More specifically, we assess Flemish politicians’ social media usage with respect to both tendencies. On the one hand, these platforms are used to appeal to journalists and on the other hand, they are used to communicate directly with voters. Our theoretical framework draws on two key concepts of the mediatization of politics; i.e. political logic and media logic. Furthermore, our framework integrates recent conceptualizations of social media’s logic to account for the role these platforms play in shaping politicians’ behavior. Based on in-depth interviews and a content analysis of politicians’ behavior on Twitter and Facebook, we show politicians adapt their messages to appeal to journalists. Adaptation is linked to politicians’ position in the political field and the political consensus culture. In addition, politicians’ efforts to connect with citizens are influenced by social media’s logic. Hence, de-centralization is characterized by the negotiation between online popularity (metrified via likes and shares) and the presentation of one’s political views. The presentation of a more “human” self and dialogue with citizens is balanced with the instrumental usage of social media in favor of politicians’ candidacy. Together, the findings show the intensification of the struggle over the legitimacy of one’s political views. Additional conceptual and empirical work are needed to critically assess the consequences of the multimedia environment for political communication, and in extension, democracy.


Social mediaSocial Media Media logicMedia Logic Mass mediaMass Flemish Nationalist Party Political communicationPolitical Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. (1979). Media Logic. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Broersma, M., & 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
  3. Bruns, A. (2012). How long is a tweet? Mapping dynamic conversation networks on Twitter using Gawk and Gephi. Information, Communication & Society, 15(9), 1323–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruns, A., & Moe, H. (2014). Structural layers of communication on Twitter. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and Society (pp. 15–28). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  5. Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coleman, S. (2005). New mediation and direct representation: Reconceptualizing representation in the digital age. New Media & Society, 7(2), 177–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Cleen, B. (2010). Extreme right and Anti-extreme media in Flanders. In J. D. H. Downing (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social movement media (pp. 182–185). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 757–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Esser, F. (2013). Mediatization as a challenge: Media logic versus political logic. In H. Kriesi, S. Lavenex, F. Esser, J. Matthes, M. Bühlmann, & D. Bochsler (Eds.), Democracy in the age of globalization and mediatization (pp. 155–176). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibson, R., & Cantijoch, M. (2011). Comparing online elections in Australia and the UK: Did 2010 finally produce ‘the’ internet election? Communication, Politics & Culture, 44(2), 4–17.Google Scholar
  11. Graham, T., Broersma, M., & Hazelhoff, K. (2013). Closing the gap? Twitter as an instrument for connected representation. In R. Scullion, R. Gerodimos, D. Jackson, & D. Lilleker (Eds.), The media, political participation and empowerment (pp. 71–88). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Grosser, B. (2014). What do metrics want? How quantification prescribes social interaction on Facebook. Computational Culture. A Journal of Software Studies, 4. Retrieved from
  13. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harcup, T., & O’Neill, D. (2001). What’s news? Galtung and Ruge Revisited. Journalism Studies, 2(2), 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hermida, A., Fletcher, F., Korell, D., & Logan, D. (2012). Share, like recommend. Journalism Studies, 13(5–6), 815–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holtz-Bacha, C. (2004). Germany: How the private life of politicians got into the media. Parliamentary Affairs, 41(52), 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. iMinds-iLab. O. (2014). Digimeter. Adoption and usage of media & ICT in Flanders. Wave 7. Ghent: iMinds-iLab.o.Google Scholar
  18. Jungherr, A. (2014). The logic of political coverage on Twitter: Temporal dynamics and content. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 239–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klinger, U. (2014). Mastering the art of social media: Swiss Parties, the 2011 elections and digital challenges. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 717–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klinger, U., & Svensson, J. (2014). The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1241–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Larsson, A. O. (2015). Pandering, protesting, engaging: Norwegian party leaders on Facebook during the 2013 short campaign. Information, Communication & Society, 18(4), 459–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larsson, A. O., & Ihlen, Ø. (2015). Birds of a feather flock together? Party leaders on Twitter during the 2013 Norwegian elections. European Journal of Communication, 30(6), 666–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lilleker, D., Tenscher, J., & Štětka, V. (2014). 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
  24. Marwick, A., & Boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999). Mediatization of politics: A challenge for democracy? Political Communication, 16(3), 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meraz, S., & Papacharissi, Z. (2013). Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on Egypt. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 138–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communications in post-industrial societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Papacharissi, Z., & de Fatima Oliveira, M. (2012). Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on Egypt. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 266–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parmelee, J. H., & Bichard, S. L. (2012). Politics and the Twitter revolution. How Tweets Influence the Relationship between Political Leaders and the Public. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  30. Parmelee, J. H. (2013). Political journalists and Twitter: Influences on norms and practices. Journal of Media Practice, 14(4), 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Paulussen, S., & Harder, R. A. (2014). Social media references in newspapers. Journalism Practice, 8(5), 542–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Plotkowiak, T. & Stanoevska-Slabeva, K. (2013). German politicians and their Twitter networks in the Bundestag Election 2009. First Monday, 18(5). Retrieved from
  34. Rieder, B. (2013). Studying Facebook via data extraction: The Netvizz Application. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference. Paris, France. 346–355. Google Scholar
  35. Rogstad, I. D. (2013). Political news journalists in social media: Transforming political reporters into political pundits. Journalism Practice, 8(6), 688–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ross, K., & Bürger, T. (2014). Face to Face(book): Social media, political campaigning and the unbearable lightness of being there. Political Science, 66(1), 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schmidt, J.-H. (2014). Twitter and the rise of personal publics. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 3–14). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  38. Schulz, W. (2014). Mediatization and New Media. In F. Esser & J. Strömbäck (Eds.), Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western Democracies (pp. 57–73). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Serazio, M. (2015). Qualitative political communication managing the digital news cyclone: Power, participation, and political production strategies. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1907–1925.Google Scholar
  40. Singer, J. B. (2014). User-generated visibility: Secondary gatekeeping in a shared media space. New Media & Society, 16(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sjöblom, G. (1968). Party strategies in a multiparty system. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  42. Stephansen, H. C., & Couldry, N. (2014). Understanding micro-processes of community building and mutual learning on Twitter: A ‘small data’ approach. Information, Communication & Society, 17(10), 1212–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L. (2012). Social media and political communication: A social media analytics framework. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3(4), 1277–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 228–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strömbäck, J., & Dimitrova, D. V. (2011). Mediatization and media interventionism: A comparative analysis of Sweden and the United States. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(1), 30–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strömbäck, J., & Esser, F. (2014). Mediatization of politics: Towards a theoretical framework. In F. Esser & J. Strömbäck (Eds.), Mediatization of Politics: Understanding the Transformation of Western Democracies. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 3–28.Google Scholar
  48. Strömbäck, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2010). Exploring some antecedents of the media’s framing of election news: A comparison of Swedish and Belgian election news. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(1), 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Strömbäck, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2013). Why political parties adapt to the media: Exploring the fourth dimension of mediatization. International Communication Gazette, 75(4), 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tandoc, E. C., & Vos, T. (2015 September). The journalist is marketing the News. Journalism Practice.Google Scholar
  52. Thimm, C., Dang-Anh, M., & Einspänner, J. (2014). Mediatized Politics–Structures and Strategies of Discursive Participation and Online Deliberation on Twitter. In A. Hepp & F. Krotz (Eds.), Mediatized Worlds (pp. 253–270). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tufekci, Z. (2014). Engineering the public: Big data, surveillance and computational politics. First Monday, 19(7). Retrieved from
  54. Van Aelst, P., van Erkel, P., D’heer, E. & Harder, R. (2015). Who is leading the campaign charts? Comparing individual popularity on old and new media. Presented at the International Communication Association conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
  55. van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication, 1(1), 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vergeer, M., & Hermans, L. (2013). Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and online social networking as campaign tools in the 2010 general elections in the Netherlands. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(4), 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Villi, M. (2012). Social curation in audience communities: UDC (User-Distributed Content) in the networked media ecosystem. Participations Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 9(2), 614–632.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.imec-MICT-Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations