Twitter-Nutzung in den Bundestagswahlkämpfen 2009 und 2013 im Vergleich

Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Der Microblogging-Dienst Twitter ist zu einem festen Element politischer Kommunikation in Deutschland geworden. Dennoch sind die Dynamiken politisch relevanter Kommunikation auf Twitter, ihre Verzahnung mit dem politischen Geschehen und der politischen Medienberichterstattung sowie ihre Wirkungen nur unzureichend bekannt. Dieser Beitrag vergleicht die auf Politik bezogene Kommunikation auf Twitter im Verlauf der Bundestagswahlkämpfe 2009 und 2013. Die Darstellung konzentriert sich darauf, welche politischen Ereignisse zu einem Anstieg in politischen Twitter-Nachrichten führten und ob traditionelle oder neue politische Akteure den Kommunikationsraum Twitter in beiden Bundestagswahlkämpfen dominierten.

Schlüsselwörter

Politische Kommunikation Wahlkampf Hybrid Media System Twitter Digitale Spurendaten Computational Social Science 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Adam, Silke, & Maier, Michaela (2010). Personalization of Politics. A Critical Review and Agenda for Research. In: Charles T. Salmon (Hrsg.), Communication Yearbook 34 (S. 213-257). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Anstead, Nick, & O’Loughlin, Ben (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.Google Scholar
  3. Anstead, Nick, & O’Loughlin, Ben (2012). Semantic Polling. The Ethics of Online Public Opinion.Media Policy Brief 5.The London School of Economics. http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/documents/MPP/Policy-Brief-5-Semantic-Polling_The-Ethics-of-Online-Public-Opinion.pdf. Zugegriffen: 7. Dezember 2014.
  4. Anstead, Nick, & O’Loughlin, Ben (2014). Social Media Analysis and Public Opinion. The 2010 UK General Election. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (Online First). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12102/abstract. Zugegriffen: 7. Dezember 2014.
  5. Bennett, W. Lance, & Segerberg, Alexandra (2013). The Logic of Connective Action. Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  6. Broersma, Marcel, & Graham, Todd (2012). Social Media as Beat. Tweets as a News Source during the 2010 British and Dutch Elections. Journalism Practice 6 (3), 403-419.Google Scholar
  7. Chadwick, Andrew (2011). Britain’s First Live Televised Party Leaders’ Debate. From the News Cycle to the Political Information Cycle. Parliamentary Affairs 64 (1), 24-44.Google Scholar
  8. Chadwick, Andrew (2013). The Hybrid Media System. Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  9. Chaffee, Steven H., & Metzger, Miriam J. (2001). The End of Mass Communication? Mass Communication & Society 4 (4), 365-379.Google Scholar
  10. Converse, Philip (1964). The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In: David E. Apter (Hrsg.), Ideology and Discontent (S. 206-261). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  11. Duggan, Maeve, & Smith, Aaron (2013). Social Media Update. Technical Report Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Social-Media-Update.aspx. Zugegriffen: 7. Dezember 2014.
  12. Fuchs, Martin (2013). Social Bundestag. Politik & Kommunikation (November), 41.Google Scholar
  13. Gainous, Jason, & Wagner, Kevin W. (2014). Tweeting to Power. The Social Media Revolution in American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  14. Golbeck, Jennifer, Grimes, Justin M., & Rogers, Anthony (2010). Twitter Use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61 (8), 1612–1621.Google Scholar
  15. González-Bailón, Sandra, Borge-Holthoefer, Javier, & Moreno, Yamir (2013). Broadcasters and Hidden Influentials in Online Protest Diffusion. American Behavioural Scientist 57 (7), 943-965.Google Scholar
  16. Graham, Todd, Broersma, Marcel, Hazelhoff, Karin, & van’t Haar, Guido (2013). Between Broadcasting Political Messages and Interacting with Voters. The Use of Twitter during the 2010 UK General Election Campaign. Information, Communication & Society 16 (5), 692-716.Google Scholar
  17. Hamby, Peter (2013). Did Twitter Kill the Boys on the Bus? Searching for a Better Way to Cover a Campaign. Discussion Paper Series #D-80. Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/d80_hamby.pdf. Zugegriffen: 7. Dezember 2014.
  18. Hanna, Alexander, Wells, Chris, Maurer, Peter, Shah, Dhavan V., Friedland, Lewis, & Matthews, Jörg (2013). Partisan Alignments and Political Polarization Online. A Computational Approach to Understanding the French and US Presidential Elections. In: Ingmar Weber, Ana-Maria Popescu, & Marco Pennacchiotti (Hrsg.), PLEAD 2013. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop Politics, Elections and Data. (S. 15-21). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson, Nigel A., & Lilleker, Darren G. (2011). Microblogging, Constituency Service and Impression Management. UK MPs and the Use of Twitter. The Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (1), 86 -105.Google Scholar
  20. Jungherr, Andreas (2009). Twitternde Politiker: Zwischen buntem Rauschen und Bürgernähe 2.0. In: Christoph Bieber, Martin Eifert, Thomas Groß, & Jörn Lamla (Hrsg.), Soziale Netze in der digitalen Welt. Das Internet zwischen egalitärer Beteiligung und ökonomischer Macht (S. 99-127). Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  21. Jungherr, Andreas (2012). Online Campaigning in Germany. The CDU Online Campaign for the General Election 2009 in Germany. German Politics 21 (3), 317-340.Google Scholar
  22. Jungherr, Andreas (2013a). Schleppender Beginn. Deutsche Politiker entdecken Twitter nur zögerlich. Internationale Politik März/April, 54-59.Google Scholar
  23. Jungherr, Andreas (2013b). PLEAD 2013. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop Politics, Elections and Data. (S. 5-14). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  24. Jungherr, Andreas (2014). The Logic of Political Coverage on Twitter. Temporal Dynamics and Content. Journal of Communication 64 (2), 239-259.Google Scholar
  25. Jungherr, Andreas (2015). Analyzing Political Communication with Digital Trace Data: The Role of Twitter Messages in Social Science Research. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Jungherr, Andreas (2016). Twitter Use in Election Campaigns: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. (Online First). www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19331681.2015.1132401. Zugegriffen: 30. Januar 2016.
  27. Jungherr, Andreas, & Jürgens, Pascal (2014). Through a Glass, Darkly. Tactical Support and Symbolic Association in Twitter Messages Commenting on Stuttgart 21. Social Science Computer Review 32 (1), 74-89.Google Scholar
  28. Jungherr, Andreas, & Schoen, Harald (2013). Das Internet in Wahlkämpfen. Konzepte, Wirkungen und Kampagnenfunktionen. Wiesbaden: SpringerVS.Google Scholar
  29. Jungherr, Andreas, Jürgens Pascal, & Schoen, Harald. (2016). The mediation of politics through Twitter: An analysis of messages posted during the campaign for the German federal election 2013. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21(1), 50-68.Google Scholar
  30. Jürgens, Pascal, & Jungherr, Andreas (2011). Wahlkampf vom Sofa aus. Twitter im Bundestagswahlkampf 2009. In: Eva Johanna Schweitzer, & Steffen Albrecht (Hrsg.), Das Internet im Wahlkampf. Analysen zur Bundestagswahl 2009 (S. 201-225). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  31. Jürgens, Pascal, & Jungherr, Andreas (2015). The Use of Twitter During the 2009 German National Election. German Politics 24(4), 469-490.Google Scholar
  32. Lilleker, Darren G., & Jackson, Nigel 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), 69-98.Google Scholar
  33. Lin, Yu-Ru, Keegan, Brian, Margolin, Drew, & Lazer, David (2014). Rising Tides or Rising Stars? Dynamics of Shared Attention on Twitter during Media Events. PLoS One 9 (5). doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0094093
  34. Maier, Jürgen, Faas, Thorsten, & Maier, Michaela (2013). Mobilisierung durch Fernsehdebatten. Zum Einfluss des TV-Duells 2009 auf die politische Involvierung und die Partizipationsbereitschaft. In: Bernhard Weßels, Harald Schoen, & Oscar W. Gabriel (Hrsg.), Wahlen und Wähler. Analysen aus Anlass der Bundestagswahl 2009 (S. 79-96). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  35. Margolis, Michael, & Resnick, David (2000). Politics as Usual. The Cyberspace “Revolution”. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  36. Mitchell, Amy, & Hitlin, Paul (2013). Twitter Reaction to Events often at Odds with Overall Public Opinion. http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/03/04/twitter-reaction-to-events-often-at-odds-with-overall-public-opinion/. Zugegriffen: 7. Dezember 2014.
  37. Neuman, W. Russell (1991). The Future of the Mass Audience. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  38. Parmelee, John H., & Bichard, Shannon L. (2012). Politics and the Twitter Revolution. How Tweets Influence the Relationship between Political Leaders and the Public. Lanham: Lexington.Google Scholar
  39. Peterson, Rolfe D. (2012). To Tweet or not to Tweet. Exploring the Determinants of Early Adoption of Twitter by House Members in the 111th Congress. The Social Science Journal 49 (4), 430-338.Google Scholar
  40. R Core Team. (2014). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Wien: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  41. Rainie, Lee, Smith, Aaron, Lehman Schlozman, Kay, Brady, Henry, & Verba, Sidney (2012). Social Media and Political Engagement. Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Political-engagement.aspx. Zugegriffen: 7. Dezember 2014.
  42. Rogers, Richard (2013). Digital Methods. Cambridge. MIT.Google Scholar
  43. Schweitzer, Eva Johanna (2011). Normalisierung 2.0. Die Online-Wahlkämpfe deutscher Parteien zu den Bundestagswahlen 2002–2009. In: Eva Johanna Schweitzer, & Steffen Albrecht (Hrsg.), Das Internet im Wahlkampf. Analysen zur Bundestagswahl 2009 (S. 189-244). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  44. Siri, Jasmin, & Seßler, Katharina (2013). Twitterpolitik. Politische Inszenierungen in einem neuen Medium. Institut für Medien- und Kommunikationspolitik & Stiftung Mercator. http://medienpolitik.eu/cms/media/pdf/Twitterpolitik.pdf. Zugegriffen: 7. Dezember 2014.
  45. Tenscher, Jens (2014). MPs and the Internet. An Empirically Based Typology. The Journal of Legislative Studies 20 (3), 305-320.Google Scholar
  46. Theocharis, Yannis, Lowe, Will, van Deth, Jan W., & García-Albacete, Gema (2014). Using Twitter to Mobilize Protest Action. Online Mobilization Patterns and Action Repertoires in the Occupy Wall Street, Indignados, and Aganaktismenoi Movements. Information, Communication & Society (i. E.).Google Scholar
  47. Vaccari, Cristian, Valeriani, Augusto, Barberá, Pablo, Bonneau, Richard, Jost, John T., Nagler, Jonathan, & Tucker, Joshua (2013). Social Media and Political Communication. A Survey of Twitter Users during the 2013 Italian General Election. Rivista Italiana di Scienza 43 (3), 325-355.Google Scholar
  48. van Eimeren, Birgit, & Frees, Beate (2014). 79 Prozent der Deutschen online. Zuwachs bei mobiler Internetnutzung und Bewegtbild. Media Perspektiven (7-8), 378-396.Google Scholar
  49. vom Hofe, Hanna Jo, & Nuernbergk, Christian (2012). Twitter im professionellen Journalismus. Ergebnisse einer Redaktionsbefragung. Journalistik Journal 15 (1), 31-31. Google Scholar
  50. Wallsten, Kevin (2014). Microblogging and the News. Political Elites and the Ultimate Retweet. In: Ashu M. G. Solo (Hrsg.), Political Campaigning in the Information Age (S. 128-147). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  51. Wickham, Hadley (2009). Ggplot2. Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden  2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MannheimDeutschland
  2. 2.MainzDeutschland

Personalised recommendations