This document summarizes research on the use of social media, primarily Facebook, for political campaigning in Norwegian elections from 2009 to 2017. The key findings are: 1) Political parties and candidates on Facebook have grown significantly in followers over this time period, reaching hundreds of thousands by 2017. However, increased Facebook following did not necessarily correlate with more votes. 2) The genre of political posts on Facebook has consolidated over time, focusing on short, simple multimedia messages promoting parties and criticizing opponents. Interaction with users has declined as communication has become more one-directional. 3) The tone of political Facebook posts and comments has become harder and more hostile since 2015, likely influenced by global events like

1. The political Facebook
hype cycle?
Marius Rohde Johannessen
1

2. Outline
• Third study of social media campaigning in Norway
– Previous: 2009, 2013
– Mostly Facebook, as this is by far the most popular medium
• Design: Genre theory (communication as genre), descriptive statistics
• Result: A genre repertoire which allows analysis of communication
2

3. • 2009: Early days – high hopes for democratic potential and deliberation
• 2013: Establishment, maturity – information over deliberation
• 2017: Norway election influenced by overseas events
–Brexit, right-wing populism, anti-immigration sentiment. Tone is
harder.
Tl;dr version
3

4. Background and motivation
• 2013 – social media seemed to fall into a settled pattern, as a campaign
tool with some notable experiments towards deliberation and feedback
• 2015-17: Syrian refugee crisis, Brexit, anti-globalisation, right-wing
populism  changing political landscape
• How (if at all) has this influenced the 2017 campaign?
4

5. Related research - Current media concerns
• Polarization – us and them
– Fake news and claims of fake news
• Echo chambers – Avoid what we don’t like
• Media fragmentation as driver?
– Norway: New «alternative» media: resett, rights.no, document.no…
right-wing organisations creating their own newspapers
5

6. 6

7. Related research – social issues
• several underlying explanations for the current situation:
– increased inequality in society
– increased nationalism and anti-globalization
– concerns about immigration
– A general lack of trust in traditional media, political parties and political institutions
which could further help explain the rise of populist politicians using social media to
reach out to disgruntled citizens (European social survey).
• Public opinion is both divided and polarized
– …but also empowered. More voices, we just don’t like how they talk?
7

8. Findings: More followers
16.10.2018 8
• 2009: A few hundred to a few thousand
• 2013: Tens of thousands
• 2017: Hundreds of thousands
• ..so great success?
• On the other hand:
• Little correlation between
Facebook followers and votes
received. Needs to be examined
case by case
• Demographics, real world
events, party crises etc. more
explanatory power.

9. Findings: Genres
• From experimentation to consolidation
– Parties have become very similar and streamlined
– Short, multimedia, simple messages, similar frequency of posts
• Interaction disappearing – return of one-way communication
– 2009/2013: Experiments with participation
– 2017: A few questions, mostly information
9

10. Simple messages
• We want to… [do stuff. The other
guys suck!]
• We have.. [done stuff, so vote for us
again!]
• Traditional campaigning
10/16/2018 10

11. Personification
• «Look, we’re human too»
– Conservatives built their entire
campaign around the PM
• «here’s a completely random guy
talking about how great we are»
• Popular politicians to put on a human
face and «random» voters talking
about why they vote
10/16/2018 11

12. Attacks and hostility
• Tone and style harder than before.
• More sarcasm and hostility, both
from politicians and citizens
• Politician writes attack
– Hareide is an imam-licking back
stabber
• Citizens attack or support
10/16/2018 12

13. Example: Labour posts with high engagement
• Positive or neutral communication
13
• But then we drill down into the comments…
• «I see the election’s coming up... Liars, all!»
• «You can’t trust these guys. Støre, lord of foggy speech»
• «I can’t see a single group who will benefit if Labour wins the election»
• «how much were these people paid to say this?»
• This pattern is common… The negative comments block out the positive and the
ones trying to contribute something worthwile

14. Discussion – public sphere or public toilet?
• Polarization, but not echo
chamber
• Lots of attacks, but also support.
– Especially Labour – lots of love
and hate.
• Clear signs that global events have
had an influence
• NOT just right-wing trolls
14
• Is this simply unfiltered «locker
room talk» finally becoming visible
• How realistic is the public sphere
ideal?
• Facebook as vent for the
disgruntled? Surveys show a
different picture

15. The political Facebook hype cycle?
15
Gartner hype cycle
2013
2009
2017

16. Future research
• Include other data sources, and compare f.ex. social media/new
«alternative media», social media sentiment vs national surveys on
immigration, globalisation and similar issues. echo chambers, polarization,
• Cross-country comparison (looking for partners)
16

17. Thank you for listening
17
mj@usn.no | Twitter: @mariusjoh