A social media revolution or just a case of history repeating itself? The use of social media in the 2011 Finnish parliamentary elections

New Media and Society

Volumn 15, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 1329-1347

  Strandberg, Kim ^a  

^a ÅBO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Candidates; Finland; long tail campaigning; social media; Web 2.0 campaigning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878803048     PISSN: 14614448     EISSN: 14617315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1461444812470612     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Anderson CThe Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More. New York: Hyperion; 2006.
2. Anduiza E,Gellgo A,Cantijoch M.Online political participation in Spain: the impact of traditional and Internet resources.Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 2010;7:356-368.
3. Anduiza E,Jensen M,Jorba LDigital Media and Political Engagement Worldwide: A Comparative Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
4. Baumgartner J,Morris J.MyFaceTube politics: social networking web sites and political engagement of young adults.Social Science Computer Review. 2010;28 (24): 24-44.
5. Borg SInternet ja sosiaalinen media Suomen EU-vaaleissa 2009. Tampere: FSD; 2009.
6. Cantijoch M,Cutts D,Gibson R.Participating in the UK e-campaign: who engaged, how, and with what effect?. Paper presented at the ECPR general conference; 2011Reykjavik, Iceland; 2011.
7. Carlson T,Strandberg K.The 2004 European parliament election on the web: Finnish actor strategies and voter responses.Information Polity. 2005;10 (3 and 4): 189-204.
8. Carlson T,Strandberg K.Riding the Web 2.0 wave - candidates on YouTube in the 2007 Finnish National Elections.Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 2008;5 (2): 159-174.
9. Carlson T,Strandberg KiPolitics: Citizens, Elections, and Governing in the New Media Era. Ramos JDavies R, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012:125-150.
10. Castells M.Communication, power, and counterpower in the network society.International Journal of Communication. 2007;1:238-266.
11. Cogburn D,Espinoza-Vasquez F.From networked nominee to networked nation: examining the impact of Web 2.0 and social media on political participation and civic engagement in the 2008 Obama campaign.Journal of Political Marketing. 2011;10:189-213.
12. Coleman S,Götze JBowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation. London: Hansard Society; 2001.
13. Conners J.Understanding the third-person effect.Communication Research Trends. 2005;24 (2): 1-22.
14. Davis R,Baumgartner J,Francia P, et alRoutledge Handbook of Internet Politics. Chadwick AHoward P, ed. New York: Routledge; 2009:13-25.
15. Druckman JN,Kifer MJ,Parkin M.The technological development of congressional candidate web sites: how and why candidates use web innovations.Social Science Computer Review. 2007;25 (4): 425-442.
16. Facebook Marketing Statistics (2012) Online population. Available at: http://www.checkfacebook.com/ (accessed 30 May 2012).
17. Foot K,Schneider S.Online structure for political action: exploring presidential campaign web sites from the 2000 American election.The Public. 2002;9 (2): 1-17.
18. Fox R,Ramos JiPolitics: Citizens, Elections, and Governing in the New Media Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
19. Gasser U,Gerlach JiPolitics: Citizens, Elections, and Governing in the New Media Era. Ramos JDavies R, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012:125-150.
20. Gibson R.Web campaigning from a global perspective.Asia Pacific Review. 2004;11 (1): 95-126.
21. Gibson R.Open source campaigning? UK party organizations and the use of the new media in the 2010 general election. Paper for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association; 2010Washington, DC; 2010.
22. Gibson R,McAllister I.Crossing the Web 2.0 frontier? Candidates and campaigns online in the Australian federal election of 2007. Paper presented at ECPR general conference; 2009Potsdam, Germany; 2009.
23. Gibson R,Cantijoch M,Ward S.Another false dawn? New media and citizen participation in the 2010 UK general election. Paper for presentation at the elections public opinion and parties conference; 2010University of Essex, Essex, UK; 2010.
24. Greyes N.The untapped potential of social media: a primer for savvy campaigners.Campaigns and Elections. 2011;300:45-47.
25. Gueorguieva V.Voters, MySpace, and YouTube: the impact of alternative communication channels on the 2006 election cycle and beyond.Social Science Computer Review. 2008;26:288-300.
26. Gulati GJ,Williams CB.Congressional candidates' use of YouTube in 2008: its frequency and rationale.Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 2010;7:93-109.
27. Gustafsson N.The subtle nature of Facebook politics: Swedish social network site users and political participation.New Media & Society. 2012;14 (7): 1111-1127.
28. Eduskuntavaalit käydään vuonna 2011 Facebookissa.Helsingin Sanomat. 2010;:A5.
29. International Telecommunications Union (ITU) (2009) New ITU ICT Development Index compares 154 countries Europe tops ICT developments. Press release. Available at: http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2009/07.html (accessed 30 May 2012).
30. Johnson T,Perlmutter D.Introduction: the Facebook election.Mass Communications and Society. 2010;13:554-559.
31. Koster J.Long-tail nanotargeting. Al Franken's online ad buys earned an unbelievable return on investment.Politics. 2009;:23-26.
32. Kushin M,Yamamoto M.Did social media really matter? College students' use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election.Mass Communication and Society. 2010;13:608-630.
33. McMillan S.The microscope and the moving target: the challenge of applying content analysis to the World Wide Web.Journal of Mass Communication Quarterly. 2000;77 (1): 80-98.
34. Margolis M,Resnick DPolitics as Usual: The Cyberspace "Revolution". Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2000.
35. Margolis M,Resnick D,Levy JPolitical Parties and the Internet: Net Gain?. Gibson RNixon PWard S, ed. London: Routledge; 2003:53-69.
36. Norris PA Virtuous Circle: Political Communication in Post-industrial Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2001a.
37. Norris PDigital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty & the Internet Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2001b.
38. Norris P,Curtice J.If you build a political website, will they come? The Internet and political activism in Britain.International Journal of Electronic Government Research. 2006;2 (2): 1-21.
39. Norris P,Curtice J.Getting the message out: a two-step model of the role of the Internet in campaign communication flows during the 2005 British general election.Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 2008;4 (4): 3-13.
40. O'ReillyT (2005) What is Web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Available at: http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228 (accessed 30 May 2012).
41. Oser J,Hooghe M,Marien S.Is online participation distinct from offline participation? A latent class analysis of participation types and their stratification.Political Research Quarterly. 2012;XX (X): 1-11.
42. Pearson S,O'Connell F.Avoiding social media pitfalls.Campaigns and Elections. 2010;31:44-45.
43. Robertson S,Ravi V,Medina R.Off the wall political discourse: Facebook use in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.Information Polity. 2010;15:11-31.
44. Rogers EDiffusion of Innovations. 1995) Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed.New York: Free Press.New York: Free Press; 1995.
45. Ruostetsaari I,Mattila MDo Political Campaigns Matter? Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums. Farell DSchmitt-Beck R, ed. London: Routledge; 2002:93-107.
46. Schlozman KL,Verba S,Brady HE.Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the Internet.Perspectives on Politics. 2010;8 (2): 487-509.
47. Schneider S,Foot KThe Internet Election: Perspectives on the Web in Campaign 2004. Williams ATedesco J, ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2006:21-36.
48. Shaha A.Long tail politics: sell less of more.Politics. 2008;:14-15.
49. Smith AWashington DC; 2009.
50. Smith AWashington DC; 2011.
51. Statistics Finland (2011) Sosiaalinen media: verkkomedian ja yhteisöpalvelujen käyttö. Available at: http://www.stat.fi/til/sutivi/2010/sutivi_2010_2010-10-26_kat_003_fi.html (accessed 30 May 2012).
52. Strandberg KParties, Candidates and Citizens On-Line - Studies of Politics on the Internet. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press; 2006.
53. Strandberg KVaalit Yleisödemokratiassa. Paloheimo HBorg S, ed. Tampere: Tampere University Press; 2009:60-93.
54. Strandberg KMuutosvaalit 2011. Borg S, ed. Helsinki: Oikeisministeriö - Ministry of Justice; 2012:79-96.
55. Straw WThe Internet and the 2010 Election: Putting the Small 'p' back in Politics?. Gibson RWilliamson AWard S, ed. London: Hansard Society; 2010:43-50.
56. Stromer-Galley J.Online interaction and why candidates avoid it.Journal of Communication. 2000;50 (4): 11-132.
57. Sudulich ML,Wall M.'Every little helps': cyber-campaigning in the 2007 Irish general election.Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 2010;7:340-355.
58. SudulichMLWallMJansenE. (2010) Me too for Web 2.0? Patterns of online campaigning among candidates in the 2010 UK general elections. Unpublished paper. Internet, Politics, Policy.
59. Sundberg JThe International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design. Reynolds AReilly B, ed. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance; 1997:72-73.
60. Utz S.The (potential) benefits of campaigning via social network sites.Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 2009;14:221-243.
61. Williams CB,Gulati J.Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the 2006 midterm elections. Paper for presentation at the American Political Science Association conference; 2007Chicago; 2007.
62. Xenos M,Moy P.Direct and differential effects of the Internet on political and civic engagement.Journal of Communication. 2007;57:704-718.
63. Zittel T.Lost in technology? Political parties and the online campaigns of constituency candidates in Germany's mixed member electoral system.Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 2009;6:298-311.