Birds of a feather flock together? Party leaders on Twitter during the 2013 Norwegian elections

European Journal of Communication

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 666-681

  Larsson, Anders Olof ^a   Ihlen, Øyvind ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

Elections; Norway; political communication; Twitter

Indexed keywords

EID: 84949201620     PISSN: 02673231     EISSN: 14603705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0267323115595525     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. A.AdiK.EricksonD.G.Lilleker (2014) Elite Tweets: Analyzing the Twitter communication patterns of labour party peers in the house of lords. Policy & Internet6(1): 1–27.
2. D.Arter (1999) Scandinavian Politics Today. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
3. J.AusserhoferA.Maireder (2013) National politics on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society16(3): 291–314.
4. E.J.AveryM.W.Graham (2013) Political public relations and the promotion of participatory, transparent government through social media. International Journal of Strategic Communication7(4): 274–291.
5. M.BastianS.HeymannM.Jacomy (2009) Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Paper presented at the third international ICWSM conference, San Jose, CA, 17–20May.
6. S.Blumenthal (1980) The Permanent Campaign: Inside the World of Elite Political Operatives. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
7. A.Bruns (2011) How long is a Tweet? Mapping dynamic conversation networks on Twitter using Gawk and Gephi. Information, Communication & Society15(9): 1323–1351.
8. A.BrunsT.Highfield (2013) Political networks on twitter. Information, Communication & Society16(5): 667–691.
9. A.BrunsS.Stieglitz (2012) Quantitative approaches to comparing communication patterns on Twitter. Journal of Technology in Human Services30(3–4): 160–185.
10. E.P.Bucy (2004) Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept. The Information Society: An International Journal20(5): 373–383.
11. P.Dahlgren (2005) The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication22(2): 147–162.
12. L.Dang-XuanS.StieglitzJ.Wladarsch. (2013) An investigation of influentials and the role of sentiment in political communication on Twitter during election periods. Information, Communication & Society16(5): 795–825.
13. A.Davis (2010) Political Communication and Social Theory. London: Routledge.
14. J.N.DruckmanM.J.KiferM.Parkin (2007) The technological development of congressional candidate web sites. Social Science Computer Review25(4): 425–442.
15. G.ElmerG.LangloisF.McKelvey (2012) The Permanent Campaign: New Media, New Politics. New York: Peter Lang.
16. G.S.EnliE.Skogerbø (2013) Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics. Information, Communication & Society16(5): 757–774.
17. R.K.GibsonI.McAllister (2014) Normalising or equalising party competition? Assessing the impact of the web on election campaigning. Political Studies. Epub ahead of print 27January. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9248.12107.
18. R.K.GibsonW.LusoliS.Ward (2008) Nationalizing and normalizing the local? A comparative analysis of online candidate campaigning in Australia and Britain. Journal of Information Technology & Politics4(4): 15–30.
19. J.GolbeckJ.M.GrimesA.Rogers (2010) Twitter use by the US congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology61(8): 1612–1621.
20. T.GrahamM.BroersmaK.Hazelhoff (2013) Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters. Information, Communication & Society16(5): 692–716.
21. W.J.GrantB.MoonJ.B.Grant (2010) Digital dialogue? Australian politicians’ use of the social network tool Twitter. Australian Journal of Political Science45(4): 579–604.
22. G.J.GulatiC.B.Williams (2013) Social media and campaign 2012: Developments and trends for Facebook adoption. Social Science Computer Review31(5): 577–588.
23. J.Habermas (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. A.F.HayesK.Krippendorff (2007) Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures1(1): 77–89.
25. L.HermansM.Vergeer (2012) Personalization in e-campaigning: A cross-national comparison of personalization strategies used on candidate websites of 17 countries in EP elections 2009. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 23September. DOI: 10.1177/1461444812457333.
26. M.Hilson (2008) The Nordic Model. Scandinavia since 1945. London: Reaktion books.
27. C.HoneycuttS.C.Herring (2009) Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. In: 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (ed C.H.Susan), Waikoloa, Hawaii, pp.1–10.
28. N.JacksonD.Lilleker (2011) Microblogging, constituency service and impression management: UK MPs and the use of Twitter. The Journal of Legislative Studies17(1): 86–105.
29. S.L.Jones (1964) The Presidential Election of 1896. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
30. R.Karlsen (2009) Fear of the political consultant: Campaign professionals and new technology in Norwegian electoral politics. Party Politics16(2): 193–214.
31. R.Karlsen (2011) A platform for individualized campaigning? Social media and parliamentary candidates in the 2009 Norwegian election campaign. Policy & Internet3(4): 1–27.
32. D.Karpf (2012) Social science research methods in Internet time. Information, Communication & Society15(5): 639–661.
33. J.Y.KimD.L.PainterM.D.Miles (2013) Campaign agenda-building online: The effects of online information source and interactivity on affective evaluations and the salience of the election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics10(3): 326–340.
34. U.Klinger (2013) Mastering the art of social media. Information, Communication & Society16(5): 717–736.
35. K.Krippendorff (2008) Systematic and random disagreement and the reliability of nominal data. Communication Methods and Measures2(4): 323–338.
36. M.J.KushinM.Yamamoto (2010) Did social media really matter? College students’ use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication and Society13(5): 608–630.
37. A.O.Larsson (2013) ‘“Rejected Bits of Program Code”: Why notions of “Politics 2.0” remain (mostly) unfulfilled’. Journal of Information Technology & Politics10(1): 72–85
38. A.O.LarssonB.Kalsnes (2014) ‘‘Of course we are on Facebook’: Use and non-use of social media among Swedish and Norwegian politicians’. European Journal of Communication29(6): 653–667.
39. A.O.LarssonH.Moe (2013) Twitter in politics and elections - Insights from Scandinavia. In: A.BrunsJ.BurgessK.Weller. (eds) Twitter and Society. New York: Peter Lang, 319–330.
40. P.F.LazarsfeldB.BerelsonH.Gaudet (1944) The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
41. D.G.LillekerN.A.Jackson (2010) Towards a more participatory style of election campaigning: The impact of web 2.0 on the UK 2010 general election. Policy & Internet2(3): 67–96.
42. D.G.LillekerC.Malagón (2010) Levels of interactivity in the 2007 French presidential candidates’ websites’. European Journal of Communication25(1): 25–42.
43. M.LombardJ.Snyder-DuchC.C.Bracken (2002) Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research28(4): 587–604.
44. A.Mckee (2005) The Public Sphere: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. S.J.McMillan (2002) Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: Users, documents, and systems. In: L.LievrouwS.Livingstone (eds) The Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 163–182.
46. B.L.MasseyM.R.Leavy (1999) Interactivity, online journalism and English language web newspapers in Asia. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly76(1): 138–151.
47. F.MorstatterJ.PfefferH.Liu. (2013) Is the sample good enough? Comparing data from twitter’s streaming API with twitter’s firehose. In: The 8th international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM), Ann Arbor, MI.
48. B.NilssonE.Carlsson (2013) Swedish politicians and new media: Democracy, identity and populism in a digital discourse. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 30May. DOI: 10.1177/1461444813487964.
49. P.Rosanvallon (2011) Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50. Ø.Sæbø (2011) Understanding Twitter use among parliament representatives: A genre analysis. Paper presented at the third international conference on eParticipation (ePart 2011), Delft, 29 August–1 September.
51. K.Sanders (2009) Communicating Politics in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
52. G.Sartori (1990) A typology of party systems. In: P.Mair (ed.) The West European party system. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 316–350.
53. E.J.Schweitzer (2008) Innovation or normalization in e-campaigning? A longitudinal content and structural analysis of German party websites in the 2002 and 2005 national elections. European Journal of Communication23(4): 449–470.
54. G.W.Selnow (1998) Electronic Whistle-Stops: The Impact of the Internet on American Politics. Westport, CT: Praeger.
55. T.Small (2011) What the hashtag?Information, Communication & Society14(6): 1–24.
56. J.Stromer-Galley (2000) On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication50(4): 111–132.
57. P.J.TichenorG.A.DonohueC.N.Olien (1970) Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. The Public Opinion Quarterly34(2): 159–170.
58. T.L.Towner (2013) All political participation is socially networked? New media and the 2012 election. Social Science Computer Review31(5): 527–541.
59. S.Utz (2009) The (Potential) benefits of campaigning via social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(2): 221–243.
60. C.Vaccari (2008a) Research note: Italian parties’ websites in the 2006 elections. European Journal of Communication23(1): 69–77.
61. C.Vaccari (2008b) Surfing to the Elysee: The Internet in the 2007 French elections. French Politics6(1): 1–22.
62. M.VergeerL.Hermans (2013) Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and online social networking as campaign tools in the 2010 general elections in the Netherlands. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18(4): 399–419.
63. M.VergeerL.HermansS.Sams (2011a) Is the voter only a tweet away? Micro blogging during the 2009 European Parliament election campaign in the Netherlands. First Monday16(8) Available at: http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3540/3026.
64. M.VergeerL.HermansS.Sams (2011b) Online social networks and micro-blogging in political campaigning: The exploration of a new campaign tool and a new campaign style. Party Politics19(3): 477–501.
65. R.D.WatersJ.M.Williams (2011) Squawking, tweeting, cooing, and hooting: Analyzing the communication patterns of government agencies on Twitter. Journal of Public Affairs11(4): 353–363.
66. F.Webster (2002) Theories of the Information Society. London: Routledge.
67. C.B.WilliamsG.J.J.Gulati (2012) Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the congressional elections of 2006 and 2008. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 13September. DOI: 10.1177/1461444812457332.