Political Communication and Digital Advocacy
Strategies and Implications
Summary
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
- Cover
- Halftitle Page
- Title Page
- Copyright Page
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- Acknowledgments
- Section I: Political Rhetoric and Electoral Engagement
- 1. Trust, Truth, and Technology: Political Communication in Polarized Times
- 2. Polysyndeton, Social Media, and the Presidency: Digital Culture & Rhetorical Style in the 2020 Election
- 3. Trump and Twitter: A Study of Parasocial Interaction, Identification, and Social Presence
- 4. The Citizen-Fan: The Impact of Social Media and Fandom on Contemporary Political Engagement Online
- Section II: Political Misinformation and Disinformation
- 5. Knowledge Gaps and Misinformation: Social Media Engagement, Ideology, and Elections
- 6. Sowing Seeds of Distrust: Investigating the Spread of Mis- and Disinformation by Exploring the Pathways for Rural Americans to News
- 7. theDonald.win: Electoral Fraud and a Nation in Crisis
- Section III: Political Partisanship and Polarization
- 8. Streaming Entertainment into Political Pandemonium: Examining (Even More) Partisanship and Polarization in the 2020 Campaign
- 9. The Influence of Partisan Cues on Social Media: Acceptance of the 2020 Presidential Election Results
- 10. The Moderating Effect of Racial Resentment and Ambivalent Sexism on Partisanship and Thought Listing after Viewing the 2020 Vice Presidential Debate
- Section IV: Political Communication Strategies
- 11. Shared Blindness in Filter Bubbles: Political Messages in Social Media
- 12. When Election Lies Go Viral: How Social Media Platforms Amplified Cable News Networks’ Defamatory Comments about Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic Corporation
- 13. Normalizing New Identities in Political Roles: An Examination of the Social Media of Pete and Chasten Buttigieg
- 14. Hashtag Politics: #StopTheSteal as Rhetorical Strategy
- About the Editors
- About the Contributors
- Index
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The field of political communication emerged soon after World War II and steadily grew into an established field of study within the Communication discipline. From the field’s beginning, it was clear that better understanding the role of and influence of political rhetoric (or political communication) was important, especially due to the rapidly escalating technological developments that were utilized by politicians to campaign for votes.
Each scholar who contributed to this book is interested in understanding political communication’s role in the political process and, especially, within a democratic society. For all the time and effort put forth by each of the contributors to this collection, the editors are most appreciative.
The Peter Lang Group is a well-respected international academic and scholarly publisher and has been patient and helpful throughout the process of this book’s development. The editors are indebted to Dr. Elizabeth Howard, Acquisitions Editor at Peter Lang, for her assistance directing the manuscript through the concluding stages of publication. Appreciation is owed to Sweetlin Ajitha, of Peter Lang, for her assistance in the final stages. The editors wish to acknowledge the role of and express appreciation to Niall Kennedy, Senior Acquisitions Editor for Media and Communication, who enthusiastically supported this book idea and worked with us at the beginning of the project.
The editors also wish to acknowledge Muralidharan Pattabiraman and the production team at Peter Lang Private Limited in India for the appearance of the finished product, including the book’s cover design.
Importantly, the editors wish to express gratefulness to Dr. Mary E. Stuckey, the Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Communication Arts & Sciences at The Pennsylvania State University, and Dr. Mitchell S. McKinney, Dean and Professor of the Buchtel College of Arts & Sciences at the University of Akron. Mary and Mitchell are well-respected scholars in the political communication field, and they supported this work from the beginning. Their input from the peer review process vetting this project’s initial proposal, indeed, improved this book. The editors are honored they chose the project to be included in their “Frontiers in Political Communication” book series.
John Allen Hendricks is indebted to, Dr. Stacy Hendricks, his wife of more than 30 years. He wishes to recognize the support of Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA), a member of the University of Texas System. SFA has been a wonderful academic home.
Dan Schill remains deeply thankful for Jessica, Ellie, and Bennett. He would also like to recognize his colleagues at James Madison University for their continued collegiality, encouragement, and strong support for research and teaching.
·1· TRUST, TRUTH, AND TECHNOLOGY: POLITICAL COMMUNICATION IN POLARIZED TIMES
John Allen Hendricks and Dan Schill
Effectively communicating with the electorate is arguably the most important task a candidate for political office must master to get elected. Clear and persuasive communication helps candidates connect with voters, build trust and credibility, frame the issues and influence public opinion, navigate media scrutiny, respond to crises, and mobilize supporters to volunteer, donate, and vote. In addition to mastering effective communication, political candidates certainly must also have a firm grasp of policy issues, but, without doubt, if the candidate does not get elected due to poor communication skills and strategies, then knowledge and experience of the issues is irrelevant. Hackenburg et al. (2023) explained: “At the very heart of elections in a representative democracy lies the art of rhetoric. As Aristotle observed, effective rhetoric can offer political advocates significant electoral influence” (para. 3). Further, communication is not just about speaking eloquently but also about listening, empathizing, and adapting messages to diverse audiences. Communication is a fundamental skill that allows candidates to connect, persuade, and lead effectively in a complex and competitive media environment.
At the national level, communicating effectively with the electorate becomes much more complicated due to the multiple and fragmented mediums in which communication occurs combined with the vast diversity and competing interests of a national audience. Communicating effectively with a nationwide audience demands not only precision and clarity, but also cultural competence, adaptability across a fragmented media ecosystem, and the ability to navigate complex issues while maintaining trust with the citizenry. McNair (2011) explained:
Brave (and probably doomed to failure) is the organization which ventures into the contemporary political arena without a more or less sophisticated understanding of how the media work and the professional public relations machinery capable of putting that knowledge to good use. For all political actors, from presidents and prime ministers to trade union leaders and terrorists, this is now recognized to be a major prerequisite of successful intervention in public debate and governmental decision-making. (pp. xiv-xv)
Further elaborating on the importance and role of communication in the political process, Denton and Kuypers (2008) asserted that communication is foundational to social cohesion, issue discussion, and legislative enactment: “the essence of politics is talk or human interaction. Such interaction is formal and informal, verbal and nonverbal, public and private—but always persuasive in nature, causing us to interpret, to evaluate, and to act” (p. xii).
While the fundamentals of political communication go back to Aristotle and before, in recent years, political communication has become more dynamic, personalized, and complex over the past decade, driven by technological advancements, changing media landscapes, and shifts in political strategy. Among many other changes, digital and social media platforms like Facebook, X/Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok have become central to political communication. Candidates and parties use these platforms to directly reach voters, share their messages, mobilize supporters, and respond to criticism in real-time. Digital tools also allow for highly targeted advertising based on demographics, interests, and behaviors. The 24/7 news cycle driven by online news platforms and social media has increased the speed and intensity of political communication as political events and statements spread rapidly and reach a global audience almost instantly. There has been a shift towards more visual and interactive content in political communication, such as infographics, short-form videos, live streams, podcasts, and interactive websites. Social media has empowered citizens to participate in political discourse through user-generated content and citizen journalism and new platforms have diversified the sources of political news and information. At the same time, the decline of legacy media and institutional trust have contributed to the prevalence of misinformation and fake news. Thus, the purpose of this book is to more closely examine the role of communication in the political process and how communication has evolved on digital and social media platforms in recent years. This book studies these issues through the lens of the 2020 election cycle in the United States, however these trends will continue in the future and, just as political communication now extends beyond national borders, the findings in this book apply to other countries and contexts. So while each chapter necessarily looks to the recent past, each contribution will speak to the future and how candidates and leaders must adapt their communication capabilities to navigate the challenges and opportunities of modern political discourse.
Political Communication as an Evolving Discipline
With a basis in the existing disciplines of political science, speech communication, and journalism, political communication emerged as a distinct area in a limited manner in the 1950s and was established as a field of study in the 1980s (Nimmo & Sanders, 1981). While analyzing the emergence of this new field of study and its multidisciplinary origins, Nimmo and Sanders (1981), in a seminal work, asserted political communication “defies neat characterization” due to its multidisciplinary nature (p. 28). Elaborating on the pluralistic background from which the study of political communication emerged, Nimmo and Sanders traced the origins of the field to “rhetorical analysis, propaganda analysis, attitude change studies, voting studies, studies of the government and news media, functional and systems analysis, and studies of the influence of technological change in the field” (p. 671). As noted, from the beginning, scholars of political communication have examined the intersection of technology and politics. For example, scholars have investigated how communication technologies such as the printing press, telegraph, photography, radio, and television have influenced political discourse, participation, and power dynamics. In the decades following the 1990s, political discourse found itself being filtered through even more technological inventions such as the Internet, social media, big data, and artificial intelligence that required adjustments in theoretical and methodological approaches.
In 1990, a decade after Nimmo and Sanders (1981), Denton and Woodward defined political communication as “pure discussion about the allocation of public resources (revenues), official authority (who is given the power to make legal, legislative and executive decision), and official sanctions (what the state rewards or punishes)” (p. 14). Building upon that definition, Denton and Kuypers (2008) elaborated on political discourse by contending:
politics is conversation, discussion, and argument; human communication is the vehicle for political thought, debate, and action. It is a practical, process-centered, decision-oriented activity. Because it is dependent on the approval of specific audiences, its utility is strongly restricted by time and by the willingness of the political media to make its messages accessible. (p. 17)
The emergence of this field of study occurred because it was evident that political rhetoric and political communication, in general, needed more scrutiny because of its importance in political campaigning. It was especially important to understand the influence and effects of political communication on the political process in a democratic society, such as public opinion formation, political behavior, and electoral outcomes.
Normatively, democratic societies are premised upon basic tenets that promote and preserve the basic right to self-govern. To do so, there must be an informed and educated electorate to determine who would be best to govern. Recently, the rapid spread of technological advancements in communication has made it difficult for voters to clearly determine the best leaders for our nation. Additionally, the combination of traditional media and digital media has complicated the communication process. McQuade (2024) explained:
In a democracy, the people need a shared set of facts as a basis to debate and make decisions that advance and secure their collective interests. Differences of opinion, and even propaganda, have always existed in the United States, but now, enemies of democracy are using disinformation to attack our sovereign right to truthful information, intellectual integrity, and the exercise of the will of the people. Online disinformation is particularly insidious because of its immediacy, its capacity to deceive, and its ability to reach its target. (para. 9)
Social media companies such as X (formerly known as Twitter), Instagram, Facebook, and others have wielded considerable influence in recent elections’ political discourse. These platforms have enacted policies that have exacerbated issues related to creating and perpetuating confusing messages that undermine democracy. For example, Meta (the parent company of Facebook and Instagram) created a policy that allowed political candidates to post advertising that perpetuated the inaccurate assertion that significant voter fraud occurred in past elections (Zahn, 2023). Zahn (2023) stated: “The move raises concerns about the spread of false election-denial ads on Instagram and Facebook that could erode the public’s trust in U.S. democracy” (para. 5).
Trust in the American democratic process is vital to its future. Shea (2022) underscored just how fragile democratic societies are by sharing that “70% of the world’s population now lives in non-democratic states; in 2021, 33 countries veered towards authoritarianism while only 5 moved towards democracy, or at least more tolerance of democratic practices and strengthening of democratic institutions” (para. 7). This trend reflects a broader global challenge where the resilience of democratic values and practices is increasingly tested. It prompts reflection on the factors driving this shift, including geopolitical dynamics, internal governance challenges, and societal attitudes towards democratic norms. Such developments underscore the critical need for robust efforts to safeguard and promote democratic principles worldwide. One of these principles is the core idea that active citizen engagement and informed decision-making are fundamental to maintaining a healthy and responsive government and that an informed populace serves as a safeguard against governmental abuses and inefficiencies. President Thomas Jefferson (1789), and one of the nation’s Founding Fathers, explained the importance of an informed electorate: “wherever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights” (Bains, n.d., para. 1). Further explaining the importance of an informed electorate and how it delineates democracies from autocracies, McNair (2011) explained: “The importance of an informed, knowledgeable electorate dictates that democratic politics must be pursued in the public arena (as distinct from the secrecy characteristics of autocratic regimes)” (p. 17). To obtain an informed electorate, all citizens must have access to reliable information that is dispensed via trustworthy outlets. In recent American elections, the reliability of information on trustworthy outlets has rightfully been questioned by the electorate because of the increasingly partisan tone of political rhetoric on both traditional and digital media outlets.
Partisan News Outlets
Recent elections have revealed that news outlets have lost the trust of the American electorate. Specifically, Malik and Peterson (2021) suggested that trust in traditional media declined during the 2020 election. They shared that a Gallup survey found:
the percentage of Americans with no trust in the mass media hit a record high in 2020: only nine percent of respondents said they trust the mass media “a great deal” and a full 60 percent said they have little to “no trust at all” in it. (para. 2)
As trust in traditional media wanes, it raises critical questions about the future of public information consumption and the role of media in democratic societies.
Political polarization contributes significantly to the electorate’s lack of trust in the mass media. Malik and Peterson (2021) stated: “The American media landscape has become increasingly polarized over the last few decades” (para 3). When political discourse becomes highly polarized, individuals tend to seek out media sources that align with their existing beliefs and values. This phenomenon, known as selective exposure, leads people to consume news that reinforces their ideological perspectives while dismissing or distrusting information that contradicts them. Demonstrating the polarization of American politics, 95 percent of Democrats watch MSNBC while 93 percent of Republicans watch Fox News according to the Pew Research Center (Grieco, 2020). Without much debate among media observers, MSNBC is a left-leaning news organization while Fox News is a right-leaning news organization. In a polarized political environment, media outlets may cater to specific partisan audiences to maintain viewership or readership. This can result in biased reporting or selective framing of news stories that align with the ideological leanings of their target audience. As a consequence, audiences on both ends of the political spectrum perceive mainstream media as either favoring the opposing side or failing to represent their own views accurately. Further, political polarization often leads to heightened levels of suspicion and scrutiny towards media organizations. Partisans may accuse media outlets of bias, distortion, or outright fabrication of facts to advance a particular political agenda. The data bear this out. For example, Brenan (2022) found that there has been a consistent decline in the trust Americans hold toward the media. Brenan asserted: “There has been a consistent double-digit gap in trust between Democrats and Republicans since 2001, and that gap has ranged from 54 to 63 percentage points since 2017” (para. 6). Moreover, McGreal (2022) shared: “The Reuters Institute revealed last month that 42% of Americans actively avoid the news at least some of the time because it grinds them down or they just don’t believe it. Fifteen percent said they disconnected from news coverage altogether” (para. 2). The lack of trust the electorate holds toward the media has consistently declined over recent decades. Brenan (2022) stated: “The current level of public trust in media’s full, fair, and accurate reporting of the news is the second lowest on record” (para. 9). When the citizenry cannot trust the media outlets, they migrate to sources they do trust creating political polarization.
Political Polarization
Political polarization is when voters are strongly divided along ideological lines. Nivola (2005) characterized this phenomenon as sorting into clear and opposite factions: “polarization of U.S. politics reflects a sorting of political convictions by either the mass public or ruling elites, or both, into roughly two distinct camps: persons inclined to support the Democratic or the Republican parties’ policies and candidates for elective office” (para. 7). In 2024, the Pew Research Center (2024) found that the nation was evenly divided among the political parties. The study showed that 49% of registered voters were Democrats and 48% were Republicans. The Pew Research Center noted: “The partisan and ideological composition of voters is relatively unchanged over the last five years” (para. 9). Thus, there is little room for political apathy. That is, either you are a Democrat or a Republican, and you vote accordingly. There are fewer “independent” voters with a willingness to see both sides of the political spectrum, suggesting a landscape where party affiliation strongly influences voting behavior. Political polarization also shapes broader societal dynamics and governance. As ideological divisions deepen, partisan identities become more entrenched, leading to heightened levels of political tribalism. This tribalism manifests in various ways, including increased hostility towards opposing viewpoints, greater resistance to compromise, and a tendency to perceive political issues in stark black-and-white terms without nuance or complexity.
As far back as 2014, the Pew Research Center observed this sharp division along ideological lines stating, “Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines—and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive—than at any point in the last two decades” (2014, para. 1). The depth of partisan antipathy highlighted suggests not only a polarization of political beliefs but also a heightened emotional intensity in the way individuals perceive and interact with members of the opposing party. Another way to view the polarization, according to Kleinfeld (2023), is that Americans are less “politically” polarized and more “emotionally” polarized. To put it simply, Kleinfeld explained that Americans “do not like members of the other party. Americans harbor strong dislike for members of the other party” (para. 9). As a result of this dislike for those of the other party, individuals often distance themselves from others who hold differing opinions (Kelly, 2021). When individuals distance, or isolate themselves from people in political parties different from their own, they no longer are exposed to differing beliefs, opinions, and values, thus skewing and limiting their political knowledge. Instead, they are only exposed to information that reinforces already held beliefs. This distancing that occurs creates “echo chambers” and “filter bubbles.”
Echo Chambers/Filter Bubbles
As noted, the political distancing creates echo chambers that perpetuate political polarization and digital environments can intensify political polarization by reinforcing individuals’ existing beliefs while isolating them from opposing viewpoints. Travers (2023) explained the “echo chamber” concept:
Details
- Pages
- XVI, 370
- Publication Year
- 2025
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9783034355667
- ISBN (ePUB)
- 9783034355674
- ISBN (Softcover)
- 9783034355643
- ISBN (Hardcover)
- 9783034356435
- DOI
- 10.3726/b22642
- Language
- English
- Publication date
- 2025 (November)
- Keywords
- Media and Politics Campaigns and Elections Social Media Digital Media Public Opinion Political Marketing Media Studies 2020 United States Presidential Election Donald Trump Joe Biden Misinformation Political polarization
- Published
- New York, Berlin, Bruxelles, Chennai, Lausanne, Oxford, 2025. xvi, 370 pp., 10 b/w ill., 18 tables
- Product Safety
- Peter Lang Group AG