Political Social Media Sites as Public Sphere: A Case Study of the Norwegian Labour Party

Political interest and voter turnout is in steady decline. In an attempt to renew interest for political matters, political parties and governments have attempted to create new digital meeting places, with the hope that social media can contribute to renew the public sphere and thereby increase political awareness in the population. Communicating in new media demands adaption to the culture of the new medium, and the networked nature of the Internet poses challenges to old ways of thinking as we can no longer talk about one public sphere but rather a networked public sphere consisting of a multitude of discussion spaces. In this article, we contribute to the understanding of the networked public sphere and online political communication through a case study of MyLaborParty.no, a social network run by a Norwegian political party. Our findings indicate that political parties can create a thriving part of the networked public sphere, as long as they invite opposing voices to the discussion, communicate using the genres which facilitate discussion and have users or moderators who help spread ideas between discussion spaces.

[1]  Antje Gimmler Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet , 2001 .

[2]  Peter Muhlberger,et al.  Human Agency and the Revitalization of the Public Sphere , 2005 .

[3]  Jos van Hillegersberg,et al.  Social Media and Political Participation: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube Democratizing Our Political Systems? , 2011, ePart.

[4]  Lori Rosenkopf,et al.  Social Network Effects on the Extent of Innovation Diffusion: A Computer Simulation , 1997 .

[5]  Lincoln Dahlberg The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring The Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere , 2001 .

[6]  Michael Schaich,et al.  The Public Sphere , 2009 .

[7]  L. Abroms,et al.  Obama's Wired Campaign: Lessons for Public Health Communication , 2009, Journal of health communication.

[8]  Philip N. Howard,et al.  Introduction: New directions in internet politics research , 2008 .

[9]  David Hardisty,et al.  On the Internet , 2000, Biological Psychiatry.

[10]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences , 2002, J. Inf. Sci..

[11]  Jeremy Rose,et al.  The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area , 2008, Gov. Inf. Q..

[12]  Jeremy Rose,et al.  D.14.3 DEMO-net booklet: The role of Social networking software in eParticipation , 2008 .

[13]  A. Kluge,et al.  Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere , 1993 .

[14]  Ann Macintosh,et al.  Using Weblogs to Support Local Democracy , 2005, TCGOV.

[15]  Tim O'Reilly,et al.  What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software , 2007 .

[16]  Darren G. Lilleker,et al.  Building an Architecture of Participation? Political Parties and Web 2.0 in Britain , 2009 .

[17]  A. Kaplan,et al.  Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media , 2010 .

[18]  Tero Päivärinta,et al.  Autopoietic Cybergenres for e-Democracy? Genre Analysis of a Web-Based Discussion Board , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[19]  J. Habermas,et al.  The structural transformation of the public sphere : an inquiryinto a category of bourgeois society , 1991 .

[20]  Jennifer Stromer-Galley,et al.  Political Discussion Online , 2011 .

[21]  Petter Bae Brandtzæg,et al.  User loyalty and online communities: why members of online communities are not faithful , 2008, INTETAIN '08.

[22]  Marika Lüders,et al.  eCitizen2.0. The ordinary citizen as a supplier of public-sector information , 2008 .

[23]  Susan O'Donnell,et al.  Analysing the Internet and the Public Sphere: The Case of Womenslink , 2001 .

[24]  Clay Shirky The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change , 2011 .

[25]  F. Tönnies Community and Association , 1956 .

[26]  W. Orlikowski,et al.  Genre Systems: Structuring Interaction through Communicative Norms , 2002 .

[27]  Mark Gray,et al.  Declining Voter Turnout in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 1950 to 1997 , 2000 .

[28]  Elvis Mazzoni,et al.  Monitoring Activity in E-Learning: A Quantitative Model Based on Web Tracking and Social Network Analysis , 2010 .

[29]  Soon Ae Chun,et al.  Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Social Networks: Making Connections between Citizens, Data and Government , 2009, Digital Government Research.

[30]  Ljupco Todorovski,et al.  Mapping the E-Government Research with Social Network Analysis , 2009, EGOV.

[31]  Michael A. Shepherd,et al.  The evolution of cybergenres , 1998, Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[32]  JoAnne Yates,et al.  Genre taxonomy: A knowledge repository of communicative actions , 2001, TOIS.

[33]  J. Knote Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community , 2004 .

[34]  D. Barney The Network Society , 2004 .

[35]  Brian Mcnair An Introduction to Political Communication , 1995 .

[36]  Todd Graham,et al.  Needles in a Haystack , 2008 .

[37]  Marius Rohde Johannessen,et al.  Social Capital and the Networked Public Sphere: Implications for Political Social Media Sites , 2012, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[38]  Marius Johannessen Genres of Participation in Social Networking Systems: A Study of the 2009 Norwegian Parliamentary Election , 2010, ePart.

[39]  David Tewksbury The Seeds of Audience Fragmentation: Specialization in the Use of Online News Sites , 2005 .

[40]  W. Orlikowski,et al.  Genre Repertoire: The Structuring of Communicative Practices in Organizations , 1994 .

[41]  John Keane Structural Transformations of the Public Sphere , 2020, The Information Society Reader.

[42]  Yochai Benkler,et al.  The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom , 2006 .

[43]  M. Castells The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance , 2008 .

[44]  Øystein Sæbø,et al.  Understanding TwitterTM Use among Parliament Representatives: A Genre Analysis , 2011, ePart.

[45]  Tero Päivärinta,et al.  Metacommunication Patterns in Online Communities , 2009, HCI.

[46]  Rachel K. Gibson,et al.  Online Participation in the UK: Testing a ‘Contextualised’ Model of Internet Effects 1 , 2005 .

[47]  J. Blumler,et al.  Political Communication —Old and New Media Relationships , 2009 .

[48]  Øyvind Kalnes,et al.  Norwegian Parties and Web 2.0 , 2009 .

[49]  Bo Yang,et al.  Visualization of the Chinese academic web based on social network analysis , 2010, J. Inf. Sci..

[50]  Natalie Jomini Stroud,et al.  Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure , 2008 .

[51]  Hans-Jörg Trenz,et al.  The Democratizing Dynamics of a European Public Sphere , 2004 .

[52]  John M. Merriman From the French Revolution to the present , 2010 .

[53]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[54]  Peter Dahlgren The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation , 2005 .

[55]  Jeremy Rose,et al.  Characterizing eParticipation , 2007, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[56]  Syllabus Ba Communication and Media , 2013 .

[57]  Reinhard Riedl,et al.  Top-level decisions through public deliberation on the internet: evidence from the evolution of Java governance , 2009, D.GO.

[58]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method , 1995 .

[59]  Scott P. Robertson,et al.  The social life of social networks: Facebook linkage patterns in the 2008 U.S. presidential election , 2009, D.GO.

[60]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Analyzing Social Media Networks with NodeXL: Insights from a Connected World , 2010 .

[61]  M. Poster CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere , 2013 .

[62]  W. Orlikowski,et al.  Genres of Organizational Communication: A Structurational Approach to Studying Communication and Media , 1992 .

[63]  W. R. Neuman,et al.  The Internet and Four Dimensions of Citizenship , 2011 .

[64]  M. Castells Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society , 2000 .

[65]  Xiaoguang Wang,et al.  Blog-supported scientific communication: An exploratory analysis based on social hyperlinks in a Chinese blog community , 2010, J. Inf. Sci..

[66]  Slavko Splichal In search of a strong European public sphere: some critical observations on conceptualizations of publicness and the (European) public sphere , 2006 .

[67]  Tero Päivärinta,et al.  The Genre System Lens on E-Democracy , 2008, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[68]  Zizi Papacharissi The virtual sphere , 2002, New Media Soc..

[69]  Bruno S. Silvestre,et al.  Social Media? Get Serious! Understanding the Functional Building Blocks of Social Media , 2011 .

[70]  Johannes A.G.M. Models of Democracy and Concepts of Communication. , 2000 .

[71]  J. V. Dijk,et al.  Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice , 2001 .

[72]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  The Benefits of Facebook "Friends: " Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[73]  Elizabeth Frazer,et al.  The Problems of Communitarian Politics: Unity and Conflict , 2000 .

[74]  Amy MAZUR The use of social network analysis software to analyze communication patterns and interaction in online collaborative environments , 2010 .