Aristotelian rhetoric and Facebook success in Israel's 2013 election campaign

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the mapping of the social media discourse involving politicians and their followers during election campaigns, the authors examined Israeli politicians’ Aristotelian rhetoric on Facebook and its reception during the 2013 elections campaign. Design/methodology/approach – The authors examined the Aristotelian rhetorical strategies used by Israeli politicians on their Facebook walls during the 2013 elections, and their popularity with social media users. Findings – Ethos was the most prevalent rhetorical strategy used. On the reception front, pathos-based appeals attracted the most likes. Finally, the results point to some discrepancy between politicians’ campaign messages and the rhetoric that actually gains social media users’ attention. Research limitations/implications – The findings indicate that Israel’s multi-party political system encourages emphasis on candidates’ credibility (ethos) in contrast to the prevalence of emotion (pathos) in typical ...

[1]  W. Coleman,et al.  The rhetoric of Western thought , 1978 .

[2]  Anthony M. Limperos,et al.  The 2008 Presidential Election, 2.0: A Content Analysis of User-Generated Political Facebook Groups , 2010 .

[3]  Claes H. de Vreese,et al.  Good News for the Future? Young People, Internet Use, and Political Participation , 2011, Commun. Res..

[4]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  It's Complicated: Facebook Users' Political Participation in the 2008 Election , 2011, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[5]  Darren G. Lilleker,et al.  Towards a More Participatory Style of Election Campaigning: The Impact of Web 2.0 on the UK 2010 General Election , 2010 .

[6]  Anne Helmond,et al.  The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web , 2013, New Media Soc..

[7]  Shaul R. Shenhav,et al.  From Inter-Party Debate to Inter-Personal Polemic , 2008 .

[8]  Jonah A. Berger.  Arousal Increases Social Transmission of Information , 2011, Psychological science.

[9]  William Allen,et al.  The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness , 1953 .

[10]  A. Lindgreen,et al.  Why Pass on Viral Messages? Because They Connect Emotionally , 2007 .

[11]  Graham Page,et al.  Creative determinants of viral video viewing , 2010 .

[12]  Shaul R. Shenhav,et al.  Two routes to personalized politics , 2014 .

[13]  K. Poels,et al.  How to Capture the Heart? Reviewing 20 Years of Emotion Measurement in Advertising , 2006 .

[14]  Dhavan V. Shah,et al.  A New Space for Political Behavior: Political Social Networking and its Democratic Consequences , 2013, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[15]  Nicholas A. John.  The Social Logics of Sharing , 2013 .

[16]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining , 2013, ASONAM 2013.

[17]  Ruthann Weaver Lariscy,et al.  Candidates Make Good Friends: An Analysis of Candidates' Uses of Facebook , 2008 .

[18]  C. Heath,et al.  Emotional Selection in Memes : The Case of Urban Legends Chip Heath , 2004 .

[19]  Masahiro Yamamoto,et al.  Did Social Media Really Matter? College Students' Use of Online Media and Political Decision Making in the 2008 Election , 2010 .

[20]  Sean P. Goggins,et al.  Shepherding and Censorship: Discourse Management in the Tea Party Patriots Facebook Group , 2012, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[21]  Scott P. Robertson,et al.  Off the wall political discourse: Facebook use in the 2008 U.S. presidential election , 2010, Inf. Polity.

[22]  Devendra Potnis,et al.  Culture's consequences: Economic barriers to owning mobile phones experienced by women in India , 2016, Telematics Informatics.

[23]  Clark Leavitt,et al.  The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: Tests of Cognitive Response , 1978 .

[24]  Online Media Use During 2013 Japanese Upper- House E lection: A C ontent A nalysis o f Comments on Candidates' Facebook Pages , 2014 .

[25]  A. Wilhite,et al.  Campaign Tactics and the Decision to Attack , 1998, The Journal of Politics.

[26]  Tamir Sheafer,et al.  Party Systems and Oppositional Voices in the News Media , 2009 .

[27]  A. Langer,et al.  The personalization of politics in comparative perspective: Campaign coverage in Germany and the United Kingdom , 2014 .

[28]  Chip Heath,et al.  Emotional selection in memes: the case of urban legends. , 2001 .

[29]  Stefan Stieglitz,et al.  Emotions and Information Diffusion in Social Media—Sentiment of Microblogs and Sharing Behavior , 2013, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[30]  John H. Pryor,et al.  The American freshman : forty year trends, 1966-2006 , 2007 .

[31]  Y. Peri.  Telepopulism: Media and Politics in Israel , 2004 .

[32]  Kaye D. Sweetser,et al.  YouTube-ification of Political Talk: An Examination of Persuasion Appeals in Viral Video , 2011 .

[33]  Jenny Bronstein,et al.  Like me! Analyzing the 2012 presidential candidates' Facebook pages , 2013, Online Inf. Rev..

[34]  George R. Milne,et al.  Spreading the word through likes on Facebook: Evaluating the message strategy effectiveness of Fortune 500 companies , 2013 .

[35]  Limor Shifman,et al.  An anatomy of a YouTube meme , 2012, New Media Soc..

[36]  S. Schwartz.  Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. , 1994 .

[37]  F PeterMouncey.  Marketing in the Era of Accountability , 2007 .

[38]  Tamir Sheafer,et al.  The Personalization(s) of Politics: Israel, 1949–2003 , 2007 .

[39]  Jeffrey C. Neely,et al.  The Writing on the Wall: A Content Analysis of College Students' Facebook Groups for the 2008 Presidential Election , 2010 .

[40]  Reuven Y. Hazan,et al.  INCREASED PERSONALISATION IN AN UNSTABLE PARTY SYSTEM: THE 2013 ELECTIONS IN ISRAEL , 2013 .

[41]  S. Schwartz.  A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work , 1999 .

[42]  Geert Hofstede,et al.  Management scientists are human , 1994 .

[43]  Katherine L. Milkman,et al.  What Makes Online Content Viral? , 2012 .

[44]  Moran Yarchi.  “Badtime” Stories: The Frames of Terror Promoted by Political Actors , 2014 .

[45]  Azi Lev-On,et al.  Campaigning Online: Use of the Internet by Parties, Candidates and Voters in National and Local Election Campaigns in Israel , 2011 .

[46]  Graeme Baxter,et al.  Does Scotland ‘like’ This? Social Media Use by Political Parties and Candidates in Scotland during the 2010 UK General Election Campaign , 2012 .

[47]  Ee-Peng Lim,et al.  Politics, sharing and emotion in microblogs , 2013, 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM 2013).

[48]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values , 1980 .

[49]  Monica Ancu,et al.  MySpace Politics: Uses and Gratifications of Befriending Candidates , 2009 .

[50]  C. Welzel,et al.  Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence , 2005 .

[51]  Kim Strandberg,et al.  A social media revolution or just a case of history repeating itself? The use of social media in the 2011 Finnish parliamentary elections , 2013, New Media Soc..

[52]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[53]  Karen Nelson-Field,et al.  The Emotions that Drive Viral Video , 2013 .