New Media and Political Communication in the Digital Age

The term “new media” has become ubiquitous in today’s digital age, but what exactly does it signify, and why is it so significant? Simply put, new media marks a departure from traditional media, introducing novel and transformative elements into the communication realm. These elements encompass a broad spectrum of digital technologies, platforms, and practices that have redefined the way we connect, share, and interact.

James Curran (2010, p.19) reminds us of the longstanding tradition of millenarian prophecies associated with new media. Throughout history, ambitious predictions have been made about how these emerging technologies would reshape communication and society. Some of these prophecies have indeed materialized, while others have fallen short of their grandiose expectations.

The digital revolution was characterized by several ground-breaking developments:

• The Rise of the Internet: The development of the Internet, often referred to as the “information superhighway”, was a defining moment. It allowed for the global interconnectivity of devices and the seamless exchange of information across borders (Leiner et al., 1997, p.11).
• Advancements in Computing Technology: Rapid advancements in computing technology have made it possible to process and transmit vast amounts of data at incredible speeds. The advent of personal computers brought computational power into homes and businesses.
• The World Wide Web: The creation of the World Wide Web, with its hypertext links, allowed users to navigate a vast digital landscape of interconnected information. It laid the foundation for the modern web, which has become an integral part of our daily lives.
• Digital Communication Tools: The digital revolution brought forth many digital communication tools, from email to instant messaging, that reshaped how individuals and organizations interacted and exchanged information.

Manovich (2001, pp. 43-63) offers a framework to help us grasp how new media differs from traditional media. These principles are numerical representation (digital code as the foundation), modularity (content made of interchangeable modules), automation (computer-driven processes), variability (customization and personalization), and transcoding (conversion into a common digital language). These principles collectively highlight the impact of digital technology, interactivity, and the adaptability of content, providing a fundamental understanding of the distinctions between new and traditional media (Manovich, 2001).

Lister et al. (2009, p.12-13) offer a useful categorization to understand what is “new” in new media:

• New Textual Experiences: It gives rise to novel genres, textual forms, and entertainment, redefining the patterns of media consumption. This includes immersive computer games, simulations, and cutting-edge cinematic special effects.
• New Ways of Representing the World: New media provides uncharted possibilities for representation and experience, often defying clear definitions. It brings forth immersive virtual environments and interactive multimedia on screen-based platforms.
• New Relationships with Media Technologies: It instigates shifts in how individuals use and engage with image and communication media in their daily lives. It also alters the meanings and significance attributed to these technologies.
• New Experiences of Embodiment, Identity, and Community: It reshapes personal and social experiences of time, space, and place, both on local and global scales. These shifts affect how individuals perceive themselves and their role in the world.
• New Conceptions of the Biological Body and Technology: New media challenges established boundaries between the human and the artificial, nature and technology, and the real and the virtual. It prompts us to reconsider the relationship between the biological body and technological media.
• New Patterns of Organization and Production: It leads to broader realignments and integrations within media culture, industry, economy, access, ownership, control, and regulation.

As Chadwick effectively argues (2013), the “hybrid media system,” his term for the new media landscape, not only thrives on the conflict and competition between established and emerging media paradigms but also exhibits noteworthy instances of interdependence among these paradigms. Participants in the interconnected realms of media and politics assume a dual function, simultaneously contributing to and shaping the amalgamation of influences they intend to harness (p.207). In simpler terms, those engaged in political communication continuously utilize and navigate both traditional and modern media systems to promote their values and interests, tapping into the network power inherent in the norms and practices of these systems (Grewal, 2008).

This dynamic interplay between traditional and new media systems has evolved over time. The history of political communication reflects the gradual integration of emerging technologies into the political landscape. While in the 1990s, policymakers at the state level displayed different reactions to the perceived advantages and drawbacks of emerging information and communication technologies (ICTs), it was a transformative period. This was because, in many countries, particularly in the Middle East, state-owned telecommunications providers monopolized service provision, as highlighted by Howard (2011, p.43). The advent of the internet, encompassing the World Wide Web and email, became pivotal during this time, serving as essential mediums for political campaigns and organizations to distribute information and connect with voters.

In the late 2000s, the ‘social media revolution’ transformed political communication, aligning with the transition from the static, information-centric Web 1.0 to the dynamic and interactive Web 2.0, which emerged in the early 2000s. Web 2.0 shifted online engagement from passive consumption to active participation, catalyzing the emergence of platforms like Facebook and Twitter (now baptized as “X” by his new owner Elon Musk) (O’Reilly, 2005). This transformation significantly affected political campaigns. Politicians swiftly adopted social media for outreach, mobilization, and direct voter engagement. Facebook and Twitter played pivotal roles in shaping political brands, spreading messages, and mobilizing supporters. As Lilleker and Jackson (2011) emphasize, the integration of social media into political communication strategies enabled candidates to engage in real-time, two-way conversations with constituents. This departure from traditional one-way communication fostered a more interactive and participatory form of politics.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2019 and reached Türkiye in March 2020, highlighted the importance of digital communication tools in establishing political authority and ensuring effective communication with the public. During this period, authorities used the HES (Hayat ve Sığar) application to convey the measures taken to the public and to control mobility across the country. This demonstrated the significance of digital communication tools in facilitating political authority and fostering effective communication with the public.

New media has also led to a profound transformation in the realm of political propaganda, a metamorphosis that can be comprehensively understood through the lens of Marshall McLuhan’s “medium is the message” theory (1964). According to this theory, the design or structure of a communication system is integral to its intended purpose. In the context of political propaganda, platforms like Facebook and Twitter represent a form that is intricately linked to their function. In contrast to traditional one-way communication channels, new media’s interactive nature fosters bidirectional engagement, fundamentally reshaping the function of political messaging. This shift from static communication to dynamic, participatory dialogue signifies a departure from the conventional media landscape. For instance, new media tools that have become notably prevalent among the new far-right movements, underscore a symbiotic relationship between form and function. Within these digital spaces, the new far-right leverages the interactive tools offered by platforms to not only broadcast their ideologies but also to actively engage with their audience and find new members. This paradigm shift is evident not only in the context of far-right movements but also in the alarming utilization of new media tools by terrorist groups.

The use of social media for political discourses can indeed be examined at multiple levels: individual, societal, national, and international. Each of these levels has its own unique dynamics and implications for how social media shapes political engagement and discourse. At the individual level, social media platforms offer a space for personal expression and political engagement like never before. People can share their thoughts, opinions, and experiences with a global audience. Moreover, individuals can follow political leaders, activists, and news outlets to stay informed about current events and engage in discussions. A recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center (Wike et al. 2022) across 19 developed nations reveals that regular citizens perceive social media as a double-edged sword in the realm of politics. That is, they view it as having the potential to be both beneficial and detrimental, yet the majority hold the opinion that it has had a favorable influence on democracy.

The term digital diplomacy is often used interchangeably with other phrases such as network diplomacy, e-diplomacy, online diplomacy, cyber diplomacy, and Twitter diplomacy or Twiplomacy. Naci Koru, the former deputy secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Türkiye, describes digital diplomacy in the following manner: “Utmost utilization of technological infrastructure in the production and implementation of external policies” (Göksu and Özkan, 2021, p.49).

On the societal level, social media has played a crucial role in the rise of grassroots movements and the amplification of underrepresented voices. Movements such as #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo gained prominence through social media activism. These platforms provide a means for marginalized groups to organize, mobilize, and demand social change. However, it’s important to note that social media’s influence on societal dynamics is not limited to progressive movements. These platforms have also played a significant role in the growth and mobilization of alt-right and extremist groups. Leveraging the potential offered by the internet for cooperation, communication, and collaborative content creation, these organizations exploit weaknesses within the news media ecosystem with the aim of enhancing the exposure and viewership of their messages (Mawrick, 2017, p. 3).

Nationally, social media has evolved into a primary platform for political campaigns and public discussions. Political parties and candidates employ channels such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to directly connect with voters and fundraisers. On a global scale, social media has revolutionized international relations and given rise to what is now known as digital diplomacy. Political leaders and diplomats utilize platforms like Twitter to issue official statements, engage in diplomatic disputes, and communicate with a worldwide audience.

Social media platforms have democratized access to political information. Citizens are also becoming aware of the potential impact that social media can have on political campaigns and are actively embracing the emerging media platforms at their disposal (Bode and Dalrymple, 2020, p. 312). Citizens can now easily access news, campaign updates, and policy discussions directly from their smartphones or computers. This accessibility has empowered individuals to be better-informed participants in the political process. The advent of social media has undeniably revolutionized the way people engage with political information. Previously, individuals relied on traditional media outlets like newspapers, television, and radio for their political news. However, social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have fundamentally changed this landscape, allowing anyone with an internet connection to access a wide array of political content in real time.

Despite the ongoing debate surrounding its classification as a “public sphere,” (Mundt et al. 2019), there is a general agreement that social media functions as a public space. It goes beyond being a platform solely for disseminating information about the strategies and activities of movements; it also actively contributes to shaping the discussions and discourse related to the issues raised by social movements. Social media platforms have also become transformative spaces where individuals collectively construct, refine, and negotiate their identities within the broader political and social contexts. It’s important to remember Boyd’s assertion that teenagers don’t consistently shape their identities in the same way across all their online interactions. Instead, teenagers often utilize a variety of social media platforms while managing their relationships and adapting to different situations and environments (Boyd, 2014, p. 38).

In summary, while social media’s targeted campaigning tools offer new opportunities for political engagement and mobilization, they also raise ethical concerns related to privacy, data security, and the potential manipulation of voters, as exemplified in various political campaigns and academic research. These concerns are subjects of ongoing research and debate in the field of digital politics, and they highlight the global implications of data-driven political campaigns. Bennet and Lyon (2019, p.4-5) delineate these concerns related to data-driven elections. Firstly, these campaigns exacerbate divisiveness by focusing on polarizing issues. Furthermore, data-driven elections can give rise to filter bubbles, in which individuals are exposed solely to information that reinforces their existing beliefs and interests. The problem of false advertising becomes more significant within this context, as false claims might persist unchallenged in the secrecy of personalized messaging. Additionally, concerns are expressed about the manipulation of voter interests, potentially leading to reduced political participation. Data-driven campaigns may also modify the traditional nature of political volunteering and face-to-face voter contact. Finally, these elections could potentially yield more ambiguous political mandates and foster patron-client forms of politics, thereby affecting governance structures.

In a report commissioned by the Council of Europe, which focuses on the examination of information disorder and its associated complexities, Wardle and Derakhshan (2017, p.4) offer a valuable conceptual framework for the analysis of information disorder. This framework classifies information disorder into three clearly defined categories: misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. These categorizations are established by considering both the dimensions of harm and accuracy.

Misinformation pertains to the dissemination of false information without any malicious intent, where the sharing of inaccurate information occurs unintentionally, and no harm is intended.

Disinformation encompasses the deliberate sharing of false information with the specific intention of causing harm, reflecting an awareness of the information’s falsity and harmful consequences.

Malinformation involves sharing genuine information, typically intended to remain private, with the explicit purpose of causing harm, often by exposing private information to the public sphere.

Wardle and Derakhshan (2017, pp. 22-23) further provide a comprehensive framework for understanding information disorder, which involves examining it through three key elements and considering its lifecycle in three phases.

These three key elements are:

1. Agent: This refers to the individuals or entities responsible for creating, producing, and distributing the information disorder. It’s essential to understand their motivations and roles.
2. Message: This entails an analysis of the type and format of the information disorder message, as well as its defining characteristics.
3. Interpreter: This focuses on how recipients of the message interpret it and the actions they take in response.

Although it remains a contested term, “trolls” generally refers to individuals who maliciously seek to provoke reactions from others online for their own amusement (Marwick and Lewis, 2017, p. 59). Trolls have a history of manipulating the media to draw attention to hypocrisies and hysteria, often targeting public figures and organizations. They often claim to be apolitical and employ shocking imagery as a means to offend. Initially, trolls were individuals who intentionally provoked emotional reactions by posting inflammatory messages. Over time, trolling evolved into a pursuit of “lulz” or humor in sowing discord and eliciting reactions (Marwick and Lewis, 2017).

The impact of AI on democratic politics is complex. On one hand, AI-driven communication platforms can promote public debate and information flow, vital for democracy. However, concerns arise regarding AI’s potential to undermine democracy, especially through deepfake technology, which can manipulate the media and mislead voters. AI’s use in making opaque, machine-generated decisions raises accountability issues and affects vulnerable groups, such as welfare systems and criminal justice. Additionally, AI-powered state surveillance, like facial recognition technology, can threaten civil liberties and disproportionately target marginalized communities. Public-private collaborations in sensitive areas can blur democratic responsibilities and favor corporate interests, potentially eroding transparency, and accountability in governance.