The Importance of Social Media and Religious Perceptions in the Service of Politicians' Communication and Images

Abstract

Technological determinism, a theory examining the role of technology in societal development, is a subject of extensive discourse in the internet era. This theory perceives technology as a pivotal force shaping societal progress. Within this framework, divergent perspectives emerge, ranging from utopian views depicting technology as a vehicle for salvation to dystopian views highlighting its disruptive potential. This duality is particularly evident in discussions regarding social media's influence on political communication. The hybridization of media systems, as proposed by Andrew Chadwick, further blurs the lines between traditional and new media, exemplified by Barack Obama's groundbreaking 2008 presidential campaign, which utilized social media alongside traditional platforms. Social media's and religion perception impact on political communication evokes both optimism and skepticism. While proponents laud its role in fostering citizen engagement and enhancing political participation, critics like Malcolm Gladwell argue that it amplifies expression without tangible impact. Moreover, the influence of social media on political campaigns underscores the evolving landscape of communication strategies, with leaders leveraging platforms like Facebook and Twitter to shape public perception. In navigating this terrain, understanding the complexities of image construction becomes paramount for political actors. The interplay between rhetoric, communication strategies, and public perception shapes the success of political campaigns. However, maintaining control over one's image amidst the fluid dynamics of political discourse remains a formidable challenge. In conclusion, the discourse surrounding technological determinism and social media's impact on political communication underscores the need for nuanced analysis. While social media offers unprecedented opportunities for engagement, its dual nature necessitates vigilance against manipulation and polarization. Ultimately, the compatibility between desired images and genuine personas remains central to effective political communication in the digital age.

Keywords

• Social Media
• Politician
• Communication
• Religious Perceptions
• Political Image
• Digital Era
• Determination

Siyasilerin İletişimi ve İmajların Hizmetinde Sosyal Medya ve Dini Algıların Önemi

Abstract

Teknolojik determinizm, teknolojinin toplumsal gelişimdeki rolünü inceleyen bir teoridir ve internet çağında geniş kapsamlı bir tartışma konusudur. Bu teori, teknolojiyi toplumsal ilerlemeyi şekillendiren belirleyici bir güç olarak algılar. Bu çerçevede, kurtarıcı olarak teknolojiyi tasvir eden ütopyacı görüşlerden başlayarak, onun bozucu potansiyelini vurgulayan distopik görüşlere kadar farklı bakış açıları ortaya çıkar. Bu ikilik, sosyal medyanın siyasi iletişim üzerindeki etkileriyle ilgili tartışmalarda özellikle belirgindir. Andrew Chadwick tarafından önerilen medya sistemlerinin hibridleşmesi, geleneksel ve yeni medya arasındaki çizgileri daha da bulanıklaştırır. Bu, Barack Obama'nın çığır açan 2008 başkanlık kampanyası tarafından sergilenen, geleneksel platformların yanı sıra sosyal medyayı da kullanan kampanya ile örneklenmiştir. Sosyal medyanın ve dini algilarin siyasi iletişim üzerindeki etkisi, hem iyimserlik hem de şüphecilik uyandırır. Destekçileri, vatandaş katılımını teşvik etme ve siyasi katılımı artırma rolünü överken, Malcolm Gladwell gibi eleştirmenler, somut etki olmadan ifadeyi artırdığını savunur. Dahası, sosyal medyanın siyasi kampanyalara etkisi, liderlerin Facebook ve Twitter gibi platformları kullanarak halkın algısını şekillendirmesiyle, iletişim stratejilerinin evrilen manzarasını vurgular. Bu zeminde gezinirken, politik aktörler için imaj oluşturmanın karmaşıklıklarını anlamak, hayati öneme sahiptir. Retorik, iletişim stratejileri ve kamu algısı arasındaki etkileşim, siyasi kampanyaların başarısını şekillendirir. Ancak, politik tartışmanın akışkan dinamikleri içinde bir kişinin imajını korumak, zorlu bir meydan okuma olarak kalır. Sonuç olarak, teknolojik determinizm ve sosyal medyanın siyasi iletişime etkisi etrafındaki tartışma, nüanslı bir analiz gerekliliğini vurgular. Sosyal medya, katılım için eşi benzeri görülmemiş fırsatlar sunsa da, ikili doğası, manipülasyon ve kutuplaşmaya karşı dikkatli olunması gerektiğini gerektirir. Son olarak, istenen imajlar ile gerçek kişilikler arasındaki uyumluluk, dijital çağda etkili siyasi iletişimin merkezinde kalır.

Keywords

• Sosyal Medya
• Politikacı
• İletişim
• Dini Algılar
• Siyasi İmaj
• Dijital Çağ
• Belirleme

References

1. Barbera, P. (2020). Social media, echo chambers, and political polarization. Cambridge University Press.
2. Boulding, K. E. (1956). The image: Knowledge in life and society. University of Michigan Press.
3. Caers, R., De Feyter, T., De Couck, M., Stough, T., Vigna, C., & Du Bois, C. (2013). Facebook: A literature review. New Media and Society, 15(6), 982-1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444812465137
4. Canary, N. (2002). Playing for the celebrity: Big brother as ritual event. Television and New Media, 3(3), 283-293. https://doi.org/10.1177/152747640200300303
5. Carpino, M. D. (2018). Alternative facts: Donald Trump and the emergence of a new media regime. Information, Communication & Society, 20(11), 1639-1656. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X. 2018.1460150
6. Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.
7. Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford University Press.
8. Clary, S. (2011). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign Affairs, 90(1). Retrieved from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2011-01-01/political-power-social-media

9. Denton, R., Trent, J., & Friedenberg, R. V. (2020). Political campaign communication: Principles and practices. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
10. Downs, A. (1985). An economic theory of democracy. Addison-Wesley.
11. Effing, R., Hillegersberg, J. V., & Huibers, T. (2011). Social media and political participation: Are Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube democratizing our political systems? Springer.
12. Garcia, D. (2011). The perceptualizing of politics in Western democracies: Causes and consequences on leader-follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 697-709. https://doi.org/10. 1016/ j.leaqua.2011.05.010
13. Gennaro, C. D., & Dutton, W. (2006). The internet and the public: Online and offline political participation in the United Kingdom. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(2), 299-313. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/pa/gsl007
14. Giddens, A. (2009). Sociology. Polity Press.
15. Gladwell, M. (2010). Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker, 86(4), 42-49. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-malcolm-gladwell
16. Kellner, D. (2000). Habermas, the public sphere, and democracy: A critical intervention. UCLA School of Education & Information Studies, 1-26.
17. Korolko, V. G. (2000). Basics of public relations. 294.
18. Lees-Marchment, J. (2011). The marriage of politics and marketing. Political Studies, 49(4), 692-713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00874.x
19. Medvic, S. K. (Ed.). (2014). Campaigns and elections: Players and processes. Routledge.
20. Nucci, D. D. (1999). Fragmented future. Print, 53(4), 32.
21. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
22. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you? The Penguin Press.
23. Pochepkov, G. (2000). 20th century communication technologies. Kyiv.
24. Schill, D., & Hendricks, J. A. (2017). The presidency and social media: Discourse, disruption, and digital democracy in the 2016 presidential elections. Routledge.
25. Solis, B. (2022). Defining social media. Retrieved from https://briansolis.com/contact/
26. Stieglitz, S., & Xuan, L. D. (2013). Social media analytics – an interdisciplinary approach and its implications for information systems. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6(2), 89-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-013-0264-5
27. Stömbäck, J., & Kiousis, S. (2014). Strategic political communication in election campaigns. Mouton de Gruyter.
28. Van Dijk, J. (2016). The network society. Sage.
29. Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C. T., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2011). It's complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(3), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0411
30. Walker, C., & Ludwig, J. (2017). The meaning of sharp power: How authoritarian states project influence. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-11-16/meaning-sharp-power
31. Zuniga, H. G. D., Barnidge, M., & Diehl, T. (2018). Political persuasion on social media: A moderated model of political discussion, disagreement, and civil reasoning. The Information Society, 34(5), 302-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2018.1488306
32. Zuniga, H. G. D., Valenzuela, S., & Brian, E. W. (2016). Motivations for political discussion: Antecedents and consequences on civic engagement. Human Communication Research, 42(4).