TRACES OF OLD CODES IN NEW MEDIA: ANALYSIS OF THE TWITTER USE OF CANDIDATES IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AT 2018

Öz

Social media, which has become an effective tool for political parties or political actors to convey their views and opinions to their followers and citizens independently of time and place, is referred to the transformational effect of political communication campaigns. Considering the fact that both voters and political actors do not achieve equal access to mainstream media tools, social media tools offer important opportunities for voters to interact with political actors and to explain their ideas to political actors. The study aims to analysis the ways in which presidential candidates use Twitter in political communication campaigns in the Presidential and General Elections of June 24, 2018. During the election campaign, the role of political actors in creating online campaigns, how and how they use Twitter, what they intend to use Twitter, what issues they keep on the agenda during the election campaign, and the level of their interaction with the electorate are presented. As a result of the data collected through content analysis technique, it was determined that political actors used social media in one way and used the new technology within the framework of the old political communication strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social Media
• Content Analysis
• Twitter
• Political Communication
• New Media

YENİ MEDYADA ESKİ KODLARIN İZLERİ: 24 HAZİRAN 2018 CUMHURBAŞKANLIĞI SEÇİMLERİNDE SİYASİ AKTÖRLERİN TWITTER KULLANIMININ ANALİZİ

Öz

Siyasi partilerin ya da siyasi aktörlerin zaman ve mekândan bağımsız olarak kendi görüş ve düşüncelerini takipçilerine, yurttaşlara iletmesinde etkin bir araç haline gelen sosyal medyanın siyasal iletişim kampanyalarını dönüştürücü etkisinden söz edilmektedir. Özellikle ana akım medya araçlarına hem seçmenlerin hem de siyasi aktörlerin eşit bir şekilde ulaşamayacağı hallerde, sosyal medya araçları seçmenlere siyasal aktörlerle etkileşime geçebilme, onlara fikirlerini açıklamada önemli olanaklar sunmaktadır. Çalışma, 24 Haziran 2018 Cumhurbaşkanlığı ve Genel Seçimleri’nde Cumhurbaşkanı adaylarının siyasal iletişim kampanyalarında Twitter’ı kullanma biçimlerini analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada, seçim kampanyası sırasında siyasi aktörlerin çevrimiçi (online) kampanya oluşturma stilleri ve seçim kampanyası boyunca hangi konuları gündemde tuttukları ve seçmenle olan etkileşimlerinin düzeyi ortaya konulmaktadır. İçerik analizi tekniğiyle toplanan veriler üzerinden yapılan değerlendirme sonucunda siyasi aktörlerin çift yönlü iletişime ve etkileşime olanak sağlayan sosyal medyayı, tek yönlü olarak ve yeni olan bu teknolojiyi eski siyasal iletişim stratejileri çerçevesinde kullandıkları tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyal Medya
• İçerik Analizi
• Twitter
• Siyasal İletişim

Kaynakça

1. Avrupa Birliği, https://ab.org.tr/ab12/bildiri/205.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2019
2. Aziz, A. (2015). Siyasal İletişim, Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
3. Bayraktutan, G., Binark, M., Çomu, T., Doğu, B., İslamoğlu, G. ve Telli Aydemir, A.(2012). “Sosyal Medyada 2011 Genel Seçimleri: Nicel – Nitel Arayüzey İncelemesi”, Selçuk Üniversitesi, İletişim Dergisi, 7, 3, 5-29.
4. Blumler, J.G. ve Kavanagh, D. (1999). “The Third Age of Political Communication: Influences and Features”, Political Communication, 16,3, 209 – 230.
5. Broersma, M. Ve Graham, T. (2012). “Social Media as Beat”, Journalism Practice, 6, (3), 403-419.
6. Bruns, A. ve Highfield, T. (2016). “May the best tweeter win: The Twitter strategies of key campaign accounts in the 2012 US election”. (Editörler) Bieber, Christoph, & Kamps, Klaus, Die US-Präsidentschaftswahl 2012. Wiesbaden: Springer, 425–442.
7. Bouza, F.(2004). “The Impact Area of Political Communication: Citizanship Faced with Public Discourse”. International Review of Sociology, 14:2, 245 – 259.
8. Chang, V. (2009). “Obama and the Power of Social Media and Technology”, Stanford Graduate School of Business, http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/cases/documents/M321.pdf . Erişim Tarihi: 20.02.2019.

9. Cohen, B. (1969). The Press and Foreign Policy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
10. Cogburn, D. L., Espinoza, V. ve Fatima K. (2011). “From Networked Nominee to Networked Nation”. Journal of Political Marketing, 10(1-2), 189-213.
11. Conover, M.D., Gonçalves, B., Flammini, A. ve Menczer, F. (2012). “Partisan Asymmetries in Online Political Activity”, EPJ Data Science, 1:6, 1-19.
12. Digrazia, J., McKelvey, K., Bollen, J. ve Rojas, F. (2013). “More Tweets, More Votes: Social Media as a Quantitative Indicator of Political Behavior”, 8-11.
13. Doğu, B., Özçetin, B., Bayraktutan, G., Binark, M., Çomu, T., Telli Aydemir, A. ve İslamoğlu, G. (2014). Siyasetin Yeni Hali Vaka-i Sosyal Medya, İstanbul: Kalkedon Yayınları.
14. Effing, R., Hillegersberg, J.V. ve Huibers, T. (2011). “Social Media and Political Participation: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube Democratizing Our Political Systems?”, (Editörler) E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, and H. de Bruijn : ePart, LNCS 6847, 25–35.
15. Enli, G. ve Naper, A. (2016). “Social media incumbent advantage: Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s Tweets in the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign” (Editörler), Bruns, A, Enli, G, Skogerbø, E, v.d., The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics, New York: Routledge, 364–377.
16. Enli, G. (2017). “Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election”, European Journal of Communication, 32(1), 50 –61.
17. Farrell, D.M. ve Webb, P. (2000). ‘Political Parties as Campaign Organizations’, Ed. Russell J. Dalton & Martin P. Wattenberg. Parties without Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 102–28.
18. Fiske, J. (1997). İletişim Çalışmalarına Giriş, Çev. Süleyman İrvan, Ankara: Bilim Sanat Yayınları-Ark.
19. Garimella, K., Weber, I. ve De Choudhury, M. (2016). “Quote RTs on Twitter: Usage of the New Feature for Political Discourse”. WebSci '16 Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science, 22-25 May, Hannover.
20. Genel, M. G. (2012). “Siyasal İletişim Kampanyalarında Sosyal Medyanın Kullanımı”, The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication, TOJDAC, V.2, S.4., 23-31.
21. Gibson, R. K. ve Rommele, A. (2001) “Political Parties and Professionalized Campaigning”, The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 6, 31–43.
22. Gurevitch, M., Coleman, S. ve Blumler, J. G. (2009). “Political Communication Old and New Media Relationships”, ANNALS, AAPSS, 625,164-181.
23. Güneyli, A., Ersoy, M. ve Kıralp, Ş. (2017). “Terrorism in the 2015 Election Period in Turkey: Content Analysis of Political Leaders’ Social Media Activity”, Journal of Universal Computer Science, 23 (3), 256-279.
24. Halpern, D. ve Gibbs, J. (2013). “Social Media as a Catalyst for Online Deliberation? Exploring the Affordances of Facebook and YouTube for Political Expression”. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1159-1168.İrvan, S. (2001). “Gündem Belirleme Yaklaşımının Genel Bir Değerlendirilmesi”, İletişim, Gazi Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 69 – 109. Janda, K. ve Colman, T. (1998). “Effects of Party Organization on Performance during the ‘Golden Age’ of Parties”, Political Studies, XLVI, 611-632.
25. Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T. ve Tseng, B. (2007). “Why we Twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities”. Proceedings of the Ninth WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 Workshop on Web Mining and Social Network Analysis, 56–65.
26. Jungherr, A. (2014). “The Logic of Political Coverage on Twitter: Temporal Dynamics and Content”, Journal of Communication, 239-259.
27. Kiousis, S., Kim, S.Y., McDevitt, M. ve Ostrowski, A. (2009). “Competing for Attention: Information Subsidy Influence During Election Campaigns in Agenda Building”, J&MC Quarterly V. 86, (3), 545-562.
28. Kim, P. (2007). “Microblogging For Marketers, Forrester”, http://captivatingconnections.typepad.com/captivating_connections/files/051104 355000.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2019.
29. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis An Introduction to Its Methodology, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
30. Kruikemeier, S. (2014). “How Political Candidates use Twitter and the Impact on Votes”, Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 131-139.
31. Köker, E. (2007). Politikanın İletişimi İletişimin Politikası, Ankara: İmge Kitapevi.
32. Kushin, M.J. ve Kitchener, K. (2009). “Getting Political on Social Network Sites: Exploring Online Political Discourse on Facebook”. First Monday, 14(11), 2645-2350.
33. Lassen, D.S. ve Brown, A.R. (2011). “Twitter: The Electoral Connection?”, Social Science Computer Review, 29(4), 419-436.
34. Lee, J. ve Xu, W. (2018). “The More Attacks, The More Retweets: Trump’s and Clinton’s Agenda Setting on Twitter”, Public Relations Review, 44, 201–213.
35. Lilleker, D.G. (2006). Key Concepts in Political Communication, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
36. Lilleker, D.G. (2013). Siyasal İletişim Temel Kavramlar, (Editörler) Yusuf Devran, Alparslan Nas, Betül Ekşi, Yenal Göksun, İstanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları.
37. Lipmann, W. (1965). Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt Brace.
38. Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grany, I. ve Kelly, K. (2009). New Media a Critical Introduction, London and New York: Routledge.
39. Marvick, A.E. ve Boyd, D. (2010). “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and The Imagined Audience”, New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.
40. McCombs, M. E. ve Shaw, D.I. (1984). “The Agenda Setting Function of the Press”. Media Power in Politics, (Editörler), Doris A. Graber, Washington: Congressional Quarterly Inc.
41. McGirt, E. (2008). “The Brand Called Obama”. Fast Company, 124, 85–92.
42. McNair, B. (2007). An Introduction to Political Communication. London-New York: Routledge.
43. McQuail, D. ve Windahl, S. (1997). Kitle İletişim Modelleri. (Çev: Konca Yumlu), Ankara: İmge Kitapevi.
44. Mutlu, E. (1994). İletişim Sözlüğü, Ankara: Ark Yayınevi.
45. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital, New York: Knopf.
46. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
47. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1997). “Suskunluk Sarmalı Kuramı’nın Medyayu Anlamaya Katkısı”, Medya Kültür Siyaset, (Derleyen) Süleyman
48. İrvan, Ankara: Bilim Sanat Yayınları, 223-233.
49. Norris, P. (1999). Who Surfs? New Tecnology, Old Voters and Virtual Democracy in the 1996 and 1998 US Elections, http://www.artefaktum.hu/it2/pippa.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 29.01.2019.
50. Norris, P. (2000). A Virtuous Circle. Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51. Nulty, P., Theocharis, Y., Popa, S.A. ve Parnet, O. (2016). “Social Media and Political Communication in the 2014 Elections to the European Parliament”, Electoral Studies,44, 429 – 444.
52. Özkan, A. (2004). Siyasal İletişim, İstanbul: Nesil Yayınları.
53. Park, C.S. (2013). “Does Twitter motivate Involvement in Politics? Tweeting, Opinion Leadership, and Political Engagement”. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1641–1648.
54. Parmelee, J.H. ve Bichard, S.L. (2011). Politics and the Twitter revolution: How Tweets Influence the Relationship Between Political Leaders and the Public, Plymouth, United Kingdom: Lexington Books.
55. Papacharissi, Z. (2004). “Democracy Online: Civility, Politeness, and the Democratic Potential of Online Political Discussion Groups”. New Media & Society, 6, (2), London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi : Sage Publications, 259-283.
56. Pew Research Center (2004). “Cable And Internet Loom Large in Fragmented Political News Universe”, http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/legacy-pdf/200.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2019.
57. Robertson, S.P., Vatrapu, R.K. ve Medina, R. (2010). “Off the Wall Political Discourse: Facebook Use in the 2008 us Presidential Election”. Information Polity, 15(1-2), 11-31.
58. Shah, D.V., Kwak, N. ve Holbert, L. (2001). “Connecting and Disconnecting with Civic Life: Patterns of Internet Use and the Production of Social Capital”. Political Communication, 18, 141-62.
59. Shirky, C. (2011). “The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change”, Foreign Affairs, 90, (1), 28-41.
60. Stromer-Galley, J. (2004). “Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process”. The Information Society, 20(5), 391–394.
61. Tokgöz, O. (2008). Siyasal İletişimi Anlamak, Ankara: İmge Kitapevi.
62. Tokgöz, O. (2010). Seçimler, Siyasal Reklamlar ve Siyasal İletişim, Ankara: İmge Kitapevi.
63. Yaşin, C. (2006). “Siyasal Kampanya Yönetiminde Bütüncül Yaklaşım”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi , 15, 631-650.
64. Vaccari, C., Valeriani, A., Barbera, P., Bonneau, R., Jost, J.T., Nagler, J. ve Tucker, J.A. (2015). “Political Expression and Action on Social Media: Exploring the Relationship Between Lowerand Higher-Threshold Political Activities Among Twitter Users in Italy”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, 221–239.
65. Vergeer, M. ve Hermans, L. (2013). “Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and Online Social Networking as Campaign Tools in the 2010 General Elections in the Netherlands”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 399–419.
66. We Are Social ve Hootsuitte (2018). “2018 Global Digital Raporu”, https://wearesocial.com/blog/2018/01/global-digital-report-2018, Erişim tarihi: 11.07.2018.
67. Williams, C. ve Gulati, G.J. (2008). “What is a social network worth? Facebook and Vote Share in the 2008 Presidential Primaries”, Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 28-31, Boston, MA.
68. Woody, S.J., Weare, C. ve Musso, J. (2004). “ Participation, Deliberative Democracy, and the Internet: Lessons from a National Forum on Commercial Vehicle Safety”, Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal Through the Internet, (Editör) Peter M. Shane, 167-179.
69. Yılmaz, M. (2008). Politik İletişim Sürecinin Dijital İletişim Teknolojisi Olarak İnternet Dolayımında Kurgulanması: Yeni Olanaklar, Stratejiler ve Beklentiler, Ege Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, İzmir.