The Effect of Digital Diplomacy in Creating Public Diplomacy: Twitter Use of the Embassies in Turkey

Yıl 2020, , 1345 - 1366, 24.07.2020

Özden Özlü , Gülseli Aygül Ernek Alan

https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.686259

Cited By: 5

Öz

Today, people’s use of social media prompts governments to get digitized. Embassies engage in propaganda about their countries, establishing an agenda, and improving the country brand by reaching the people of the host countries through digital platforms. In this study, public diplomacy exercised by the American and Russian Embassies in Turkey was analyzed by monitoring their Twitter interactions. To analyze the data more accurately, applying the web content analysis, most mentioned tweets, retweets, retweeted tweets, and favorite tweets were examined into five categories, including Migration and Refugees; Environment, Climate Change, and Energy; Human Rights, Women, and Children; Middle East; Culture and Art. The reflections of the most retweeted tweet contents in the aforementioned categories were looked into in terms of whether they generated coverage on Birgün, Hürriyet, Sabah, Sözcü, Yeniçağ and Yeni Şafak’s digital platforms, chosen from the Turkish Media in terms of their circulation figures. According to the results, both embassies preferred one-way communication instead of interaction, and it has been ascertained that their tweets in those categories are not covered in the Turkish Media.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Public Diplomacy, Digital Diplomacy, Twiplomacy, E-Diplomacy, Embassy Diplomacy

Kamu Diplomasisi Oluşturulmasında Dijital Diplomasinin Etkisi: Türkiye’de Bulunan Büyükelçiliklerin Twitter Kullanımı

Öz

Günümüzde insanların sosyal medya kullanmaları devletleri dijitalleşme yönünde harekete geçirmiştir. Devlet kurumlarından büyükelçilikler de bulundukları ülkelerin halklarına dijital platformlar üzerinden ulaşarak ülkeleriyle ilgili propaganda yapmak, gündem yaratmak, ülke markasını geliştirmek gibi faaliyetlerde bulunmaktadırlar. Araştırmada, Türkiye’deki Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve Rusya Federasyonu Büyükelçiliklerinin kamu diplomasisi oluşturmaları Twitter hesaplarındaki tweet etkileşimleri izlenerek analiz edilmiştir. Verileri daha doğru bir çerçevede inceleyebilmek için en fazla söz edilen alanlara bakılmış ve tweetler Göç ve Mülteci; Çevre, İklim Değişikliği ve Enerji; İnsan Hakları, Kadın ve Çocuk; Ortadoğu; Kültür ve Sanat olmak üzere beş kategoriye ayrılmıştır. Bu kategorilerde atılan tweetler, retweetler, takipçileri tarafından retweetlenen tweetler, beğenilen tweetler ve tweetlerin basın yansımaları web içerik analizi uygulanarak incelenmiştir. Bu beş kategoride en fazla paylaşılan tweet içeriklerinin, tiraj sayılarına göre belirlenen Türk yazılı medyasından Birgün, Hürriyet, Sabah, Sözcü, Yeniçağ ve Yeni Şafak’ın dijital platformlarındaki haber yansımalarına bakılmıştır. Sonuçlara göre iki büyükelçiliğin de takipçileriyle etkileşime girmediği, tek taraflı iletişimi tercih ettiği ve bu kategorilerle ilgili atmış oldukları tweetlerin Türk yazılı medyasında etkin bir yansıması olmadığı tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kamu Diplomasisi, Dijital Diplomasi, Twiplomacy, E-Diplomasi, Büyükelçilik Diplomasisi

Kaynakça

• Adesina, O. S. (2017). Foreign Policy in an Era of Digital Diplomacy. Cogent Social Sciences, Vol. 19, No. 3, s. 8-13.
• Armstrong, M. (2009). Social Media as Public Diplomacy. Perspectives. Cilt 1, s. 2. Erişim adresi ( 04 Kasım 2017): http://mountainrunner.us/2009/01/public_ diplomacy_ is_not_public-relations
• Arsenault, A. (2009). Toward A New Public Diplomacy içinde Public Diplomacy 2.0. Palgrave MacMillan Series, s. 148.
• Bjola, C. (2015). Part 1 – Introduction: making sense of digital diplomacy. C. Bjola ve M. Holmes (Ed). Digital Diplomacy, Theory and Practice (e-book) içinde (s. 1-18). London ve New York: M. Routledge Taylor ve Francis.
• Bostancı, M. (2012). Stratejik Bir İletişim Aracı Olarak Kamu Diplomasisi. Kamu Diplomasisinde Medyanın Rolü ve Önemi. Anahtar Kitaplar, İstanbul, s. 13-45.
• Buckle, A. E. (2012). The New Diplomacy: Devising a Relational Model of Public Diplomacy. Pursuit – The Journal of Undergraduate Research at the University of Tennesse, s. 6-15.
• Chahine, J. (2010). Public Diplomacy; A Conceptual Framework. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal. Erişim adresi (04 Ağustos 2017): http://www. culturaldiplomacy. org/academy/pdf/research/books/ public_diplomacy/ Public_Diplomacy_-_A_ Conceptual_Framework_-_Joumane_Chahine.pdf
• Choo, S. E. ve Park, Han W. (2011). Government organizations’ innovative use of the Internet: The case of the Twitter activity of South Korea’s ministry for food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Scientometrics, 90, s. 9-23. doi: 10.1007/ s11192-011-0519- 2
• Christensen, C. (2013). @Sweden: Curating a Nation on Twitter, Popular Communication, 11(1), s. 30-46. doi: 10.1080/15405702.2013.751855
• Christodoulides, N. (2005). The Internet ve Diplomacy. American Diplomacy. Erişim adresi (19 Mart 2018): http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/ 2005/0103/chri/ christo_net.html
• Cull, N. J. (2009). Public Diplomacy: Lessons from the Past. Figueroa Press, Los Angeles.
• Dinata, M. S. J. (2014). Twiplomacy: How Twitter Affects Contemporary Public Diplomacy. Universitas Paramadina.
• Fletcher, T. (2011). Twiplomacy – Riding the Digital Tiger. Erişim adresi (29 Ekim 2018): https://www.gov.uk/government/news/twiplomacy-riding-the-digital -tiger
• Geybullayeva, A. (2012). Nagorno Karabakh 2.0: How New Media and Track Two Diplomacy Initiatives are Fostering Change. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, No. 32 (2), s. 176.
• Gökçe, O. (2006). İçerik Analizi Kurumsal ve Pratik Bilgiler, Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi
• Gregory, B. (2011). American Public Diplomacy: Enduring Characteristics, Elusive Transformation. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 6, s. 353. doi: 10.1163/ 187119111X583941
• Hocking, B. ve Melissen, J. (2015). Diplomacy in the Digital Age. Clingendael Report. Netherlands Institute of International Relations – Clingendael. Erişim adresi: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Digital_Diplomacy_in_the_ Digital%20Age_Clingendael_July2015.pdf
• Hocking, B. ve Melissen, J. (2016, Şubat). Diplomacy and digital disruption. NATO PD Forum 2016’da sunulan bildiri, Hilton Grand Place Brussels Hotel.
• Karasar, N. (2009). Araştırmalarda Rapor Hazırlama. Ankara; Nobel Yayın Dağıtım Tic. Ltd. Şti.
• Kell, L. A. (2018). How to increase rates of engagement on Twitter. Erişim adresi: https:// itp.live/content/3089-does-your-twitter-account-have-good-engagement
• Lakomy, M. (2014). Tweets on top. Responsive policy. Studia Medioznawcze Media Studies, 2 (57). Erişim adresi: http://studiamedioznawcze.pl/article.php?date= 2014_2_57vecontent=en adresinden edinilmiştir.
• Lüfkens, M. (2017). Twiplomacy Study 2017. Twiplomacy. Erişim adresi: http:// twiplomacy.com/blog/twiplomacy-study-2017/
• Manor, I. ve Segev, E. (2015). Part 5 – America’s Selfie: How the US Portrays Itself on its Social Media Accounts. C. Bjola ve M. Holmes (Ed). Digital Diplomacy, Theory and Practice (e-book) içinde (s. 8-29). London ve New York: M. Routledge Taylor ve Francis Group.
• Manor, I. (2017). Ambassadors as Digital Gatekeepers. Exploring Digital Diplomacy. Erişim adresi: (08 Mart 2018) https://digdipblog.com/2017/03/08/ ambassadors-asdigital- gatekeepers/
• Melissen, J. (2005). The New Public Diplomacy, Soft Power in International Relations. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Melissen, J. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy içinde Public Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Nweke, E. N. (2012). Diplomacy in Era of Digital Governance: Theory and Impact. Information and Knowledge Management. International National Sharing Platform, 2(3), s. 22-26. Erişim adresi: (10 Mart 2018) https://www.iiste.org/ Journals/ index.php/IKM/article/view/1784
• Özkan, A. (2016). Uluslararası Halkla İlişkiler ve Bir Halkla İlişkiler Etkinliği Olarak Kamu Diplomasisi. B. Kılınç (Ed.). Kamu Diplomasisi ve Uluslararası Halkla İlişkiler içinde (s. 12-14). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını No: 3356.
• Park, S. ve Lim, Y. S. (2014). Information networks and social media use in public diplomacy: a comparative analysis of South Korea and Japan. Asian Journal of Communication, No. 24 (1), s. 79-98.
• Permuy, C. V. (2015). Facebook as a Public Diplomacy Tool: Canadian Diplomatic Missions in Europe. Comillas, Universidad Pontificiat, Madrid, s. 21.
• Sandre, A. (2013). Twitter for Diplomats: A Guide to the Fastest Growing Digital Diplomacy Tool. Diplo. Erişim adresi: ( 29 Mart 2018) https://www.diplomacy. edu/blog/ twitter-diplomats-guide-fastest-growing-digital-diplomacy-tool
• Schwarzenbach, B. (2015). Twitter and Diplomacy: How Social Media Revolutionizes Interaction with Foreign Policy. The Diplomatic Envoy. International News. Erişim adresi: (18 Mart 2018) http://thediplomaticenvoy.com/2015/10/12/ twitter-anddiplomacy- how-social-media-revolutionizes-our-interaction-with-foreign-policy/
• Sotiriu, S. (2015). Part 2 – Digital diplomacy: between promises and reality. C. Bjola ve M. Holmes (Ed.). Digital Diplomacy, Theory and Practice (e-book) içinde (s. 36). London ve New York: M. Routledge Taylor ve Francis Group.
• Szondi, G. (2008). Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding Conceptual Similarities and Differences. Discussion papers in Diplomacy. Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, s. 6. Erişim adresi: https://www. clingendael.org/sites/ default/files/pdfs/20081022_pap_in_dip_nation_branding.pdf
• U. S. Department of State (2012). Fiscal year 2012 agency financial report. Erişim adresi: https://www.sec.gov/about/secpar/secafr2012.pdf#mission
• Yepsen, E. A. (2012). Practicing Successful Twitter Public Diplomacy: A model and case study of US efforts in Venezuela. CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy. Paper 6, s. 7-36. Erişim adresi: https://www.uscpublicdiplomacy.org/sites/ uscpublicdiplomacy. org/files/useruploads/u35361/2012%20Paper%206.pdf