Abstract
This study explores the diversity of topics in political campaign communication on social media during the 2022 Australian federal election. While political campaigns on social media are often associated with both persuasive and mobilising appeals, this research focuses on understanding the differences in persuasive content by comparing organic (non-targeted) and paid (targeted) political communication. Analysing the Australian context, which follows a Westminster system, with compulsory voting, we utilise data from the federal election 2022 to investigate how political actors employ persuasive communication strategies. Through topic modelling, we examine whether distinct themes vary in content and prevalence between organic and paid social media content disseminated by political parties and candidates. Our analysis revealed that the differences in topic diversity between paid and organic content do not seem to be substantial, despite popular concerns about higher personalisation due to advertising targeting which could lead to information fragmentation of the electorate. Both types of content predominantly focus on core political topics, aligning with party ideologies and include overall campaign information (e.g., on election procedures). However, government critique emerges as a distinct topic in both organic and paid content signalling the usage of negative campaigning to weaken opposing parties. In conclusion, this study suggests that the strategic manipulation of the electorate through social media during the Australian federal election in 2022 was limited. Nonetheless, the prevalence of negative appeals towards the government and opposing parties raises questions about the potential impact on citizens’ trust in democracy and institutions.
Reference36 articles.
1. Arya, P. (2022). Political advertising on social media platforms during the 2022 federal election. The Australia Institute. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Political-advertising-on-social-media-platforms-WEB.pdf
2. Auter, Z. J., & Fine, J. A. (2016). Negative campaigning in the social media age: Attack advertising on Facebook. Political Behavior, 38(4), 999–1020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9346-8
3. Bakker, T. P., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Good news for the future? Young people, internet use, and political participation. Communication Research, 38(4), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210381738
4. Barocas, S. (2012). The price of precision: Voter microtargeting and its potential harms to the democratic process. In I. Weber, A.-M. Popescu, & M. Pennacchiotti (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Edition Workshop on Politics, Elections, and Data (PLEAD) (pp. 31–36). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2389661.2389671
5. Bene, M., Farkas, X., & Burai, K. (2021). Same strategy, but different content. Hungarian parties’ Facebook campaign during the 2019 EP election. In J. Haßler, M. Magin, U. Russmann, & V. Fenoll (Eds.), Campaigning on Facebook in the 2019 European Parliament election, political campaigning and communication (pp. 119–134). Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73851-8_8 119
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献