在Facebook上动员还是追逐选民?分析2019年英国议会大选的回声室效应

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Parliamentary Affairs Pub Date : 2021-07-19 DOI:10.1093/PA/GSAB043
S. Power, Ben Mason
{"title":"在Facebook上动员还是追逐选民?分析2019年英国议会大选的回声室效应","authors":"S. Power, Ben Mason","doi":"10.1093/PA/GSAB043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Alongside the growth of online campaigning has been an increased anxiety around its effects on democratic institutions and processes. Many have suggested that in a (new) media environment that privileges choice, citizens will increasingly segment themselves into echo chambers, tuning out dissenting voices. But the debate on the existence of echo chambers is mixed, and the extent to which political parties campaign to easily persuadable (and pre-disposed) electorates is unclear. In this article, we present a case study of the Facebook campaign activity of the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats at the UK’s parliamentary general election in 2019. Utilising an analysis of the Facebook Ad Archive’s Graph Application Programming Interface (API), we find that political parties do not consistently campaign to their easily persuadable electorates—often chasing votes as much as they mobilise supporters. The evidence that parties campaign to specific echo chambers online is therefore, at best, mixed.","PeriodicalId":19790,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mobilizing or Chasing Voters on Facebook? Analysing Echo-Chamber Effects at the UK Parliamentary General Election 2019\",\"authors\":\"S. Power, Ben Mason\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/PA/GSAB043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Alongside the growth of online campaigning has been an increased anxiety around its effects on democratic institutions and processes. Many have suggested that in a (new) media environment that privileges choice, citizens will increasingly segment themselves into echo chambers, tuning out dissenting voices. But the debate on the existence of echo chambers is mixed, and the extent to which political parties campaign to easily persuadable (and pre-disposed) electorates is unclear. In this article, we present a case study of the Facebook campaign activity of the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats at the UK’s parliamentary general election in 2019. Utilising an analysis of the Facebook Ad Archive’s Graph Application Programming Interface (API), we find that political parties do not consistently campaign to their easily persuadable electorates—often chasing votes as much as they mobilise supporters. The evidence that parties campaign to specific echo chambers online is therefore, at best, mixed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19790,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Parliamentary Affairs\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Parliamentary Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/PA/GSAB043\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parliamentary Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PA/GSAB043","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

随着在线竞选活动的发展,人们对其对民主制度和程序的影响越来越焦虑。许多人认为,在一个有选择权的(新)媒体环境中,公民将越来越多地将自己分成回音室,排除反对声音。但关于回音室存在的争论是喜忧参半的,各政党在多大程度上向容易说服(和预先处理)的选民发起竞选尚不清楚。在这篇文章中,我们对保守党、工党和自由民主党在2019年英国议会大选中的Facebook竞选活动进行了案例研究。通过对Facebook广告档案馆的图形应用程序编程接口(API)的分析,我们发现政党并没有始终如一地为其容易说服的选民进行竞选——通常在动员支持者的同时也在追逐选票。因此,政党在网上向特定回音室发起竞选的证据充其量是喜忧参半的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Mobilizing or Chasing Voters on Facebook? Analysing Echo-Chamber Effects at the UK Parliamentary General Election 2019
Alongside the growth of online campaigning has been an increased anxiety around its effects on democratic institutions and processes. Many have suggested that in a (new) media environment that privileges choice, citizens will increasingly segment themselves into echo chambers, tuning out dissenting voices. But the debate on the existence of echo chambers is mixed, and the extent to which political parties campaign to easily persuadable (and pre-disposed) electorates is unclear. In this article, we present a case study of the Facebook campaign activity of the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats at the UK’s parliamentary general election in 2019. Utilising an analysis of the Facebook Ad Archive’s Graph Application Programming Interface (API), we find that political parties do not consistently campaign to their easily persuadable electorates—often chasing votes as much as they mobilise supporters. The evidence that parties campaign to specific echo chambers online is therefore, at best, mixed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Parliamentary Affairs
Parliamentary Affairs POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Parliamentary Affairs is an established, peer-reviewed academic quarterly covering all the aspects of government and politics directly or indirectly connected with Parliament and parliamentary systems in Britain and throughout the world. The journal is published in partnership with the Hansard Society. The Society was created to promote parliamentary democracy throughout the world, a theme which is reflected in the pages of Parliamentary Affairs.
期刊最新文献
Cleaning Up UK Politics: What Would Better Lobbying Regulation Look Like? Big Little Election Lies: Cynical and Credulous Evaluations of Electoral Fraud Paralysed Governments: How Political Constraints Elicit Cabinet Termination What Do We Call an ‘MP’? On Categories of Thought in the Anthropology of Parliaments Beyond Institutional Adaptation: Legislative Europeanisation and Parliamentary Attention to the EU in the Hungarian Parliament
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1