Публична комуникация, дигитализация и визуализация

Public Communication, Digitalisation and Visualisation

Boris Stoyanov

Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”

E-mail: borisrstoyanov@yahoo.com

Abstract: The text at hand attempts to illustrate the importance of digitally based political communication, the digitalization of political discourse and the dangers and difficulties that society and the political class are going to face entering the digital communication plane fully in the near future. The paper focuses on presenting key definitions and problems regarding online political discourse. For the purpose of solidifying statements made throughout the text, the author presents examples of senior officials’ adequate use of digital communication platforms, analyzing them and shedding light on the approach said figures had when sharing online. The text is split into two main parts. The first focuses on the theoretical overview of the issue at hand, while the second attempts to align the theory to practice. The conclusion contains a summary of summarizes all points mentioned previously and gives predictions of how the approach of political individuals and the perception of the public has started changing and how it is going to change further. Finally, the author speculates on future possibilities of how political speech, communication and message delivery is going to be conducted via the digital plane.

Key words: policy, politics, political message delivery, digitalization, impact, influence

Introduction

In the current day and age information can be gathered from a plethora of sources – the info-scape is so vast that instead of providing consistent information it could be deemed as confusing and lackluster. To battle that predicament in the political discourse paradigm, information sources become progressively more direct and tend to, in a sense, personalize not only their approach but also their execution.

In other words – when it comes to political messages and agenda fulfilment efforts, the internet and the digital communication platforms in particular act as the new field for expression and influence. Moreover, not only do personas (e.g. political figures) but also their parties, different movements, governmental institutions, local administration institutions, etc. have an increasing internet presence. This presence gives them the option to:

• Instantly rebut any accusations or allegations made towards them;

• Provoke conversations and easily create a word-of-mouth effect;

• Push and pursue political agendas by addressing the public directly without any fear or stipulations and censorship;

• Provide the public with evidence of any action in real time;

• Be able to conversate in a more unofficial manner, which completely changes the political landscape and the ethical base on which the political discourse of old has been conducted.

A number of authors can be considered pioneers in researching this e-political discourse but in their book “How Trump Thinks”, the authors prof. Peter Osborne and Tom Roberts provide significant proof of how the 45^th US president influenced the public mainly from the “digital tribune” and that the use of Twitter in particular was a main cause of his success thus becoming a synonym when it comes to digitalized political messages. [1] Having said that one can concur that even though communication has been changing throughout the years and centuries, it has never been in such a predicament as the one it is facing now. Digitalization and globalization make up for any “lacks” or barriers that one political figure or entity could potentially have – notions such as “distance”; “other official business” and “unavailability” are becoming obsolete. The internet provides political figures with the unique opportunity to be able to constantly be engaged with their electorate and also their adversaries and opposition. This new plain of communication creates a model distinguishable from the contemporary one that the public is used to and in turn gives tremendous power to those who can take advantage of as many functionalities that the internet and the digital communication platforms provide. Moreover, the process of digitalizing communication, especially in the political sense in combination with the possible ever-happening and more personal engagement and interaction between the mediator, consumer and opposition, surely is going to completely change the way one perceives, gathers and understands messages and political agendas, thus forming a voting decision in a manner significantly different from the one popular prior to e-politics.

Structure and content of the paper

The paper consists of an introduction, two argumentative parts and a conclusion, divided as follows. The introduction containing a brief overview of the topic along with statements based on the observations of the author, providing a glimpse of what is going to be argued by the argumentative parts of the text. The first one is dedicated to present new and established terms which will help understand the topic even further. In addition, it contains an observation and literature-based revision of recent international events in the political sphere communicated via the internet. The second part is an attempt to cover previously made claims and put them into perspective in order to confirm the truthfulness of the presented information. The conclusion presents future opportunities regarding how political speech, communication and message delivery is going to be conducted. The conclusion suggests ideas about proving and properly digesting all information presented in the digital spectrum from the consumer’s point of view.

In this paper the author delves into the previously stated observations while at the same time presenting new terms which would be applicable to some of the actions in question. Furthermore, the paper is going to cover examples of active digital communication platform usage on part of political figures and entities worldwide. In addition, examples are provided as well, including an analysis, following five (5) key indexes – relevance/importance, channel, specifics, aim/goal and impact. The aim of the paper is to provide context on the serious changes happening within the political communication paradigm and how the attention of the general public shifts from contemporary media, as a main source of information, to the internet where the message originates organically and directly from the mediator himself. Lastly, the author argues that contemporary media have acknowledged the circumstances of political message digitalization and are adapting accordingly – incorporating internet-based researches; Q&A segments and quoting the official internet profiles of political and/or governmental institutions on a regular basis.

What is digitalization and how does it affect the spectrum of politics, policy making and propagating ideologies?

Firstly, it would be appropriate to state that the e-spectrum is a place mostly used by the business and entertainment industries to further their economic interests and/or spread awareness through the various channels the internet provides. [2] Evidently, the newly formed consumer need of constant updates has transferred to the political sphere as well and in turn politicians, political and governmental structures and entities have had an increasingly larger presence online.

Having said that and in order to be able to fully grasp the meaning of digitalization in the political discourse paradigm a definition of digitalization is required. In a pragmatical sense “digitalization” is the process of transferring information to a format that could be easily read by a computer [3] – in this case the display of political agendas through digital communication channels via posts, video materials, pictures, memes, internet exclusive addresses, etc. Although this definition serves the purpose of the text, in order to more accurately present the problem and imply that politicians are using the internet space with the intent to benefit – “Digitalization is the use of digital technologies to change a business model and provide new revenue and value-producing opportunities; it is the process of moving to a digital business”. [4] Unlike in the business sense where the goal is to financially profit, politicians aim to profit emotionally, become more empathic and orchestrate or shepherd movements. Digitalization in its most basic sense started in the USA in 1961, then proceeding to develop and be available as a technology to the public first in 1989 and from then on rapidly expanding and entering the mass consumer’s personal universe more and more. [5] The transformation of information from an analog to a digital state is what is considered to be the most basic definition of the process. [6]

The digital space gives the option for never-ending interaction, which could lead to two possible outcomes:

1. Influencing a large number of people by utilizing the said digital communication platform’s functionalities and in turn creating trust;

2. Diminishing trust by poorly using said functionalities and proving not to understand how internet-based communication is conducted.

The previously stated two outcome options affect the concept of ideology making to an extreme extent, but at the same time providing the mediator with the possibility of displaying leadership qualities and gain favour not only from the public but from within his political party as well, granted the results he’s getting are exemplary. This notion opens up the political stage for new faces by mainly “supporting” the younger generation who are expected to be more adequate with the use digital communication channels and their specifics.

How dangerous is e-political discourse?

Even though the internet spectrum provides the public with access to unfiltered and unlimited information from which they can alone form their opinion on any topic, the information abundance, combined with mass disinformation and misinformation efforts could affect the “freedom” of the space negatively. Disinformation is a type of communication being spread purposefully in an untrue manner while being used to the mediator’s advantage or gain. A deliberate act used as a method of influence and with the intent to confuse or disrupt opposing factions. [7] Misinformation, for the purpose of the paper, will be viewed as an, again, intentional act, aimed to confuse the general public, related to policy views, stemming from the Kuklinski study [8] which argues that misinformation has a direct link to misperceptions and recipients of information having false beliefs themselves.

Additionally, using the digital spectrum to convey public messages is dangerous in the sense that such messages are easily re-checkable which is a double-edged sword both for the public and the mediator. Once a message is online it is almost impossible to fully delete (if for example it is false or no longer suitable for the mediator to propagate a certain stance on a topic) due to the rapid nature of peer-to-peer interaction and the natural resending and spread of content information. This could prove useful to opposition activists who tend to use old messages, publications, etc. to disprove certain new directions that their counterpart is undertaking. Of course, the ability to deflect accusations using digital communication platforms is something that also comes as a perk and to an extent counters the act from the previously mentioned scenario. It is so important in fact that it was a key method used by Trump to trump any opposition during his campaign in 2016. [9]

Even though the digital world could be viewed as a tool of expression, once in it, the mediator becomes the message [10], rather than the medium providing the platform to convey the message with the assistance of editorial guidance.

In order to illustrate how impactful digital platform-based communication is, be that mediated by political entities or by individuals, a brief analysis is going to be presented, as stated in the introduction of the text. Two examples are to be presented with straight-to-the-point explanations, following the presented in the introduction indexes. The chosen examples have international importance and depict clever and adequate use of digital communication platforms, utilizing functionalities and keeping the message easy to assimilate and understand by the general public. To an extent, the mediators that are used as an example could be deemed as “information politicians” – ones who have access to abundant information, can handle it and in turn can make/promote decisions and agendas based on it. [11]

Relevance/importance: Extreme world-wide relevance, issue in question is the recent (May of 2021) alleged hijacking of a Ryan air flight, orchestrated by the Belarus government in order to apprehend a person on board.

Channel: Since the matter is, at the time of the event happening, urgent, the preferred digital communication channel is Twitter. Due to its quick refresh rate and peer-to-peer interaction nature, Twitter is the ideal channel for “live news” opinions.

Specifics: Twitter provides the functionality of creating viral hashtags, which can be used to easily track anything that mentions the event in question. By using this functionality some of the political figures in this example have made it so their publication enters a cluster of others, in turn, eventually gaining favour from the ones already participating in the conversation.

Aim/goal: The general aim of the publications in question is to state opinions on an ongoing matter, though at the same time informing the public of any further official procedures that they should anticipate in the future. However, the nature of those publications is not only political and newsworthy, they have a personal agenda as well – to promote said person’s views on similar topics, again something that should be considered – every online post is deliberate and has an agenda behind it.

Impact: High impact, mainly because of the importance of the situation and the parties involved. The publications at hand have an international impact and importance, they promote the views of the “west” in terms of an act produced by the “east”.

Relevance/importance: Local relevance, as the information concerns, in reality, the nation in question, although keeping in mind which this nation is, the importance of the matter (presidential election 2020) is international.

Channel: Twitter is again the most adequate channel for such type of flash communication updates. Short messages, utilizing the “@” function that essentially provides more traffic and engagement to the initial publication.

Specifics: The information that is being conveyed is not officially confirmed as of the time that the publications are being made, the mediator, being the current President (at the time), is giving the information more power.

Aim/goal: The goal in this situation is to display confidence that the results of the election that the mainstream media is projecting (at the time) are being manipulated. In addition, the mediator is giving constant engaged information to his followers and supporters, which benefits him in the long run.

Impact: Such behaviour impacts the whole political scene world-wide as it sets the new standard of political message delivery – constant, easy to assimilate and devoted.

Discussion

Fig. 1, FOX NEWS, Presidential election 2020 live coverage

The digital sphere, due to its rapid refresh rate and adding new information is becoming the source for news for contemporary media. The common understanding is that large contemporary media outlets, mainly TV networks were highly regarded as the best source of information in the 90’s [12], especially in times of crisis, both military and political. Though nowadays such networks either quote online sources (e.g. official governmental profiles) or decide to include questions, opinions or polls conducted on the internet in their shows (see fig. 1, 2, 3).

Nowadays, crisis situations are being covered minute by minute on the internet and it turns out that contemporary media are forced to catch up by quoting online sources, as shown in the presented depictions.

Fig. 2, The Sun UK official Youtube channel Fig. 3, Israel Defense Forces official Twitter

breaking news

The fact that arguably trustworthy outlets incorporate or directly quote online materials, posted by a political figure or his team / governmental body or institution, is a testament that the online based communication platforms are now the plain field of the actual political discourse. It is impossible for TV networks to follow and cover everything that is going online and provide their audience with the same news refresh rate as the internet-based sources or the digital communication platforms can, hence why more and more contemporary media outlets transfer their focus on the internet, utilizing its functionalities (see fig. 4).

The internet harbors more people at a time than any contemporary news outlet could and has with people using digital communication platforms skyrocketing in 2020 and reaching 3.8 billion users [13] with Facebook active users alone hovering at around 2.85 billion as of the first quarter of 2021. [14] This argument alone proves that if utilizing all available communication aspects that the online spectrum provides, one could influence a larger number of people, while at the same time being able to interact with his audience more often and on a personal level, in turn gaining even more trust and reaping the benefits post factum.

The effects of e-politics on the general public could be viewed from two main directions – one is the fact that such approach from the political figures give the average consumer access to more information, the option to directly address topics and engage in conversations, and two – the danger of misinformation spreading and information abundance overload.

Fig. 4, “24 hours” official Facebook page livestream

Information abundance could lead to confusion. Since most of the information on the internet varies in relevance from person to person, the fact that an increasing number of political figures use that space to propagate their agenda with, essentially, spamming [15] their followers with information leads to an environment filled with the so called “confusion information”. [16] Even though one could argue that information coming from a verified source such as a well-known political figure should be truthful, the mere existence of potential constant opposition from other political figures calls for doubt, in turn causing confusion. It is of extreme importance that not only the mediator has knowledge of how communication is conducted through the digital channel, but the same goes for the public – how to filter information and fact check before forming an opinion.

Conclusion

Curiously enough, the internet is a space that gives one many variables to approach the presented information and it is up to the person to determine what is true of false and what he believes in by researching and rationalizing each process. Misinformation as a term is subjective and it has a lot to do with the capacity of the recipient as well as the intention of the mediator – all in all, suggested by multiple studies, Facebook is one of the main drive forces of fake news consumption [17], in the political spectrum the case is more about the correct way of digesting the news/information rather than the news/information itself.

Ultimately – the digital spectrum is a rich field, filled with information, opinions and agendas that swarm the media ecosystem. It is up to the consumer to adapt to the new flow of information and develop a critical understanding of all features, functionalities, etc. of the digital communication channels, as well as influencing tactics, managing misinformation and fact checking before forming a clear and rationalized opinion themselves.

References and Notes

[1] Osborne, P. & Roberts, T. (2017). How Trump Thinks: His Tweets and the Birth of a New Political Language, Head of Zeus, introduction.

[2] Norton, B. & Smith, K. (1997). Understanding Business on the Internet. Baron’s Educational Series inc., 7.

[3] Digitalization. Gartner Glossary. Information Technology.

[4] Digitalize. Collins Dictionary. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/digitize. Retrieved on 23.05.2021.

[5] Headrick, D. R. (2009). Technology: A World History, Oxford University Press, 143.

[6] Schallamo, D. & Williams, C. (2018). Digital Transformation Now! Guiding the Successful Digitalization of Your Business Model, Springer, 5.

[7] Гъркова, Н. (1977). „Свободната“ информация или дезинформация. София: Наука и изкуство, въведение. [Garkova, N. (1977). „Svobodnata“ informatsia ili dezinformatsia. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, vavedenie.]

[8] Kuklinski J. & Quirk, P. (2020). Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship, The Journal of Politics, 62(3): 643-647.

[9] Osborne, P. & Roberts, T. (2017). How Trump Thinks: His Tweets and the Birth of a New Political Language, Head of Zeus, 1-5.

[10] Стоянов, К. Р. (2016). Комуникационна демокрация. София: НБУ. Въведение. [Stoyanov, K. R. (2016). Komunikatsionna demokratsia: Sofia: NBU. Vavedenie.]

[11] Проданов, Х. (2010). Дигиталният политик. Велико Търново: Фабер, 82. [Prodanov, H. (2010). Digitalniyat politik. Veliko Tarnovo: Faber, 82.]

[12] Greensberg, B. & Gantz, W. (1993). Desert Storm and the Mass Media. Hampton Press Communication Series, 149.

[13] Kemp, S. (2020). Digital 2020: 3.8 Billion People use Social Media. (30 January 2020). We are social. https://wearesocial.com/blog/2020/01/digital-2020-3-8-billion–people–use–social–media#:~:text=More%20than%204.5%20billion%20people,the%20middle%20of%20this%20year. Retrieved on 29.05.2021.

[14] Tankovska, T. (2010). Facebook; number of monthly active users worldwide 2008-2021. (21 May 2021). Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/#:~:text=With%20roughly%202.85%20billion%20monthly,the%20biggest%20social%20network%20worldwide. Retrieved on 29.05.2021.

[15] Spam – unsolicited usually commercial messages. Meriam-Webster Dictionary (such as emails, text messages, or Internet postings) sent to a large number of recipients or posted in a large number of places https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spam. Retrieved on 23.05.2021.

[16] Crainer, S. (1995). The Financial Times Handbook of Management, Pitman Publishing, 825.

[17] Persily, N. & Tucker, A. J. (2020). Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 25-27.

Bibliography

Гъркова, Н. (1977). „Свободната“ информация или дезинформация, София: Наука и изкуство, въведение. [Garkova, N. (1977). „Svobodnata“ informatsia ili dezinformatsia, Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, vavedenie.]

Проданов, Х. (2010). Дигиталният политик. Велико Търново: Фабер, 82. [Prodanov, H. (2010). Digitalniyat politik. Veliko Tarnovo: Faber, 82.]

Стоянов, К. Р. (2016). Комуникационна демокрация. София: НБУ. Въведение. [Stoyanov, K. R. (2016). Komunikatsionna demokratsia: Sofia: NBU. Vavedenie.]

Crainer, S. (1995). The Financial Times Handbook of Management, Pitman Publishing, 825.

Digitalization. Gartner Glossary. Information Technology.

Digitalize. Collins Dictionary. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/digitize. Retrieved on 23.05.2021.

Greensberg, B. & Gantz, W. (1993). Desert Storm and the Mass Media., Hampton Press Communication Series, 149.

Headrick, D. R. (2009). “Technology: A World History. Oxford:, Oxford University Press, 143.

https://www.gartner.com/en/informationtechnology/glossary/digitalization. Retrieved on 23.05.2021.

Kemp, S. (2020). Digital 2020: 3.8 Billion People use Social Media. (30 January 2020). We are social. https://wearesocial.com/blog/2020/01/digital-2020-3-8-billion–people–use–social–media#:~:text=More%20than%204.5%20billion%20people,the%20middle%20of%20this%20year. Retrieved on 29.05.2021.

Kuklinski J. & Quirk, P. (2020). Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship, The Journal of Politics, 62(3): 643-647. Norton B., & Smith, K. (1997). Understanding Business on the Internet., Baron’s Educational Series inc 7.

Osborne, P. & Roberts, T. (2017). How Trump Thinks: His Tweets and the Birth of a New Political Language, Head of Zeus, introduction, 1-5,

Persily, N. & Tucker, A. J. (2020). Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform, Cambridge University Press, 25-27.

Schallamo, D. & Williams, C. (2018). Digital Transformation Now! Guiding the Successful Digitalization of Your Business Model., Springer, 5.

Tankovska, T. (2010). Facebook; number of monthly active users worldwide 2008-2021. (21 May 2021). Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/#:~:text=With%20roughly%202.85%20billion%20monthly,the%20biggest%20social%20network%20worldwide. Retrieved on 29.05.2021.

Manuscript was submitted: 25.05.2021.

Double Blind Peer Reviews: from 27.05.2021 till 26.06.2021.

Accepted: 27.06.2021.

Брой 48 на сп. „Реторика и комуникации“, юли 2021 г. се издава с финансовата помощ на Фонд научни изследвания, договор № КП-06-НП2/41 от 07 декември 2020 г.

Issue 48 of the Rhetoric and Communications Journal (July 2021) is published with the financial support of the Scientific Research Fund, Contract No. KP-06-NP2/41 of December 07, 2020.