O'Loughlin to speak in Glasgow on Trump's Handshakes

On 14 June 2017 the University of Glasgow is convening a symposium, Trump and the Media. The organisers Catherine Happer and Andrew Hoskins write: This symposium brings together speakers from journalism and from academia to explore the social, economic, technological and political implications of President Donald Trump’s media use and relations, his self-proclaimed ‘war’ on mainstream news organizations and the role of digital technologies in his campaign and Presidency. To register to attend, click here.

NewPolCom's Ben O'Loughlin will present an analysis of the handshakes of the current US president. Details below:

Trump's Handshakes: Diplomatic Stand-offs in the Global Media

Ben O'Loughlin, Royal Holloway, University of London

After an Obama administration committed to "unclenching fists" in diplomatic affairs, global media have in 2017 reported President Trump using his hands to greet leaders with renewed American vigour. I argue these diplomatic encounters can be conceptualised as stand-offs: moments of uncertainty when nobody quite knows what will happen, including the people shaking hands. These moments are instructive. Following Wagner-Pacifici (2000: 3, emphasis in original) I treat stand-offs as 'action in the subjunctive mood': witnesses hypothesise about likely outcomes and their speculation is tinged with emotion - doubt, hope, fear. As Trump grabs the hands of Trudeau, Xi, and Theresa May walking down some steps, several dimensions of mediatization kick in. First, news values -- personalisation, calibration to powerful actors, and drama -- lead reporting to amplify these stand-offs into geostrategic moments signalling power relations in an uncertain global order; the subjunctive mood premediates World War III or an harmonious Russia-US alliance. Second, the digitally-enabled return to multisensorial mediums allows communication to return its focus to gesture. For Joyce, all communication was ultimately gesture. Decades of written political communication limited gestural opportunities, while risk-averse leaders carefully managed any television appearance. Trump bypasses that, firmly anchoring us in tactile communication; his bodily gesture is felt, at a distance, without control. Third, television and diplomatic handshakes have an entwined history; each new handshake can be framed through the lens of prior handshake stand-offs. Hence, while Trump's vigorous grabbing shook coverage for some months, news media are now containing his stand-offs and normalising his encounters. Overall, Trump's handshakes exemplify the potential to use stand-offs to gesture globally, digitally, but also how news media soon learn to contain and ritualise -- to the extent Trump's opponents have learned to turn these stand-offs to their advantage. 

Event: June 22, 2017: Leticia Bode, "Wrong Again: Correcting Misinformation on Social Media"

Misinformation on social media is of increasing concern to academics and citizens alike. This research examines whether and how misinformation can be corrected on social media, by whom, and under what circumstances. 

Leticia Bode (PhD University of Wisconsin) is an assistant professor in the Communication, Culture, and Technology program at Georgetown University. Her work lies at the intersection of communication, technology, and political behavior, emphasizing the role communication and information technologies may play in the acquisition and use of political information.

Date: June 22, 2017
Time: 3pm-5pm
Location: Founders West 101

See also: Past Events

Special issue of Media, War & Conflict on Reporting from the Front

A new special issue has been published in the journal Media, War & Conflict in which experienced frontline journalists reflect on their careers reporting from conflict zones. The issue focuses on journalism's continued importance to democracy even in unstable conditions and when journalists are themselves often at risk of violent attack. Amid the current storms about fact-checking and online verification, the figure of the journalist on the ground remains crucial. The special issue's guest editor is Dr. Linda Risso of the Institute of Historical Research in London. As well as reflections from self-styled 'old hacks', the issue includes an overview by Dr. Risso as well as a major scholarly study of journalists' experiences in Burundi from Dr. Marie-Soleil Frère. The table of contents is below, and to read the articles click here.

Special Issue: Reporting from the Front: First-hand experiences, dilemmas and open questions

Linda Risso - Reporting from the front: First-hand experiences, dilemmas and open questions

Richard Norton-Taylor - Forty years’ personal experience

Martin Plaut - Reporting conflict in Africa

Keith Somerville - Framing conflict – the Cold War and after: Reflections from an old hack

Marie-Soleil Frère - ‘I wish I could be the journalist I was, but I currently cannot’: Experiencing the impossibility of journalism in Burundi

Ben O'Loughlin and the rest of the MWC team are grateful to Dr. Risso and all the contributors.

New Article Out Now in Media, Culture & Society: A Primary Definer Online: the Construction and Propagation of a Think Tank’s Authority on Social Media

I have a new article out (co-authored with Nick Anstead) in Media, Culture & Society (in their Online First section)

Here’s the abstract:

Who has power in the construction of economic news in the United Kingdom? Are social media reshaping how this power is enabled? We examine the public Twitter interactions between journalists, political elites and, what is arguably the United Kingdom’s most important think tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), during the 2015 UK general election campaign. Combining human-coded content analysis and network analysis of Twitter discourse about the IFS during a 38-day period, we explain how and why the authority of this think tank is being translated to social media. We develop a new, social media theory of ‘primary definers’ and show how the political authority on which such roles rest is co-constructed and propagated by professional journalists and political elites. Central to this process is a behaviour we conceptualize and measure: authority signalling. Our findings call into question some of the more sanguine generalizations about social media’s contribution to pluralist democracy. Given the dominance of public service broadcasters in the processes we identify, we argue that, despite the growth of social media, there can be surprising limits on the extent to which contemporary media systems help citizens gain information about the assumptions underlying economic policy.

Keywords
austerity, authority signalling, economic policy, journalism, news, power, social media

This project was an opportunity to explore a puzzle that I’ve been pondering during many years of watching political coverage in the UK, but especially since the 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession: why is it that the IFS is treated with almost universally reverential coverage by elite media in Britain? How and why does this work across digital media and broadcast media? And what are the implications for British democracy?

A second article is in progress (co-authored with newpolcom PhD students Declan McDowell-Naylor, Amy P. Smith, and Ellen Watts) examining the discursive authority signalling of the IFS in a sample of 130+ hours of broadcast news during the 2015 election.

This research was made possible by funding from the British Academy and the Leverhulme Trust, to whom I’m most grateful for support.

If you’re at the ICA conference in San Diego next week, I’ll be presenting on this topic on Monday at 2.15 in the Hilton Bayfront Hotel, Room Indigo 206, 2.

Link to my Articles page, where you can access the piece in published and pre-print versions.

[Cross-posted from Andrew Chadwick's Blog]

Turning Out and Turning Left? Young People and the 2017 General Election, by James Sloam

Youth turnout in UK general elections has declined significantly in recent decades. Over 60% of 18 to 24 year olds voted in the 1992 election compared to an average of around 40% since 2002. Youth turnout in the UK is amongst the lowest in Western Europe. For example, around double the proportion of young Swedes vote in national elections (see below). The problem is particularly pronounced amongst young people of low socio-economic status. Only a quarter of those who leave school with no qualifications vote, compared to three quarters of university students.

There is also the additional issue of voter registration. With the introduction of Individual Voter Registration in 2014, over a million citizens (disproportionately young people) fell off the electoral roll. Despite the valiant efforts of a number of organisations – such as Bite the Ballot – to promote registration and bring young people to the polls, the decline in youth turnout has not been reversed.

However, there is overwhelming evidence to show that young people are interested in ‘politics’ (more broadly defined) and engage in a whole multitude of civic and political activities: from demonstrations against university tuition fees, to the boycotting of products that damage the environment, to campaigns against the closing of parks or youth clubs in local communities. So, young people are often interested in, and engaged in, key issues, but are put off by politicians and political parties.

This was demonstrated by the 2016 referendum on British membership of the European Union, when 60% of 18 to 24 year olds turned out to vote on this issue of concern. But most young people were disappointed by the result. Around three quarters of this age group (and 82% of university students) voted for the UK to remain in the EU.

It is, furthermore, clear that the gap between youth attitudes and those of older voters has grown: from the Iraq War, to student tuition fees, to immigration, to Brexit. Indeed, the Labour Party under Ed Miliband managed to significantly increase its share of the vote amongst 18 to 24 year olds in 2015, while losing ground amongst older voters. The Green Party also performed much better (and UKIP much worse) amongst younger voters.

This trend looks set to continue in 2017. According to a recent YouGov poll, almost half of 18 to 24 year olds (and 41% of 25 to 49 year olds) intend to vote Labour, compared to 31% nationally (and only 14% of over 65s!). Only 22% of 18 to 24 year olds support the Conservative Party, compared to 66% of over 65s.

The EU referendum – alongside opposition to the rise of nationalist populism in the United States (with the election of Donald Trump), France and elsewhere – may have had a politicizing effect on young people. Currently, 56% of 18 to 24 year olds claim that they are certain to vote, compared to just 46% at a similar point before the 2015 general election. So, there are some signs of optimism.

Yet the plea to politicians and political parties of all colours must be that they address younger voters’ concerns and pitch policies to this demographic through their manifestos and engagement activities.

In 2015, I undertook a content analysis of party manifestos, which revealed that youth issues were rarely addressed. The Green Party and Labour made the most effort to appeal to younger voters. They were closely followed by the Conservative Party. The Lib Dems and UKIP languished far behind. Unsurprisingly, most parties focus their attention on the growing army of older voters (who also are more likely to turn out in elections).

In recent years, many politicians have professed their commitment to strengthening youth engagement in British democracy. In this context, it will be interesting to see whether, in 2017, political parties will broaden their appeals to reach a younger audience.

James Sloam is Reader in Politics and International Relations, Co-Director of the Centre for European Politics, and a member of the New Political Communication Unit at Royal Holloway, University of London.

War Frenzy: Miskimmon & O'Loughlin to present at Princeton, May 12-14 2017

Alister Miskimmon and Ben O'Loughlin will present new research at the conference War Frenzy: Exploring the Violence of Propaganda, to be held at Princeton University on May 12-14, 2017. Their paper, The Disinformation Distraction: Why Strategic Narratives are the Primary Force of Weaponisation in the Ukraine Crisis, builds on their ongoing research exploring the effects of Russian, EU and NATO narrative efforts to shape public opinion in Ukraine. You can read a very rough draft of their paper here. (Please note it is a draft and not for citation without authors' permission). The research has benefitted too from insights generated by Joanna Szostek's Stratnarra project at NewPolCom. 

This looks a fantastic interdisciplinary conference and the authors are grateful to Serguei Oushakine and the Program Committee for organising the event. 

NewPolCom visiting PhD student: Anna Grøndahl Larsen

This summer term we welcome Anna Grøndahl Larsen as a visitor to the New Political Communication Unit. Anna is a PhD candidate at the Department of Journalism and Media Studies, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway. Her PhD project explores how Norwegian journalists and news outlets deal with and report topics concerning extremism and the threat of terrorism in the digital age. She holds an MA in Media Studies and a BA in Sociology from the University of Oslo. 

Anna’s PhD research covers topics such as journalists’ use of social media, how questions concerning inclusion of voices deemed extremist are assessed and practiced by mainstream journalists and newsrooms, and the ways in which ‘radicalization’ and ‘radicalized’ are depicted and explained in the news. Methodologically, the thesis combines in-depth interviews and textual analysis.

We look forward to hearing more about Anna's research. She will be supervised this term by Ben O'Loughlin.

The West's narrative crisis: O'Loughlin to speak at Milton Wolf Seminar 2017 in Vienna, 25-27-April

As the West faces a crisis of confidence in its narratives about democracy, media and the liberal global order, the Milton Wolf Seminar 2017 will examine the historical legacy and prospects for learning from one past Western effort at addressing the future through a political project: The Marshall Plan. This week, leading scholars, policymakers and journalists will gather in Vienna to discuss 'The Yearning for Transformative Visions' in the West today. Newpolcom's Ben O'Loughlin will speak about how narratives for transformative visions could be projected amid today's global information flows. Joining Ben will be Jim Rutenberg, Media Editor at the New York Times; Anja Kaspersen, Head of Strategic Engagement and New Technologies, International Red Cross;  Andrei Richter, Professor, Senior Advisor, Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media; and Michael Freund, former head of Media Studies at Webster University, journalist at Der Standard, and board member at the Marshall Foundation.  

The Marshall Plan unfolded in a world of nation states defined by clearly demarcated (if contested) physical territories. Ben and the other speakers will explore the complex and multifaceted role of new technologies in the articulation of grand narratives for society. The distributed and multi-modal global information system is a central battlefield in the war of contemporary visions. The debate will explore how communication technologies provide new pathways for the promulgation of and resistance to grand narratives as well as new developments in legal, technical, and social dimensions of public diplomacy and propaganda surrounding those narratives. 

The Milton Wolf Seminar is an annual gathering organised by the Annenberg School, University of Pennsylvania. Past participants from newpolcom include Dr. Cristian Vacarri and emerging scholars Dr. Billur Aslan, Dr. Gwenyth Wang, and Dr. Joanna Szostek.

CfP: Panel: Automated social-media bots and the non-human: opening a dialogue between Political Communication and Science and Technology Studies

Call for papers now open for the 11th Annual Science in Public Conference, 10th-12th July, at the University of Sheffield. #SIPsheff17

Information and submission portal here

Deadline: April 18th

Notification of acceptance: April 26th

Panel Organisers

Declan McDowell-Naylor – New Political Communication Unit, Royal Holloway, University of London

Samantha Bradshaw – D.Phil. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford University

Gillian Bolsover – Researcher and DPhil Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford University

Call for Panel Papers

The social and political effects of new media, social networks and technological innovation are important and pressing areas of academic inquiry for both Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Political Communication scholarship. However, interdisciplinary work between these two fields of study is uncommon, despite many confluences in theoretical and methodological approaches. This panel seeks to open a dialogue between STS and Political Communication scholarship. We offer to do so in the context of an emergent area of inquiry in Political Communication: the rise of automated social-media bots and algorithmically-controlled communication.

In recent years, Political Communication scholarship has responded to some of the empirical challenges it has faced by adopting conceptual themes and approaches from STS (in particular from Actor-Network Theory), such as in Chadwick’s Hybrid Media System (2013) and Kleis Nielsen’s Ground Wars (2012). As a sub-field of Political Science, Political Communication theory opens up new opportunities to engage with STS’s desire to “promote conversation of the conceptions of politics that animate social studies of science and technology” (Brown, 2015,p.3) and speaks to the ‘engaged program’ of STS that is “converging on the democratisation of technoscience” (Sismondo, 2008, p.21).

We invite papers on topics including, but not limited to:

• Understanding the conceptual applicability of STS to other fields, and in particular the success of ANT
• How ‘social-media bots’ can be and/or are understood by STS scholars, especially as non-human actors?
• What it means for communication to be ‘political’ – how can this be challenged?
• Likewise, what are the predominant conceptions of politics in STS, and how can they be challenged?
• Why do both STS and Political Communication place such normative value on democracy?
• The conceptual, methodological, and empirical horizon of STS – what’s coming next?

New research published by Szostek on elite Russians' narratives and media use

Newpolcom's Joanna Szostek has published a new article in Europe-Asia Studies entitled, News Consumption and Anti-Western Narratives in Russia: A Case Study of University Students. As part of the cohort of likely future leaders in Russia, understanding their views is of great interest. 

This Moscow study was conducted prior to Joanna's current project Stratnarra exploring public and elite narratives in Ukraine. Some of this research will be published later in 2017.

To contact the author: Joanna.Szostek@rhul.ac.uk