The Symbolic Dimension of Twitter Logic and the Potential (D)evolution of Political Discourse
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Department of Informatics and Media
Master’s Programme in Social Sciences,
Digital Media and Society specialization
Two-year Master’s Thesis
The Symbolic Dimension of Twitter Logic and the
Potential (D)evolution of Political Discourse
Student: Isabelle Lindberg
1
Abstract
This study aims to explore the potential impact of social media platforms in shaping public
discourse and political communication. To arrive at such a proposition, I attempt to
conceptually problematize the idea of media logic in general and the advent of social network
media logic in particular, more specifically the logic of Twitter as a political space. What is
more, I argue that, with regard to the current state of political communication and with social
media content increasingly contributing to setting the agenda for the public and political
dialogue, this field of research may indeed benefit from taking it one step further by studying
the even further specialized institutional logics of specific social network media platforms. For,
while it is indeed necessary to study a more general social network media logic, it ought to be
recognized that each individual platform comes with its own merits and practices for mediating
content. Moreover, contemporary research in this area focuses mainly on the material or
infrastructural features of media logics. I argue that the symbolic dimension demands equal
academic attention. Thus, for the purpose of demonstrating and exemplifying this need for
platform-specific media logics and a consideration of their symbolic dimension, this particular
study dives into the possible establishment of a symbolic Twitter logic. The practical
applicability of said logic is then empirically approached via the specific case of President
Donald Trump, who along with a majority of currently active American politicians seem to
increasingly rely on Twitter as political space for the purpose of public communication and the
dissemination of information, as well as influencing and gauging public opinion.
2
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... 3
TABLE OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... 6
1.1. AIM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS................................................................................... 9
1.2. CURRENT RESEARCH GAP AND CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD ...................................... 11
1.3. CONTEXT: WHY TRUMP’S TWITTER AND ITS MEDIA COVERAGE? ................................ 12
1.4. THESIS STRUCTURE .................................................................................................... 14
2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND GENERAL THEORETICAL FOUNDATION ............... 15
2.1. THE SYMBOLIC DIMENSION OF INTERACTION .............................................................. 16
2.2. MEDIA ECOLOGY........................................................................................................ 17
2.2.1. Medium Theory................................................................................................... 18
2.2.2. Media Logic........................................................................................................ 20
Mediation and Mediatization .................................................................................... 21
2.2.3. Mediation of Political Communication................................................................ 22
2.2.4. Mediation and Baudrillard’s Theory of Simulacra .............................................. 25
2.3. SOCIAL NETWORK MEDIA LOGIC ................................................................................ 26
2.3.1. Platform-Specific Logics and Impact on Rhetorical Practice .............................. 28
3. METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................... 31
3.1. CASE STUDY OF TRUMP’S TWITTER FEED AS COVERED BY NEWS MEDIA ..................... 31
3.1.1. Material and Data Collection ............................................................................. 31
3.1.2. Sample Selection................................................................................................. 35
3.1.3. Analytical Method: A Rhetorical Content and Discourse Analysis ...................... 37
Theoretical Foundation ............................................................................................. 37
Applied Procedure .................................................................................................... 38
3.2. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................... 40
3.2.1. Author’s Statement of Personal Positionality ...................................................... 40
4. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK OF TWITTER LOGIC ................................................. 43
4.1. DEVELOPING AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK OF TWITTER LOGIC ................................. 43
4.1.1. The Symbolic Media Environment of Twitter....................................................... 44
Simplicity ................................................................................................................. 46
Monology ................................................................................................................. 47
Affective Sensationalism .......................................................................................... 48
4.2. OPERATIONALIZATION OF ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................. 49
5. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 53
5.1. TWITTER FORMAT LOGIC AND ANALYSIS ON THE TEXTUAL LEVEL .............................. 54
5.1.1. The Simplistic Style of Trump.............................................................................. 54
5.1.2. The Monological and Self-centered Appearance of Trump .................................. 63
5.1.3. Trump’s Reliance on Affectively Sensationalist Symbolism ................................. 70
5.2. SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS ON THE CONTEXTUAL AND SOCIO-CULTURAL LEVELS ........ 79
5.2.1. Self-centered Framing ........................................................................................ 80
5.2.2. Assertive Deflection of Blame ............................................................................. 81
5.2.3. Misdirecting Attention through Distraction ......................................................... 81
3
5.3. TOWARDS A SYNTHESIS OF MEDIA COVERAGE, TRUMP’S STYLE, AND THE EVOLUTION
OF PUBLIC POLITICAL COMMUNICATION ............................................................................ 82
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS............................................................................................ 84
6.1. THE CASE FOR PLATFORM-SPECIFIC SYMBOLIC MEDIA LOGICS ................................... 84
6.2. POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS OF SYMBOLIC TWITTER LOGIC AND THE COMMUNICATIVE
STYLE OF TRUMP .............................................................................................................. 85
6.3. LIMITATIONS AND POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE RESEARCH................................................ 88
7. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 89
4
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Vague Generalizations, Unsubstantiated Claims and Simple Explanations: Example 1 ....... 55
Figure 2. Vague Generalizations, Unsubstantiated Claims and Simple Explanations: Example 2 ....... 55
Figure 3. Vague Generalizations, Unsubstantiated Claims and Simple Explanations: Example 3 ....... 56
Figure 4. Vague Generalizations, Unsubstantiated Claims and Simple Explanations: Example 4 ....... 56
Figure 5. Simplistic Grammar and Diction: Examples 1-4 ................................................................. 57
Figure 6. Simplistic Grammar and Diction: Example 5...................................................................... 58
Figure 7. Incoherent and Fragmented Ideas: Examples 1-2 ................................................................ 59
Figure 8. Incoherent and Fragmented Ideas: Examples 3-4 ................................................................ 59
Figure 9. Repetitive Chantability: Examples 1-5 ............................................................................... 60
Figure 10. Superficial Triviality of Content: Examples 1-4................................................................ 61
Figure 11. Superficial Triviality of Content: Example 5 .................................................................... 62
Figure 12. Aggrandized Sense of “Self”: Examples 1-3..................................................................... 63
Figure 13. Aggrandized Sense of “Self”: Example 4 ......................................................................... 64
Figure 14. Personal Reality as Undisputable and Objective Truth: Example 1 ................................... 65
Figure 15. Personal Reality as Undisputable and Objective Truth: Example 2-3 ................................ 65
Figure 16. Authoritarian and Unapologetic Self-propagation and Self-defense: Examples 1-2 ........... 66
Figure 17. Authoritarian and Unapologetic Self-propagation and Self-defense: Example 3-4 ............. 67
Figure 18. “Us” Equals “I”: Examples 1-2 ........................................................................................ 68
Figure 19. “Us” Equals “I”: Example 3 ............................................................................................. 68
Figure 20. Ego-centric Demands and Instigations: Example 1 ........................................................... 69
Figure 21. Ego-centric Demands and Instigations: Example 2-3 ........................................................ 70
Figure 22. Aggressive and Emphatic Syntax: Examples 1-3 .............................................................. 71
Figure 23. Aggressive and Emphatic Syntax: Examples 4-5 .............................................................. 71
Figure 24. Attacks: Insults and Name-calling – Negative: Examples 1-4 ........................................... 73
Figure 25. Attacks: Insults and Name-calling – Negative: Examples 5-8 ........................................... 74
Figure 26. Threats and Violence – Negative: Examples 1-3 ............................................................... 75
Figure 27. Threats and Violence – Negative: Examples 4-6 ............................................................... 76
Figure 28. Praise of Supporters or Friends – Positive: Examples 1-2 ................................................. 77
Figure 29. Praise of Supporters or Friends – Positive: Examples 3-4 ................................................. 77
Figure 30. Conspiracies: Examples 1-2 ............................................................................................. 78
Figure 31. Conspiracies: Examples 3-6 ............................................................................................. 79
5
Acknowledgements
First, I would like to thank my original supervisor, Boás Hallgrímsson, who showed great
patience and encouraged me to do my thing throughout this entire process. I would also like to
extend my gratitude to Kirill Filimonov who took over as my supervisor last minute as Boás
unfortunately had to tend to personal matters. The constructive last-minute feedback provided
by Kirill was immensely helpful in tying this thesis together.
Second, I would like to both apologize to and thank my wonderfully supportive family and
friends for (almost unconditionally) putting up with my less than subpar mood and attitude
during this semester of thesis writing. I will make it up to you eventually, I promise.
Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my Love, Andrew, for always being there
for me and for always trying to make me believe that I am more intelligent and capable than I
really am, no matter how aggressively critical and opposed I tend to be to such a notion. I love
you. Much.
6
1. Introduction
Already in the mid-eighties, Neil Postman (1985) proposed that the medium of television, when
uninhibitedly allowed to define the form for political communication, or indeed any kind of
mediated communication apart from pure entertainment content for entertainment’s sake,
demonstrates a tendency towards undermining and lowering the overall quality of public and
political discourse. This is not to suggest that the medium of television is evil or inherently bad
as it is. However, when this at the time new medium of television came to shape the way public
officials communicated with the public or television programs acquired the role of mediator of
such publicly and politically significant content, the nature of political communication at large
subsequently also adapted to the medium-specific format, or logic, of television and
entertainment. Following this line of reasoning, it would appear only natural that a politician
who desires to gain public attention and support via the medium of Television would strive to
utilize the medium for political marketing purposes by altering the formatting of his or her
messages to fit the format of Television specifically. For example, content that works
particularly well as printed copy in a newspaper would presumably fall flat on Television and
thus have to be reformatted in order to work and gather maximum engagement via said new
medium. Thus, borrowing from Neil Postman’s warnings in Amusing Ourselves to Death
(1985), I aim to explore the contemporary real world implications of the pleasure-governed
dystopian world of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, which Postman warned against. In such
a world, distractive and numbing social entertainment media influences pave the way for a
rather deteriorated and ego-centric and affect-oriented public political discourse via a process
of mediation of aspects of life beyond the entertainment sphere, in this case political life. Public
and political discourse here continually and interchangeably refers not to a particular branch
within discourse theory but rather to the general and normalized practice of communicating
regarding political issues and among political entities, whether professional politicians or the
general public. Discourse, communication, and dialogue will thus be used more or less
interchangeably throughout this thesis. What is more, said exploration is performed with
specific contextual reference to the current state of public affairs in the United States under the
influence of President Trump and the symbolic environment afforded by Twitter.
Looking specifically at President Trump’s style of public political communication, taking place
first and foremost via is personal Twitter account, I posit that public political discourse in the
7
contemporary United States may be in the process of going through a moment of severe
discursive displacement. Said discursive displacement manifests through a general tendency to
move towards a more simplistic, egocentric, and affect- and conflict-based manner of
communicating about the political. The advent of social media is by no means solely
responsible for this potential (d)evolution of political discourse. Rather, as Postman among
others (see Altheide & Snow, 1979) argued already during the peak of the medium of television,
new media technologies and new forms of mediated communication tend to exert a kind of
reflexive influence on other aspects of society, when incorporated into all areas of public life.
By extension, when all forms of mediated communication, no matter its original and primary
purpose, converges with media logics primarily structured to enable such trivial and superficial
content, as opposed to public service-oriented content, mediated social life risks evolving
fundamentally into a form of show business and reality entertainment simulation. What is
particularly prevalent within the current age of social network media is perhaps the fragmented
nature of content, the emotional pull, and the ever-expanding network of participating
‘prosumers’ (originally coined by Toffler, 1980) within which production and consumption are
merged and more often than not dependent on a rationality of popularity and virality. Here, I
deliberately opt for the inclusion of both “social” and “network” when talking about this
particular new media logic. I do so simply because I find both terms equally necessary in
defining this new media logic framework. It is “social” because it is centered around social
interaction, production and reproduction of social identity, and social bonding; and, it is a
“network” logic because the environment allows for us to connect and thus interact socially in
a highly networked fashion owing to the medium’s underlying technological makeup.
The concepts of media influence and media logic rely on the understanding of technological,
hardware, aspects of media on the one hand, and the more symbolic and social, software,
aspects on the other hand. While recognizing that there are underlying technological features
specific to social network media logic, such as for instance programmability, popularity,
connectivity, and datafication (Dijck & Poell, 2013), this particular study focuses primarily on
the more philosophical implications of the symbolic dimension of content formatting logic,
albeit with some underlying and implicit references to popularity – what makes certain styles
of communication more popular and influential than others on this new media
platform. Symbolic, and the symbolic dimension, can be understood here as the dimension of
signs and symbols for communicative interaction, inspired by the symbolic interactionist
perspective (as delineated by Blumer 1969). My understanding of this symbolic dimension is
8
further theorized and delineated in the following chapter of literature review and theoretical
foundation.
1.1. Aim and Research Questions
This research has been separated into two main stages. The first stage deals with the current
conceptual confusion surrounding the theories of media logic and medium theory, their
terminology, their interpretation, their potential operationalization, and their probable "real
world” application. This is achieved through problematizing some of the main concepts
currently perceived as central to defining these two frameworks. Said venture adopts as its point
of departure Postman’s illustration of medium theory and proceeds to discuss various forms of
media logics, as conceptualized mainly by Altheide, as well as the fundamentally interrelated
concept of mediation. The focus here is to present a perspective aimed at analyzing the
symbolic environment of mediation, indeed the stylistic and rhetorical dimension of media
influence over political communication. The research question emerging from this theoretical
mission thus appears as follows:
- How can we arrive at a pragmatic interpretation of the symbolic dimension of media
logic within a greater framework of medium theory for the purpose of cross-field
application - in this case the application of social network media logics as influencing
symbolic interactions within the sphere of political communication?
It is not my intention to suggest that contemporary conceptualizations of media logic are
entirely void of purpose or merit. Indeed, there are several useful contemporary interpretations
of media logic specifically correlated to the technological affordances of new social network
media (for instance, Dijck & Poell, 2013 and Klinger & Svensson, 2014). However, it is my
understanding that the criticism of these conceptualizations of media logic often focus merely
on the prevalence of media centrism and technological determinism – criticisms that Klinger
and Svensson specifically set out to dispel with their approach. However, what current
discussions appear to neglect is that the concept of media logic ought to be seen as more of an
umbrella term for the institutionalization of mediation. And, said institutionalization in turn
consists of several dimensions and elements of influence. As mentioned, there is a dimension
9
of technological affordances. But there is also the more abstract dimension of symbolic
interaction and stylistic affordances. This latter dimension appears to have been more or less
overlooked in more traditional media studies. Thus, I aim to highlight the greater need for a
more symbolic and stylistically oriented interpretation of what media logic is and how media
logic can aid in furthering our understanding of our ever-expanding mediated world, with
specific reference to the emergence of social network media and its consequential
logic(s). Further, while the material dimension of technological affordances appears to reveal a
collective infrastructure of primary environmental characteristics shared by platforms, the
symbolic dimension presents a problem of divergent media environments within the institution
of social network media. Social network media platforms rely largely on the same technological
affordances, but the symbolic dimension of message composition and format tends to diverge.
Having, hopefully, clarified and delineated the theoretical potential of recombining medium
theory with the concept of media logic within the symbolic space, the following chapters of this
thesis aim to apply this overarching framework in a more narrow and specialized manner by
diving deeper into the logic of social network media via the exploration of the platform-specific
logic of the social network media platform of Twitter. This is done via further problematization
of the terminology of medium theory, media logic, and the specific logic inherent to each
specific context or platform, in this case Twitter via the stylistic performance of Trump.
Performance refers here to publicly observable behavioral action on the social stage, as
theorized via Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical theory of self-presentation. I thus argue that,
although there is an overarching logic of social network media with regard to “social”
interaction and the structure of the “network”, each individual platform also contributes with
its own symbolic logic and format for creating, delivering, and promoting communicative
content. Hence, the two research questions guiding this part of the study appear as follows:
- How does the particular symbolic media logic of the social network media platform
Twitter inform political communication and debate; and,
- How does said logic of Twitter affect the evolution of public political communication in
the United States when combined with the communicative style of President Donald
Trump?
This second stage relies heavily on the assumption that technologically enabled media
environments, with their varied forms and logics, influence the way in which public officials
10and political figures choose to brand themselves and their message in order to win the potential
coverage and public attention provided by these media outlets, whether via traditional
newspapers, broadcast television news, entertainment programs, or visibility on social media
platforms. Said adaptation in turn depends on shaping one’s manner of communicating and
interacting within the symbolic interactionist (Blumer, 1969) dimension.
1.2. Current Research Gap and Contribution to the Field
The emergence of social network media as an increasingly political space in American Politics
— indeed exemplified by Twitter as brought to the forefront by Trump who utilizes the platform
as his main tool for partaking in publicly mediated communication — has inspired a great
number of research ventures into how social media may or may not influence society and
politics at large. Researchers and students alike have contributed with their distinct perspective
takes on Trump’s particular communicative performance on Twitter (for instance, Müller &
Schwarz, 2019; Wells et. al., 2016; Ahmadian et. al., 2017), whether concerning a perceived
correlation to a rise in hate crimes, extensive news coverage of Trump, or attempting to explain
the popularity of the Trump phenomenon. However, even though these ventures generally seem
to arrive at the conclusion that Trump gains significant media coverage and politically
communicative influence via his employment of Twitter, there has yet to be a focused study of
the stylistic features of his tweets that are accepted as especially “newsworthy” by news media
sources, or of what his extensive news media coverage could mean for the overall evolution of
the normalized symbolic environment of political communication. The point here is to
specifically demonstrate the relation between Trump’s communicative style and the
appropriation of such a communicative style as contemporarily ‘newsworthy’ in and of itself.
Hence, by analyzing Trump’s peculiar style of communication in the tweets most commonly
cited by online news media articles (defined more clearly in chapter three on method), I
demonstrate and further discuss the potential influence of the specific logic of the medium of
Twitter on public political communication, beyond the confines of the platform itself. Further,
said demonstration adopts a view of Trump’s style as particularly homologous to Twitter’s
specific format logic.
11Moreover, the current state of research regarding social network media logic appears to be
mostly concerned with what I refer to as ‘hardware’ features, or aspects related to these
hardware features. For instance, when Dijck and Poell (2013) discuss their key four features of
their distinct interpretation of social media logic (as mentioned above), they direct a large part
of their focus on the underlying technological aspects guiding the logic of social media.
Similarly, albeit with a slightly different approach to terminology, Klinger and Svensson
(2014), present what they deem to be the key three underlying practices specific to their
“network media logic” as distinct from previous conceptualizations. These practices are:
Production, Distribution, and Media Usage (ibid). This present study, on the other hand,
proposes that a considerable portion of this sweeping process of mediation on behalf of social
media happens on the symbolic level of content formatting and meaning making – that is, on a
stylistic and rhetorical level more concerned with communicative and rhetorical signification.
This would, perhaps, appear as the more abstract level of social network media logic, but I
propose that this level is equally, if not more, important in terms of impacting the normalization
of public communication and forms of processing communication. In other words, this level
relates to what Altheide (2016) would likely refer to as symbolic ‘format’ and, indeed, what I
propose as a significant bridge between the conceptual frameworks of media logic and medium
theory, and also a significant conceptual aspect that seems to have been somewhat lost in more
recent research preoccupied a bit more with tactile technological features.
1.3. Context: Why Trump’s Twitter and its Media Coverage?
Following the election of Donald Trump, two main aspects of political communication have
become particularly prevalent and worthy of attention. The first is the seemingly undoubted
and unapologetic insistence that social media platforms, especially Twitter, should be
considered a genuine source of political news and information otherwise related to public
affairs. The second aspect concerns news media outlets reliance on social media posts –
especially, as is the case presently, those of Twitter and Trump – as ’newsworthy’ in and of
themselves, thus accepting a perversion of both ’newsworthiness’ and public political discourse
while also encouraging a displacement of political logic so as to adhere more to the form and
rationale of social network media. Throughout this study, public political discourse, refers not
to any particular established theory on discourse but rather to a concept of a dominating manner
12and style of communicating and processing information in the public media sphere. As such,
discourse is seen as shaped and affected by the power struggle over an interpretative prerogative
of reality, over who will establish the dominating ‘normative frame’ (Fischer, 2003) of
reference and in what manner. Several news articles, based on statistical observations of news
coverage of each campaign, have also posited that Trump’s overall so-called ‘earned media’
coverage trumped both fellow Republican candidates during the primaries and the Democratic
candidate, Hillary Clinton, during the general election (Confessore & Yourish, 2016). Earned,
or indeed free, media coverage differs from paid media coverage such as political paid for ads
and is arguably even more impactful. Moreover, Zelizer (2018) posits that Trump has
successfully shaped the “national conversation […] through his Twitter stream” as a large
portion of his tweets spread into and hijack the mainstream news cycle. Such domination would
suggest a considerable influence over setting the political debate agenda and thus also inspiring
the contemporary evolution of public political communication.
Also, provided that Trump has opted for continuing to conduct a significant amount of his
public political communication via his Twitter feed, even following his official inauguration
and thus the end of his presidential campaign, one may deduce that his tweets have and will
continue to have great influence over setting the general political agenda. In some ways,
Trump’s tweets can be viewed as his authentic expression of his self, whereas other traditional
forms of public communication, such as formal press conferences, are merely seen as a
public spectacle for the sake of politics. As such, the Twitter feed of Donald Trump has
arguably evolved as a ‘behind the scenes’ format promising off-the-cuff transparency and
emotional truth, where in actuality Trump’s Twitter feed may very well be a carefully
constructed stylistic facade, aimed at overshadowing and obscuring all other attempts at
personifying Trump as a political actor. Along these lines, Gunn Enli (2017: 58) posits that the
appearance of the Trump campaign as “pretty amateurish” compared to the professional
organization and structure of the Clinton campaign likely resulted in Trump coming across as
the more “authentic” and relatable candidate. Even though it cannot realistically be held one
hundred percent responsible, the campaign’s social media presence and communication
strategy is still largely considered to be significantly responsible for aiding the growing
popularity and consequential election of Trump, his values, and his representation of social and
political reality. Studying the communicative style that has managed to dominate the political
space in such a way thus appears fundamental to our continued understanding of democratic
politics within the expanding world of digital society.
131.4. Thesis Structure
As touched upon above, this thesis is divided into two main parts — one of theoretical
exploration and another of potential empirical application. Altogether, this thesis consists sf
six primary chapters, not including abstract, table of contents or references.
This first chapter discusses the premise of this study by introducing the topic, the general aim
of the research, the research questions, and the general structure and outline of the thesis.
The second chapter offers a literature review and an in-depth theoretical discussion and
problematization of the symbolic dimension and the fundamental theoretical framework of
medium theory and media logic, along with related and significant terminology. This chapter
also introduces the conceptual concept relating to political communication as well as the posited
need for platform-specific logics in order to better understand potential impact on political and
public discourse.
The third chapter outlines the methodology and research design applied for the case study of
Donald Trump’s Twitter communication. Processes for data collection, sample selection, and
analysis are also explained. Ultimately, I also address potential ethical concerns.
The fourth chapter presents and outlines the development and establishment of an analytical
framework for Twitter logic with the specific purpose of analyzing political communication.
This framework is also further specialized in order to be applicable to the context and stylistic
performance of Trump.
The fifth chapter provides the findings and analysis of the data gathered according to the
methodology section in chapter three. There is a general overview of the findings as well as a
more in-depth analytical discussion with references to examples from the sample.
The sixth and final chapter offers some concluding remarks concerning the need for platform-
specific logics and the potential implications of Twitter logic and the communicative style of
Trump for the evolution of political communication and public debate. The chapter concludes
with some thoughts on general limitations of this particular study as well as some considerations
for potential the future study of this topic.
142. Literature Review and General Theoretical Foundation
This chapter concerns the conceptual problematization and fusion of medium theory and media
logic as well as the perceived theoretical and analytical need for platform-specific logics within
the dimension of the symbolic. It consists of a structured theoretical discussion of terminology
as well as an attempt to order these terms in relation to each other for the purpose of clarifying
the conceptual rationale of media logic and mediation. This is accomplished via an ordered and
evolutionary comparison and amalgamation of theoretical concepts related to or stemming from
the theoretical framework of medium theory, within the grand theoretical umbrella of media
ecology. Moreover, this section strives towards a discussion on the implication of introducing
new media logics and how each new media logic may interact with and influence each other,
with specific reference to the emergence of social network media logic. This also consists of a
deliberation on the particular influence of social network media logic on the contemporary
performance of news media and political communication, via a concept of media logic
transference and reflexive influence. To discuss the idea of symbolic media logic transference,
I also explain the need for acknowledging that said reflexive discursive pollution of new social
network media formats, infecting and altering more traditional forms of communication, will
vary according to the specific environment of each platform.
Medium theory and media logic theory have emerged as two particularly prominent theoretical
frameworks for the purpose of studying the concept of media influence. Although some people
prefer to separate the frameworks of medium theory, as presented by Postman, and media logic,
as formulated by Altheide and Snow (1979), I suggest that these two perspectives would benefit
greatly from being approached more as complementary and highly interrelated
conceptualization than as two separate and competing frameworks, particularly with regard to
media’s influence on public and political communication. The primary concern for said
proposed merging of these two related but currently understood as diverging frameworks is the
similarly depicted sub-concept of media formatting environments and the subsequent effect of
evolving, or perhaps even devolving, our overall processing and understanding of reality as
central to both. In the words of Altheide:
15“Media logic is discussed as a general framework for understanding the nature, impact
and relevance of media and information technologies for social life as well as its use
and appropriateness for investigating political communication.”
(Altheide 2016)
The concept of a ‘logic’ here refers to an institutional framework of rules and practice governing
each medium. It is thus a system of influence and governance structuring communicative
interaction within media environments. Hence, media logic can arguably be placed within
medium theory as the conceptualization of one of the primary embodiments of media influence
over social and political life, whereas medium theory provides the conceptualization of the
structural environmental channel for said logic influence. This relational placement appears
particularly promising for a discussion on the symbolic dimension of media logic influence.
2.1. The Symbolic Dimension of Interaction
In simple terms, the dimension of the symbolical can be portrayed in relation to the world of
the material. As terminologically distinct from the material and arguably objective (at least in
theoretical terms) world of things, the symbolic dimension represents the world of signs and
symbols, or language, attributed to these things as well as their related interactive events for the
purpose of understanding and representing social interactions and constructing a cultural
representation of social reality (see social constructivism, for instance Vygotski, 1978). The
symbolic dimension is thus the dimension of social culture and various forms of symbolic
communication and social interaction through which individuals and communities together
establish a socio-cultural reality or frame of communicative behavior and reference. The
symbolic does not necessarily mean to be in opposition with the material. Rather the two
dimensions are closely related and codependent, even mutually constitutive. Indeed, the
symbolic dimension and the accompanying idea of socio-cultural heredity can be seen as one
of significant dimensions of human evolution and the evolution of culture (Jablonka & Lamb,
2014).
Stemming from this theoretical approach to the socially and symbolically constructed character
of society, the particular approach of symbolic interactionism, as put forth by Blumer (1969),
16further maintains that the meaning of our social world takes shape via interaction within this
symbolic and communicative dimension of signs and language, pointing to an existential
interrelation between the symbolic and the material world. The symbolic serves as the
dimension of meaning-making and socio-cultural interaction, while the material serves as the
practical infrastructure to which the symbolic refers and relates. For the purpose of this thesis,
the symbolic refers particularly to the linguistic and communicative dimension of social
network media as necessarily distinct but inherently intertwined with the material and
infrastructural dimension of technological affordances. What is more, it is this symbolic
dimension that, when compared to the more or less homologous global technological
infrastructure of social network media in terms of networked organization (i.e. the material
dimension of social network media), demonstrates the need for more local and platform-specific
conceptualizations within the framework of media ecology.
2.2. Media Ecology
Both medium theory and media logic have emerged from the metaphorical conceptualization
of media ecology, or media defined and understood as environments, introduced already in the
1960s by early medium theorists such as Postman (1985) and McLuhan (1964). The essential
pillar of all perspectives of media ecology is the understanding and view of media as
environments with their own rules for communicative existence and interaction. In other words,
any given medium presents as its own particular environment for processing information. All
media then coexist within the larger ecology of media. What is more, these media environments
tend to come in contact with each other and thus inspire a process of mutually constitutive
influence, balancing and interacting with each other in a fashion much akin to that of the
ecological systems of our planet. Media ecology is thus employed as a metaphor for explaining
the nature of media and its influential role in our human society, which is in many regards
centered around and wholly dependent on our various mediated forms of communication.
Within the greater framework of media ecology, there have emerged several branches with their
own individual foci in terms of object of study. However, they all depart from this idea of media
as environments, channeling and forming our communicative behavior and way of relaying and
processing information. Within this greater theoretical umbrella of media ecology, two strands
17have perhaps appeared as particularly significant in terms of their general utility when
discussing the societal impact of media. These strands are: medium theory and media logic.
While generally understood as diverging and at times competing concepts, it is my view that
the two are inherently complementary and indeed co-dependent. If anything, medium theory
appears as a general framework within which media logic exists as a fundamentally significant
institutional form that fits into the overarching framework of medium theory. I thus build my
conceptual understanding on the amalgamation of medium theory as posited by Postman (1985)
and media logic as formulated primarily by Altheide & Snow (1979) and continuously refined
by Altheide (2013, 2016). For, while it may be scientifically beneficial to contradict and expand
on frameworks and concepts such as these, it is not entirely problem-free to do so.
Too much insistence on new inventions of distinct and supposedly mutually exclusive
conceptualizations – that in actuality tend to build on the same meanings, sometimes seemingly
presented under the mere guise of fresh terminology – risks creating unnecessary division and
competition between theorists who are actually referring to extensions of the same fundamental
concept. Such refinement is good whenever rationally merited and clearly delineated; however,
it sometimes ends up merely muddying the conceptual waters and thus obscuring and inhibiting
consensual understanding that could potentially help advance the area of study to deal with
practical applicability of these concepts. Again, I am not arguing against deliberations on
conceptual continuation and evolution or continued contestation of theoretical terminology
altogether. Rather, I am contesting what I view as the lost theoretical and practical potential of
medium theory and media logic through unnecessary division and conflicting understandings.
For these reasons, I attempt to bridge a perceived fundamental theoretical gap that has emerged
between medium theory and media logic. What is more, medium theory appears to have been
somewhat marginalized and forgotten, even though it presents itself as the necessary original
foundation for all proceeding conceptualizations of media logics and the emerging process of
mediation.
2.2.1. Medium Theory
The main reason for turning to Postman for understanding medium theory and new media’s
role in defining the meaning of communication is that he explicitly referred to the practical, and
potentially devolutionary, implications of media’s power in shaping public discourse (Postman,
181985). Pointing to the medium of television’s potential of, via its privileging of personal
charisma and an entertainment format, infecting and perverting language relating to issues
beyond content designed solely for purpose of entertainment. His argument followed a
reasoning that suggests that the medium of television introduced a less complex way of
structuring communication, which ultimately meant that complex ideas and topics had to be
converted into more simplistic and thus also more vacuous forms. Such a way of thinking about
media also suggests that our representation and thus also our perception of reality is bounded
by the medium and language employed. We can only reasonably communicate what the
medium and its language allows. Hence, the medium supersedes and defines content by
providing the structure of information transmission and reception. The medium provides the
time and space, as well as the rules guiding communicative interaction. The medium, hence,
also provides the boundaries for our symbolic understanding of reality.
The problem with new media, according to this reasoning, is not that it exists or introduces new
purposes of communicative interaction. The primary issue is when new media is employed for
purposes beyond its original design, in an unrestricted manner and without critical much
scrutiny. An example of this is when entertainment media formats are employed for
communicating more critical information, such as information concerning public service. The
essential assumption here is also that each new medium has introduced a mode of
communicating more simplistic than the ones preceding it – perhaps in the interest of an ever-
increasing need for hastened consumption, among other things.
Whereas Postman brings up the example of television as compared to the medium of print;
today’s media landscape offers the example of social network media’s mode of communication
as compared primarily to that of traditional mass media, the general category to which television
arguably belongs. Looking particularly at platforms such as Twitter, a micro-blogging forum,
Postman’s hypothesis of increased simplicity seems particularly apt. What is more, due to these
new modes of communicating, our collective idea of reality and truth transforms with each new
medium. For instance, the current wave of social network media has demonstrated that emotion
and opinion often times appear as the new equivalent of fact, the new form of truth. This is not
to suggest that previous media has not depended on emotion and affect, but the peculiarity of
social network media in this regard is the extreme natural environment of affect as reigning
supreme – perhaps in part related to the increased prevalence of various forms of instant
gratification (as related to Uses and Gratification Theory, for instance by Katz & Blumler,
191974) and ‘attention flow’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Medium theory can thus be seen as the
necessary theoretical and conceptual foundation for approaching complementary
problematizations of media logic.
2.2.2. Media Logic
Departing from above-outlined approach to medium theory, media logic then emerges as a
fundamental pillar within this framework, indeed one institutional expression of medium
theory. In the words of Altheide:
“Media logic is defined as a form of communication, and the process through which
media transmit and communicate information”
(Altheide 2016, based on Altheide & Snow 1979, 1988)
Thus, if we accept the idea of media as environments and medium theory as a framework
arguing for the influential and constitutive nature of these media environments, then media
logic would appear as the institutional form which exerts meaning-making influence on
communication and interaction within any given medium. Further, the conceptualization of
media logic as such an influential form:
“does not refer to just one logic for one medium […] but is a conceptual model of
mediation”
(Altheide 2016)
Mediation here is set equal in terminological meaning to what some current researchers (Hepp,
2011, 2013; Hjarvard, 2013; Kepplinger, 2002; Mazzoleni, 2018; Lundby 2009; Strömbäck &
Esser, 2014) would refer to as ‘mediatization’; but more on my interpretation of this
terminological distinction below. In other words, mediation is the process through which media
logic presents itself, and media logic, by that same reasoning, is thus the overarching concept
or conceptual model for demonstrating what lies behind and influences such a process of
mediated influence as existing, according to my perspective, within a greater framework of
medium theory. Media logic as a concept consists of the “assumptions and processes” inherent
20to each individual medium’s mode of “constructing messages” and thus also their manner of
influencing overall meaning (Altheide, 2016). As such, media logic sets the standard for our
social construction of reality as well as the normative structures for communicative behavior
and interaction. What is more, within this concept, the idea of ‘format’ stands as particularly
significant with regards to its role as a meta-structuring tool.
Additionally, a large portion of the earlier research related to this conceptualization of media
logic understands its fundamental nature as owing itself to the perspective of “symbolic
interactionis[m]” (see Blumer, 1969). Such an approach privileges the symbolic environment
of mediated communication; symbolic in this sense, again, referring to the symbolic
representation of reality via mediated communication and interaction. As opposed to more
infrastructural approaches to media logic, the symbolic dimension can be seen as corresponding
to a more grammatical institutionalization and expression of media logic’s influence over how
content is conveyed. This is, indeed, the form of approach that I see as somewhat missing from
the contemporary media logic debate as regarding social network media. It is thus my view that
symbolic interaction, as governed by media formats, contexts, and processes of mediating
communication, demands further attention when studying social network media platforms and
their potential effects on the nature and expression of public and political discourse. That is,
again, not to suggest that the technological machinery and organization of interactive activity
is not significant, but simply that the symbolic context possesses significant power as well
within its particular area of study — for instance, as is the case with this particular study, when
discussing the discursive evolution of political communication.
Mediation and Mediatization
Within the frameworks of medium theory and media logic, the emerging process of mediation,
or mediatization, is perhaps the most popularly defined and discussed concept of all. While
some (Strömbäck & Esser, 2014; Mazzoleni, 2008b; Strömbäck 2008) would argue that there
is a significant definitional distinction between mediation and mediatization, others (namely
Altheide 2016) would argue that the two are simply different labels for the same process. The
former reasoning suggests that mediation, as distinct from mediatization, refers to a neutral
action whereby communication traverses through any given medium, while mediatization
refers to a broader, more dynamic and subjectively process of media logics exerting influence
21over the meaning of communications and further resulting in implications across diverse
aspects of society beyond media and communications (Esser, 2013; Hjarvard, 2013; Mazzoleni,
2008b; Schulz, 2004).
Such a terminological distinction, however, appears both ultimately unnecessary and rather
misleading. Mediation, according to such a distinction in terms, appears as an utterly empty
concept without any subjective meaning as it depends on the flawed assumption that there are
instances of messages or forms of communication that are not mediated. In my view, that does
not make logical sense. The very foundational nature of communication would appear to
prohibit such an idea, provided that all forms of communication happen through one medium
or another by existential necessity. Communication without a medium does not exist as such.
Communication is ‘mediated’ or, transmitted through a medium by default, whether it be the
medium of body language, speech, printed word, television, or a social network media platform.
And so, by being mediated, communication will always fundamentally depend on media and
media logics when it comes to meaning-making and influence.
Thus, mediation is mediatization, and vice versa. There is no mediatization as differing from
mediation, and mediation cannot happen in a neutral vacuum without exerting subjective
influence over the information communicated. Therefore, hereafter, I simply refer to mediation
and mediated reality, thus abandoning mediatization as redundant. For my fundamental
argument remains that any given medium and its individual logic influences the resulting
communication by means of default and necessity. Indeed, as McLuhan (1964) proposed, “the
medium is the message”. The possibilities as well as the limitations of any given context define
the potential nature of the output and every form of action, in this case communication, is and
can only ever be interpreted according to the provided medium of transmission and reception.
Any message is thus to be seen mediated by default through the fundamental process of
transmission and reception.
2.2.3. Mediation of Political Communication
Countless researchers, from a varied collection of perspectives on mediation have already
discussed the significance of this process in terms its influence within and over the political
sphere in general (Couldry, 2012; Hepp, 2013; Lundby, 2009a; Esser, 2013; Kepplinger, 2002;
22Meyer, 2002; Schillemans, 2012; Strömbäck, 2008; Strömbäck & Esser, 2009), and several
more have also specifically outlined its influence on political communication in particular
(Doyle, 2003; Altheide & Snow, 1979; Bennett & Entman, 2001; Blumler & Kavanagh, 1999;
Brants & Praag, 2006). Even though there is some general contestation concerning
terminological and practical nature of media influence in relation to other spheres and aspects
of society, all of the above seem to agree that a process of mediation, or whatever one chooses
to call it, functions as a significant and, indeed, relatively central force in the social and political
life of humanity. This is likely due largely to media’s fundamental role as a communication
channel and thus also a source of information transmission between and among the various
levels and branches of societal organization (Strömbäck & Esser, 2014). Admittedly, these
perspectives on media influence rely on a rather media-centric view of society. Given the role
of media in enabling communication, however, I would argue that such a position is not all that
problematic. The political system, in particular, arguably relies heavily on being able to
communicate with and gauge the opinion of the general public, as well as more local
constituencies. Media is as much a tool as a fundamental natural environment to which
everyone will have to relate, one way or another. The public sphere, or the collective social
domain in which public opinion is deliberated and formed (Habermas, 1991), indeed centers
around communication, and thus by extension the process of mediation. Hence, media affects
both public discourse – essentially the socio-cultural how in the way in which people interact –
and the organization of communicative relations – similarly, the what in the networked order
of interaction.
Mediation appears as an active force of a dynamic and reflexively transformative process of
influence between media and politics, between media logic and political logic, or politically
established praxis (for instance the various practices of communicating with the public contra
with other political figures behind closed doors). The process is dynamic in the sense that it is
both continuous and subjective, as opposed to static and neutral. It is reflexively transformative
because it would be naïve to suggest that it is a clearly defined and linear one-way process of
media logic exerting influence over political logic. The process of influence is in many ways
mutually constitutive and convergent in that political logic undoubtedly influences the various
media logics with which it interacts. For the purpose of this study, however, the primary focus
remains on the process of influence referred to as the mediation of politics, or more specifically
the mediation of political communication via an analysis of one of its popular interactive and
symbolic environments.
23You can also read
