Partidos conectivos durante la pandemia. La estrategia de comunicación de Podemos en Twitter

  1. De Marco, Stefano
  2. Guevara Gil, Juan Antonio
  3. Martínez Torralba, Ángela
  4. García-Ceca Sánchez, Celia
  5. Echániz Jiménez, Alejandro
  6. Palese, Rosario
Revista:
Empiria: Revista de metodología de ciencias sociales

ISSN: 1139-5737

Año de publicación: 2022

Título del ejemplar: El Big data en las ciencias sociales

Número: 53

Páginas: 121-145

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5944/EMPIRIA.53.2022.32615 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Empiria: Revista de metodología de ciencias sociales

Resumen

Desde el punto de vista comunicativo, los partidos conectivos se definen por su inclinación hacia modelos participativos donde los flujos conversacionales posean una estructura horizontal y bidireccional entre la élite de la formación y el activismo de base. Esto es posible gracias a que ceden parte de su organización a herramientas de la Web. Dentro de esta taxonomía se encuentra el partido español Unidas-Podemos como ejemplo de partido conectivo. En esta investigación se analiza la vertiente comunicativa externa, basada en el uso de redes sociales online, de los principales partidos políticos españoles durante el periodo de Estado de Alarma provocado por el COVID-19. Para ello, se observará la tasa de interacción y respuestas en Twitter de los representantes del Congreso de los Diputados. Los resultados muestran que los patrones comunicativos a nivel externo de Unidas-Podemos responden a criterios verticales, propios de los partidos convencionales. From a communicational point of view, connective parties are based on horizontal and bidirectional structure of conversational flows between the elite of the formation and the party activists. This is possible because they delegate part of their organization to digital and online platforms. In this paper we use the Spanish party Unidas-Podemos as a case of study of connective parties. Drawing upon the Twitter response and interaction rate between Spanish representatives and citizens, this research analyzes the external communicative aspect of the main Spanish political parties during the Lockdown caused by COVID-19. The results show that the external communication patterns of Unidas-Podemos respond to vertical criteria, typical of conventional parties.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • BALCELLS, J., CARDENAL, A. S. (2013): “Internet y la competición electoral: el caso de Esquerra Rapublicana de Catalunya”, Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 141, pp. 3-28.
  • BAVIERA, T, CALVO, D, & LLORCA-ABAD, G. (2019): “Mediatisation in Twitter: an exploratory analysis of the 2015 Spanish general election”, The Journal of International Communication, 25(2), pp. 275-300. doi:10.1080/13216597.2019.1634619 .
  • BELLI, S., ACEROS, J. C. (2020): “La confianza distribuida en las redes: un estudio de caso en el ámbito de los movimientos sociales”, Revista Hispana para el Análisis de Redes Sociales, 31(1), pp. 46-56.
  • BENKLER, Y. (2006): The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom, New Haven, Yale University Press.
  • BENNETT, W. L, SEGERBERG, A. (2012): “The logic of connective action”, Information, Communication & Society, 15, pp. 739-768.
  • BENNETT, W. L, SEGERBERG, A. & KNÜPFER, C. B. (2018): “The democratic interface: technology, political organization, and diverging patterns of electoral representation”, Information, Communication & Society, 21, 1655-1680.
  • BIMBER, B., DAVIS R. (2003): Campaigning online: The Internet in US elections, New York, NY, Oxford University Press.
  • CÁCERES ZAPATERO, M. D., BRÄNDLE SEÑÁN, G., & RUIZ SAN ROMÁN, J. A. (2017): “Sociabilidad virtual: la interacción social en el ecosistema digital”, Historia y Comunicación Social, 22(1), pp. 233-247. https://doi.org/10.5209/hics.55910.
  • CASTELLS, M. (2012): Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age, Cambridge, Polity Press.
  • DANIEL, WT, OBHOLZER, L. (2020): “Reaching out to the voter? Campaigning on Twitter during the 2019 European elections”, Research & Politics, 7(2), 2053168020917256. doi:10.1177/2053168020917256.
  • DAVIS, R. (1999): The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system, New York, Oxford University Press.
  • DESERIIS, M. (2020): “Two Variants of the Digital Party: The Platform Party and the Networked Party”, PACO. PArtecipazione e COnflitto, 13(1), pp. 896-917. https:// doi.org/10.1285/i20356609v13i1p896
  • DOROSHENKO, L., SCHNEIDER, T., KOFANOV, D., XENOS, M.A., SCHEUFELE, D.A. & BROSSARD, D. (2019): “Ukrainian nationalist parties and connective action: an analysis of electoral campaigning and social media sentiments”, Information, Communication & Society, 22(10), 1376-1395. doi:10.1080/136911 8X.2018.1426777.
  • GALLARDO, B., ENGUIX, O. (2016): Pseudopolítica: el discurso político en las redes sociales, Valencia, Universitat de València.
  • GARCÍA CARRETERO, L., ESTABLÉS, M. J. (2019): “La otra campaña de Barcelona en Comú: Som Comuns, Movimiento de Liberación Gráfica y la guerrilla comunicativa”, Revista Dígitos, (5), pp. 33-55. https://doi.org/10.7203/rd.v0i5.138
  • GARCÍA-CARRETERO, L., DÍAZ-NOCI, J. (2018): “From social movements to political parties. Barcelona en Comú’s electoral message, uses and limitations on Twitter during 2015 city council election”, OBETS, Revista de Ciencias Sociales.
  • GERBAUDO, P. (2018): Il partito piattaforma. La trasformazione dell'organizzazione politica nell'era digitale, Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, Milano.
  • (2019): The Digital Party: Political Organisation and Online Democracy, London, Pluto.
  • GIBSON, R. K., WARD, S. (2002): “Virtual campaigning: Australian parties and the impact of the Internet”, Australian Journal of Political Science 37, pp. 99-129.
  • GIBSON, R. K., LUSOLI, W. & WARD, S. (2005): “Online Participation in the UK: Testing a ‘Contextualised’ Model of Internet Effects”, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 7, pp. 561-583.
  • GIL DE ZÚÑIGA, H., VEENSTRA, A., VRAGA, E. ET AL. (2010): “Digital democracy: Reimagining pathways to political participation”, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7, pp. 36-51.
  • GREER, J.D., LAPOINTE, M.E. (2004): “Cyber-campaigning grows up: A comparative content analysis of websites for US Senate and gubernatorial races 1998–2000”, In Electronic Democracy, Routledge, pp. 132-148.
  • GUERRERO-SOLÉ, F. (2018): “Interactive Behavior in Political Discussions on Twitter: Politicians, Media, and Citizens’ Patterns of Interaction in the 2015 and 2016 Electoral Campaigns in Spain”, Social Media + Society, 4, 2056305118808776.
  • HAGUE, B. N., LOADER, B. D. (1999): Digital democracy: Discourse and decision making in the information age, New York, NY, Routledge.
  • JACKSON, N. (2007): “Political parties, the Internet and the 2005 General Election: third time lucky?”, Internet Research, 17, pp. 249 271.
  • JENSEN, M.J. (2016): “Social Media and Political Campaigning: Changing Terms of Engagement?”, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22, pp. 23-42.
  • JUNGHERR, A. (2016): “Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review”, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13, pp. 72-91.
  • KEARNEY, M. W. (2019): “rtweet: Collecting and analyzing Twitter data.”, Journal of Open Source Software, 4 (42), 1829. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01829.
  • KIM, C, LEE, S. (2020): “Innovation vs. Normalization: Politicians’ Twitter use at the early majority stage of its diffusion in the Korean assembly”, The Social Science Journal, pp. 1-13. doi:10.1080/03623319.2020.1782634.
  • KLINGER, U., SVENSSON, J. (2015): “The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach”, New Media & Society, 17, 1241- 1257.
  • LARSSON, A. O., MOE, H. (2012): “Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign”, New Media & Society, 14, pp. 729-747.
  • LARSSON, A. O. (2013): “Rejected Bits of Program Code: Why Notions of “Politics 2.0” Remain (Mostly) Unfulfilled”, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10, pp. 72-85.
  • LILLEKER, D. G, KOC-MICHALSKA, K. (2013): “Online Political Communication Strategies: MEPs, E-Representation, and Self-Representation”, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10, pp. 190-207.
  • LISI, M. (2018): “Party innovation, hybridization and the crisis: the case of Podemos”, Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 49 (3), pp. 245- 262. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2018.20.
  • LOADER, B. D, MERCEA, D. (2011): “Networking democracy?”, Information, Communication & Society, 14, pp. 757-769.
  • MARGOLIS, M., RESNICK, D. (2000): Politics as usual: the cyberspace revolution, Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications.
  • MOLYNEUX, L., MOURAO, R. (2017): “Political journalists’ normalization of Twitter: interaction and new affordances”. Journalism Studies, 20 (1), pp. 1-19.
  • PAPACHARISSI, Z. (2015): Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • PARDO MERINO, A., SAN MARTÍN, R. (2010): Análisis de datos en ciencias sociales y de la salud (Vol. II), Madrid, Síntesis.
  • RAMOS-SERRANO, M., FERNÁNDEZ GÓMEZ, J. D, & PINEDA, A. (2016): “Follow the closing of the campaign on streaming’: The use of Twitter by Spanish political parties during the 2014 European elections”, New Media & Society, 20 (1), pp. 122-140. doi:10.1177/1461444816660730
  • RANIOLO, F., TARDITI, V. (2019): “Digital revolution and party innovations: An analysis of the Spanish case”, Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana Di Scienza Politica, pp. 1-19.
  • RAUCHFLEISCH, A., METAG, J. (2020): “Beyond normalization and equalization on Twitter: Politicians’ Twitter use during non-election times and influences of media attention”, Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies, 9 (2), pp. 169-189. doi:10.1386/ajms_00021_1.
  • RICO MOTOS, C. (2019): “Let the Citizens Fix This Mess!’ Podemos’ Claim for Participatory Democracy in Spain”, Politics and Governance, 7(2), pp. 187. https://doi. org/10.17645/pag.v7i2.1893.
  • ROBLES, J. M., CÓRDOBA, A. (2019): Digital Political Participation: Disintermediation in the Era of Web 2.0, Londres, Palgrave.
  • SAMPEDRO, V., MOSCA, L. (2018): “Digital Media, Contentious Politics and Party Systems in Italy and Spain”, Javnost-The Public, 25, pp. 160-168.
  • SCHWEITZER, E. J. (2005): “Election Campaigning Online German Party Websites in the 2002 National Elections”, European Journal of Communication, 20, pp. 327-351.
  • SEETHALER, J., MELISCHEK, G. (2019): “Twitter as a tool for agenda building in election campaigns? The case of Austria”, Journalism, 20(8), 1087-1107. doi:10.1177/1464884919845460.
  • SOUTHERN, R., LEE, B. J. (2019): “Politics as usual? Assessing the extent and content of candidate-level online campaigning at the 2015 UK general election”, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 29(2), pp. 179-198. doi:10.1080/17457289.2 018.1515209.
  • SPIERINGS, N., JACOBS, K. & LINDERS, N. (2019): “Keeping an Eye on the People: Who Has Access to MPs on Twitter?”, Social Science Computer Review, 37, pp. 160-177.
  • STIER, S., SCHÜNEMANN, W. J., & STEIGER, S. (2018): “Of activists and gatekeepers: Temporal and structural properties of policy networks on Twitter”, New Media & Society, 20(5), 1910-1930. doi:10.1177/1461444817709282.
  • TROMBLE, R. (2018): “Thanks for (actually) responding! How citizen demand shapes politicians’ interactive practices on Twitter”, New Media & Society 20, pp. 676-697.
  • VAN DIJK, J. (2000): “Models of democracy and concepts of communication” In Digital democracy: Issues of theory & practice, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, pp. 30-53.
  • VITTORI, D. (2020): “The impact of populism on party organization? A study of four Southern European ‘populist’ parties”, European Politics and Society, 21(1), pp. 53- 71. doi:10.1080/23745118.2019.1602925
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet