Journals / Erciyes İletişim Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

Digital Propaganda and Political Success: Twitter Analysis of June 24, 2018 Presidential Election

Dijital Propaganda ve Politik Başarı: 24 Haziran 2018 Cumhurbaşkanlığı Seçiminin Twitter Analizi

Pages
1461–1482
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result of the study, some structural features of political parties and candidates’ use of social networking for propaganda purposes, and the relationship between these characteristics and the political success that they achieved at the end of the election were revealed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Propaganda that does not conceive a positive conotation in the human mind is an activity that influences ideas and attitudes and shapes them in the desired direction.
📊
Key Findings & Data:So much so that for presidential and parliamentary elections in Turkey on June 24, 2018 on Twitter that is one of the platform of the leading social network, many digital propaganda activities have been conducted and the public opinion on social networks, has been the current target audience to the news.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the study, some structural features of political parties and candidates’ use of social networking for propaganda purposes, and the relationship between these characteristics and the political success that they achieved at the end of the election were revealed.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Propaganda · Dijital Propaganda · Twitter

Abstract

Propaganda that does not conceive a positive conotation in the human mind is an activity that influences ideas and attitudes and shapes them in the desired direction. There are many similar propaganda activities in many parts of the world. The propaganda which is the veins fed by politics is quite common in some aspects of political propaganda. Digital propaganda, which is conducted dialogically by using communication technologies, is also very popular today and is preferred by political actors as well as political parties because it enables the public to interact politically. Propaganda intensely involved in the social media as well as the streets, is indication of this situation. So much so that for presidential and parliamentary elections in Turkey on June 24, 2018 on Twitter that is one of the platform of the leading social network, many digital propaganda activities have been conducted and the public opinion on social networks, has been the current target audience to the news. Because, in the digital age, public opinion is in social networks as much as it is in the streets, and the public opinion has a power to agenda setting. So in this study, from the date that Supreme Election Board (YSK) announced the presidential candidates (May 9, 2018) before the presidential and parliamentary elections held on June 24, 2018 in Turkey, the sharings of the candidates’ official Twitter accounts’ will be examined until June 25, 2018 via social network analysis. As a result of the study, some structural features of political parties and candidates’ use of social networking for propaganda purposes, and the relationship between these characteristics and the political success that they achieved at the end of the election were revealed.

Özet

İnsan zihninde olumlu bir konotasyona gebe olmayan propaganda, fikir ve tutumlara etki etme ve onları arzu edilen yönde biçimlendirme faaliyetidir. Dünyanın birçok yerinde benzer bir çok biçimde yürütülen propaganda faaliyetleri söz konusudur. Siyasetin beslendiği damarlardan olan propaganda, politik propaganda görünümleri bazında da bir hayli yaygındır. İletişim teknolojilerinden yararlanarak diyalojik olarak yürütülen dijital propaganda da, siyaset yapanların kamuya interaktif biçimde ulaşmasını sağladığından, bugün oldukça popülerdir ve siyasi partiler gibi, siyasi aktörler tarafından da tercih edilmektedir. Propagandanın bugün yoğun olarak meydanlardan, sosyal medyaya kayması ilgili durumun bir göstergesidir. Öyle ki Türkiye’de 24 Haziran 2018’de gerçekleştirilen Cumhurbaşkanlığı ve Milletvekili seçimleri adına sosyal ağlarda öne çıkan platformlardan olan Twitter’da birçok dijital propaganda yürütülmüş, sosyal ağlardaki kamuoyu güncel haberlere hedef kitle olmuştur. Çünkü dijital çağda kamuoyu sokakta olduğu kadar, sosyal ağlardadır ve gündemi bir ölçüde belirleme gücüne sahiptir. Bu yüzden bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de 24 Haziran 2018’de gerçekleştirilen Cumhurbaşkanlığı ve Milletvekili seçimleri öncesinde, Yüksek Seçim Kurulu’nun (YSK) Cumhurbaşkanı adaylarını resmen açıkladığı tarihten (9 Mayıs 2018) itibaren 25 Haziran 2018’e kadar olan süreçte, ilgili adayların ve siyasi partilerin resmi Twitter hesaplarındaki paylaşımları, sosyal ağ analizi yöntemleriyle incelenmiştir. Çalışma neticesinde, siyasi parti ve adayların propaganda amaçlı sosyal ağ kullanımlarına ait bazı yapısal özellikler ve bu özellikler ile seçim bitiminde elde ettikleri politik başarı arasındaki ilişkiler ortaya koyulmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜZ, N., YEGEN, C., AYDIN, B. O. (2022). Digital Propaganda and Political Success: Twitter Analysis of June 24, 2018 Presidential Election. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 1461–1482. https://ajindex.com/articles/501875

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (21)

  1. Akay, R. A. (2011). Güncel Türk Siyasal Yaşamında “Siyasal İletişim Danışmanı” Kavramı, Doktora Tezi, T.C. Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  2. Auerbach, J. & Castronovo, R. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Propaganda Studies, OUP USA. Austin, F. M. (1941).
  3. Political Propaganda, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 11 (2): 143-147.
  4. Bartlett, J. & Miller, C. (2011). Truth, lies and the internet a report into young people’s digital fluency, DEMOS, Truth, Lies and the Internet. Bernays, E. (2005).
  5. Propaganda, Introduction by M. C. Miller, Ig Publishing, USA. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013).
  6. Analyzing Social Networks, Sage Publications. Brown, J. S. (2001).
  7. Learning in the Digital Age, The Internet and the University: Forum: 71–72.
  8. Butts, C. T. (2008). Social network analysis: A methodological introduction, Asian Journal of Social Psychology (2008), 11, 13–41.
  9. Camankulova, R. (2013). Kırgız Belgesel Sinemasında Propaganda, İdil 2 (6): 100- 121. Childs, P. (2008). Modernism, 2nd Edition, Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group. Clark, T. (2017). Sanat ve Propaganda, 3. Baskı,
  10. Çev. Esin Hoşsucu, Sanat ve Kuram Dizisi, Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  11. Conserva, H. T. (2003).
  12. Propaganda Techniques, Author House. Craft, A. (2012). Childhood in a Digital Age: creative challenges for educational futures, Submitted to London Review of Education, August 2011, Revisions submitted to London Review of Education, Accepted for publication March 2012.
  13. Cull, N. J., Culbert, D. & Welch, D. (2003). Propaganda and Mass Persuasion - A Historical Encyclopedia 1500 to the Present, ABC-CLIO. Daramola, D. (2015). Young Children as Internet Users and Parents Perspectives, University of Oulu Department of Information Processing Science, Master’s Thesis May 18, 2015.
  14. Domenach, J-M. (2003).
  15. Politika ve Propaganda, Varlık Yayınları:
  16. İstanbul.
  17. Doob, W. (1950). Goebbels’ Principles of Propaganda, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 14 (3): 419-442.
  18. Dönmezer, S. (1983) “Basın Suçlarında Ceza Sorumluluğu”, Basın ve Basının Karşılaştığı Hukuki Sorunlar, Hürriyet Vakfı Eğitim Yayınları, No.3, İstanbul.
  19. Ellul, J. (1973). Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, Vintage Books Edt. USA. Faris, R. M., Hal R., Etling, B., Bourassa, N., Zuckerman, E. & Benkler, Y. (2017).
  20. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016
  21. U.S. Presidential Election, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Grand-Clement, S. (2017). Digital learning