I am no fan of Donald Trump who is bad news for the Republican Party (and US politics more generally) so I hesitate to give his candidacy any more attention. He is entertaining, however, and I thought I'd post this content analysis of his tweets below as a pedagogical example of how one goes about conducting content/discourse analysis, and in particular, gauging "tone" (something I also do for my own research on Congressional statements on the North Korean regime).
Showing posts with label twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label twitter. Show all posts
Friday, December 25, 2015
Content Analysis of Donald Trump Tweets
I am no fan of Donald Trump who is bad news for the Republican Party (and US politics more generally) so I hesitate to give his candidacy any more attention. He is entertaining, however, and I thought I'd post this content analysis of his tweets below as a pedagogical example of how one goes about conducting content/discourse analysis, and in particular, gauging "tone" (something I also do for my own research on Congressional statements on the North Korean regime). 
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Social Media
Yes, I'll eventually get to writing about all the protests in the Middle East but I wanted to write a post on this piece from Foreign Affairs on the political power of social media.
As Clay Shirky notes, much hype has been made about the potential power of twitter, facebook, and other social media outlets to topple regimes. Shirky believes the U.S. government's support of internet freedom is misguided. Currently, the U.S. takes an "instrumental approach" to internet freedom: preventing states from blocking access to sites like google or twitter or promoting internet freedom in support of immediate causes.
Rather than looking at social media from a myopic, short-term, country specific point of view, we need to understand that the "potential of social media lies mainly in their support of civil society and the public sphere." At this point, I was pleasantly surprised to find a reference to Jurgen Habermas on the pages of what is otherwise known as a policy-wonkish journal. Clearly, Shirky believes any positive change (read democratization) must follow the development of a strong public sphere. This is where social media's promise lies: in its ability to shape and strengthen the public sphere and civil society. Social media provides new outlets for citizens to air new ideas, discourse, and public debate.
So here's the punch line from Shirky, "The environmental view (as opposed to the instrumental view) assumes that little political change happens without the dissemination and adoption of ideas and opinions in the public sphere. Access to information is far less important, politically, than access to conversation...Social media increases shared awareness (the ability of each member of a group to not only understand the situation at hand but also understand that everyone else does, too) by propagating messages through social networks."
I agree that the effects of social media are more significant in the long-term. But just like the printing press, newspaper, telephone, and radio, activists have seized on new technology to expand mobilization resources and develop new repetoires of contention. And perhaps most importantly, social media faciliates in real-time the transnational diffusion of protests. Twitter and cell phones will never bring down a regime. But it can certainly facilitate the coordination of activists during mobilization and help rally international support.
As Clay Shirky notes, much hype has been made about the potential power of twitter, facebook, and other social media outlets to topple regimes. Shirky believes the U.S. government's support of internet freedom is misguided. Currently, the U.S. takes an "instrumental approach" to internet freedom: preventing states from blocking access to sites like google or twitter or promoting internet freedom in support of immediate causes.
Rather than looking at social media from a myopic, short-term, country specific point of view, we need to understand that the "potential of social media lies mainly in their support of civil society and the public sphere." At this point, I was pleasantly surprised to find a reference to Jurgen Habermas on the pages of what is otherwise known as a policy-wonkish journal. Clearly, Shirky believes any positive change (read democratization) must follow the development of a strong public sphere. This is where social media's promise lies: in its ability to shape and strengthen the public sphere and civil society. Social media provides new outlets for citizens to air new ideas, discourse, and public debate.
So here's the punch line from Shirky, "The environmental view (as opposed to the instrumental view) assumes that little political change happens without the dissemination and adoption of ideas and opinions in the public sphere. Access to information is far less important, politically, than access to conversation...Social media increases shared awareness (the ability of each member of a group to not only understand the situation at hand but also understand that everyone else does, too) by propagating messages through social networks."
I agree that the effects of social media are more significant in the long-term. But just like the printing press, newspaper, telephone, and radio, activists have seized on new technology to expand mobilization resources and develop new repetoires of contention. And perhaps most importantly, social media faciliates in real-time the transnational diffusion of protests. Twitter and cell phones will never bring down a regime. But it can certainly facilitate the coordination of activists during mobilization and help rally international support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)