The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm

Presidential
Like me! Analyzing the 2012 candidates’
presidential candidates’ Facebook pages
Facebook pages
Jenny Bronstein 173
Department of Information Science, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Refereed article received
3 January 2013
Abstract Approved for publication
17 February 2013
Purpose – The present study aims to report the findings of a qualitative and quantitative content
analysis of the Facebook pages of the two presidential candidates.
Design/methodology/approach – The sample contained 513 posts collected during the last three
months of the 2012 US presidential election. The analysis of the candidates’ pages consisted of
three phases: the identification of the different elements of the Aristotelian language of persuasion, the
identification of the subjects that appear on the posts, and the identification of additional roles that
the Facebook pages play in the campaigns.
Findings – Findings show that both candidates used an emotional and motivational appeal to create
a social capital and to present a personal image that revealed very little of their personal lives.
Statistical analysis shows the numbers of comments and likes given to the posts were influenced by
the element of persuasion used on the posts. Results show that campaigns wanted to retain control of
the message displayed on the pages by posting information on a small number of non-controversial
subjects. Finally, the content analysis revealed that the Facebook pages were used for fund-raising
purposes, and for the mobilization of supporters. The Facebook pages of both candidates present an
alternative way to do politics called fandom politics that is based not on logic or reason but on the
affective sensibility of the audiences, discouraging dissent and encouraging affective allegiances
between the candidate and his supporters.
Originality/value – This study presents an innovative way of analyzing the use of social media sites
as a tool for the dissemination of political information and reveals utilization of these media for the
creation of social and economic capital by politicians.
Keywords Elections, Social networking sites, Information dissemination, Political information
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Social networks are web-based services that have become an integral part of
the lives of millions of internet users around the world. Like other Web 2.0
technologies, social networks allow people without any particular technical knowledge
to create an online profile and to communicate and share information with others.
These social networks shape the way individuals think, interact, behave and organise
(Sevin et al., 2011) and their number of members is bigger than the population of many
countries. Facebook’s monthly active users now exceed 800 million and their daily
active users exceed 400 million (Honigman, 2012). Social networks not only play a
predominantly social role in helping users create and maintain a network of social
connections (Boyd and Ellison, 2007), but scholars have found that these sites have
become an information source that can rapidly disseminate innovative information
(Gibson, 2001; Hanson et al., 2010).
The majority of the studies that have investigated the role that social networks have Online Information Review
Vol. 37 No. 2, 2013
played as a source of political information have focused on the effects of Facebook on pp. 173-192
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
civic engagement and political participation (Andersen and Medaglia, 2009; Gil de 1468-4527
Zúñiga et al., 2012; Park et al., 2009; Vitak et al., 2011). A number of studies have DOI 10.1108/OIR-01-2013-0002
OIR examined the creation and exchange of user-generated content that has been identified
37,2 as key to the rise of social protests around the world ( Jones, 2011; Madrigal, 2011;
Shaheen, 2008; Ulrich Buhl, 2011). Other studies investigated the effect that the use
of social media had on voters in the 2008 US elections (Kushin and Yamamoto, 2010) or
analysed the content of students’ Facebook groups (Fernandes et al., 2010; Wolley et al.,
2012). This study proposes a different approach to the understanding of social
174 networks as sources of political information as it investigates the use of Facebook by
the two presidential candidates in the 2012 US presidential election.
This study’s approach to content analysis is also innovative. The Facebook pages
of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were analysed using the Aristotelian language of
persuasion used to convince audiences that consists of three elements: first, ethos: an
ethical appeal meant to convince an audience of the author’s credibility; second, pathos:
an emotional appeal meant to create fear or to invoke sympathy; and third, logos: an
appeal to reason or logic. Although this mode of persuasion has been used as a
framework of analysis in other studies analysing social environmental reports
(Higgins and Walker, 2012), terror imagery (Der Derian, 2005), midwifery care
(Domajnko et al., 2011) and identification of political talk on YouTube (English et al.,
2011), it has yet to be applied to the investigation of the use of social networks by
politicians during election campaigns.

Literature review
The role of the internet as a tool for participation and organisation has transformed
some of the fundamental ways that politics has historically been conducted in the
USA. It has had an increasing impact as a political tool since the Clinton/Gore
campaign in 1992 used e-mail, bulletin boards and online discussion groups to
disseminate information (Carpenter, 2010). This process culminated in the 2008 US
presidential campaign in which the internet and social media sites became one
of the key strategic factors in Barack Obama’s conquest of the Democratic nomination
and the White House (Vaccari, 2010). Although television is still the primary source
for political information, recent research has suggested that the internet may be
more effective for delivering political information to a large number of users (Bastien
and Greffet, 2009; Kaid and Postelnicu, 2005; Lusoli, 2005; van Os et al., 2007;
Wolley et al., 2012). The incorporation of candidates’ web sites into campaigns became
a popular phenomenon in the late 1990s and these sites functioned as propaganda
and publicity platforms (Auty and Cowen, 2000; Dader, 2009; Hooghe et al., 2010;
Papagiannidis et al., 2012; Pedersen, 2005). The Web 1.0 campaigns were mainly
designed as a medium for information provision from the campaigner and left
little room for citizen participation (Lappas et al., 2010). However, the proliferation
of the internet in the past decade furthered the utilisation of new technological
platforms, such as social media, to disseminate political discourse (Wolley et al., 2012).
Facebook was created in 2004 by a Harvard undergraduate student to serve as a
platform to be used by students to keep in touch after graduation. By 2006
Facebook and other social networks such as MySpace emerged as an online tool
with potential for promoting participatory democracy. For example during the
2006 midterm election, Facebook gave US congressional and gubernatorial
candidates access to Facebook pages to personalise and promote their campaigns
(Williams and Gulati, 2007). Obama’s 2008 campaign looked for two-way
interactions with supporters, enabled and encouraged users to form online coteries
among themselves and facilitated “micro-payments” in the form of campaign
contributions. Hillary Clinton’s MySpace page in the 2008 campaign altered Presidential
campaign messages as well as the interactions between politicians and citizens candidates’
(Erikson, 2008).
In the 2008 presidential election, social media became increasingly popular as a Facebook pages
channel that enables political participation (Cornfield, 2008; Quily, 2008) especially
amongst younger demographics ( Jones and Fox, 2009; Kiyohara, 2009). In a Pew
Research Center survey investigating the use of the internet as a source for political 175
news, Smith and Rainie (2008) found that in 2008 10 per cent of Americans used social
networks for some kind of political activity. This number jumped to 39 per cent by
November 2012 (Rainie, 2012). Rainie (2012) found that social media acted as a
platform for political activism in the 2012 presidential race.
Westling (2007) pointed out the strengths of Facebook as a political platform.
It allows candidates to reach constituents and voters, increases communication
venues by providing a public “wall” where people can send messages directly to
politicians and provides candidates with the means to mobilise and organise large
groups of supporters. Gathering a large number of supporters on Facebook allows a
politician to appear as a candidate with widespread public appeal, an important
element in any political campaign. Furthermore politicians wishing to appear as the
central node in a network of supporters can reach out to their supporters’ friends and
connections on that social network (Dalsgaard, 2008). Erikson (2008) further claimed
that the number of supporters or friends that a politician has on a social network has
become a competition parallel to the actual polls and these numbers accord status to
the politician. Hence social networks have been found to be more user-centred than
traditional media, thus allowing new types of political interactions that were not
available in previous presidential campaigns (Hanson et al., 2010). Moreover
studies show that voters who engaged in social networking sites associated or
bonded more easily with candidates than those not engaged in social networking
(Powell et al., 2011). However, with all their advantages, Gueorguieva (2008)
posited that social networks pose a new set of challenges for campaign staff, and
emphasised the risk involved in the reduced level of control campaigns have over their
candidate’s image.
A number of studies have examined the use of social network sites as
information tools during election campaigns in Australia (Gibson and McAllister,
2009), Great Britain ( Jackson and Lilleker, 2009; Sudulich et al., 2010), Greece (Lappas
et al., 2010), Norway (Kalnes, 2009), Canada ( Jaeger et al., 2010) and Singapore (Keat,
2012).

Objectives and research questions

There is great potential for social networks to become a decisive tool for the
dissemination of political information and the creation of political discourse. These
social media sites have become a predominant and unique political platform
that allows information and opinion to be directly transferred from politicians and
political parties to users and amongst the users themselves. Although the impact
of social media on political behaviour of users such as political engagement or voting
patterns has been researched in the past, the use of social networks as tools for the
dissemination of information by politicians in electoral campaigns has yet to be
researched in depth. The purpose of this paper is to extend the existing literature on
the subject by examining the ways in which Barack Obama and Mitt Romney used
their Facebook pages to disseminate information and promote their candidacy through
OIR fundraising and recruitment of volunteers and supporters during the 2012 US
37,2 presidential campaign. The specific research questions examined were as follows:
(1) Which of the different elements in the Aristotelian language of persuasion are
used by the presidential candidates on their Facebook pages?
(2) Which subjects appear in the posts on the candidates’ Facebook pages?
176 (3) For what additional purposes, other than the dissemination of information,
do candidates use their Facebook pages?

Methods
Data collection and analysis
The collection of the data began on 12 August 2012, the day that Mitt Romney
announced Paul Ryan as his running mate, and lasted until election day on 6 November
2012, a total of 87 days. This specific date was chosen as the beginning of the study
because with the announcement of the Republican running mate both campaigns begin
their final and decisive phase. In this period a total of 513 posts were posted (M ¼ 5.8
posts per day) on both Facebook pages: 205 posts (39.96 per cent) were posted on
Barack Obama’s page (M ¼ 2.35 posts per day) and 308 (60.104 per cent) posts were
posted on Mitt Romney’s page (M ¼ 3.54 posts per day). The average post on Obama’s
page had 21.73 words, the minimum number of words per post was two and the
maximum was 42. The average post on Romney’s page had 24.44 words, the minimum
number of words per post was two and the maximum was 65.
Individual posts were taken as the unit of analysis. The coding process consisted of
three phases that reflect the three research questions. Each post was analysed to:
(1) identify what kind of message it tried to convey according to the Aristotelian
language of persuasion (i.e. ethos, pathos, logos);
(2) identify the subject of the post; and
(3) identify different elements of the posts such as the number of “likes” and
comments, whether the post presents a link to the candidate’s web site and if
there is a specific purpose to the post other than disseminating information.
The data analysis consisted of two phases. In the first phase of the content analysis
data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach which is a process for encoding
qualitative information. More specifically thematic analysis facilitates identifying,
analysing and reporting patterns or themes within data (Boyatzis, 1998). A theme
is a pattern found in the information that describes and organises the possible
observations (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis involves the creation and
application of “codes” to data and the “data” being analysed might take any number of
forms – an interview transcript, field notes, policy documents, photographs and video
footage or in this case a post on a social network page. Following these principles
of content analysis, the 513 posts were selected as the minimal information unit. They
were identified and coded into their respective categories by constantly comparing
these posts to the properties of the emerging category until the category was developed
and saturated. The main researcher asked for the assistance of an additional researcher
in the initial phase of the content analysis for validation purposes. The coding scheme
was formed at this stage and included about 20 per cent of the data. The final
percentage of agreement for all coding decisions was 90 per cent, which suggests that
the coding classification used was reliable. The rest of the data were analysed and Presidential
coded by the main researcher. candidates’
The textual data collected from the posts were analysed in two stages. In the first
stage of the study the data were analysed to look for elements of the Aristotelian Facebook pages
language of persuasion (Green, 2004). This framework consists of three themes:
(1) Ethos: an ethical appeal meant to convince an audience of the author’s
credibility or character. Credibility refers to how believable we perceive a source 177
to be (Powell et al., 2011). Posts categorised under this theme tried to establish a
specific image for the candidate by recalling his accomplishments, life story and
plans for his presidency. One of the main purposes of this type of post was to
influence the perceptions users had of the candidate as an individual.
(2) Pathos: an emotional appeal meant to persuade an audience by appealing
to their emotions, by creating fear or invoking sympathy or anger. These
emotional or motivational appeals use vivid language as a persuasive way to
reach the audience’s sense of identity, their self-interests and their emotions.
The posts coded under this theme were classified under the following four
categories:
. Positive future image: appeals to the audience’s imagination and hopes by
presenting a positive perspective on the future based on the candidate’s
actions or personal qualities.
. Homophily: brings the audience to identify with the candidate. The bond
created between the candidate and his audience makes the candidate seem
almost a part of the audience.
. Creation of fear: persuades the audience of the candidate message by
creating fear or presenting a possible menacing future scenario.
. Positive image of the audience: appeals to the sense of identity of the
audience, their self-interests and exploits common biases.
(3) Logos: an appeal to logic meant to convince an audience by use of logic or
reason. The posts classified under this theme present facts and figures that
support the candidate’s claim.
(4) None: there were a number of posts that could not be categorised under any
of the three elements because they presented campaign announcements or
requests for donations.
The second stage of the thematic analysis examined the text to identify the subjects
presented in the posts. A scheme of subjects was built representing the issues that each
candidate wanted to convey to his audience.
The second phase was a quantitative analysis designed to produce statistical
descriptive data that revealed how the sample was divided between the three main
themes (i.e. ethos, pathos and logos) and between the subjects of the posts. Also at this
phase, the different ways in which candidates utilised Facebook features to forward
their campaigns and gain social and economic capital were examined. These features
include quantifiable elements in the posts such as the number of likes and comments
on each post, and the links to the candidate’s webpage. This stage also looked for
correlations between the number of likes and comments for each post and the element
of persuasion assigned to each post.
OIR Findings
37,2 The following section presents the descriptive data resulting from the statistical
analysis and the categories resulting from the thematic analysis of the posts.

RQ1
The first research question examines the use of the three Aristotelian elements
178 of persuasion on the candidates’ Facebook pages. Table I presents the descriptive
statistics for the first stage of the thematic analysis.
Table I shows that the pathos element was the most widely used in both pages.
Although both candidates chose the pathos element to convey an emotional message in
a large number of their posts, Obama chose this element in 68.29 per cent of his posts
while Romney did so in only 45.6 per cent of his posts. A second difference between the
candidates revealed in Table I is the number of posts reflecting the ethos element
that refers to the credibility of the candidate. Romney used this element in a quarter of
his posts (25.32 per cent) while Obama only used this element in 14.63 per cent of his
posts. About a third of the posts in the sample (34.21 per cent) were not coded
under any theme because they dealt with campaign announcements, fundraising and
volunteer recruitment.
The posts categorised under the “pathos” theme were analysed a step further and
coded into the four sub-categories. Posts could be categorised under more than one
sub-category. Table II presents the distribution of the sub-categories by candidate.
Table II shows that the biggest proportion of the posts of both candidates aimed at
creating some kind of association or bond with their audience by using the element of
homophily. However, a higher percentage of Obama’s posts provided a positive image
of the audience (21.37 per cent) than Romney’s posts (14.93 per cent). Conversely
Romney’s page used the creation of fear in a larger number of posts (28.57 per cent)
than Obama’s page (12.41 per cent).
In addition to the quantitative analysis of the posts, each post was categorised
and coded under one of the three themes representing the Aristotelian language
of persuasion. The following are some examples of the posts categorised under
each theme.

Pathos Ethos Logos None Total

Obama 68.29 (140) 14.63 (30) 3.9 (8) 13.17 (27) 205
Table I. Romney 45.6 (140) 25.32 (78) 7.49 (23) 21.4 (66) 307
Distribution of the Total 280 108 31 93 513
Aristotelian elements
of persuasion Note: Percentage of total (n ¼ 513)

Positive Positive image

future image Homophily Creation of fear of the audience Total

Table II. Obama 20 (29) 46.2 (67) 12.41 (18) 21.37 (31) 100 (145)
Distribution of the Romney 17.53 (27) 38.96 (60) 28.57 (44) 14.93 (23) 100 (154)
sub-categories under
the “pathos” theme Note: Percentage of codes for each candidate (n)
Ethos. Posts categorised under this theme provide information about the Presidential
candidate’s life and character, his plans for his presidency and are mostly written in candidates’
the first person.
Mitt Romney used the ethos element to define himself as an accomplished Facebook pages
businessman and politician:
I’ve led companies. I’ve overseen an Olympic Games. And I’ve governed a great American
state. When people are telling you to give up, that’s when you find a way to try harder. When 179
others are pointing fingers, that’s when you extend an open hand. And when Americans are
hurting and families are falling apart, that’s when you put politics aside and find a way to get
them some help. In a word, you Lead.
To enhance his credibility Mitt Romney also presents his plans to solve some of the
country’s problems:
My five point plan will create 12 million new jobs and get America back on the road to
economic prosperity (http://mi.tt/OB9j6V).
Romney also defines himself by comparing his vision and plans with Barack Obama’s:
This election is a choice between two visions for our nation’s future. Paul and I have a
positive agenda that will lead to economic growth, and more jobs and higher take-home pay
for middle-class Americans.
Barack Obama also used the ethos element in different ways. Unlike Romney, Obama’s
Facebook page incorporated his family as a central element of his campaign helping to
define himself as an individual:
I’m inspired by my own children, how full they make my heart. They make me want to work to
make the world a little bit better. And they make me want to be a better man (President Obama).
He also defines his character through the issues that are important to him:
I’m not fighting to create Democratic jobs or Republican jobs – I’m fighting to create
American jobs (President Obama in Milwaukee).
Obama also compares himself to Romney to assert the differences between the two
candidates:
Read my plan. Compare it to Governor Romney’s. And decide which is better for you
(http://OFA.BO/hAKuC8).
Pathos. The pathos element aims to bring the audience to identify with the candidate
through emotional and motivational appeals. It is the theme with the highest number of
posts for both candidates so it has been divided into four categories that represent the
different characteristics of the theme: positive future image, homophily, creation of fear
and positive image of the audience. The following are some examples of posts under
each category for each candidate.
Positive future image. Mitt Romney tries to persuade possible voters by presenting
a positive vision of the future:
President Obama’s policies aren’t working for women. We need a president who will make sure
all women have the opportunity for a bright and prosperous future (http://mi.tt/T0nbmp).
Barack Obama also uses the promise of a brighter future to convince his audience to
associate with him:
We’ve come too far to turn back now. We’ve come too far to let our hearts grow faint. Now is
the time to keep pushing forward (http://OFA.BO/8KetZP).
OIR Homophily. Homophily refers to the creation of a bond between the speaker and their
37,2 audience. Both candidates made use of this element to strengthen their electoral basis
amongst Facebook users. Mitt Romney tried to bring his audience to identify with him
in various ways:
Let’s make today the start of a better chapter that we’ll write together. Click “Like” if you’re
ready for real change on November 6th.
180 When using the pathos element, Obama tried a different approach and asked for the
users support on different issues:
If you agree, stand with the candidate in this race who cut taxes for small businesses 18 times.
Creation of fear. The pathos element will also aim to create fear in the audience as a
way to identify or connect with the candidate. Romney presents a daunting picture
of what would happen to the Medicare system and to the national debt if Obama
is elected:
This is the President’s plan: $716 billion cut, 4 million people losing Medicare Advantage and
15 per cent of hospitals and nursing homes not accepting Medicare patients.

There is a prairie fire of debt sweeping across our nation. Every day that we fail to act, it gets
closer to the homes and the children we love. We need a president who will lead us out of this
debt and spending inferno.
Obama also tries to create fear by assuming that women’s rights will be negatively
affected and Medicare will cease to exist if Romney is elected:
Like Mitt Romney, Ryan’s severely conservative positions are out of touch with most
Americans’ values. He would take us backward on women’s health and equal rights.

Fact: Paul Ryan would end Medicare as we know it by turning it into voucher program
costing seniors up to $6350 a year.
Painting a positive image of the audience. This is an additional element in the pathos
theme. Both candidates used this mode of persuasion to connect with their audiences.
Romney talks about the greatness of the American people:
This is a nation built on people reaching for achievement and excellence. Striving. That is the
nature of America (http://mi.tt/MobOY8).
The image presented in Obama’s posts characterises the American people as hard-
working individuals who can live the “American dream”:
If you believe in an America where you can make it if you try – no matter who you are or
where you come from – stand with President Obama to help make sure we keep moving
forward (http://OFA.BO/NQe8xs).
Logos. The third element, logos, appeals to the logic and reason of the audience by
presenting logical arguments usually based on facts and figures.
Romney used this theme mainly to attack Obama’s policies and actions:
$16,000,000,000,000 and counting. After promising to cut the deficit in half, President Obama
has presided over four straight trillion-dollar deficits.
Obama used this element to present the successes of his presidency:
Share the good news today: The economy has added 5.2 million private-sector jobs over 31
straight months, and the unemployment rate is below 8 per cent for the first time since
 January 2009. More on President Obama’s long-term plan to create jobs (http://OFA. Presidential
BO/wQJVTj).
candidates’
RQ2 Facebook pages
The second research question examines the subjects depicted on the candidates’
Facebook pages. Eleven subjects were identified in the content analysis that appear
consistently over the three-month period of the analysis. The subjects are represented 181
in the following sections.
The job market. The situation in the US job market today was one of the subjects
depicted in the candidates’ pages; however, this subject appeared to be more central for
Romney (n ¼ 24) than for Obama (n ¼ 7). Romney presented his action plan to create
more jobs:
3 million jobs will come back to this country by taking advantage of something we have right
underneath our feet. That’s oil, gas, and coal. We’re going to create those jobs, and that will
bring businesses back here.
Obama used a different strategy and presented his government’s actions to remedy the
problem of unemployment:
Share the good news today: The economy has added 5.2 million private-sector jobs over 31
straight months, and the unemployment rate is below 8 per cent for the first time since
January 2009. More on President Obama’s long-term plan to create jobs (http://OFA.BO/
wQJVTj).
Health care system. Medicare reform and Obama’s reform of the health care
system called “Obamacare” was mentioned on both candidates’ pages (Romney n ¼ 14,
Obama n ¼ 9). Romney’s posts mostly criticised Obama’s plan and promised a better
alternative:
President Obama cut Medicare to pay for Obamacare. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will
strengthen Medicare and protect the commitments made to current seniors.
Obama utilised his Facebook page to present the results of his health reform
plans:
Fact: President Obama’s health care law has already saved Medicare recipients nearly 4
billion on prescription drugs.
Energy. Each candidate dealt with the issue of energy reform in a different manner.
Romney (n ¼ 20) promised to renew the exploitation of traditional energy sources as a
source for economic renewal:
Empowering states to control onshore energy development will allow us to secure the
affordable and reliable energy we need and create new jobs (http://mi.tt/QnbfPp).
Meanwhile Obama presented his policies for the development of renewable and
clean energy:
Share this image if you agree that we need to invest in clean energy that’s made right here in
America.
Economy. The economy was a central subject on Romney’s Facebook page (n ¼ 31).
He promised economic development:
This election is a choice between two visions for our nation’s future. Paul and I have a
positive agenda that will lead to economic growth, and more jobs and higher take-home pay
for middle-class Americans.
OIR Obama (n ¼ 10) used his Facebook page to compare his economic policies to
37,2 Romney’s:
Share this image if you agree that we need to invest in clean energy that’s made right here in
America.
Women. Women’s rights and health care issues were a major issue in Obama’s
182 campaign (n ¼ 22):
Share this if you agree: Our daughters should have the same opportunities as our sons. If you
support the President’s record – from fair pay to making sure women can make their own
health choices – share this post (http://OFA.BO/1KsCED).
Romney’s posts (n ¼ 9) on women’s rights mainly criticised Obama’s policies on the
issue:
Over 5.5 million women are unemployed and their individual share of debt is over $50,000.
That’s what President Obama’s policies have done for women.
Army. Both candidates related to servicemen in an emotional way. Romney (n ¼ 5)
thanks the soldiers for their dedication:
Today, September 21st, we observe National POW/MIA Recognition Day. Ann and I honor all
those brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who were captured or have gone missing in
combat. You and your families have endured unimaginable sacrifice. On behalf of all
Americans, thank you for your service and patriotism (Mitt Romney).
Obama (n ¼ 7) chose to pass judgement on Romney’s policies towards the army’s
veterans:
Share this if you agree: Mitt Romney has failed to stand up for our veterans, and he’s the
wrong choice for commander in chief.
Taxes. Both candidates promised to cut taxes and criticised his opponent. Romney
(n ¼ 5) promised:
I will cut taxes for the middle class & close loopholes for millionaires. We can’t afford another
four years like the last (http://mi.tt/OBcyf).
He also attacked Obama’s economic plan:
President Obama continues to not tell the truth about Mitt Romney’s economic plan even
though news outlets and even the Obama campaign say that the claim is not true. President
Obama’s economic plan is a $4,000 tax increase on the middle class and is one more reason we
can’t afford four more years of his failed policies.
Obama (n ¼ 9) reminded users of his accomplishments and asked for their support:
If you agree, stand with the candidate in this race who’s cut taxes for small businesses 18
times.
Education. Romney chose to relate education to job creation in his posts (n ¼ 8):
Under the Romney-Ryan plan, we will ensure Americans have the skills to succeed by
consolidating and streamlining worker retraining programs (http://mi.tt/Szo3og).
Obama focused on the economic side of education and presented his future plans to
make higher education more affordable:
Worth sharing: President Obama’s education plan is making college more affordable. Use our
education calculator to see the savings.
Romney dealt with two subjects in his posts that were not present in Obama’s page. Presidential
Romney utilised his page to oppose Obama’s welfare policy (n ¼ 6): candidates’
President Obama has a long history of opposing work for welfare. As president, Last month, Facebook pages
President Obama ended work requirements for welfare. I will put work back in welfare Mitt
Romney believes work must be part of welfare and will put work back in welfare.
Romney disapproved of the increasing debt of Obama’s administration:
183
It’s time to stop the spending and stop passing on debts to the next generation (http://mi.tt/
PlC8Bd). Median household income has fallen under President Obama, all while the national
debt has grown to over $16 trillion. Mitt Romney will cut spending and stop passing on debts
to the next generation.
The opponent. Both candidates used their Facebook pages to attack their opponent and
criticise his policies, actions and character. Romney mentioned Obama in
18.89 per cent (n ¼ 38) of his posts and Obama mentioned Romney in 9.75 per cent
(n ¼ 20) of his posts. These are two examples of these posts:
Like Mitt Romney, Ryan’s severely conservative positions are out of touch with most
Americans’ values. He would take us backward on women’s health and equal rights.
Interesting that President Obama admits that he cut $716 billion from Medicare from current
seniors to pay for Obamacare.
RQ3
Serving as a platform for political information is not the only way that presidential
candidates used their Facebook pages in their campaigns. The third stage of content
analysis revealed that both candidates used this social network as a platform to
collect social and economic capital by asking users for donations, enlisting volunteers
and by utilising their network of supporters as a distribution network of information
by asking them to share the candidate’s message with their friends on the
network. Romney asked for donations in 30.94 per cent of his posts (n ¼ 95) as in the
following post:
Your support has gotten me this far, so now I want a supporter like you to win the chance to
come celebrate with us at the convention. Donate $3 to enter to win the chance to be there
when I accept the nomination and go behind the scenes in Tampa.
Romney used his Facebook page as a marketing tool for his merchandise for
fundraising purposes:
Display a Romney-Ryan yard sign and let your neighbors know you’re with America’s
Comeback Team. Don’t forget to use code: WithMitt20 for 20% off! (http://mi.tt/PteBQC).
Obama also asked the users to support his campaign by donating small amounts of
money in 18 per cent (n ¼ 37) of his posts:
We can’t go back. Pitch in $5 now to help make sure we don’t.
They could also donate money to enter a contest to have dinner with him:
Two seats at the last Dinner with Barack of this campaign could be yours, but only if you
enter now (http://OFA.BO/beLaXo).
Romney recruited volunteers through his Facebook page by using an emotional
approach (4.56 per cent, n ¼ 14):
Tomorrow is Election Day. Help us deliver a brighter future for all Americans. Volunteer
(http://mi.tt/XbWbaY).
OIR Similarly, Obama used his Facebook page to enlist people for different tasks needed in
37,2 his campaign (1.62 per cent, n ¼ 5):
If you’re willing to stand with me, and vote for me, and organise with me, we will finish what
we started (http://OFA.BO/uzuW5N).
Candidates took advantage of the facility with which information can be disseminated
on Facebook and utilised their supporters as a distribution network by asking them to
184 share the information on the posts with their friends. Romney (7.16 per cent, n ¼ 22)
asked his supporters to share information about his character and his economic plans:
I intend to lead and to have an America that’s strong and helps lead the world. “Like” and
share if you will stand with me.
Obama asked his supporters to share his views about Romney and about his future
plans for his next presidency (22.92 per cent, n ¼ 45):
Like and share if you’re for the candidate who’s fighting for clean energy jobs right here in
America.
The candidates’ Facebook pages also serve as a reference point to their web sites by
linking to a specific page on the web site that expands the information provided in
the post. Both candidates used this feature in a similar way: Romney posted a link to
his site on 65.14 per cent (n ¼ 200) of his posts, while Obama linked to his site on 65.85
per cent (n ¼ 135) of his posts. To further understand the impact that the language of
persuasion might have on the users, a series of one-way ANOVA tests were performed
to investigate whether the element of persuasion (i.e. theme) influenced the number
of likes and comments given to each post by the users. The data analysis from the
sample from Romney’s page found no significant differences between the three themes
and the amount of total comments (F(3,319) ¼ 1.05; p ¼ 0.37). Significant differences
between the themes were found in the amount of likes (F(3,319) ¼ 11.5; po0.001) given to
posts from different themes. The main differences found were between these two
categories: “none” (i.e. posts with no persuasion element) and posts belonging to
the ethos theme (po0.01). The theme “none” had fewer likes (74,218.8 (750,347.7))
than the ethos theme (137,231.9 (784,892.9)). Another significant difference was found
between the themes “none” and pathos (po0.01). The “none” theme had fewer likes
(74,218.8 (750,347.7)) than the pathos theme (160,160.1 (71,145,583.1)).
When analysing the posts from Obama’s page no significant differences were
found between the three themes in the amount of likes (F(3,202) ¼ 1.42; p ¼ 0.24).
Significant differences between themes were found in the amount of total comments
(F(3,202) ¼ 6.09; p ¼ 0.001) on posts from different themes. The main differences found
were between these categories: “none” and logos (po0.01), ethos and logos (po0.01),
and pathos and logos (po0.01). In all cases the logos theme had more total comments
than the other two themes: 7,060.1 (75,363.1) for “none”; 10,466.2 (78,335.6) for ethos;
10,658.6 (71,118.9) for pathos; and 41,778.6 (798,973) for logos.
In addition a second set of one-way ANOVA tests was performed to investigate
whether the candidates’ “calls for action”, i.e. requests for donations, volunteers and
sharing of information, had any impact on the number of likes and the number of
comments. The data analysis from the sample from Obama’s page found significant
differences in the amount of likes (F ¼ 4.1; p ¼ 0.009) dealing with voting and donations
(p ¼ 0.027). A Pearson correlation test was also performed on Obama’s data and a
moderate significant correlation was found between the amount of likes and comments
and posts asking for donations (rp ¼ 0.57, po0.001) and posts dealing with the issue of
voting (rp ¼ 0.73, po0.001). That is users who liked posts calling for donations Presidential
also liked posts dealing with voting. Similar tests were performed on the data from candidates’
Romney’s page. A one-way ANOVA test showed significant differences in the amount
of likes (F ¼ 15.4, po0.001) between posts that asked for donations, posts that asked Facebook pages
users to share information (po0.001) and between posts asking for volunteers
(p ¼ 0.005). A Pearson correlation test was also performed that revealed a moderate
significant correlation between the amount of likes and comments and posts asking 185
for donations (rp ¼ 0.54, po0.001), posts dealing with voting (rp ¼ 0.91, p ¼ 0.049), and
posts asking supporters to share information with their friends on the network
(rp ¼ 0.66, po0.001). That is users who liked posts asking for donations also liked
posts dealing with voting and posts asking users to share information with their
friends on the network.

Discussion
Campaigns face the common challenge of motivating populations to change their
attitudes, beliefs and behaviours to align with campaign goals. Social networks lend
themselves to the advancement of these goals by virtue of their capacity to tap into and
leverage large numbers of formal and informal relationships (Ridout et al., 2010). This
is why political candidates are using social networks to bypass traditional campaign
methods to reach voters and raise campaign funds. The analysis of the two
presidential candidates’ Facebook pages revealed that both Obama and Romney chose
emotional and motivational approaches to bring users to identify with them by using
the pathos element in a large number of their posts.
This strong need to create a bond with the audience revealed in the two Facebook
pages echoes Erikson’s (2008) claim that social media has altered the nature of politics.
He argues that social networks open up an alternative way to do politics that comes
from popular culture and not from politics which he named “political fandom”
(Erikson, 2008, p. 7). Contrary to rational choice theory that suggests that people make
political decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis that ultimately serves their self-
interests (Parsons, 2005), Erikson asserted that political fandom is a way in which
people engage in politics based on self-identification and affective alliances rather than
self-interest. In his analysis of Hillary Clinton’s MySpace page during the 2008
presidential election Erikson found that while her official web site discussed policy
initiatives and debates, the posts on her MySpace page facilitated affective political
alliances to a much greater extent than previous forms of communication by creating
an alternative public sphere in which people engage in politics through “affective
sensibility” (Erikson, 2008, p. 14). Similarly this study found that the candidates chose
to tap into their audiences’ emotions because, as claimed by Erikson (2008), the main
advantage of fandom politics over traditional politics is that it discourages dissent and
encourages affective allegiances, i.e. it is easier for the candidate to maintain the
support of their audience if they like him or her. These affective alliances are reflected
in the number of likes and comments given to the pages that are of great value to the
campaigns. The two presidential candidates asked users for their likes and advertised
the number of supporters on several occasions because these numbers accord a certain
status to the candidate and capture the underlying enthusiasm and intensity of support
for him, creating the active fan base that is essential to fandom politics (Keat, 2012;
Williams and Gulati, 2007). Moreover the statistical analysis showed that the elements
of persuasion chosen did have an impact on the users’ reactions towards
the information displayed. The findings show that Romney received more likes for
OIR the posts using the ethos and pathos elements while Obama received more comments
37,2 on the posts in which he used the logos element.
In their analysis of the site BarackObama.com, Gliem and Janack (2008) found that
one important function of a campaign web site is to define the image of the candidate
because understanding how candidates present themselves as individuals is a vitally
important part of campaigning. The findings in this study show that both candidates
186 created the identity they wanted to convey to their audience by adopting the ethos
element and by writing the content of posts in the first person, a construct that tends
to direct the attention of the audience to the power of the writer. When creating their
online persona and defining the issues they stand for, the candidates also used the
third person to create a distance between the author and the subject, promoting a sense
of objectivity.
Street (2004) claimed that by releasing personal information about themselves
politicians try to portray themselves as ordinary people with whom their audiences
can identify. Although the candidates’ pages examined in this study use the ethos
element as a self-presentation strategy, the images created revealed limited amounts
of information about the personal lives of the candidates. This finding contradicts
other studies (Erikson, 2008; Gliem and Janack, 2008) in which politicians disclosed
details of their personal lives on their social media sites as a means to gain support
from the users. Erikson’s (2008) analysis of Hillary Clinton’s MySpace page from the
2008 election found that the page focused more on her personal life than her political
career by posting information about her personal life, hobbies, habits and pets. No such
information was found on the Facebook pages analysed in this study.
The limited information displayed by the candidates on their pages became evident
during the second phase of the content analysis which revealed the subjects of the
posts in the sample. The findings show that candidates posted information on a small
range of subjects: Romney’s posts dealt with 11 subjects and Obama’s only with nine
subjects, most of them related to economic issues such as taxes and the national debt.
This finding concurs with Oulmet’s (2012) survey which shows that about a third of
all the information candidates posted on different social media sites was economic in
nature. The content analysis in this study showed that both Facebook pages made
no mention of controversial issues such as abortion, illegal immigration or the war in
Afghanistan. We would like to suggest that the avoidance of possible contentious
subjects is the result of the need of campaigns to control the content and the message
displayed on the candidate’s page. This premise is supported by Williams and Gulati
(2007) who claimed that contrary to campaign web sites in which the candidates
control both the content of the web site and interaction with the users, social
networks allow users to contribute content that can sometimes result in a struggle
between the users and the campaign over who controls the message conveyed on the
site. This might be one of the reasons why the posts on the candidates’ pages were
short and concise statements that linked to the candidate’s webpage for further
information. Wortham (2012) emphasises the need of campaigns for control asserting
that “as is the way of the Web, a well-intended post or picture on social networks can
quickly morph into a disaster”.
The need for control was also apparent in the lack of interaction between the
campaigns and the users revealed during the second and third phases of the content
analysis. Although all the posts in the sample received large numbers of comments,
the information posted on the pages made no reference to them. This fact supports
findings from other studies about the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies by political
parties in Greece (Lappas et al., 2010), Britain (Jackson and Lilleker, 2009) and Norway Presidential
(Kalnes, 2009). These studies found that political parties’ adoption of Facebook as candidates’
a campaign tool resembles a hybrid “Web 1.5” model where parties incorporate some of
the Web 2.0 features but retain firm control of the user and networking effects. Lappas Facebook pages
et al. (2010) observed that despite the participatory character of Facebook, during
the general elections in Greece in 2010 users conformed to a more passive and
consumer-oriented role. Moreover this study revealed that Greek parties diminished 187
their posting activities during the severe 2010 Greek financial crisis, i.e. instead of
taking advantage of the participatory features of the social network to enhance the
communication channels with the citizens in a time of severe national crisis, political
parties retreated and retained control over their presence on the social networks.
Although the campaigns tried to control the information displayed on the candidates’
pages, some networking features revealed some connection between the candidates’
pages and the users. Three types of posts that “called for action” had an effect on the
users’ reactions. Obama’s supporters gave more likes to posts about donations and
voting while Romney’s supporters gave more likes to posts that asked them to share
information with their connections on the network.
The third phase of the analysis identified three additional purposes of the
candidates’ Facebook pages besides the dissemination of information: the development
of economic capital through fundraising and the creation of social capital through
the mobilisation of supporters. A considerable amount of posts in both pages were
dedicated to asking users to contribute to the campaigns using different strategies.
This finding supports other studies that investigated past elections in which
fundraising was revealed as one of the main roles of the social network pages of the
candidates (Carpenter, 2010; Gueorguieva, 2008; Sudulich et al., 2010; Williams
and Gulati, 2007).
Mobilisation of supporters through social networks is also a strategy used in past
campaigns (Gueorguieva, 2008; Lappas et al., 2010; Sudulich et al., 2010). Madore (2009)
claimed that the facility with which supporters are mobilised through social networks
is one of the characteristics of fandom politics since “fans rarely just like something;
they tend to do something to exhibit their support and gather others to join them”.
Pack (2010) posited that by facilitating two-way communication, social networks have
created a culture in which the users can take up a message and distribute it among
their connections; he calls this phenomenon citizen marketing. The content analysis of
the sample in this study shows that the two candidates used the citizen marketing
feature inherent in Facebook by asking their supporters to share the information on
their pages with their social connections on the network. This finding supports the
results of Rainie’s (2012) survey that found that social media have become an important
venue for people to try to convince their friends to vote for the candidate they support.
Moreover Williams and Gulati (2007) found that social connections in a network have
a powerful effect on the users who might become motivated to volunteer to work for a
campaign or to make a donation to a candidate they learned about through their
friends on the network. The findings from this study support this claim since the
results from the content analysis show that the two candidates relied on their
supporters for donations, dissemination of information and recruitment of volunteers.

Limitations of the study

The present study has several limitations. First, the study focused on the Facebook
pages of the candidates and it did not examine the candidates’ activity in other social
OIR media sites, so the findings presented relate only to Facebook and they cannot be
37,2 generalised to other sites. Second, the sample included only the last three months of the
campaign, hence the findings of the study cannot be generalised to the entire
campaign. Third, the content analysis included only textual information; other types of
information such as images or video were not included at this stage of the analysis.

188 Conclusion
Pack (2010) stated that although the technological advancement in terms of social
technologies is impressive, their success as political platforms primarily comes from
the success of the candidate in winning popular support. He further asserts that
“enthusiastic people can overcome faulty technology; apathetic people are not
motivated by slick technology” (Pack, 2010, p. 9). This statement clearly reflects the
campaign strategies behind the use of the candidates’ Facebook pages that aimed first
and foremost to advance the candidates’ social capital and to create a strong support
base that would serve as a dissemination network for the message the campaign
wanted to transmit. Understanding this crucial point, both candidates aimed to create
a bond with their audiences by using different elements of persuasion but mostly by
using emotional and motivational appeals that lack reason and logic and that are
characteristic of fandom politics. Fearing the loss of control inherent in the
participatory nature of social networks, the two candidates did not fully adopt all of
Facebook’s capabilities and limited their interaction with the users. The need for
control dictated that the information posted on the page focused on mainstream issues
and avoided topics that might be controversial. Hence the use of social networks for the
dissemination of political information presents an interesting way to study the changes
that have occurred in the political sphere.
Further research should focus on the use of other social media in the 2012 US
elections to understand whether there were any changes in the use of the different
platforms. In addition research should be extended to elections in other parts of
the world.

References
Andersen, K. and Medaglia, R. (2009), “The use of Facebook in national election campaigns:
politics as usual ?”, Electronic Participation Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, Vol. 5694,
pp. 101-111.
Auty, C. and Cowen, A. (2000), “The London mayoral websites: cyberdemocracy or
cybermediocracy?”, Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 52 No. 8, pp. 277-284.
Bastien, F. and Greffet, F. (2009), “The impact of context features over the development of party
websites: a comparative analysis of France and Canada in election campaign”, paper
presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops 2009, Workshop 20 – Parliaments,
Parties, and Politicians in Cyberspace, Lisbon, 14-19 April.
Boyatzis, R. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code
Development, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Boyd, D. and Ellison, N.H. (2007), “Social networking sites: definition, history, and scholarship”,
Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 210-230.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101.
Carpenter, C.A. (2010), “The Obamachine: Technopolitics 2.0”, Journal of Information Technology
and Politics, Vol. 7 Nos 2-3, pp. 216-225.
Cornfield, M. (2008), “Yes, it did make a difference”, available at: http://takingnote.tcf.org/2008/ Presidential
06/yes-it-did-make.html (accessed 9 November 2012).
candidates’
Dader, J.L. (2009), “Cyberpolitics in political party websites: experiences in the 2008 Spanish
presidential elections within the context of transnational tendencies”, Revista de Sociologia Facebook pages
e Polı´tica, Vol. 17 No. 34, pp. 45-62.
Dalsgaard, S. (2008), “Facework on Facebook: the presentation of self in virtual life and its role in
the US elections”, Anthropology Today, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 8-12. 189
Der Derian, J. (2005), “Imaging terror: logos, pathos and ethos”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 23-37.
Domajnko, B., Drglin, Z. and Pahor, M. (2011), “Rhetorical skills as a component of midwifery
care”, Midwifery, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 125-130.
English, K., Sweetser, K.D. and Ancu, M. (2011), “YouTube-ification of political talk: an
examination of persuasion appeals in viral video”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 55
No. 6, pp. 733-748.
Erikson, E. (2008), “Hillary is my friend: MySpace and political fandom”, Rocky Mountain
Communication Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 3-16.
Fernandes, J., Giurcanu, M., Bowers, K.W. and Neely, J.C. (2010), “The writing on the wall: a
content analysis of college students’ Facebook groups for the 2008 presidential election”,
Mass Communication and Society, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 653-675.
Gibson, J.L. (2001), “Social networks, civil society, and the prospects for consolidating Russia’s
democratic transition”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 51-65.
Gibson, R. and McAllister, I. (2009), “Crossing the Web 2.0 frontier? Candidates and campaigns
online in the Australian federal election of 2007”, ECPR General Conference, Potsdam,
Issue 1, available at: http://internet-politics.cies.iscte.pt/IMG/pdf/ECPRPotsdamGibson_
McAllister.pdf (accessed 10 November 2012).
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N. and Valenzuela, S. (2012), “Social media use for news and individuals’
social capital, civic engagement and political participation”, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 319-336.
Gliem, D.E. and Janack, J.A. (2008), “A portrait of a transformational leader: an analysis of text
and image on BarackObama.com”, American Communication Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3,
available at: http://ac-journal.org/journal/2008/Fall/4APortraitofaTransformational
Leader.pdf (accessed 1 October 2012).
Green, S. (2004), “A rhetorical theory of diffusion”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 653-669.
Gueorguieva, V. (2008), “Voters, MySpace and YouTube: the impact of alternative communication
channels on the 2006 election cycle and beyond”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 26
No. 3, pp. 288-300.
Hanson, G., Haridakis, P.M., Wagstaff, A., Cunningham, A., Sharma, R. and Ponder, J.D. (2010),
“The 2008 presidential campaign: political cynicism in the age of Facebook, MySpace, and
YouTube”, Mass Communication and Society, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 584-607.
Higgins, C. and Walker, R. (2012), “Ethos, logos, pathos: strategies of persuasion in social/environment
reports”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 194-204, (accessed 22 September 2012).
Honigman, B. (2012), “100 fascinating social media statistics and figures from 2012”, The
Huffington Post, available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/ brian-honigman/100- fascinating-
social-me_b_2185281.html?ncid¼edlinkusaolp00000003&utm_hp_ref¼fb&src¼sp&comm_
ref¼false#sb¼1564361,b¼facebook (accessed 29 November 2102).
Hooghe, M., Vissers, S., Stolle, D. and Maheo, V.A. (2010), “The potential of internet mobilization:
an experimental study on the effect of internet and face-to-face mobilization efforts”,
Political Communication, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 406-431.
OIR Jackson, N.A. and Lilleker, D.G. (2009), “Building an architecture of participation? Political
parties and Web 2.0 in Britain”, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vol. 6
37,2 Nos 3-4, pp. 232-250.
Jaeger, P.T., Paquette, S. and Simmons, S.N. (2010), “Information policy in national political
campaigns: a comparison of the 2008 campaigns for President of the United States
and Prime Minister of Canada”, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 67-82.
190
Jones, J. (2011), “Social media and social movements”, International Socialism: A Quarterly
Journal of Socialist Theory, No. 130, available at: www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id¼
722#130jones_11 (accessed 12 October 2012).
Jones, S. and Fox, S. (2009), “Generational differences in online activities”, Pew Internet &
American Life Project, available at: www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Generations-
Online-in-2009/Generational-Differences-in-Online-Activities.aspx (accessed 18 October
2012).
Kaid, L.L. and Postelnicu, M. (2005), “Political advertising in the 2004 election comparison of
traditional television and internet messages”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 49 No. 2,
pp. 265-278.
Kalnes, Ø. (2009), “Web 2.0 in the Norwegian 2007 and 2009 campaigns”, paper presented at
International Association for Media and Communication Research Conference, Mexico
City, 21-24 July.
Keat, L.H. (2012), “Marketing politicians on Facebook: an examination of the Singapore general
election 2011”, Studies in Business and Economics, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 101-109.
Kiyohara, S. (2009), “A study on how technological innovation affected the 2008 US presidential
election: young voters’ participation and Obama’s victory”, Proceedings – 2009 9th
Annual International Symposium on Applications and the Internet, SAINT 2009, IEEE,
pp. 223-226.
Kushin, M.J. and Yamamoto, M. (2010), “Did social media really matter? College students’ use of
online media and political decision making in the 2008 election”, Communication and
Society, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 608-630.
Lappas, G., Kleftodimos, A. and Yannas, P. (2010), “Greek parties and Web 2.0”, Elections,
Campaigning and Citizens Online. available at: http://drupals.humanities.manchester.ac.
uk/ipol/sites/default/files/ecco/Lappas.pdf (accessed 12 November 2012).
Lusoli, W. (2005), “A second-order medium? The internet as a source of electoral information in
25 European countries”, Information Polity, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 247-265.
Madore, M. (2009), “MySpace to your space: how celebrity politics and the internet are
transforming political communication among American youth”, American
Communication Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, available at: http://ac-journal. org/journal/2009/
Spring/Articles/110105%20MySpace%20to%20Your%20Space%20How%20Celebrity
%20Politics%20and%20the%20Internet%20are%20Transforming%20Political%20
Communication%20Among%20American%20Youth.pdf (accessed 2 October 2012).
Madrigal, A. (2011), “The inside story of how Facebook responded to Tunisian hacks”, available
at: www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/01/the-inside-story-of-how-facebook-
responded-to-tunisian-hacks/70044/ (accessed 19 September 2012).
Oulmet, M. (2012), “Who’s winning the 2012 social media election?”, Inc, 8 September, available
at: www.inc.com/maeghan-ouimet/social-meda-campaigns-election-2012-obama-romney.
html (accessed 20 September 2012).
Pack, M. (2010), “Obama: the marketing lessons”, Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing
Practice, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 2-9.
Papagiannidis, S., Coursaris, C.K. and Bourlakis, M. (2012), “Do websites influence the nature of Presidential
voting intentions? The case of two national elections in Greece”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 300-307. candidates’
Park, N., Kee, K.F. and Valenzuela, S. (2009), “Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook pages
Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes”, CyberPsychology &
Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 729-733.
Parsons, S. (2005), Rational Choice and Politics, Continuum, New York, NY. 191
Pedersen, K. (2005), “New Zealand parties in cyberspace”, Political Science, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 107-116.
Powell, L., Richmond, V.P. and Williams, G.C. (2011), “Social networking and political campaigns:
perceptions of candidates as interpersonal constructs”, North American Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 331-342.
Quily, P. (2008), “Barack Obama vs John McCain social media and search engine scorecard”,
Adult ADD Strengths, 5, available at: http://adultaddstrengths.com/2008/11/05/obama-vs-
mccain-social-media (accessed 5 November 2008).
Rainie, L. (2012), “Social media and political engagement”, Pew Internet and American Life
Project Report, Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, available at: http:// pewinternet.
org/B/media/Files/Reports/2012/PIP_TheSocialVote_PDF.pdf (accessed 8 October 2012).
Ridout, T., Franklin Fowler, E. and Branstetter, J. (2010), “Political advertising in the 21st century:
the rise of the YouTube ad”, paper presented at APSA 2010 Annual Meeting, Portland, OR,
22-24 March, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id¼1642853
(accessed 12 November 2012).
Sevin, E., Kimball, S. and Khalil, M. (2011), “Listening to President Obama: a short examination
of Obama’s communication practices”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 55 No. 6,
pp. 803-812.
Shaheen, M.A. (2008), “Use of social networks and information seeking behavior of students
during political crises in Pakistan: a case study”, The International Information & Library
Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 142-147.
Smith, A. and Rainie, L. (2008), “The internet and the 2008 election”, Pew Internet and American
Life Project Report, Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, available at: www.
pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/The-Internet-and-the-2008-Election.aspx (accessed 21
October 2012).
Street, J. (2004), “Celebrity politicians: popular culture and political representation”, The British
Journal of Politics & International Relations, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 435-452.
Sudulich, M.L., Wall, M., Jansen, E. and Cunningham, K. (2010), “Me too for Web 2.0? Patterns of
online campaigning among candidates in the 2010 UK general elections”, paper presented
at Elections, Public Opinion and Parties Annual Conference, University of Essex, Essex,
16-17 September, available at: http://microsites.oii.ox.ac.uk/ipp2010/system/files/
IPP2010_Sudulich_Wall_Jansen_Cunningham_Paper.pdf (accessed 19 September 2012).
Ulrich Buhl, H. (2011), “From revolution to participation: social media and the democratic
decision-making process”, Business and Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 195-198.
Vaccari, C. (2010), “ ‘Technology is a commodity’: the internet in the 2008 United States
presidential election”, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 318-339.
van Os, R., Wester, F. and Jankowski, N.W. (2007), “Presentations of Europe on political party
websites during the 2004 EP election campaign”, Javnost, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 63-82.
Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C.T., Ellison, N. and Lampe, C. (2011), “It’s complicated:
Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election”, CyberPsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 107-114.
OIR Westling, M. (2007), “Expanding the public sphere: the impact of Facebook on political
communication”, The New Vernacular, available at: www.thenewvernacular.com/projects/
37,2 facebook_and_ political_communication.pdf (accessed 28 September 2012).
Williams, C.B. and Gulati, G.J. (2007), “Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the
2006 midterm elections”, paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Political
Science Association, Chicago IL, August 30-September 2, available at: http://
blogs.bentley.edu/politechmedia/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/apsa-2007-facebook1.pdf
192 (accessed 13 September 2012).
Wolley, J.K., Limperos, A.M. and Oliver, M.B. (2012), “The 2008 presidential election, 2.0: a
content analysis of user-generated political Facebook groups”, Mass Communication and
Society, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 631-652.
Wortham, J. (2012), “Campaigns use social media to lure younger voters”, The New York Times, 7
October, available at: www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/campaigns-use-social-
media-to-lure-younger-voters. html?_r¼1& (accessed 28 November 2012).

About the author

Jenny Bronstein is a lecturer at the Information Science Department at Bar-Ilan University. Her
research interests are in LIS education and professional development, self-presentation and
self-disclosure on different social platforms and information-seeking behavior and she has
published in refereed IS journals. She teaches courses in information retrieval techniques,
information behavior, academic libraries and business information. In the past, Dr Bronstein
served as an academic librarian and an information professional in corporate information
centers. She holds a PhD and a MS in Information Science from Bar-Ilan University and a BA in
History and Linguistics from Tel-Aviv University. Jenny Bronstein can be contacted at:
Jenny.Bronstein@biu.ac.il

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.