Political Communication in the Age of Platforms

Political Communication in the Age of Platforms: History

Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contributor: Stylianos Papathanassopoulos , Iliana Giannouli

Political communication has been extensively studied through both the broader context of societal and political systems, as well as through the lens of mediatization, which emphasizes the intersection of political and media logics. Within this framework, scholars originally identified three distinct stages or eras of political communication. However, recent scholarship has increasingly focused on the transition to a “fourth” era, characterized by the growing impact of digital and social media. This shift, from the “television age” to the “social media age”, has not only introduced new media channels for conveying political messages but has also fundamentally transformed the nature of political communication itself—shifting from top-down, centralized models to more horizontal, decentralized forms of interaction. Current research on the role of social media in political communication reveals a complex landscape. These platforms appear to both enhance and undermine established processes of political deliberation. On the one hand, they provide new avenues for civic engagement and political discourse, while on the other, they contribute to issues such as disinformation, polarization, and the erosion of privacy. This entry aims to offer a comprehensive review of how social media platforms have reshaped the dynamics of political communication and civic participation. It further explores the challenges that accompany these transformations, such as the spread of disinformation, rising political polarization, increasing incivility, and privacy concerns stemming from advanced digital marketing techniques in political contexts.

political communication
social media
political campaigning
personalization
civic participation
professionalization
media logic
polarization
disinformation

Political communication has been widely examined though various approaches. For instance, the notion of mediatization, which highlights the interplay between political and media logic, has been widely used to analyze political communication ^[1]. According to this approach, media are not merely seen as passive conduits or “windows into the world of politics”, but as influential political actors, capable of shaping the processes of political deliberation ^[2] (p. 2). The mediatization of politics is often considered through three key developments: the growing importance of media visibility for political actors, the increasing professionalization of political communication, and the personalization of politics ^[3] (p. 80).

The development of political communication has been categorized by scholars into phases or “ages.” According to Blumler and Kavanagh ^[4], there are three primary stages. The first, known as the “golden age of parties”, featured substantive political messaging, relatively equal access to mass media, and a voter response shaped by selective exposure and reinforcement ^[4] (p. 212). The second phase, beginning in the 1960s, coincided with the rise of television as the dominant medium for political messaging. The third phase, spanning from the 1990s to around 2008, introduced greater complexity due to a fragmented audience spread across a diverse media landscape. This era was defined by five key trends: the heightened professionalization of political communication, increased competitive pressure, the rise of populist and anti-elite rhetoric, the diversification of communication tools and formats, and changes in audience behavior and political engagement.

An alternative framework is proposed by Norris (2000) ^[5], who outlines a typology of campaign styles: pre-modern, modern, and post-modern. The pre-modern campaign era featured stable party–voter relationships and direct interaction. The modern era centers on television as the main medium of communication, marking a shift from party-driven messaging to mass media mediation. The post-modern campaign is shaped by digital innovations and tools such as direct mail, party websites, and the extensive use of public opinion research, including polls and focus groups ^[6] (p. 427). This era is also marked by a growing reliance on consultants, media strategists, and public relations professionals, emphasizing a more calculated and strategic approach to messaging ^[7] (p. 144). Similarly, Gibson and Römmele ^[8] identify three corresponding campaign styles—pre-modern, modern, and professional.

These typologies reflect a broader academic effort to trace the progression of political communication, often emphasizing modernization, professionalization, and the Americanization of campaign strategies ^[9], ^[10] (p. 4), ^[11] (p. 80). Most researchers agree that post-modern campaigns are shaped by two intersecting forces: the societal shift from industrial to post-industrial structures, and the emergence of a new campaign style characterized by strategic professionalism and technologically sophisticated practices.

From this perspective, the professionalization of election campaigns represents a strategic adaptation by political actors to changes in society, political institutions, and the media environment ^[12]. Scammell ^[2] (pp. 3–4) defines this professionalization through characteristics such as intensified news management—often referred to as “spin”—and the adoption of a marketing-oriented campaign logic, or what she calls the “rationalization of the campaign”. Similarly, Strömbäck ^[13] (p. 54) identifies key features of professionalized campaigning: its permanent yet variable nature, centralized campaign operations, expert analysis to engage voters and stakeholders, and effective news management strategies.

However, these phases of political communication should not be viewed as strictly linear or mutually exclusive. Rather, they function as ideal types that capture the dominant characteristics of a given era’s political and media systems ^[14]^[15]. In practice, contemporary campaigns often draw on elements from multiple stages, blending legacy methods with modern technologies to meet evolving communication goals.

This entry aims to offer a comprehensive overview of how social media platforms have transformed political discourse, election campaigning, and civic engagement. It further explores the challenges that accompany these transformations—such as the spread of disinformation, rising political polarization, increasing incivility, and privacy concerns stemming from advanced digital marketing techniques in political contexts.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/encyclopedia5020077

References

Mazzoleni, G.; Schulz, W. “Mediatization” of Politics: A Challenge for Democracy? Political Commun. 1999, 16, 247–261.
Scammell, M. Election Campaign Communication. Int. Encycl. Political Commun. 2016, 1–10.
Herkman, J. The Structural Transformation of The Democratic Corporatist Model: The Case of Finland. Javnost 2009, 16, 73–90.
Blumler, J.G.; Kavanagh, D. The Third Age of Political Communication: Influences and Features. Political Commun. 1999, 16, 209–230.
Norris, P. A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000.
Römmele, A.; von Schneidmesser, D. Election campaigning enters a fourth phase: The mediatized campaign. Z. Polit. 2016, 26, 425–442.
Dommett, K.; Power, S.; Barclay, A.; Macintyre, A. Understanding the Modern Election Campaign: Analysing Campaign Eras through Financial Transparency Disclosures at the 2019 UK General Election. Gov. Oppos. 2025, 60, 141–167.
Gibson, R.; Römmele, A. Changing campaign communications: A party-centered theory of professionalized campaigning. Harv. Int. J. Press Politics 2001, 6, 31–43.
Negrine, R.; Papathanassopoulos, S. The “Americanization” of Political Communication: A Critique. Harv. Int. J. Press Politics 1999, 1, 45–62.
Paget, D. The Rally-Intensive Campaign: A Distinct Form of Electioneering in Sub-Saharan Africa and Beyond. Int. J. Press Politics 2019, 24, 194016121984795.
Tasente, T. The 4 phases of evolution of political systems: From the golden age of the parties to the golden age of the users. Tech. Soc. Sci. J. 2000, 2, 76–83.
Holtz-Bacha, C. Professionalization of Political Communication: The Case of the 1998 SPD Campaign. J. Political Mark. 2002, 1, 23–37.
Strömbäck, J. Political Marketing and Professionalized Campaigning: A Conceptual Analysis. J. Political Mark. 2007, 6, 49–67.
Strömbäck, J.; Kiousis, S. Strategic political communication in election campaigns. In Political Communication; Reinemann, C., Ed.; De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 109–128.
Magin, M.; Podschuweit, N.; Haßler, J.; Russmann, U. Campaigning in the fourth age of political communication. A multi-method study on the use of Facebook by German and Austrian parties in the 2013 national election campaigns. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2016, 20, 1698–1719.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.