Audiencia en redes sociales de los debates televisados en las elecciones generales de abril de 2019

  1. Julia Fontenla-Pedreira 1
  2. José Rúas-Araújo 1
  3. Erica Conde-Vázquez 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Vigo (España)
Journal:
Revista Latina de Comunicación Social

ISSN: 1138-5820

Year of publication: 2020

Issue: 76

Pages: 1-16

Type: Article

DOI: 10.4185/RLCS-2020-1434 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista Latina de Comunicación Social

Abstract

Introduction: The impact of the two debates for the Spanish national elections in April 2019 has been analyzed. They were broadcasted on RTVEand Atresmedia on April 22nd and 23rd respectively.Methods: A telephone survey was conducted in Madrid, Barcelona, A Coruña and Vigo. Out of 8000 calls, 734 complete answers about the debates broadcasted on those dates were obtained.Results: 52% of the respondents have watched one debate and from them 28% have consulted further information. From this last group, 21% have used social networks, but fewer than half have actively participated (43.2%).Discussion and conclusions: There is an age and gender gap in the consumption of information about the televised debates through social networks as well as in their use of each of them. Internet users prefer these networks to obtain information but they do not participate and do not give any credibility to the data offered during the debates. The topics drawing more interest are the same for the users of social networks and those of traditional media.

€ View funding

Funding information

She is majored in Advertising and Public Relations from Universidade de Vigo, Master in Marketing, Consultancy and Political Communication. She is currently a doctoral candidate at Universidade de Vigo in the project of I+D+R project (Retos) “DEBATv, Televised Electoral Debates in Spain: Models, Process, Diagnosis and Proposal, (Ref. CSO2017-83159-R), financed by Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness] (MINECO), Research State Agency (AEI) and the European Region Development Fund (ERDF) from the European Union (EU). erikaconde@uvigo.es

Funders

Bibliographic References

  • Anstead, N. & O´Loughlin, B. (2015). Social Media Analysis and Public Opinion: The 2010 Uk General Election. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, (20), 204-220.
  • Ballesteros-Herencia, C. A. (2019). La representación digital del engagement: hacia una percepción del compromiso a través de acciones simbólicas. Revista de Comunicación, 18(1), 215-233.
  • Barger, V. A. & Labrecque, L. (2013). An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective on Social Media Metrics. International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, 64-76.
  • Berrocal, S. (2005). La información política en televisión: ¿apatía o interés entre los telespectadores? Comunicar, 25(5).
  • Campbell, S. W. & Kwak, N. (2011). Political involvement in “mobilized” society: The interactive relationships among mobile communication, network characteristics and political participation. Journal of Communication, (61), 1005-1024.
  • Caldevilla, D., Rodríguez, J. y Barrientos, A. (2019). El malestar social a través de las nuevas tecnologías: Twitter como herramienta política. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, (74), 1264-1290.
  • Carpentier, N. (2011). Managing Audience Participation: The Construction of Participation in an Audience Discussion Programme. European Journal of Communication, 16(2), 209-232.
  • Castells, M. (2009). Comunicación y poder. Alianza.
  • Chadwick, A., O´Loughlin, B. & Vaccari, C. (2017). Why people dual screen political debates and why it matters for democratic engagement”. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, (61), 220-239.
  • Chadwick, A. (2013). The Hybrid Media System, Politics and Power. Oxford University.
  • Christensen, H. S. (2011). Political activities on the Internet: Slacktivism or political participation by other means? First Monday, 16(2).
  • Dader, J. L. y Campos, E. (Coords.) (2017). La Búsqueda Digital del Voto. Cibercampañas electorales en España, 2015-16. Tirant lo Blanch.
  • Del Vicario, M., Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A. & Zollo, F. (2018). Polarization and Fake News: Early Warning of Potential Misinformation Targets. ARXIV.
  • D'heer, E. & Verdegem, P. (2015). What social media data mean for audience studies: multidimensional investigation of Twitter use during a current affairs TV programme. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 221-234.
  • Esteinou, J. (2017). Los medios electrónicos. Anuario de Investigación de la Comunicación. CONEICC, (24), 31-52.
  • Gallego, M. y Bernárdez, A. (2017). Influencia y repercusión mediática de los debates “cara a cara” celebrados ante las elecciones generales de 2008 en España: José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (PSOE) vs Mariano Rajoy (PP). Vivat Academia. Revista de Comunicación, (141), 139-154.
  • Gil de Zúñiga, H. & Liu, J. H. (2017). Second screening politics in the social media sphere: Advancing research on dual screen use in political communication with evidence from 20 countries. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(2), 193-219.
  • Gil de Zúñiga, H., García-Perdomo, V. & McGregor, S. (2015). What is Second Screening? Exploring Motivations of Second Screen Use and Its Effects on Online Political Participation. Journal of Communication, (65), 793-815.
  • Gorkovenko, K. & Taylor, N. (2019). Audience and Expert Perspectives on Second Screen Engagement with Political Debates. ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video (TVX ´19), Salford (Manchescher): United Kingdom.
  • Guy, I., Ronen, I., Zwerdling, N., Zuyev-Grabovitch, I. & Jacovi, M. (2016). What is your organization ‘like’? A study of liking activity in the enterprise. In CHI 16 Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Newy York: ACM (Association for Computing Machinery).
  • Horowitz, M. A. (2015). Public Service Media and Challegue of Crossing Borders: Assessing New models. Medijske Studije, 6(12), 80–90.
  • Hsuan-Ting, C. (2019). Second Screening and the Engaged Public: The Role of Second Screening for News and Political Expression in an OSROR Model. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 1-21.
  • Huertas Bailén, A. (2002). La audiencia investigada. Editorial Gedisa.
  • Iyengar, S. & Kinder, D. (1987). News That Matters. University of Chicago Press.
  • Kim, Y., Chen, H. T. & Wang, Y. (2016). Living in the smartphone age: Examining the conditional indirect effects of mobile phone use on political participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, (60), 694-713.
  • Kent, M. L. & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321-334.
  • Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. Macmillan.
  • Livingstone, S. (2013). The Participation Paradigm in Audience Research. The Communication Review, (16), 21-30.
  • López-López, P. C.; Puentes-Rivera, I. y Rúas-Araújo, J. (2017). La comunicación política en las elecciones gallegas del 25 de septiembre de 2016: la agenda temática en el debate de la TVG. En: Herrero-Gutiérrez, F. J.; Mateos-Martín, C.; Toledano-Buendía, S.; Ardèvol-Abreu, A.; Trenta, M. Del verbo al bit (Cuadernos Artesanos de Comunicación). Universidad de La Laguna, 1431-1460.
  • López-García, G. (2016). ‘Nuevos’ y ‘viejos’ liderazgos: la campaña de las elecciones generales españolas de 2015 en Twitter. Communication & Society, 29(3), 149-167.
  • López-Meri, A. (2016). Periodismo en Twitter. La contribución de los usuarios al flujo informativo. Cuadernos.info, (39), 241-257.
  • Martínez Rolan, X. (2018). La actividad de los partidos políticos españoles en Facebook 2014-2018. La tiranía del algoritmo. Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI, (47), 143-155.
  • McCombs, M. & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, (36).
  • Mas, L. & Guerrero, F. (2019). The use of hashtags as a political branding strategy. Revista Internacional de Relaciones Públicas, 17, 5-24.
  • Marzal, J. & Zallo, R. (2016). Las televisiones públicas de proximidad ante los retos de la sociedad digital. Communication & Society, 29(4), 1-7.
  • McNair, B. (2006). Cultural Chaos: Journalism and Power in a Globalised World. Routledge.
  • McPherson, M., Smith, L & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, (27), 415-444.
  • Pedersen, S., Baxter, G., Burnett, S., Goker, A., Corney, D. & Martin, C. (2014). Backchannel chat: Peaks and troughs in a Twitter response to three televised debates during the Scottish Independence Referendum Campaign 2014. Aberdeen Business School Working Paper Series, 7(2), 1-33.
  • Quintas, N. y González, A. (2014). Audiencias activas: Participación de la audiencia social en la televisión. Comunicar, 43(22), 83-90.
  • Reese, S., Gandy, O. & Grant, J. (2001). Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. Routledge.
  • Ribalko S. & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 336-341.
  • Rúas-Araújo, J. y Mazaira-Castro, A. (2019). Agenda mediática y política: ¿Amistades peligrosas? Un análisis desde el fact-checking. En: Conde-Vázquez, E.; Fontenla-Pedreira, J. y Rúas-Araújo, J. Debates Electorales Televisados: del antes al después, (151-172). Cuadernos Artesanos de Comunicación, (154).
  • Shulman, S. W. (2009). The case against mass e-mails: Perverse incentives and low quality public participation in US federal rulemaking. Policy & Internet, (1), 23-53.
  • Téllez, N, Muñiz, C. y Ramírez, J. (2010). Función discursiva en los debates televisados. Un estudio transcultural de los debates políticos en México, España y los Estados Unidos. Palabra Clave, 13(2).
  • Trappel, J. (2016). Taking the public service remit forward across the digital boundary. International Journal of Digital Television, 7(3), 273-295.
  • Tremblay, G. (2016). Public Service Media in the Age of Digital Networks. Canadian Journal of Communication, 41(4), 191-206.
  • Trilling, D. (2015). Two different debates? Investigating the relationship between a political debate on TV and simultaneous comments on Twitter. Social Science Computer Review, 33(3), 259-276.
  • Vaccari, C., Chadwick, A. & O’Loughlin, B. (2015). Dual Screening the Political: Media Events, Social Media, and Citizen Engagement. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 1041-1061.
  • Valerio, G., Herrera, D. J., Villanueva, F., Herrera, N. & Rodríguez, M. C. (2015). The relationship between post formats and digital engagement: A study of the Facebook pages of Mexican universities. RUSC, 12(1), 50-63.
  • Vergeer, M. & Franses, P. H. (2016). Live audience responses to live televised election debates: time series analysis of issue salience and party salience on audience behavior. Information, Communication & Society, 19(10), 1390-1410.
  • Webster, J. G., Phalen, P. F. & Lichty, L. W. (2014). Rating Analysis: Audience Measurement and Analytics. Routledge.
  • Wolton, D. (1998). El nuevo espacio público. Gedisa.
Data source: Dialnet