Cited by 363Social Media and PoliticsMedia Studies and CommunicationMedia and Digital Communication

BETWEEN BROADCASTING POLITICAL MESSAGES AND INTERACTING WITH VOTERS: The use of Twitter during the 2010 UK general election campaign

Open access
Graham, Todd, Broersma, Marcel, Hazelhoff, Karin, van 't Haar, Guido·2013·Information, Communication & Society

Abstract

Politicians across Western democracies are increasingly adopting and experimenting with Twitter, particularly during election time. The purpose of this article is to investigate how candidates are using it during an election campaign. The aim is to create a typology of the various ways in which candidates behaved on Twitter. Our research, which included a content analysis of tweets (n = 26,282) from all twittering Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates (n = 416) during the 2010 UK General Election campaign, focused on four aspects of tweets: type, interaction, function and topic. By examining candidates' twittering behaviour, the authors show that British politicians mainly used Twitter as a unidirectional form of communication. However, there were a group of candidates who used it to interact with voters by, for example, mobilizing, helping and consulting them, thus tapping into the potential Twitter offers for facilitating a closer relationship with citizens.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1369118x.2013.785581

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Authors
Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & van 't Haar, G.
Affiliations
University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Graham, Todd
Venue
Information, Communication & Society
Published
2013-06
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
692-716
ISSN
  • 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4462
OpenAlex
W1632728959
Cited by
363
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 15
FWCI
75.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Sight Research UK
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
Keywords
Twitter, political communication, political campaigns, politicians, 2010 UK general election, Conservative Party, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, one-way communication, political mobilization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review