Information Sources Shared on Facebook and Networking by Nigel Farage and the UKIP Party in the UK

Lena Karamanidou, O. Şahin
{"title":"Information Sources Shared on Facebook and Networking by Nigel Farage and the UKIP Party in the UK","authors":"Lena Karamanidou, O. Şahin","doi":"10.31577/sps.2021-3.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores how UKIP and Nigel Farage used social media to amplify their message. Mainly digital sources, such as websites and social media, were the preferred source type of both profiles, but more for UKIP than for N. Farage. The most shared digital content of both profiles was websites and social media accounts of their political parties. The second most used source type was print media – mainly national newspapers. Radio stations were the least used source by UKIP, while TV channels the least used source by N. Farage. The higher use of radio sources concerns links to LBC Radio, where he presented a show between 2019 and 2020. TV channels and radio were largely ignored by both profiles as sources. In terms of ownership, sources used by either profile were in their vast majority private due to prevailing type of ownership in the UK. Both profiles relied more on quality newspapers and magazines rather than tabloids but this was often accompanied by a critical approach to the content of such sources. The analysis found that Farage’s profile has only four reciprocal connections. In contrast, UKIP had a much larger reciprocal network of 25 different pages. While in terms of reciprocity the two profiles maintained different networks, the analysis of centrality showed a significant number of 63 pages shared the profiles of both UKIP and Nigel Farage. Although the profile of N. Farage had a much smaller reciprocal network and the number of shares of the two profiles by the central groups disseminating their messages was roughly equal, yet, the Brexit Party and N. Farage were the more successful political actors in the period of interest to this study – in the 2019 European Parliamentary elections.","PeriodicalId":34402,"journal":{"name":"Studia Politica Slovaca","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Politica Slovaca","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31577/sps.2021-3.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This article explores how UKIP and Nigel Farage used social media to amplify their message. Mainly digital sources, such as websites and social media, were the preferred source type of both profiles, but more for UKIP than for N. Farage. The most shared digital content of both profiles was websites and social media accounts of their political parties. The second most used source type was print media – mainly national newspapers. Radio stations were the least used source by UKIP, while TV channels the least used source by N. Farage. The higher use of radio sources concerns links to LBC Radio, where he presented a show between 2019 and 2020. TV channels and radio were largely ignored by both profiles as sources. In terms of ownership, sources used by either profile were in their vast majority private due to prevailing type of ownership in the UK. Both profiles relied more on quality newspapers and magazines rather than tabloids but this was often accompanied by a critical approach to the content of such sources. The analysis found that Farage’s profile has only four reciprocal connections. In contrast, UKIP had a much larger reciprocal network of 25 different pages. While in terms of reciprocity the two profiles maintained different networks, the analysis of centrality showed a significant number of 63 pages shared the profiles of both UKIP and Nigel Farage. Although the profile of N. Farage had a much smaller reciprocal network and the number of shares of the two profiles by the central groups disseminating their messages was roughly equal, yet, the Brexit Party and N. Farage were the more successful political actors in the period of interest to this study – in the 2019 European Parliamentary elections.
奈杰尔·法拉奇和英国独立党在脸书和网络上分享的信息来源
本文探讨了英国独立党和奈杰尔·法拉奇如何利用社交媒体来放大他们的信息。主要是数字来源,如网站和社交媒体,是这两个档案的首选来源类型,但英国独立党比N·法拉奇更多。这两份个人资料中共享最多的数字内容是各自政党的网站和社交媒体账户。第二大使用来源是印刷媒体,主要是全国性报纸。广播电台是英国独立党使用最少的来源,而电视频道是N·法拉奇使用最少的资源。无线电资源的使用率更高涉及与伦敦广播公司电台的联系,他在2019年至2020年间在那里主持了一个节目。电视频道和电台在很大程度上被这两个个人资料所忽视。就所有权而言,由于英国普遍的所有权类型,这两份个人资料使用的来源绝大多数都是私人的。这两份资料都更多地依赖于高质量的报纸和杂志,而不是小报,但这往往伴随着对此类来源内容的批判性处理。分析发现,法拉奇的个人资料只有四个相互联系。相比之下,UKIP拥有一个由25个不同页面组成的更大的互惠网络。虽然在互惠方面,这两个简介保持着不同的网络,但中心性分析显示,有相当多的63页分享了英国独立党和奈杰尔·法拉奇的简介。尽管法拉奇的个人资料有一个小得多的互惠网络,传播其信息的中心团体在这两个个人资料中的份额大致相等,但在本研究感兴趣的时期,即2019年欧洲议会选举中,英国脱欧党和法拉奇是更成功的政治行动者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信