{"title":"探索后真相公投:澳大利亚议会之声与社交媒体关注度管理","authors":"Timothy Graham","doi":"10.1177/1329878x241267756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the circulation of unverified and misleading information during the 2023 Australian Voice to Parliament referendum, focusing on X (formerly Twitter). Adapting Harsin's concept of Regimes of Post-Truth and a participatory perspective of propaganda, we analyse over 224,000 posts, exploring the interplay of Voice-related discussions on X and campaign messaging. We find that the Yes campaign employed a traditional messaging approach, emphasising public support and presenting historical facts and statistics. In contrast, the No campaign's disciplined messaging style mobilised pan-partisan attention, fostering a collaborative ‘truth market’ on X about the constitutional amendment that eclipsed the Yes campaign's more conventional approach. A proliferation of conspiratorial assertions fostered collaborative work from No campaigners as well as participatory efforts from Yes campaigners to debunk and criticise them. We conclude that the No campaign cultivated a series of public relations-induced realities about the referendum, effectively managing attention within a hybrid media system.","PeriodicalId":46880,"journal":{"name":"Media International Australia","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring a post-truth referendum: Australia's Voice to Parliament and the management of attention on social media\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Graham\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1329878x241267756\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the circulation of unverified and misleading information during the 2023 Australian Voice to Parliament referendum, focusing on X (formerly Twitter). Adapting Harsin's concept of Regimes of Post-Truth and a participatory perspective of propaganda, we analyse over 224,000 posts, exploring the interplay of Voice-related discussions on X and campaign messaging. We find that the Yes campaign employed a traditional messaging approach, emphasising public support and presenting historical facts and statistics. In contrast, the No campaign's disciplined messaging style mobilised pan-partisan attention, fostering a collaborative ‘truth market’ on X about the constitutional amendment that eclipsed the Yes campaign's more conventional approach. A proliferation of conspiratorial assertions fostered collaborative work from No campaigners as well as participatory efforts from Yes campaigners to debunk and criticise them. We conclude that the No campaign cultivated a series of public relations-induced realities about the referendum, effectively managing attention within a hybrid media system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Media International Australia\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Media International Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x241267756\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Media International Australia","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x241267756","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文研究了 2023 年澳大利亚 "议会之声 "公投期间未经核实和误导性信息的传播情况,重点关注 X(原 Twitter)。根据哈辛(Harsin)的 "后真相制度"(Regimes of Post-Truth)概念和宣传的参与性视角,我们分析了超过 224,000 条帖子,探讨了 X 上与 "声音 "相关的讨论与竞选信息的相互作用。我们发现,"赞成 "运动采用了传统的信息传递方式,强调公众支持并介绍历史事实和统计数据。与此相反,"反对 "运动严谨的信息传递风格调动了泛党派的关注,在 X 上形成了一个关于宪法修正案的合作性 "真相市场",使 "赞成 "运动更为传统的方式黯然失色。阴谋论断的激增促进了反对党竞选者的合作,也促进了赞成党竞选者的参与,以驳斥和批判这些论断。我们的结论是,反对公投运动在公关方面制造了一系列有关公投的现实,有效地管理了混合媒体系统中的注意力。
Exploring a post-truth referendum: Australia's Voice to Parliament and the management of attention on social media
This article examines the circulation of unverified and misleading information during the 2023 Australian Voice to Parliament referendum, focusing on X (formerly Twitter). Adapting Harsin's concept of Regimes of Post-Truth and a participatory perspective of propaganda, we analyse over 224,000 posts, exploring the interplay of Voice-related discussions on X and campaign messaging. We find that the Yes campaign employed a traditional messaging approach, emphasising public support and presenting historical facts and statistics. In contrast, the No campaign's disciplined messaging style mobilised pan-partisan attention, fostering a collaborative ‘truth market’ on X about the constitutional amendment that eclipsed the Yes campaign's more conventional approach. A proliferation of conspiratorial assertions fostered collaborative work from No campaigners as well as participatory efforts from Yes campaigners to debunk and criticise them. We conclude that the No campaign cultivated a series of public relations-induced realities about the referendum, effectively managing attention within a hybrid media system.