Social media and political communication in the United States

Social media and political communication in the United States refers to how political institutions, politicians, private entities, and individuals are using social media platforms to communicate and engage with American voters. The emergence of social media in the mid-2000s changed the way political communication takes place in the United States. Regular individuals, politicians, "pundits" and thought leaders can voice their opinions, engage with a wide network, and connect with other like-minded individuals through social media.[1] The active participation of social media users has been an increasingly important element in political communication.[2] From 2010 to 2014, there was a 15% increase in Americans who use their cellphones to follow political campaigns and campaign coverage, a number that is continuously growing.[3]

Social media is a tool that can be used to inform and mobilize users. Each social media platform is programmed by developers, creating a unique digital architecture that influences how politicians and citizens can use the platform for political ends.[4] More specifically, users are able to connect directly to politicians and campaign managers and engage in political activities, and vice versa. For example, by simply pressing the "like button" on Facebook, or by following someone on Twitter, users have the ability to connect with others and express their views. The option for users to instantly share, like, or retweet political messages has opened up a new avenue for politicians to reach out to voters. At the same time, social media campaigns can carry risks that are not present on traditional platforms, such as TV or newspaper ads. Political parties control the messaging of a TV or newspaper ad, but in a social media campaign, critics and opposing party supporters can post negative comments immediately below campaign messages.

Through the use of social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitch, politicians can directly connect with their supporters online and take advantage of social media resources, such as crowdfunding. Through crowdfunding, politicians are able to raise more money for their campaign via social media platforms in significantly less time. One in five adult Twitter users in the United States followed President Trump’s Twitter account before its suspension from Twitter.[5] Approximately 26% of adult Twitter users follow former President Obama's account.[5] In 2012, President Obama raised over $1 billion for his campaign, which, at that time, broke the fundraising record. Around $690 million was raised through online donations, including social media, email, and website donations. More money was raised from small donors than ever before.[5]

Influence on elections

Early history

Democrat Howard Dean is credited for being the first politician to use the Internet for political purposes.[6] Dean served as the Governor of Vermont from 1991 to 2003 and decided to run for president in the 2004 election. Dean is credited with organizing the first campaign website, acting as a virtual headquarters for fundraising and volunteer recruitment.[7] Dean’s website had several online metrics of success, including the hits on his homepage, weblogs, campaign sign-ups, house parties, and meetups.[8] Dean’s supporters hosted house parties and invited individuals to learn about Dean’s campaign. Dean also encouraged the use of the website Meetup for his upstart presidential campaign in 2002, making it easy for people "with a common interest to find each other and arrange to meet, face-to-face".[9] Individuals would attend face-to-face meetings to learn more about his campaign.[10] The number of people coming out to Dean's Meetups in 600 locations across the country ultimately reached about 143,000.[9] About 75,000 individuals attended these meetups and more than 96% of respondents reported that they wished to become actively involved in Dean's campaign. The engagement in face-to-face local groups "dramatically affected how involved volunteers got with the campaign. The more meetups people attended, the higher their average donation to the campaign".[9]

Dean won a "digital" primary election that was held on MoveOn.org, getting 44% of the votes. His success in the primary generated positive coverage from the news media. This early victory was important to the momentum of the campaign. Dean's campaign was able to raise large amounts of money in small increments. In January 2004, his campaign had raised $41 million, mostly from online supporters. A total of 318,884 individuals contributed to his campaign, with over 61% of the contributions under $200. Less than 1% of individuals gave $2,000, which was the federal limit.[11] Dean's fundraising behavior was the opposite of his rivals. George Bush raised $130.8 million in 2003, and 68% of his donations were the maximum donation limit.[12]

Political origins of Facebook

Facebook is a commonplace where people can interact with each other through social media. An example of what can be done on Facebook is, "an individual creates multimedia content like a video on the cognitive level," which allows for mass interaction between hundreds of people.[13] This free interaction between people on Facebook allowed the use of social media by political figures to help promote their ideals. The creator of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, served as a field organizer for Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.[14] Zuckerberg was responsible for get-out-the-vote and other mobilization efforts. Facebook was also launched this same year on February 4th, 2004.[15] The Facebook platform relies on group formation and constant communication, both of which are goals for any political campaign.[14]

Chris Hughes, a founding member and developer at Facebook, left the company to work as an adviser for President Barack Obama. While working at Facebook, Hughes designed a Facebook profile for the then-presidential candidate. Following his departure, Hughes worked on Obama's Facebook page and utilized his knowledge of content management and new developments to outpace other candidates concerning their online presence.[16] Hughes created the website MyBarak0bama.com, which had a similar layout and concept as Facebook.[14] In the 2008 elections, Facebook continued to be used by electoral candidates. The main user during this election was former President Obama. Mitt Romney also used Facebook for his campaign, but not as much as Obama had. It is reported that well over 1,000 groups on Facebook were created supporting one of the two sides.[17] In recent years, political figures have been using Twitter more often, but Facebook remains to be a frequently-used social media platform.[18]

2008 presidential election

The 2008 presidential election was the first election in which candidates utilized the Internet and social media as a tool for their campaigns. Nearly three-quarters of internet users went online to learn about the candidates in the election; this equates to 55% of the entire adult population.[19][20] Then President-elect Barack Obama was the first to use the Internet to organize supporters, advertise, and communicate with individuals in a way that had been impossible in previous elections. Obama utilized sites like YouTube to advertise through videos. The videos posted on YouTube by Obama were viewed for 14.5 million hours.[19] Obama led McCain voters in all categories of online political activism, which is considered by some to be a major factor in his victory.[19]

Young voters are much more active in online politics. 30% of all those who posted political content online were under the age of 25.[21] 66% of that same demographic voted for Obama, while 33% voted for McCain, showing that Obama's prominence in online politics greatly increased his chances of winning.[21]

In the aggregate, the Democratic websites got more views than the Republican websites (at least in the primaries). This was due in part to the younger voters being more inclined to be in favor of the Democratic candidate, as well as being more likely to go on the internet and research or show support for a candidate.[22]

2012 presidential election

By the 2012 election, more candidates were utilizing a wider array of social media platforms.[23] Politicians were on social networking sites like Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and other new social media tools and mobile apps. Some of the candidates used social media sites to announce their candidacy. Barack Obama emailed a video to 13 million users when he announced his intention to run for re-election, and Mitt Romney sent out a tweet.[23] Obama produced a seventeen-minute long video, composed of video clips and interviews that documented Obama's first term in the office. This video was published on YouTube, allowing the audience to contribute to the campaign by donating without having to leave the website. This efficiency and convenience was the key point to further extend his fundraising target. This target would not have been achieved without the existence of YouTube, as sharing the link would have been more challenging. The campaign heavily relied on social media to share the video that included the donation link to the fundraiser.[24] Other candidates posted on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to announce their candidacy.

The candidates ran their campaigns with greater emphasis on the internet. Obama and Romney each hired third party companies to pull, track, and analyze data from their websites. This data drove them each to spend nearly $100,000 on online advertisements (Obama spent $93,400 and Romney spent $82,200).[25] Though these numbers are close, in the aggregate, Obama spent more than Romney did on digital campaigns by a factor of ten. Romney spent $4.7 million and Obama spent $47 million.[26]

Obama had a much larger digital presence than Romney throughout the campaign. In October 2012, President Obama had over 20 million followers on Twitter, while Romney had 1.2 million. On Facebook Obama had over 29 million likes on his page, while Romney had 7.9 million. On Instagram Obama had 1.4 million followers, while Romney had 38,000. President Obama had a higher following on all of his other social media accounts including Spotify, Pinterest, and YouTube,[27]. However, research suggests that merely following Obama or Romney on social media sites such as Facebook may have had little influence on voter behaviors.[28] President Obama also utilized his social media accounts more than any other candidate online.[29] He actively posted more on Twitter, YouTube, and on a personal website blog.

President Obama's campaign thrived on online donations in both 2008 and 2012. In 2008, around 3.95 million people donated to his campaign.[30] That number reached 4.4 million people during his 2012 campaign. The total online donation also rose from $500 million in 2008 to $690 million in 2012.[30]

Political figures can use social media to accomplish tasks such as raising donations for their campaign. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie tweeted his support for Barack Obama in the 2012 election. At the time, he boasted an 80% approval rating which led voters who were on the fence to support President Obama.[31]

2016 presidential election

The 2016 presidential election saw heavy use of social media across all candidates. The top three candidates were Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders (the runner-up in the Democratic primary), and Hillary Clinton. Research reports that "in January 2016, 44% of U.S. adults reported having learned about the 2016 presidential election in the past week from social media."[32] At this point, social media was being heavily used across all platforms, including YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and more. Specifically, in the 2016 election, Twitter was the main source for both Trump and Clinton. They both were the two major nominees, who used the platform to convey various things. Several reports and statistics show that millions of people received information about the election via social media.[32] Roughly "24% say they have turned to the social media posts" for information regarding the election.[32] All presidential candidates used social media differently. While Trump's posts focused on links to news sources, Clinton and Sanders focused on "highlighting official campaign communities." [32] During the campaigns of these main three candidates, Trump had a higher response from users compared to the two Democratic candidates, which is likely because Trump already had more followers at the beginning of the campaign. The election showed that several strategies could be used with social media as reflected in Trump's, Clinton's, and Sanders' varying usage. On Twitter, Trump mainly retweeted tweets from the general public, whereas Clinton and Sanders mainly retweeted tweets about their campaign.[32] The main two rivals of the campaign, Trump and Clinton, made several tweets directly talking about each other. Clinton used the "@" feature of Twitter, linking users to Trump's page. Trump referred to Clinton several times, but he rarely used the "@" feature.[32] Trump's main focus in his Twitter campaign was the media, such as Fox News or the New York Times. On the other hand, Clinton and Sanders primarily focused on their campaigns. Some of Clinton's and Sanders' posts were written in Spanish.[32] These two candidates actively reached out to the Hispanic community while Trump did not make any posts in Spanish. The use of videos on Twitter was used in different ways in the 2016 election as Clinton and Sanders mostly posted videos sponsoring their campaign, while Trump posted videos related to news media (a very common theme in the candidates' strategies).[32]

Overall, Trump focused his strategy on social media to get the news media's attention.[33] Sanders and Clinton focused their social media strategy on promoting themselves. Social media, such as Twitter, continues to be used by politicians today and continues to grow more popular in American politics.

2020 presidential election

During the 2020 presidential election the use of social media by candidates, campaigns, and other stakeholders was considerable. The two main candidates during this election were Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Other candidates, such as Kanye West and Andrew Yang also created large amounts of buzz on social media. In the 2020 US election, social media played a large role compared to past presidential races.[34] The Trump campaign spent $48.7 million and the Biden campaign spent $45.4 million on Facebook ads alone.[34] However, Facebook and Twitter are facing intense criticism for their role in politics from lawmakers.[35] This is tied to antitrust concerns. A report from the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust stated, “In the absence of competition, Facebook’s quality has deteriorated over time, resulting in worse privacy protections for its users and a dramatic rise in misinformation on its platform.”[36] In response to these issues, Facebook has taken action and announced that it will not run any political ads in North America.[37] Subsequent to the election being formally called for Biden by media agencies ranging from CNN to Fox News, Donald Trump proceeded to contest the 2020 election results' authenticity using social media platforms - in parallel to contesting it via multiple lawsuits. While the lawsuits were each unsuccessful, Donald Trump's social media campaign and Stop The Steal initiative during this period is recognized to have culminated in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. This ultimately led to Trump's Twitter account being shut down by Twitter - citing a breach of their usage policy.

Limitations and constraints

Social media has been used in political campaigns ranging from small local elections to larger-scale presidential elections. According to Wael Ghonim, social media can reinforce pre-existing beliefs rather than promote new ones. While social media can be used to raise donations, several candidates focused on using it to promote their own campaigns.[38] Politicians cannot control the conversation on social media. According to a study by Miguel del Fresno García, Alan J. Daly, and Sagrario Segado Sánchez-Cabezudo, regular friends and followers hold high levels of influence on social media, instead of blogs and campaign pages. Users with the most influence over social media fall into three different categories: users who disseminate knowledge, those who engage other people, and those who lead conversations. These three types of users are the ones who others tend to follow and listen to through social media. Therefore, for political campaigns to truly reach as many people as possible, political groups first need to get those three users talking about their campaigns on social media.[39] However, despite the many ways social media can be utilized in political campaigns, many U.S. social media users claim they are drained by the influx of political content in their feed.[40]

People worry that too much use of social media might cause less lawmaking as more effort is put into getting supporters. Due to the surplus of fake news stories, social media may cause limitations on the credibility of campaigns. Scholar Calderaro mentions that social media allows online knowledge to spread easily ‘giving space to unqualified voices’.[41] This could threaten the quality of political news by replacing the authenticity and impartiality guaranteed by journalists with possible unreliable sources of information,[41] during the 2016 election, 'just below 55 percent' of online news was false.[42] The political Astroturfing approach defined by scholar Ratkiewicz [43] is a system that allows unqualified voices to gain influence through social media. Here, political campaign spams are disguised as grassroot behavior where in reality, they are carried out by a single person or organization. The strategy seeks to build a large scale ‘false sense of group consensus[43] about an idea so it is spread consistently by avid group supporters. This makes it easier for like-minded citizens to form filter bubbles which essentially isolates them from opposing contrary perspectives due to their search history.

This political news circulated within one's bubble may be filled with one-sided fake news, allowing certain politicians to gain popularity through false pretenses. For example, throughout the 2016 election, 115 pro-trump fake stories were shared 30 million times in comparison to the 41 pro-Clinton fake news stories that were only shared 7.6 million times.[42] It is argued by some, such as Jill Lepore in the New Yorker, that this influence went as far as to tamper with election results.[44] The circulation of Trump's fake news stories grew, such as one where wtoe5news.com reported that Pope Francis had endorsed Donald Trump's presidential candidacy.[42] This may have allowed his right-wing populism to grow. As the more consistently fake news on Trump online circulates, the more successful filter bubbles will be to recruiting electorates.

Scandals

Scandals have been a part of the American political system since its inception (see List of federal political scandals in the United States). Political scandals are events that capture a lot of attention, causing intense public communication, which then eventually disappear from the mainstream media. The media has been heavily involved in reporting the scandals that have happened in the past. In recent decades there has been an increased number of scandals relating to the Internet and social media.[45] The first political scandal related to social media was the demise of Congressman Anthony Weiner in 2011. Weiner, a Democrat from New York, sent a link of a suggestive photograph to a woman on his public Twitter account. The tweet and pictures were then sent to Andrew Breitbart, a conservative blogger, who posted them to his website before Weiner had a chance to take the tweet down.[46] Within days the Anthony Weiner incident became national news. The scandal, nicknamed Weinergate, is considered to be the first sex scandal on social media involving a politician.[47]

Other political scandals have emerged as a result of the usage of social media. Joe Miller, a Senate candidate from Alaska tweeted about decorating his office prior to an announcement that he had won the race. Miller deleted the tweets, but not before a blogger was able to screenshot them. Miller eventually lost the election.[48] Meg Whitman, a Republican candidate in California was embarrassed following a tweet sent out by her press secretary that included a YouTube video of a cross-dressed musician. Whitman lost the election to Jerry Brown.[48] Pete Hoekstra, a Michigan Congressman, got into trouble after tweeting throughout a trip to Iraq, in which he breached security by posting confidential details about the visit.[45] Politicians have become more vulnerable to scandals due to their lives becoming more public on social media.[49]

Political scandals are shifting from illegal or corrupt activities towards personal missteps no longer about illegal or corrupt activities.[45] On October 26, 2018, Facebook announced that it had deleted 82 accounts created in Iran that included posts advocating harsh issues such as race, immigration, and U.S. President Donald Trump, just before U.S. congressional elections on November 6th.[50]

One of the political scandals of Trump's presidency was the Russian interference in the election through social media.[51] There is broad agreement that Russians working for the Internet Research Agency used a variety of social media platforms to attempt to influence the outcome of the elections.[51]

The impacts of the social media scandals can be seen in the polarization of the country on this issue. 90% of Democrats were reported to have no confidence in Trump being able to handle the investigation of Russia effectively, whereas only 23% of Republicans were reported to have no confidence in Trump being able to do so.[52] On the other hand, 36% of Republicans said that the Mueller investigation is important, whereas 87% of Democrats said that it is important.[53] The issue of polarization is causing fragmentation for one of the societies that were envied by Europe and other parts of the world. Even seen in new strains of Democrats emerging, as 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican.[54]

References

Kearney, Michael (2013). Political Discussion on Facebook: An Analysis of Interpersonal Goals and Disagreement (Thesis). University of Kansas. hdl:1808/12975.
Eli Skogerbø & Arne H. Krumsvik, "Newspapers, Facebook and Twitter: Intermedial agenda setting in local election campaigns," Journalism Practice (2015) 9#3 DOI:10.1080/17512786.2014.950471
Smith, Aaron (2014-11-03). "Cell Phones, Social Media and Campaign 2014". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved 2019-09-25.
Bossetta, Michael (March 2018). "The Digital Architectures of Social Media: Comparing Political Campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 U.S. Election". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 95 (2): 471–496. doi:10.1177/1077699018763307.
"Can Trump handle Mueller probe appropriately? Most in US not confident". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2019-10-29.
Leuschner, Katy. "The Use of the Internet and Social Media in U.S. Presidential Campaigns: 1992-2012". Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Hindman, Matthew. “The Real Lessons of Howard Dean: Reflections on the First Digital Campaign.” Perspectives on Politics, 2005, p.121-128.
Rospars, Joe. “How Howard Dean’s Scream Helped Obama Land The Presidency.” Time Magazine. July 1, 2014. http://time.com/2946448/howard-dean-scream-obama-president/
Sifry, Micah. "From Howard Dean to the tea party: The power of Meetup.com". CNN. Cable News Network. Retrieved 17 December 2016.
Cornfield, Michael. “The Internet and Campaign: A Look Back at the Campaigners”. Pew Research Center, 2005, p. 2
"Contribution Limits for 2003-2004". FEC.
Justice, Glen. “Campaign Fund-Raising; Financial Firms are Bush’s Biggest Donors, Study Reports.”The New York Times. January 9, 2004. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/us/2004-campaign-fund-raising-financial-firms-are-bush-s-biggest-donors-study.html
Fuchs, Christian; Trottier, Daniel (2015-01-01). "Towards a theoretical model of social media surveillance in contemporary society" (PDF). Communications. 40 (1). doi:10.1515/commun-2014-0029. ISSN 1613-4087. S2CID 151988747.
Slotnick, Allison. “Friend the President”. 2008.
"Facebook launches". HISTORY. Retrieved 2021-01-22.
McGirt, Ellen. “How Chris Hughes helped launch Facebook and the Barack Obama Campaign.” Fast Company Magazine. April 2009. http://www.fastcompany.com/1207594/how-chris-hughes-helped-launch-facebook-and-barack-obama-campaign
"Facebook | Overview, History, & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2020-02-19.
"Facebook | Overview, History, & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2021-01-30.
"19% of U.S. adults on Twitter follow Trump". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2019-10-29.
NW, 1615 L. St; Suite 800Washington; Inquiries, DC 20036USA202-419-4300 | Main202-857-8562 | Fax202-419-4372 | Media (2009-04-15). "The Internet's Role in Campaign 2008". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved 2021-01-30.
"The Internet's Role in Campaign 2008". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. 2009-04-15. Retrieved 2019-10-29.
"Social Media's Role in Politics". USC.
Fouhy, Beth. “Elections 2012: The Social Network, Presidential Campaign Edition.” Huffington Post. April 17, 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/17/elections-2012-social-media_n_850172.html
Ricke; LaChrystal, D. (2014). The impact of Youtube on U.S. politics. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. pp. 36–37. ISBN 9780739183496. Retrieved 9 November 2019.
Payne, Ashley (2009). "The New Campaign: Social Networking Sites in the 2008 Presidential Election" (PDF). S2CID 150577210. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Dalton-Hoffman, Maggie. "The Effect of Social Media in the 2012 Presidential Election".
"Presidential Campaign on Social Media". archive.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
Pennington, Natalie; Winfrey, Kelly; Warner, Benjamin; Kearney, Michael (2015). "Liking Obama and Romney (on Facebook): An experimental evaluation of political engagement and efficacy during the 2012 general election". Computers in Human Behavior. 44: 279–283. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.032.
“How the Presidential Candidates Use the Web and Social Media: Obama Leads but Neither Candidate Engages in Much Dialogue with Voters.” Pew Research Center Journalism & Media. August 15, 2012 http:// www.journalism.org/2012/08/15/how-presidential-candidates-use-web-and-social-media/
Scherer, Michael. “Exclusive: Obama’s 2012 Digital Fundraising Outperformed 2008.” Time. November 15, 2012. http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/15/exclusive-obamas-2012-digital-fundraising-outperformed-2008/
Smith, Shay. "Limitations on the Media and its Effects On the Political Process" (PDF).
"2016 presidential candidates differ in their use of social media to connect with the public". Pew Research Center's Journalism Project. 2016-07-18. Retrieved 2020-02-19.
"What Trump Understands About Using Social Media to Drive Attention". Harvard Business Review. 2017-03-01. ISSN 0017-8012. Retrieved 2021-01-29.
Graham, Ari Levy,Salvador Rodriguez,Megan (2020-10-08). "Why political campaigns are flooding Facebook with ad dollars". CNBC. Retrieved 2021-01-23.
Browning, Kellen (2020-11-17). "Zuckerberg and Dorsey Face Harsh Questioning From Lawmakers". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-01-29.
Rodriguez, Salvador (2020-10-06). "Facebook is a social network monopoly that buys, copies or kills competitors, antitrust committee finds". CNBC. Retrieved 2021-01-23.
"Facebook announces plan to stop political ads after 3 November". the Guardian. 2020-10-08. Retrieved 2021-01-29.
Baumgarten, Matthew (3 February 2016). "Part One: Social Media's Influence on War & the Political Mind". WDTV. Retrieved 29 February 2016.
Garcia, Miguel Del Fresno; et al. (2016). "Identifying the New Influences in the Internet Era: Social Media and Social Network Analysis". Reis Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas.
"55% of U.S. social media users say they are 'worn out' by political posts and discussions". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2020-09-23.
Calderaro, A, (2017). ‘social media and politics’ “The SAGE handbook of Political Sociology 2v” edited by Outhwaite, W & Turner, S, SAGE publications Ltd. Chapter 44
Allcott, H; Gentzkow, M (2017). "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 31 (2): 211–36. doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211. S2CID 32730475.
Ratkiewicz, J (2001). "Detecting and Tracking Political Abuse in Social Media". Centre for Complex Networks and Systems Research: 745–753.
Lepore, Jill. "Will Free Wi-Fi Destroy the Party System?". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2021-01-05.
Arsenault, Amelia. “Scandal Politics in the New Media Environment” Analytical Note: Scandal Politics Review. 2008.
Altman, Alex (2011-05-31). "Weinergate: Anatomy of a Social Media Scandal". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
Bradley, William. “Weinergate’s Lasting Impact: The First Big Social Media Political Sex Scandal.” Huffington Post. June 7, 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/weinergates-lasting-impac_b_872585.html
Bosker, Bianca. “The Most Embarrassing Politician Twitter Scandals.” The Huffington Post. August 3, 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/03/politicians-top-twitter-s_n_870967.html
Lunt and Livingstone. Media and Communications Regulation & The Public Interest. Sage Publication. April 4, 2011 http://www.uk.sagepub.com/upm-data/45145_Lunt_and_Livingstone.pdf
"Facebook Deletes Iran-Linked Accounts Followed By 1 Million In U.S., Britain". RFE/RL.
"How Obama Won the Social Media Battle in the 2012 Presidential Campaign". mprcenter.org. Retrieved 2019-10-29.
"Senate Report: Russians Used Social Media Mostly To Target Race In 2016". NPR.org. Retrieved 2019-10-29.
"Views turn more partisan on Mueller investigation, Trump's handling of it". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2019-10-29.
"Political Polarization in the American Public". Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. 2014-06-12. Retrieved 2021-01-24.