POLITICIANS AND USERS’ ENGAGEMENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE ROLE OF JOURNALISTS DURING THE ECONOMICO- POLITICAL CRISIS IN GREECE

A Thesis Submitted to the MA Programme «New Media & Digital Culture» of University of Amsterdam

Supervisor Thomas Poell

Second Reader Lonneke van der Velden

24 June 2016 2

Table of Contents

Abstract

Key Words

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Problem discussion and research objective

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Promises about two way political communication of social media platforms

2.2 Politicians and social media platforms

2.3 The use of social media by citizens

2.4 Journalists and social media platforms

2.5 Conclusion

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Methodology design

1. Semi-structured interviews 2. Identifying characteristics of Interviewees 3. Data collection through Netvizz

Chapter 4: Politicians

4.1 Introduction

4.2 The importance of social media platforms for politicians

4.3 Limitations and facilitations of social media platforms

4.4 Provoking feedback: Social Media for reactive politics

4.5 Social media during a period of a crisis

4.6 The problematic use of social media by Greek politicians

Chapter 5: Users

5.1 Introduction 3

5.2 Social media and the crisis

5.3 Users’ engagement with politicians’ accounts

5.4 The online model of political communication in Greece and the reasons affecting interactivity on social media.

Chapter 6: Journalists

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Increasing use of social media by journalists in response to crisis

6.3 The role of Greek journalists in the context of social media platforms

6.4 Journalists’ viewpoint over the online interaction between politicians and citizens

Chapter 7: Conclusions

References

Notes

Appendices

Appendix 1: Sample of interviews

4

Abstract

This thesis examines the engagement of politicians with citizens on social media in the context of the Greek crisis; this engagement constitutes the foundation and cornerstone of a modern political environment. In the context of this new online environment where all the different groups acquire new roles, the role of journalists is thoroughly analyzed.

The economic crisis has afflicted the democratic institutions and therefore has affected politics and mainstream media. The relationships of citizens with politicians have become worse with the crisis and simultaneously mainstream media have lost their renown, while on the other hand, social media have turned out to be a useful tool for political communication. The investigation examines the viewpoint of some Greek politicians, citizens and journalists, who actively participate in social media. Moreover data from politicians’ online accounts are analyzed, providing a more global estimation of the existing situation. The investigation concludes that the existing economic, political and institutional crisis brings about challenges in the online interaction between politicians and citizens, while it affects significantly the online role of journalists.

Keywords: Mainstream media, Social Media Platforms, Economico-Political Crisis, Political Communication, Online Interaction

5

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem discussion and research objective

In December 2009, the issue of the ‘Greek debt crisis’ made its appearance and started dominating media and politics, both domestically and internationally (Nikolopoulos, 2009). However, even before the outbreak of this crisis, the financial and social conditions of the country had already begun to create distrust towards national institutions (Pleios qtd. by HuffPost Greece, 2016). Subsequently, during the escalation and the peak of the economic crisis, institutional distrust became even more intense, affecting and involving many sectors of the society; the political system and the mainstream media were certainly two of these.

To begin, it is of note that the Greek political landscape is characterized by political cynicism1 and a disapproval of the civilian staff, which are seen as corrupted by the Greeks (Marantzidis, 2016). As time progresses, the prolonged recession and non- static stances of politicians governing the country during the economic crisis, increase this cynicism (Marantzidis, 2016). A current research shows that feelings like anger, dislike, and emotional detachment toward politicians are prevalent in Greek society (Marantzidis, 2016). Almost 55% of Greek citizens feel anger and oppose the members of the parliament, while only 11% respect them (Marantzidis, 2016).

Meanwhile, mainstream media had to face two major problems: the economic downturn and the mistrust of their once loyal audience (Pleios, 2013). More specifically, the number of TV channels, newspapers and radio stations was reduced due to the economic problems of the entire country, followed by the crisis of the national advertising sector. The expenses on advertising, which used to be the principal stabilizer of the mainstream media in general and television channels specifically, decreased by 1.525.387.000 euros between 2008 and 2012 (Sideris, 2013). The decrease in revenue led to staff reductions; which in turns led to a limitation of the newspapers’ content and television/radio programs. The shutdown of one of the biggest Greek newspapers “Eleftheros Tipos” and of the radio station “City 99.5”, marked the beginning of this decrease (Sideris, 2013). This was followed by the shutdown of fourteen newspapers based in the two largest Greek cities, Athens and Thessaloniki, the shutdown of one TV channel, two magazines with great brand awareness and four radio stations. At the same time, the dependence of mainstream media on the financial system and political Greek authority reached its peak after the outbreak of the crisis (Pleios, 2013). Additionally, mainstream media’s pro- 6

government stance and their support to the economic elites created a huge gap between their content and the real needs of the Greek society (Marantzidis, 2016). As a consequence, Greek citizens opposed mainstream media; this led to a significant reduction in the amount of impact media held, as well as an arousal of dispute over their credibility (Sideris, 2013). More specifically, Greek citizens express 80% mistrust in Greek television (Europe’s average is 47%), 65% mistrust in Greek newspapers (Europe’s average is 50%) and 61% mistrust in Greek radio (Europe’s average is 36%) (Kassimi, 2016). It is notable that the average mistrust towards mainstream media is higher than in any other European country.

These developments have substantially contributed to a transformation in the dynamics of Greek political communication. A large portion of the Greek population turned away from the ‘impaired’ mainstream media and embraced Internet and social media; these seem to incorporate all forms of mainstream media (web radio, web TV, online newspapers) while at the same time allow real time communication (Ausserhofer and Maireder, 2013, 292). The use of social media platforms by Greek politicians, journalists and citizens is also increasing rapidly (ELSTAT2 qtd. by HuffPost Greece, 2016). Politicians started using them extensively and for many different reasons; to support their electoral campaign, to communicate, to promote themselves, to spread information and generally as part of their political marketing strategies (Danou, 2016). Given that mainstream media have lost their prestige, politicians are trying to find different ways to reach out voters (Pleios qtd. by Kalyviotou, 2013). As social media platforms have managed to gather people from many different demographics, they could be recognized as the ideal forum for contact. The intense use of social platforms by politicians, journalists, and citizens, in the light of the economic and political crisis, raises questions regarding the changing nature of political communication and the character of interaction between the three types of actors.

It has been suggested that rise of social media, changes the model of political communication (Bruns 2008, Jenkins 2005, Shirky 2008). The idea is that political communication has turned from one-way traffic through mainstream media, to two- way communication between politicians and citizens through social media. This is what this thesis aims to research and critically examine: this new model of political communication and its effectiveness. 7

In addition, the use of social media platforms by politicians and citizens creates new sources of information for journalists. This information can then be examined to determine how journalists in mainstream media are coping with this transition in the media landscape, and how they are relating to the interaction between politicians and citizens. Journalists’ opinions regarding the interaction between politicians and citizens on social media are crucial, because they are professional intermediaries between the political sphere and the average civilian.

In general, social media are really widespread in Greece (ELSTAT qtd. by HuffPost Greece, 2016). The typical use of them appears to not differ from the other European countries (Sidebar monitor, 2016). Nonetheless, Greece is currently the country with the most important economic problems in the Euro zone, and as a consequence, seems to face more difficulties that affect politicians, users, journalists and the way they interact with one another. Pleios (qtd by HuffPost Greece, 2016) claims that neoliberal social policy along with the crisis cause harm to mainstream media while increasing the use of social media. He also argues that the Internet benefits from the crisis since it provides people with ‘substitutes’ (Pleios qtd. by HuffPost Greece, 2016). These ‘consuming substitutes products’ are allies of the social state, against the crisis (Pleios qtd. by HuffPost Greece, 2016).

Questions in this field have become prevalent because they are rather understudied. Most of the research on social media and political communication has focused on ‘normal electoral politics’, so relatively little is known about how the dynamic of political communication changes when a political system is in crisis. As the discussion on the Greek crisis already indicated, in times of crisis there appears to be an additional incentive to take up social media for political communication. For that reason, this research will pose the research question: How do Greek politicians interact with citizens through social media platforms during the economic and political crisis and how has this influenced the role of journalists? This will be answered, in part, by analyzing the use of social media platforms by politicians, citizens and journalists. Interviews with these three types of actors and data from politicians’ accounts will help to provide further insight into the evolving social media practices and routines of politicians, citizens, and journalists. Ultimately, the aim is to contribute to a better understanding of political communication on social media during periods of economic and political crisis.

8

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Promises about two way political communication of social media platforms

Over the past years, a lot of research has been done on the relationship between politicians, citizens, and journalists on social platforms. The following figure, which visualizes the two core models of political communication, depicts how scholars have examined and reflected on these relations.

Figure 1

Models of political communication

Complied by the author

Research show that mainstream media very much shaped political communication throughout the 20th century (Newton, 2006, 211-213). Before the appearance of social media, politicians informed citizens through mainstream journalists and to a smaller extent the other way around (Newton, 2006, 211-213). As it can be seen in model 1 (Figure 1), there is a one-way channel of communication; either the message comes from politicians, or from citizens. The traditional way that the message was transferred changed in the beginning of the 2000’s as Web 2.0 appeared leading to the emergence of social media (O’Reilly, 2005). According to Schwartz (2015), social media platforms became highly political spaces (2). In those platforms politicians, journalists and citizens are both ‘media actors’ and ‘media sources’ communicating political messages, and mainstream journalists no longer have a monopoly over public information (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 3).

As it is depicted in Figure 1, online communication seems to follow a different logic from the traditional offline political communication. Social media platforms 9

potentially provide all actors (politicians, journalists/professionals, citizens) with a two-way channel of communication (individuals can both distribute and receive political messages). Consequently, that forms an interaction in a variety of exchanges and ties (Papacharissi qtd. by Sormanen & Dutton, 2015, 208). Also, Nilsson and Carlsson (2013) maintain that “nowadays people are not passive consumers of traditional media” since their participation on online platforms makes them more active citizens (656). But, are citizens really becoming active as participants in political communication and if so, does this mean that they are in active debate with politicians? Also, how this would apply in the Greek context?

Social media give equal opportunities to all social groups (from a member of the State, to citizens) to communicate their message directly. Besides this, the engagement of the users could be accomplished without the addition of mediators (Schwartz, 2015, 1). Sander Schwartz (2015) insists that online platforms are a way to avoid the mainstream media gatekeepers (1). These claims show that social media probably work differently; instead of being only the mediator of the discussion, like journalists on mainstream media, they could be part of the interaction, helping the production of a discussion. All these traits potentially distinguish how social and traditional media work. There are researches which confirm that social media “engage citizen-users in new forms of multi-communication practices relating to both news journalists and politicians” (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 11); and also prove that there is an interaction between citizens and politicians (Vaccari et al., 2015, 222). On the contrary, there are several researches that refuse this engagement and this two-way communication in general, for a variety of reasons (Golbeck et al. 2010; Waters and Williams 2011; Vergeer et al. 2011). For instance, one reason is because politicians use social media to ‘’broadcast’’ their message more than engage with the other users (Waters and Williams, 2011, 354). Thus, even if social media platforms provide the opportunity of interaction, it is under review whether users take advantage of this ability.

Finally, according to scholars the appearance of social media also influences mainstream media journalism in a variety of ways. For example, since information is often transferred from mainstream media to social media and vice versa, the interconnection between politicians and journalists is extraordinarily complex (Ekmas and Widholm, 2014, 1). Ekmas and Widholm (2014) claim that mainstream journalists must adapt their professional practice through including social media in their communications (1). This is because social media are an easy source for 10

mainstream media to gather political statements and public opinion (Schwartz, 2015, 1). But are these statements applicable to the Greek case? In what way social media are used by Greek actors and how social media could influence the problematic mainstream media? All these aspects will be discussed in more detail in the following section.

Meanwhile, George Pleios (HuffPost Greece, 2016) maintains that social media’s facilitation of asynchronous communication, and its global reach, occasionally make online platforms more popular tools than mainstream media. It should be clarified that the mainstream media model is still used by many people, however with the addition of the social media model there is a perceivable difference between the importance and usage of the social media model and the traditional model of communication. Ekmas and Widholm (2014) confirm this state, characterizing social media as dynamic and ever-evolving tools that remain very different from the mainstream media (4). In any case, it could be interesting to investigate in what way the new online model of political communication operates under a specific context. As a first step, the approaches of several researchers regarding the use of online platforms by politicians will be discussed.

2.2 Politicians and social media platforms

Scholars agree that the social media have revitalized political life based on various criteria, such as the accessibility of information on political issues, facilitation of the development of political debates, challenges to opponents, creation of social networks and provision of a space for political expression and participation. Gibson (2004) claims that social media platforms are spaces offering favorable conditions of contact and communication, as they enable direct dialogue between politicians and citizens, and horizontal two-way communication (98).

However, as time goes by it is becoming clear that even if the conditions online are suitable there are a number of factors that could possibly limit this contact. The aggressive language that citizens can use online, or the limited readiness of them, to create a productive dialogue with politicians are probably two of these restrictions. Also, according to Bruns and Highfield (2013) some politicians do not self-manage their accounts (672). This fact has two possible explanations: the first one is that politicians have no free time to regularly use their accounts, and the second one is that they do not use their accounts because they find it difficult to manage them. The 11

general problem, in the case that politicians do not control their accounts, is that the engagement between them and their followers/friends is not feasible. Politicians do not really engage with the other actors even if there is interaction on their accounts. The question arising is; whether the Greek politicians manage their own accounts or not, and in such case how this could affect their engagement with the other users. Is this practice actually restricting the participation and interaction through their accounts?

However, even if politicians are not the authors or publishers of their upload, according to Nilsson and Carlsson (2013), over the last years they have understood the importance of having a presence on online platforms. For example, they have realized that participation on online platforms has become a part of the political competition (Nilsson and Carlsson, 2013, 668). On the other hand, regarding Skovsgaard and Van Dalen’s idea (2013) there is one more explanation counter to this assertion. They claim that the regular use of social media platforms by politicians is not their highest priority since they are only a small part of a campaign (Skovsgaard and Van Dalen, 2013, 740). These different claims show that the strategy of each political actor regarding the use of social media probably differs and conforms to the circumstances. Schwartz (2015) in his article explains that politicians in most Western countries are facing a crisis of support. This fact highlights the necessity for political actors to follow new political marketing strategies in order to reconnect with citizens and increase their popularity (Schwartz, 2015, 1). Thus, in relation to Schwartz’s perception, politicians use politically active spaces such as Facebook and Twitter, trying to form an engagement between voters via critical public debates (Schwartz, 2015, 1). On the contrary, Ausserhofer and Maireder (2013) maintain that several research studies have shown that politicians use social media mainly for self-promotion, campaigning, dissemination of information, and do not pursue to communicate with the users (243). Grant et al. (2010) proved that both Australian and English politicians used Twitter for spreading messages without engaging in conversation, while Dutch politicians were more likely to interact and engage in debates on Twitter (602). The different appraisals regarding the way that politicians approach social media show that there is no common way that politicians act on social media. Their attitude probably contains various aspects like the political system, or the existing political situation of the country they live, potentially the relationship of politicians with citizens, or the intentions of politicians, and so on. In any case, it is intriguing to further examine in the following chapters, how 12

comparable these research results are to Greek politicians who have problematic relations with citizens and struggle to gain support through mainstream media.

Lastly, Andrejevic (qtd. by Nilsson & Carlsson 2016) claims that politicians do not only use social media platforms to improve their marketing strategies, but they also use them in order to keep under surveillance their potential voters, collecting and monitoring data through the accounts (656). However, that intention requires an active participation by both politicians and users; otherwise the data collection or in other words the surveillance is not achievable. But do Greek politicians keep under surveillance their possible voters and if so, in what way this affects their attitude on social media platforms?

All these findings have inspired this research and have created concerns culminating in the development of the first sub-question: For what reason and in what way Greek politicians use social media platforms?

As the issue under investigation in this thesis is multifaceted, it is important to examine the political use of social media and the interaction between voters and politicians from the side of citizens as well.

2.3 The use of social media by citizens

Vaccari et al. through their research found out that the ability of users to express political opinions and learn political news, makes online platforms welcoming environments to political actions (2015, 222). On the other hand many researchers have expressed the belief that social media made the voice of marginalized groups heard in a wider social context (Lanlois et al qtd. by Nilsson and Carlsson, 2013, 656). In recent years, only young people, urban and high-income groups used social media for politically-related reasons (Klinger, 2013, 719). However, the circumstances have changed and now social media have become widespread and regularly used by every sector of society (Klinger, 2013, 719). Despite this, the perception that social media are used by everyone is probably not widely known. In general, the sort of people who use social media may influence the way that politicians approach social media and consequently the interactivity that exists on the online environment. For instance, if politicians still believe that social media are platforms used mainly by young people, urban and high-income groups, it is reasonable to build their strategy conforming to that. It remains interesting to look at who uses social media in Greece 13

and if that affects the way politicians manage their online accounts and consequently the way citizens react.

Another interesting topic to be further discussed in the context of this research is the engagement of citizens with other online actors and the elements that influence this engagement. Schwartz (2015) states that Facebook has an interactive nature that allows citizens to engage with politicians (1). In addition, Ausserhofer and Maireder’s investigation concerning Twitter shows that even if this platform is used by established actors like politicians and journalists, it also facilitates interaction between them and ‘ordinary’ citizens (2013, 310). They highlight that Twitter gives citizens more chances to be involved in political discussions (Ausserhofer and Maireder’s, 2013, 310). Nevertheless, there are several researches which prove that the technical features of Twitter pose difficulties for sharing considerations and thoughts on a topic in a complete form (Bruns and Highfield, 2013, 671). The 140- character restrictions potentially limit the interaction, and in consequence, decrease the engagement (Bruns and Highfield, 2013, 671). At the same time, Ekmas and Hermida (2014) claim that the transparency of online communication between politicians and journalists contribute to a more active and permanent engagement of the audience (11). They explain that almost everything is visible to the people and for that reason they have the opportunity to contribute to the news’ production in new ways (Ekmas & Hermida’s, 2014, 11). However, this assertion arises doubts. Isn’t it possible that this high transparency will rise negative, unwanted results? Why, for example, does online contract between politicians and journalists facilitate people engagement rather than acting as a constraint? Does the content of the discussion affect the engagement of citizens or the features of the various platforms are the only determining factors? Studies show that it is also possible both the features and the content contribute to the development of a discussion. In relation to Nilsson and Carlsson’s concept the ‘bad’ language that citizens use does not encourage a deeper democratic conversation (2013, 656). This view is a realistic justification for the often- limited interaction. On the other hand, as mentioned above, the extended discussion and high levels of interaction can be justified by both the characteristics of the medium and the content of the topic of the discussion. A common reason that makes online platforms more popular among the people is their great speed. More specifically, a large number of comments on a tweet/post in a few seconds may alter the content of the debate while destroying the flow of the conversation. Also, according to Schwartz, many comments “fall into the category of verbal likes”; 14

typical examples of these type of comments are, “We believe in you.”, “Good luck with the campaign”(2015, 5). These comments aim more to express an approval or agreement with an action, rather than to encourage a discussion.

Overall, the assumption that follows the above beliefs is that the accomplishment of interactive communication and the creation of a stronger attachment between citizens and politicians depend on multiple actors and factors that are not necessarily related to user’s online attitude. In general, engagement seems to be related with the way that each person approaches and perceives social media, the reason of the use, as well as the characteristics of each platform. All these considerations develop the following two sub-questions which are: Do citizens use social media to communicate with politicians in Greece? and How do the features of the platforms and the way that politicians use the platforms affect citizens’ reaction?

As it was mentioned above, after politicians and citizens, the third social group that is considered to play a significant role in the process of online political communication is journalists. In the next and last part of this chapter, their role in the online environment is presented through the analysis of the opinions of several researchers.

2.4 Journalists and social media platforms

It is a fact that information nowadays is not only provided through mainstream media, but also through social media. The public service of journalists has changed this course; this new tactic is evolving and turning into a completely new form of journalism (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 12). The main difference now is that journalists are not necessarily the mediators of the message on this online environment, as politicians and citizens convey their message directly to each other (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 14). Ekmas and Hermida (2014) argue that, nowadays, journalists are satisfied with “headlining and choice of angle” on social media rather than fact checking or investigative reposting (3). Although, there are several reasons that make journalists keep in touch with other participants on social media. For instance, since politicians use social media platforms as an official part of their political strategy, it makes sense that journalists follow them and take advantage of the information they provide online. As Ekman and Widholm (2014) claim, journalists ought to draw information about politicians from a multimodal communication environment and do not rely only on mainstream media (1). 15

Furthermore, Larsson and Moe (2012) claim that, politicians from their side try to keep a relationship with the new media professionals, with the purpose of influencing them (733) and communicating their agenda (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 2). In general, the relationship between politicians and journalists seems to remain close, even within the new political online space. It is inevitable, especially for political journalists, to be in close contact with politicians and political institutions since they remain the main source of their information (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 2). However, it is questionable what stance journalists should keep towards politicians’ on online platforms and if this position will eventually affect their work. As Ekmas and Hermida (2014) state, journalists should provide valid information, while keeping a distance and remaining independent from the individuals and affairs (4). Nevertheless, their investigation shows that the limits between the professional and personal updates, of journalists on Twitter accounts, are blurry and controversial (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 6). To reflect critically on this finding, it seems that the interactive character of social media platforms and the ability of journalists to participate actively (through comments, likes, shares, and so on) in environments that ‘host’ politicians, citizens and other journalists at the same time, sometimes confuses their work. According to Broersma and Graham, this confusion may also create further problems to journalists, injuring their relationships with their sources (for instance with politicians, business companies, non-governmental organizations and so on) (2013, 449). Ekmas and Hermida take as a fact that social media have altered the “dynamics between reporters and sources” (2014, 2). But in what way is this relationship formed or altered when politics are in a crisis?

Apart from the various results of journalists’ active presence in online platforms, the various reasons that make them use social media for professional reasons in the first place are also of great interest. One of the most common reasons is their effort to promote their personal work, or boost the publishers’/broadcasters’ image and profile (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 6). Also, the association of journalists with their sources seems to be one of the main reasons that journalists use the online platforms. Several researches show that journalists use social media to find and approach sources (Ahmad 2010; Hermida 2010; Broersma and Graham 2012). In relation to Marwick and Boyd’s opinion the interactive nature of social media platforms and the public debates that take place on them give to journalists the general interpretation of the issue that is discussed (2011, 142). Then journalists can get in touch with the relevant people, and either develop a further discussion with them or take their 16

statement and directly use it in an article (Broersma & Graham, 2013, 447). Although, what if there is no interaction or at least debates that provide useful information? How do journalists manage social media in that case?

In general, journalists’ role seems to have changed due to the appearance of social media in the landscape of political communication. Nowadays, they use social media as tools of their work, drawing on information and then promoting it both online and offline. It is interesting to examine what is their online position in a country where the institutions of mainstream media and politics face big problems. This train of thought has led to the development of the last sub-question that is: How do journalists use social media messages of politicians and citizens’ in Greece, and how do they perceive the online behavior of these actors?

2.6 Conclusion

In recent years, a great majority of politicians, journalists, and citizens became active users of the social media platforms for a variety of reasons. Although there are plenty of investigations concerning the use of Web 2.0 and the interactions within it, Greece constitutes a special case because of its crisis and the difficulties of the current political climate. The discussion about the modern political communication landscape, and the four sub-questions that have been raised, assist to the development of a structured methodology that will provide the final results of this research.

17

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

Over the last few years, significant amount of research on social media and political communication has taken place. Some researchers focus on interaction, others on the debates between politicians and citizens and others on the communication between politicians and journalists. Also, some studies evaluate this relationship positively whilst others are more critical. However, almost all of these started from the assumption that social media are about interaction between politicians and citizens revolving around debates and exchanging messages. The aim of this study is to critically discuss that idea through an examination of Greece; an interesting case because it is a country in political crisis that is also experiencing a crisis in traditional media. The general assumptions that are prevalent in political and communication researches, should therefore also be seen in the Greek case. For this reason, four main steps will be followed: Firstly, exploration will be conducted into whether there is a real interaction between politicians and users on social media platforms. At this stage, the social media posts of politicians, citizens and journalists are an essential part of the research. Second is the examination of the ways in which politicians use their social media accounts to communicate with users. Thirdly, the research looks into the ways users respond to politicians. As a last step, this research investigates the journalists’ role in this new, complicated, online communicational landscape; it also focuses on their professional opinion about the role and the significance of each one of the key actors (politicians, citizens, journalists) in this online environment.

3.2 Methodology design

1. Semi-structured interviews

The main method that is used is semi-structured interviews. The interviews were conducted in Greece from 11th of March 2016 until the 25th of the same month. They were presented to three different key actors; politicians, citizens and journalists. The research includes twenty-eight interviews in total: seven politicians, six journalists and fifteen regular users. All the participants were selected due to their intense activity on their social media accounts. Key politicians from almost every political party of the Greek Parliament were interviewed to provide a thoroughly balanced data analysis. Politicians from the third elected far-right wing-party Golden Dawn could not be interviewed and the fifth elected communist wing-party KKE do not 18

participate on social media platforms at all3. In addition, the political convictions of the regular users who were interviewed are not taken into account since they were not able to be categorized.

It should be noted that interviews took place in a semi-structured form. Based on the research questions, specific sets of questions were developed for each type of actor but the interviews aimed to be open to new ideas and different approaches. In any interview, the research took into account the development of the conversation and the results of what the interviewees dictated. The interview schedule was designed to group questions thematically. The first seven questions were general questions while the remaining thirteen had more specific content. Each interview lasted 20-40 minutes and they were either face-to-face interviews or phone interviews that were dependant on the spare time of each interviewee. The language used during the interviews is the Greek language. Before launching the interviews it was important to test them on a small sample, in order to assure that the questions were correct and would provide reliable and valid data (Saunders et al., 2009). The results of the pilot test helped the researcher develop the final form of the questionnaire. For this reason two volunteers answered the three grouped categories of questions, providing feedback and making recommendations about both the structure and the content of the questions. The findings of these interviews are not included in this research. Lastly, the interviews were transcribed and the parts quoted in the research were translated. Interviews were the source of material for this research project.

2. Identifying characteristics of Interviewees

In this chapter, the name, the gender and the working position of politicians, users, and journalists will be determined as well as the age of regular users. Labeled below are the political parties that politicians are associated with. Regarding journalists’ working positions, their distinct political view is clearly stated through their professional work. In this research, journalists also act as the ‘observers’ of the existing interaction between various social media platforms; and their job title certifies the validity of the information they will give. The age of regular users crosses all age ranges in order to provide a more global point of view (2 users between 16-24 years old, 4 users between 25-34 years old, 2 users between 35-44, 3 users between 45-54 years old and 1 user between 65-75 years old). 19

To sum up, it should be mentioned that the twenty eight interviews were insightful and allowed useful information to be gathered for the purpose of this research. The interviewees seemed to keep an open mind regarding the questions asked during the one on one meetings in which the interviews were conducted.

The following subsections will include the full names, the job titles and gender of the seven politicians and six journalists as well as the full names, the job title and the gender of fifteen politically active users who participated in the interviews. The precise names and job titles will give a further understanding of the interviewees’ backgrounds. This particular aspect of the data will help to illustrate the implications of online communication between Greek politicians and users.

Politicians

Costas Zachariadis: Leader of the Parliamentary Group of SYRIZA and member of the Central Committee of SYRIZA, male

Dimitrios Papadimoulis: Vice-President of the European Parliament and member of Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, male

George Kirtsos: Member of Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) in the European Parliament, Ex-director and editor of several newspapers, male

Giannis Kallianos: Spokesman of the political party Enosis Kentroon in the Greek Parliament, male

Giorgos Amiras: Athens B Electoral District and Spokesman of the political party Potami in the Greek Parliament, male

Konstantinos Kyranakis: President, Youth of the European People's Party (EU Commission). He has also worked as an advisor and speechwriter for the Minister of Interiors, and as a researcher in New Democracy’s Political Planning Department. He currently works as a Creative Partner in a New Media Agency focused on Digital Communication and Political Campaigning, male

Pavlos Christidis: Spokesman of the political party PASOK in Greek Parliament, male

20

Politically active citizens

Avgi Voutsina: Manager of the sale’s section of a company, female

Christos Karalias: Marketer and videographer of a web-magazine, male

Christos Natsis: Candidate doctor of Sociology and editorial journalist, male

Ellie Dilo: Law student, female

Giannis Kavakas: Hotel manager, male

Ioannis Kakanis: Unemployed, male

Kostas Anastassopoulos: Musician, male

Manolis Eleftheriadis: Self-employed, male

Mina Kostopoulou: Reporter, female

Mixalis Kouvaras: Retiree, male

Natalia Katsimiga: Unemployed, female

Sofia Labiki: Secondary school teacher, female

Spiros Derveniotis: Comics artist, male

Valia Tsiblakaki: Musician, female

Vasilis Klokotaras: Unemployed, male

Journalists

Giorgos Terzis: Political Editor at the newspaper I Kathimerini, male

Kostas Arvanitis: Director of the Greek government’s radio station called “KOKKINO”- a presenter of politically informative broadcasts at “KOKKINO”, male

Mitropoulou Marianna: Journalist for the print and online newspaper Patris, female

Silas Serafim: Presenter of politically informative broadcasts at ERT S.A. HELLENIC BROADCASTING CORPORATION, male

Sotiris Stefanopoulos: Journalist at the newspaper I Avgi, male 21

Vasilis Vasilopoulos: Web Content Manager at ERT S.A. HELLENIC BROADCASTING CORPORATION and Teacher of Quality Assurance System at National Metsovio Polytechnic School, male

3. Data collection through Netvizz

The second part of the methodology which is a quantitative method4 was developed with the use of Netvizz. Netvizz is “a data collection and extraction application that allows researchers to export data in standard file formats from different sections of the Facebook social networking service” (Rieder, 2013, 346). It allows the researchers to analyze quantitative and qualitative data from groups, pages, and friendship networks (Rieder, 2013, 346). In this research Netvizz enables us to collect more specific data from the seven politicians that were interviewed. Since many of these politicians have more than one page on Facebook, I chose the account that is public or the account with most followers/friends, as these tend to host more interaction. The reason why data was collected from Facebook and not from another social media platforms, is the high percentage of Facebook use by Greek citizens (6.7 million accounts), while there are 650 thousand YouTube accounts, and 500 thousand Twitter accounts (Monitor5 qtd. by Kassimi, 2016). The fact that Facebook is the most commonly used platform by Greek citizens is not only proven by the percentages previously provided, but also from the answers of the politicians, regular users, and journalists that were interviewed. All of them claimed that the majority of the ‘ordinary’ citizens use Facebook as a platform of communication, whereas Twitter is a platform mainly used by politicians and journalists.

It is also important to mention the period in which the data was collected. In order to understand in more detail what kind of interaction exists between politicians and users, the researcher focused on a period when there is a lot of user activity, so that most interaction can be expected. Firstly, the researcher collected data from two different periods: from 1st of September to 31st of October 2015 (where the elections took place) and from 1st of February to 31st of March 2016 (a time period without any specific, significant event). While it could be interesting to focus also on periods that did not involve political elections and thus politicians would not have any specific reason to attract citizens’ attention, this paper will analyze the pre and post electoral periods. Also, it is worth mentioning at this point that after observing the collected data, became clear that there is no particular difference between these two periods. 22

For that reason, the pre-electoral and the post electoral period have been chosen; since the Greek elections took place on 20th of September 2015, it will be investigated during the period from 1st of September 2015 until 31st of October 2015.

The data that was used for this research was the number of the posts the politicians made per day, the number of the comments/likes/shares of users on these posts, and the content of the original posts of all politicians through a systematic observation of the collected data. Also, Dimitrios Papadimoulis was chosen to analyze the content of citizens’ comments on his posts, during the period of these two months. The content of citizens’ comments from every interviewed politician was not analyzed due to the enormous quantity. Instead, Papadimoulis was chosen as he is the most actively interviewed politician on social media platforms. The quantitative data analysis developed as follows: Firstly, the amount of posts by each politician for these two months was collected and calculated as an average. The same collection and calculations were used for the amount of likes, comments and shares of users for the reference period. These averages were put in a column graph (with the use of Microsoft Office Excel 2007) and are presented in the chapter “Limitations and facilitations of social media platforms” and “The online model of political communication in Greece and the reasons affecting interactivity on social media respectively”. Meanwhile, there is also a detailed investigation of some of the most and the least popular posts (as regards the number of likes, comments, shares), which is analyzed in detail in the section “The importance of social media platforms for politicians”. The structure of these steps will provide a better view of how the interviewed politicians use their platforms and in what way the other users react on that.

Furthermore, the researcher looked into the content of politicians’ posts and also the content of the comments of users on politicians’ posts. In order to achieve a systematic analysis the content was coded regarding the personal estimation of the researcher. For the content of politicians’ posts, the coding manual is: 1.information, 2.conversation, 3.promotion, 4.opposition. The categories were defined in order to ensure depth of explanation. After coding all the data, the numbers were categorized and with the use of Microsoft Office Excel 2007 I created a ring chart that is presented in the chapter “Journalists’ viewpoint over the online interaction between politicians and citizens”.

23

TABLE 1

Categories of politicians’ posts

CATEGORY DEFINITION Status, link, video that provides general INFORMATION information.

Status that expresses personal position and CONVERSATIONAL shows an intention to communicate with users.

Link, video, or photo of an interview or speech PROMOTION that promotes his personal position or the position of the party he represents.

Status, link, or video that criticizes or is OPPOSITION against the political position or perspective the politician or political party represents

Complied by the author

For the content of citizens’ comments on Dimitrios Papadimoulis’ posts, the same tactic was followed. However, the comments received a different coding manual since the reasons that politicians post and citizens comment are different. The categories identified were as follows: 1. criticism, 2. profanity/irony, 3. commendation, 4. conversational (with politicians), 5. reacting to citizens and 6. indifferent comments. Once all the comments were coded, again the numbers were transferred to Microsoft Office Excel 2007 and were converted to a ring chart that is discussed in the chapter “Social media during a period of a crisis”.

TABLE 2

Categories of citizens’ comments on Dimitrios Papadimoulis’ posts

GATEGORY DEFINITION

CRITICISM Negative commendation of a post.

Swear words, aggressive expressions PROFANITY/IRONY or ironic answer to a post. 24

Positive comment or praise to the COMMENDATION politician’s post and position in general. Comments that were addressed CONVERSATIONAL (WITH directly to the politician. POLITICIANS) Comments that reveal the intention of REACTING TO CITIZENS citizens to communicate with other users. Comments or ‘verbal likes’ that do INDIFFERENT not encourage a deeper discussion.

Complied by the author

Finally, it should be noticed that these data was used as a second source to add depth to the analysis. The purpose is to look into the number and content of the posts of politicians and examine how frequently and for what reason they use social media. Furthermore, the form of citizens’ reaction and the content of their comments will be discussed in order to understand the character of their interaction with politicians in the online environment. In that way it will have provided a clearer view of how frequently politicians and users interact on social media platforms but also for what reasons and in what way they communicate.

25

POLITICIANS

4.1 Introduction

The purpose of this thesis is to discuss the way that politicians use their online accounts and how that influences the interaction they have with citizens. For that reason this chapter examines the nature of the political communication in light of the general crisis and in discussion with the literature that previously reported on this subject. The economic crisis created a general crisis of the democratic institutions of Greece (Marantzidis, 2016). Aside from the governance crisis, there has also been a crisis of the mainstream media. Both of them have affected the relationship that Greek politicians have with the journalists and the citizens. More specifically, the interviews of seven Greek politicians will be presented, using data from their Facebook accounts it is possible to allow for a better general assessment. The findings of the interviewed politicians, combined with the primary data collection will answer the following sub-questions: “For what reason and in what way do Greek politicians use social media platforms?” and “How do the features of the platforms and the way that politicians use the platforms affect citizens’ reaction?” The chapter begins with a discussion of the reasons behind politicians’ use of online platforms, whilst addressing the difficulties that politicians face on social media accounts. The chapter will continue with a discussion about the use of social media under crisis conditions, concluding with a politicians’ self-reflection on their interactions within the online environment.

To begin, general information about the seven politicians’ accounts on social media platforms will be presented, and their preferences will be analyzed. The politicians that were interviewed have accounts on various social media platforms. All the politicians have at least one account on both Facebook and Twitter, whilst only two politicians have an Instagram account. Five of them have two accounts on Facebook, either due to their popularity, or because they require a second account for personal use. Five of them manage their accounts by themselves, while one politician (who has two accounts on Facebook) is assisted by his colleagues. Moreover, three of them indicated they prefer Facebook over other social media platforms, while two of them prefer Twitter. Two politicians remain neutral, using Facebook and Twitter with the same frequency. The reasons of these preferences differ. The politicians that prefer Facebook claim that it is the most popular platform to Greek citizens because it better facilitates conversation. Giannis Kallianos states that interaction between politicians 26

and citizens is better achieved in comparison to other platforms. He argues that “it is even more difficult to approach followers on Twitter as it is used for professional reasons and not by ordinary citizens. Also, maybe it takes years to approach the same number followers on Twitter in comparison with Facebook. In general, communication on Twitter is much more difficult”6. On the other hand, the two politicians that prefer Twitter insist the platform more vivid, and a quicker tool for communicating and gathering information. Nevertheless, Giorgos Amiras argues that even if he prefers Twitter, updates to his Facebook account take precedence over his Twitter account. He states that the message on Facebook gives more opportunities, explaining that Facebook has a greater influence on Greek citizens. Costas Zahariadis who has no preference among the platforms, explains that “I use the quickest means of our time that addresses mainly to power groups and journalists: Twitter. I also use Facebook; but Facebook is mainly used to inform a group of people who believe in you and follow you; voters or supporters of the political party you belong. Twitter is extremely fast at news reproduction. When I post a tweet, I also post it on Facebook. I adjust the needs of Facebook based on Twitter” 7.

From these initial results, it becomes clear that interviewed politicians use Facebook as a platform of communication to their existing followers and Twitter as a platform to spread messages beyond the reach of supporters, or to gather information in real- time. In general, it seems that they feel compelled to use these platforms in the first place. Also, politicians’ platform preferences and intentions to contact citizens using social media, do not clarify that they are actually engaging with them through these emergent mediums; this will be discussed in more detail below.

4.2 The importance of social media platforms for politicians

Subsequent to these initial findings, based on the information collected from the interviews with politicians, as well as data collected from the observation of their accounts, the reasons why politicians use social media will be analyzed.

Dimitrios Papadimoulis states that “Politicians use social media to make their ideas known. Also, using social media they can avoid the economic cost of any other advertisement” encapsulates the opinion of the majority of the interviewees. Politicians argue that they use social media platforms to promote their ideas or to express the position of the political party they belong to. They provide a direct and 27

instantaneous way to talk to the voters, but also a relatively economical way to promote themselves8. However, there is another approach concerning the financial aspect of this statement. According to Konstantinos Kyranakis the cost depends on the number of users that politicians want to target each time. It is a fact that social media can be used as an advertising tool with little cost. Nonetheless, Kyranakis argues that if you do not use paid advertisement on social media, results will not be the same, since the message will reach fewer users. He admits that promotion on social media platforms, whether organized or not, merits more than a non-targeted advertising like, for instance, election posters. These claims prove that politicians indeed use social media to promote themselves not only because social media provide a fortunate environment for direct contact, but also because the cost of self promotion is for the most part, significantly lower than traditional methods. Politicians, in reality, have the choice to build a promotional campaign on online platforms while also targeting the exact number of users they want to influence.

One more advantage of social media is the immediacy of politicians’ message. Zahariadis9 says that“…social media give you the opportunity to communicate your message any time you want to; they completely liberate you. Social media are free from all the constraints that mainstream media have”. The interesting point here is social media’s ability to free users from the constraints of mainstream media, through the asynchronous communication they offer. According to Hopmann et all during a period of elections, mainstream media skewer toward politicians in power or the most potential to win the election (2011, 268). Furthermore, it is more difficult for the less popular candidates to reach voters through mainstream media, since access to the mainstream media is not constant (Skovsgaard, 2013, 740). The same issue applies to Greek politicians, but not only during an electoral period. In general, all Greek politicians have the opportunity to inform citizens via mainstream media. However, the mainstream media on a global level, have more interest in politicians that play an important role in the country’s governance (Bennett et al. 2007, 54-55). Thus, politicians with less political influence cannot express their opinions on mainstream media whenever they want. Giannis Kallianos, the spokesman of Enosis Kentroon, the political party with the fewest seats in the Greek Parliament, states that social media give him the opportunity to develop his position and oppose to government’s decisions on a daily basis, quickly and directly. Social media effectively allows politicians to construct the preferred publics, while simultaneously accelerating communication. Nevertheless, these thoughts lead to reflect that 28

politicians use social media platforms with a different rationale, even if the aim of this use remains the same as mainstream media; to make their ideas well-known and influence citizens. This different rationale could reflect the interaction of politicians with these platforms. For example, it is more common for a politician of a less popular party, that does not have immediate access to mainstream media, to use social media platforms to a greater extend. This is not confirmed, however, by Figure 5, where Kallianos (from the political party Enosis Kentroon - 3.43% election result) uploads less than one post per day, while Amiras (from the political party Potami - 4.09% election result) upload almost 2,5 posts per day, with the maximum number of posts per day from the other politicians is almost 3,5. Thus, the frequency of use seems to be a more personal choice or political strategy than a consequence of the mainstream media’s constraints. Consequently, it is possible that social media take mainstream media’s place for some politicians, but that does not necessarily affect the frequency they use them.

Moving forward to another issue, Konstantinos Kyranakis notes that the immediacy and in general the use of social media make politicians look more forward thinking, modern and approachable. George Kirtsos claims that the lack of presence in the social media can be an important drawback in a politician’s communicational strategy. In addition, Amiras, Kallianos, and Kyranakis concur that social media play a key role in politicians’ popularity. That is also agreed by Pavlos Christidis who claims that the use of social media subsequently helps politicians attain a presence in the mainstream media. That statement is also confirmed by Broersma & Graham’s (2012) who argue that “social media can also be used … as means to gain visibility in the mainstream media” (417). “An interesting post or tweet that becomes viral could be easily discussed on TV offering recognition and even potential voters to politicians”10. These claims show that politicians are conversant with the opportunity they have to transfer their message from social media to mainstream media and the other way around aiming to gain more visibility in both online and offline environment. Furthermore, it could be an efficient way for them to disrupt or intervene the news’ agendas and political decision-making, a well-established phenomenon according to Lester & Hutchins (2009, 591). Thus, the assertion of Schwartz that social media are a source of information for mainstream media (2015, 1) and Skovsgaard’s opinion that social media’s usage influences mainstream media and vice versa (2013, 742), applies similarly in the case of Greece even if mainstream media face a big crisis. 29

At this point, it would be more interesting to investigate how this relation affects interactivity on social media platforms. Giorgos Amiras claims that many Greek politicians use social media in order to secure their win on the elections. “They have a great influence. Of course, that influence depends on the quality and the content of the message”11. Most of the interviewees mention that the content of politicians’ posts or tweets is something that affects the interactivity with users. For that reason, the content of the post is a part of the political strategy. Kyranakis for instance, who organized the electoral campaign of the leader of the largest opposition party says that “if a politician posts only announcements that do not put a question, do not respond to something, or at least do not create a dialogue with users, then there is no influence”12. For Christidis the influence of the post/tweet depends on a number of reasons. How provocative the message is or how provocatively it is promoted, are the two main factors. Also, according to Christidis the level of influence depends on the general circumstances and even to the personal characteristics of the users that politicians are addressed to. Analyzing the data that was collected through Netvizz, these opinions are proved correct. Looking into the posts with the most users’ comments, it is clear that people interact only when the content is aggressive or provocative. This is illustrated by the following examples:

Figure 1 Figure 2 30

In Figure 1, Konstantinos Kyranakis is opposed to the government, prior to the elections. He specifically says that “Due to capital controls imposed by the government, 16.658 people from the private sector lost their jobs. Greece will move forward only if on 20th of September, the Prime Minister loses his job as well” 13. On this pre-electoral post there are 4,000 likes, 1,235 shares, 294 comments, 260 replies to comments, and 955 comments that have been liked It is worth mentioning that the majority of the comments are in opposition to his opinion. The positive reaction comes through the huge number of likes. Although, it is interesting that the positive reactions are expressed through likes and not through comments. Supportive or positive comments do not exist. In general, this post created not only the ‘supportive like’ as a reaction, but also ‘a controversial debate’ through comments. On the contrary, in Figure 2, where Kyranakis is presenting a broad overview of the first YEPP council, there are 317 likes, 2 shares and no comments. Similar reactions appeared on the posts of the other 6 politicians. A greater reaction, with many likes, comments and shares appears when the content is not merely informative or neutral, but emotive.

Figure 3 Figure 4

It would be interesting to observe one more paradigm. In Figure 3, Papadimoulis is opposed to the largest opposition party, asking “Could New Democracy14 explain why they accept adding VAT to food and bills and refuse adding VAT to private 31

education?” This post has 263 likes, 22 shares, 76 comments, 28 replies to comments and 125 comments that have been liked. Again, the majority of the comments are negative, but there is a greater interaction due to the aggressive nature of the post. In contrast, in Figure 4, Papadimoulis informs his followers that the leader of the democratic socialist political party of Italy, Sinistra Ecologia Liberta supports the Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras. On this post there are 68 likes, 1 share and no comments. This does not indicate that every aggressive post provokes a reaction. However, as is demonstrated, only aggressive or emotive posts reach this kind of reaction. Whenever a politician posts information-based content, like seen in figure 2 and 4, there is usually barely any reaction. But whenever a politician is opposed, or criticizes another political party or politician, there is usually a massive reaction. In addition, it should be noted that whenever there is a big reaction such as this, the comments are negative, while whenever politicians are positive or supportive the number of the comments is limited. Although only two examples have been discussed, this is a finding that reoccurs throughout almost all the other politicians’ posts. These two examples clearly prove that the content of posts is an important element regarding user interactivity. The question that arises then, is why politicians continue to upload aggressive posts that consistently return negative comments. The rational explanation is that this strategy is considered as a part of the political ‘game’. Whatever the outcome of an upload is, they are trying to gain an additional group of voters. Also, politicians may not post for the objective of receiving comments, but maybe, for example, simply to acquire likes. Another reason includes the critical feedback that politicians collect, allowing for personal improvement which will be discussed further below. Additionally, as Schwartz mentions in his article, “turning the other cheek by welcoming criticism can also earn the respect of the audience” (2015, 6). A confident politician that encourages any kind of criticism tends to make a good impression; this fact may explain their stance and provoke attitudes on the social media platforms. Moreover, given the above-mentioned special, negative characteristics of the relationship in the relationship between politicians and citizens in Greece, negative comments are a usual reaction that politicians may be getting used to, thus they do not react anymore. This fact will be further analyzed in the following chapters.

Going back to the reasons that politicians use social media platforms, it is important to mention the intention of politicians to contact users. 4 of the interviewed politicians mention that they use them in order to contact the citizens directly. Also, 32

they answered that they reply to users’ comments and they try to develop a democratic dialogue with them. The following rig chart shows the intentions of interviewed politicians through posting. The sample comes from politicians’ Facebook accounts that were interviewed.

Figure 5

Content of politicians’ posts

75 / 10% INFORMATION 206 / 28% 92 / 13% CONVERSATION

PROMOTION

OPPOSITION 356 / 49%

Complied by the author

As it is apparent, politicians’ posts have 49% promotional character. It seems that the purpose of his uploads is to make well-known their opinions and the position of the political party they belong to. Moreover, politicians express their disagreement with their political opponents by 28%; that it can potentially lead to the development of an online discussion with the other politicians, journalists and even with citizens. Also, they upload 10% informative posts that can have either an informative or a conversational character. The clear intention to engage with citizens is depicted through 13% of their posts that have conversational character. Although, according to the collected data from Netvizz during the period September - October 2015, they almost never replied to the citizens’ comments and there are two potential explanations for this fact. Firstly, it could either mean that the politicians cannot use social media effectively in order to engage users, or that the data collected during this short period of two months is not representative of their overall strategy.

The main finding is that during the mentioned period, the politicians communicated their messages, but they did not engage with those receiving the messages. This is 33

surprising because the time period the time period examined (a period of elections) is one in which politicians need citizens more, since they need voters. A rational explanation could be that reacting on social media is not advantageous for Greek politicians. In general, it is clear that even in election time, politicians are not that engaged with their supporters. This approach though is contradicted by Grant’ s et al. research; their findings indicate that politicians “gain more political benefit from the platform than others” (2010, 580). Thus, maybe the researches’ findings that social media function as two-way channels of communication do not apply to Greek case. However, it conforms to Ausserhofer and Maireder’ assertion (2013) that politicians use online platforms mainly for promotional and campaigning reasons and not really engage with users. In this case, social media can be seen to work more like traditional media (a one-to-many channel), with the difference that politicians can totally control the content of their posts. Finally, there is also the possibility that ‘likes’ already serve the main purpose of their social media engagement.

4.3 Limitations and facilitations of social media platforms

Focusing on the features of social media platforms, it is clear that they provide to all users both facilitations and limitations. Beginning with limitations, Papadimoulis claims that he prefers face to face contact with citizens. “Face to face communication cannot be replaced by communication via social media platforms”15. This means that social media do not have the immediacy that face to face communication does. Additionally, Kirtsos16 says that he stopped replying to citizens because of the cyber- bullying he faces. “Users turn to organized groups that attack to politicians so that they cannot reply”17. Also, Konstantinos Kyranakis mentions that it is impossible to reply to the very popular posts with a huge number of comments. All these answers prove that politicians trying to develop a productive conversation on social media face several obstacles, because of the limitations of the platforms. Using Facebook as example, it was originally built for college students to interact and create a social network (Pempek, Yermolayeva, and Calvert, 2007, 227). It was not optimized as a political platform that supports distinct political topics. Contrary to Kushin and Kitchener’s (2009) theory, that Facebook’s features increase the possibilities of political discussion, the answers of the interviewed politicians indicate the opposite. Facebook’s interface itself does not encourage constructive comments in all cases. For instance, Kyranakis says that it seems useless to join in the conversation because one voice can become lost in the sea of comments. Looking into the comments of the 34

above-mentioned examples (Figure 1 and 3) it is obvious that because of the large amount of participants, the continuity of the conversations is lost and new topics always arise, or, different opinions are expressed. There is no conversation structure like that within real life debates. This is exactly what Schwartz claims on his article; Facebook provides a platform for feedback, but it is not well organized for further discussion (2015, 6). Simultaneously, Twitter’s interface does not encourage conversation. Firstly, it is difficult to develop detailed content because of the 140 character restriction, as mentioned by Bruns and Highfield (2013, 671). As Kirtsos18 says, “I do not like Twitter. Even I am laconic in general, the 140 characters are the defeat of communication. Twitter users are not getting trained to read and understand but they are getting trained to the meretricious impression”. Also, the anonymity gives to users the opportunity of cyber-bullying, holding back the repeated presence of politicians in a discussion19. As it is clear through Figure 1 and 3, when there are numerous comments, they are usually aggressive or even insulting. Finally, while it is harder to develop a conversation, the instantaneous speed of tweets and tweeted news give Twitter a more informative character20. All these points imply that the features of each platform can shape how politicians and users interact with each other. In some cases, the features may even completely forbid interaction. This result contradicts existing scholarly discussion, which posits that social media has revitalized political life, through developing political debates (Bennett et all, 2008). Social media could be an environment for political expression that provides access to information and creates a social network for politicians. But, the claim of Gibson (2004), that the two-way communication makes online platforms great environments for a better contact is in dispute, due to the limitations of the platforms themselves and also the difficulties that Greek politicians face in relation to citizens.

Despite the limitations of the interaction, due to the features of social media platforms, politicians recognize several positive elements. Regardless of the personal benefits of each politician, it is evident that they want users to interact with their accounts, and the features of platforms play a key role in that. Five of them claim that they do not determine the frequency of their posts, but they try to update their accounts at least once per day.

35

Figure 5

Politicians’ posts per day

posts 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Complied by the author

In order to show this frequency, we created a bar graphic in which the overall number of Facebook posts is shown. During the period of two months, all the posts of politicians were collected. As it is clear, not all politicians post once a day. Nevertheless there are politicians like Kirtsos and Papadimoulis that do an average of 4 to 3 posts per day. Kyranakis, who seems to have the lower percentage of posts, admits in the interview that he is trying to post at least once per two days. Kallianos and Kirtsos, excluding the daily update, also create a short video on a daily basis with their political opinions, and post it on their Facebook accounts. Furthermore, Kyranakis creates and posts online banners. In any case, all of them keep a frequent presence on their account on Facebook and, as discussed, some of them make an extra effort in creating videos and online banners in an attempt to make their accounts more attractive.

Despite the limitation, these extended efforts and the frequency of posts in general, show that politicians try to take advantage of the features that social media platforms offer, and use them to target and influence the Greek citizens (not necessarily engage with them). But this assumption makes sense, since social media remain part of a larger repertoire of campaign activities and political strategy in general.

36

4.4 Provoking feedback: Social Media for reactive politics

Apart from the promotional incentives that make politicians participate on social media, there is one more motive. Even if politicians do not actively interact with other users, they collect data originated from the users’ reactions. All the interviewees admit that the comments on their posts act as a good feedback mechanism. Papadimoulis21 claims that “I am reading the comments. I have an open account so that anyone can put his/her comment. I am open to every kind of criticism. Ι exclude only followers/friends that swear as I believe that they do not help the development of the communication. I am not afraid even the most rigorous followers because criticism helps you to become better”. In addition, Kyranakis22 claims that “Facebook gives you the opportunity to see, in real time, the impact of your post on users; then you can evaluate this impact. It is a very useful tool to evaluate your political message and adjust your strategy”. That means that social media platforms give politicians an opportunity that is not necessarily accessible through other mediums. This confirms Andrejevic’s statement that politicians use social media as a means of monitoring and surveillance, allowing them to collect data on their followers via their accounts (qtd. by Nilsson & Carlsson 2016). Through the previous examples of Papadimoulis and Kyranakis, it becomes obvious that this method could help politicians to improve their image, but also to develop a more reactive political strategy online and offline. Consequently, the features of online platforms could affect the way that politicians interact online and potentially influence their relations with the other users. Although, this ability comes from the features of social media platforms (for example the ‘FB insights tool’ that Kyrakanis uses, and the option to keep accounts ‘public’ like Papadimoulis does), it also depends on the user interaction that takes place on the accounts. It is obvious that feedback could be acquired only when there is a reaction. If users do not like, share or comment, then politicians cannot receive feedback. That is a possible reason why some politicians want to put interesting or provocative posts/tweets on their accounts; in order to provoke interactivity.

4.5 Social media during a period of a crisis

One more issue that concerns this investigation is how the economic crisis affects the use of social media by both politicians and users, which explains the form of interaction that is developed on online platforms. Firstly, four of the politicians 37

believe that the crisis increased the use of social media in Greece. Regarding Costas Zahariadis’s opinion, all these years, politicians had the opportunity to express their opinions publicly whenever they wanted, while citizens did not have this chance. Nowadays, with the development of Web 2.0 people have gained this ability. The features of social media give citizens almost the same opportunities as politicians23. Citizens can express publicly their political position; interact with politicians and oppose other users’/politicians’ opinions24. Christidis25 supports this, arguing that “…it makes sense during a period of a crisis when there is a continued deterioration of the situation in that country, social media become more popular; since they give people the opportunity not only to express themselves but also get informed about crucial issues within seconds”. Giorgos Amiras also adds that the crisis raises strong feelings among citizens that create the need to communicate and share their problems. The intense sentiments prevailing in Greek society are transferred into any form of communication. That means that social media platforms, as spaces of interaction, absorb this intensity. This is something admitted by many politicians as well. Politicians see social media as a pressure valve, rather than a platform of productive political debate. Also, some of the interviewees considered social media problematic, since they allow users to use vulgar language. Looking into the content of the comments, this is certainly a frequent phenomenon, especially concerning politicians of the governing party and politicians of the second largest political party. A characteristic example based on a systematic observation, is the content of the comments on the posts of Dimitrios Papadimoulis, who is a member of the governing party. The following example includes all the comments by citizens during the two month period examined (September and October, 2015).

38

Figure 6

Content of users’ comments on Papadimoulis’ posts

criticism 180 / 12% 152 / 10% profanity/irony

300 / 20% commendation

519 / 34% conversational (with politician) conversational (with 218 / 14% citizens) 146 / 10% indifferent

Complied by the author

Examining the ring chart it becomes clear that 44% of the comments aim to criticize or insult the politician while only 10% of the comments are commendations. The politicians’ blame social media, arguing it does not provide a productive political debate. This can be seen to be partly true, since only 14% of the citizens’ comments were addressed to politicians, and 12% are comments that do not develop a dialogue at all. However, 20% of comments attempted to engage with other citizens. This sample could have multiple explanations. Firstly, citizens do not participate on politicians’ accounts with the intent to engage with them, but to communicate with other citizens. Furthermore, politicians’ accounts could be spaces where citizens show their consent, but are mainly citizens expressing their objection. The thing that politicians do not consider, is that social media may be essential to release pressure and to express feelings, no matter how negative they are. It seems reasonable that citizens express their feelings in an environment in which everyone is gathered, and where it is more difficult to face legal sanctions.

At this point, it is interesting to mention that none of the politicians refer to a crisis in the mainstream media. Instead, Pavlos Christidis believes that mainstream media have more influence than social media, since “the users of social media are not many”. However, 65.7% of Greek citizens aged between 16 to 74 years old are using social media platforms; part of this percentage use social media for political activity as well (ELSTAT, 2015). Amiras also believe that mainstream media are still prevalent over social media, but he argues this is due to fact that not all Greek citizens have Internet access. Nonetheless, the percentage of citizens with internet 39

access in Greece is 68.1 %, which means almost 7 to 10 Greek citizens use the Internet (ELSTAT, 2015). Furthermore, Kyranakis and Amiras believe that television is the most powerful mode of communication. However, according to Monitor26, 80% of Greek citizens do not trust Greek television. This high rate of mistrust casts doubts on television as a powerful medium of communication. Hoff et al. discusses a Danish study which indicates that traditional media reach more people (qtd. by Schwartz 2015, 4); he also adds that television is considered as a trustworthy medium. In the case of an economic/social crisis where television is not seen as a trustworthy medium, and the other mainstream media decline in popularity it becomes difficult to consider mainstream media as more powerful than social media.

At the same time, however, almost all interviewees think that social media are platforms that are used by the younger generations. The following percentages allow a more critical understanding of social media use relating to age.

Figure 8

Use of social media platforms per age

% 100 87.5 90 80 73.1 70 60 51.8 50 40 33.5 30 16.8 20 10 3.7 0 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74

Source: ELSTAT (2015)

The data in Figure 8 shows the percentage of social media platform use in Greece, categorized by age. The statistics were collected by ELSTAT27 in 2015. The ’young generation’ is considered as the youngest half of the population - those under 44 years old.28. As it is presented on the bar graph, it is true that the young generation uses social media platforms a significant amount. However, at the same time, 55% of people beyond 45 years old are also prominent users, which indicates that not only the young generation uses social media platforms. 40

The collected data dispute politicians’ assertions and prove that Klinger’s statement that social media are now used by everyone and not only by specific groups (like young people), is not yet a well-known fact (719). These viewpoints imply that politicians may have a different reading of the reality of social media platforms. Considering that television is the most powerful means of communication, it takes priority in their political strategy in comparison to social media. For instance, Kyranakis claims that a good strategy is to communicate the message, firstly on television, secondly on social media platforms, thirdly to websites, and finally to newspapers. Nonetheless, these data prove that television has lost its validity, while a great majority of Greek citizens now participate on social media. On the other side, politicians’ beliefs that social media are used by the young generation probably lead their political strategies in a specific direction. The frequency of the use, the written word, the expressions on the posts/tweets, the form of the pictures and the videos are part of this strategy and are potentially formed to influence mainly the younger generation. In general, there is the possibility politicians perceive social media differently than they really are. Moreover, politicians may also believe that the interaction on social media is not profitable for them. Thus, politicians should take it into account and better form their interactivity on social media regarding all these new data which concern both mainstream and social media in Greece.

4.6 The problematic use of social media by Greek politicians

In the last part of this analysis, it is interesting to focus on the politicians’ opinion regarding the effective use of social media by Greek politicians in general. All of them agree that Greek politicians do not use social media in a proper way and they provide a variety of reasons. Firstly, they claim that a great majority of politicians’ accounts are managed by communicators or close associates of politicians. This claim conforms to Bruns and Highfield statement that some politicians do not self-manage their accounts (2013, 672). However, interviewees’ claim that only the minority of Greek politicians self-manage their accounts, raises interest. Kirtsos29 considers that attitude as a wrong way to use the platforms, clarifying that “it is impossible to let someone else to talk on behalf of you. This is a self-destruction!” Additionally, Giorgos Amiras claims that half of the politicians do not even know that they have accounts on social media, or they are not aware of the social media’s importance. George Kirtsos also states that politicians try to show a progressive profile using social media platforms but their ideology remains old fashion, bringing up the issue 41

of authenticity of politicians within their accounts. The opinion of Pavlos Christidis once more raises the issue of originality. He claims that many politicians delete past posts and they replace them with new ones whenever they change political position. Lastly, according to Kyranakis politicians are using official language on their account when citizens need a more authentic form of communication. All these statements explain that politicians’ accounts do not represent the real face of politicians or at least their up-to-date intentions. As it can be seen in the next chapter, users find this lack of originality repulsive and as a consequence they limit their interaction with politicians.

In addition, there are more problems concerning the use of social media by Greek politicians. Costas Zahariadis states that many politicians over-use their social media accounts, ruining their political profiles. More specifically, he adds that “Behind the screen, you are free and not completely aware of the sense of public speech and space that social media have. It is frequently noticed that they express a different opinion when they are on TV in contrast with other mainstream media or social media.“30. This could be counter to the previous statements regarding originality of the accounts; but it could also mean that politicians lose their political role using online platforms and this is a proof that they have not yet learned how to use them. Konstantinos Kyranakis also agree with this statement. He notices that Greek politicians use social media because everyone does so, but they cannot use them properly. “They think that social media can be used in the same way that mainstream media are used, and this is not true. It is not interesting to post something that people could find anywhere. This results in a low engagement with users and as a consequence little interaction.”31. Finally, most of the interviewees admit that although there are some exceptions, in general Greek politicians do not really interact with users. Some of them buy even fake followers/friends with the purpose of creating positive impressions32.

At this point, it is intriguing to examine the statement of O’Neil (2010) that “the way that politicians use the Internet with a purpose to form, change and influence political beliefs could lead to the trivialization of politics” is applicable to the Greek case. The majority of politicians and journalists (both these actors were asked this question) replied that politics in Greece are already partially trivialized. Terzis33 insists that “The trivialization of politics is not an affect of social media. The disdain of politics is a consequence of the Greek reality. Politics are trivialized in real life and social media give prominence to that”. However, some of the answers provided 42

above show that the way politicians manage their accounts, could make the existing situation worse. That may lead to the belief that both offline and in part online positions of politicians damages their engagement with the other users and probably hit the relations they have with journalists and citizens. That could play a key role in the interaction on social media platforms, since it potentially shapes the way citizens face and react with politicians.

All the above arguments conclude that the majority of Greek politicians do not use social media platforms effectively and that may affect politics in general. The relations that politicians have with citizens or journalists could be influenced to some extent by the new online model of political communication. The conclusion that can be drawn from this research is the likelihood that the use of social media platforms by Greek politicians restricts their interaction with the other users within social media platforms. In any case, it is of importance to analyze the opinion of regular users too. Therefore, the next chapter demonstrates the way that citizens use online platforms.

43

CITIZENS

5.1 Introduction

As this thesis studies the interaction of citizens with politicians under circumstances of economico-political crisis, this chapter presents responses of fifteen citizens (regular users of the online platforms that were interviewed) in regards to this topic. The analysis of some additional data collected from the accounts of politicians will also be presented in order to give a more global result. The ultimate aim of this chapter is to answer the following sub-question: Do citizens use social media to communicate with politicians in Greece? So, in order to answer such a question this paper will first provide some general information about the users’ preferences will be provided. Secondly, it will be considered the citizens’ opinion about the use of social media during the period of the crisis and their online engagement with politicians. Moreover, some reasons that influence interactivity will be discussed in depth. This chapter will conclude with the analysis of the current model of political communication in Greece as that has been built through the step-by-step discussion.

Although the great majority of the interviewees prefer Facebook as the basic account on online environment there are several reasons as to which they also like other social media platforms. In this study fourteen of the interviewed citizens used Facebook, five of them also have an account on Twitter, four of them have an Instagram account, while three have a YouTube account. Ioannis Kakanis states that he like Twitter because it gives him the chance to read very specific things that are not easy to find elsewhere. Vasilis Klokotaras likes YouTube because it is similar to television. Ellie Dilo points out that she prefers Facebook since it is the best platform to communicate and to find easily interesting articles, clever blogs, web sites and web newspapers gathered in a more generic space. Additionally, she claims that she uses Twitter during periods of crucial Greek political issues like the period of the referendum in July 2015 because it is quicker and more direct platform. Christos Karalias says that he likes Facebook because it gives him the ability to adjust his Facebook’s account News Feed in order to get the information he prefers. He also uses Facebook as a means of communication, while he attends Twitter to follow trending topics. According to interviewees, Facebook appears to be the most interactive online platform in Greece. This statement was supported also by politicians who seem to know what platform Greek citizens prefer. Apart from preferences which depict the reasons why citizens like social media platforms there 44

are also reasons which show the opposite. For instance, Christos Natsis complains that Twitter is a too fast paced platform to allow a productive debate. Whilst Sofia Labiki considers that the 140 characters restriction limits the freedom of speech that is an essential element in order to develop interactivity. However, these two claims proves the intention of users to interact online, they contradict to Ausserhofer and Maireder’s assertion that Twitter gives to ‘ordinary’ citizens more chances to engage in political debates even if it is a platform for already established actors (2013, 309). According to almost all interviewees, the reason why Greek citizens do not use or prefer Twitter is because it is difficult to engage them in the political discourse.

In general, all these claims show that interviewed citizens participate on social media for a variety of reason. To get informed and involved in a debate remains the principal motive why they use online platforms. Since the use of social media by Greek citizens is related to the crisis of the country the next section will provide opinions which explain explicitly how this crisis influences the intensification of social media and the way citizens manage their online accounts conforming to that.

5.2 Social media and the crisis

‘addictive’, ‘intrusive’, ‘reactive’, ‘manipulation’, ‘channel of communication ’,

‘democracy’, ‘propaganda’, ‘fraud’, ‘second life’

These are some of the labels that characterize social media according to interviewees. Evidently, the opinions, regarding how users conceptualize social media, differ substantially. On the other hand, they converge in respect their use during the period of the crisis. The vast majority of the interviewees answered that they started to use social media platforms more often after the outbreak of the crisis. They used the platform to get informed, to relax or to discuss political issues or issues that concern the daily routine in Greece. Eleftheriadis34 claims that “It is a relief to share your thoughts about the crisis on social media platforms. Discussing the crisis gives you courage”. It is interesting that some of the users joined social media due to the crisis. Apart from the opinion of interviewed users that social media are an economical way of entertainment, they also consider that the crisis politicized Greek citizens. They believe that the crisis created a need for a platform that allowed for the expression of their political positions as well. In accordance to both statistics and interviewees’ answers Facebook was the first choice for serving this need. Facebook was the new 45

space for political public debates that potentially worked as reinforcement for this reconnection of citizens with politics. Moreover, interviewees believe that the use of social media platforms spurs the snowball effect. “As more citizens join social media the more societal pressures there are to create an account” 35.

In addition, users claim that the increasing participation affects the interactivity within social media platforms. Firstly, as users believe after the outbreak of the crisis, not only more Greek citizens participated on social media platforms, but they also became more active on their accounts. For example Avgi Voutsina explains that she became more active on social media since there are more crucial issues to discuss. Furthermore, Katsimiga36 notes that “… the more the crisis affects you, the more active you become on social media platforms”. This statement gives to Nilsson and Carlsson’s belief a slightly different perspective (2013, 656). Indeed citizens are not passive consumers of traditional media but it is not only social media influence that makes them more active. It appears that citizens have become more active users in the online environment due to difficult circumstances. The crisis also affected the frequency and the content of the posts, tweets, comments that users shared. Christos Karalias claims that he totally changed the subject of his posts/tweets once the crisis began. This is a statement supported by the majority of the interviewees who claim that the content of their posts became more political or adapted to the situation in Greece.

At this point, it could be interesting to look into the relationship established between users and social media platforms as a consequence of the mainstream media crisis. The questions that users were asked, concern the means of communication that they trust more for political issues. Furthermore, they were asked what source of information they use when a politician tells something important. Whilst there are several different opinions, it is clear that mainstream media are not the first option for the majority of interviewees’ source of information. Only one person admits that he prefers television as a source of information but he also mentions that he crosschecks the news on social media platforms because he does not totally trust Greek television. One of the interviewees who actually prefers radio more than the other online and offline media, he though mentions that whenever a politician announces something important he can access it faster from social media than from the mainstream media. Thus, he keeps using both radio and online platforms with the same frequency. Also, three of the users claim that as they do not use mainstream media anymore they became informed through web sites on social media platforms’ 46

newsfeed. Additionally, although they do not think that posts or tweets provide trustworthy information they feel that they provide a stimulus to further search the information on social media platforms or on the Internet in general. Half of the interviewed users explain that they do not completely trust social media platforms, therefore they crosscheck the information, whilst still considering them as more reliable sources than mainstream media. Derveniotis37 says that “I learnt how to use social media and how to avoid misinformation. It is easier for me to understand propaganda on social media than on mainstream media”. Similarly, Natalia Katsimiga explains that mainstream media do not have as equal representation of the political positions as on social media. As a final point, Eleftheriadis38 and Labiki39 claim that mainstream media lost their reliability since they serve individual interests. That alienated people from mainstream media and increased the importance of social media in Greek society40. Hence, the argument of many researchers that mainstream media are still “the most efficient communication channel” as well as “big communicative power” (Schwartz 2015, 4) does not apply to the Greek situation anymore according to the interviewees. This theory perhaps is particularly applicable in a crisis situation more than anywhere else, when people also want to express themselves more so than simply gaining a status quo overview of the news.

To conclude, it became clear that both the economic crisis in Greece and the general crisis of the Greek mainstream media lead Greek citizens to become increasingly active on social media platforms and also to value this activity politically. Citizens have different abilities and perspectives than they used to have in the past and it seems clear that mainstream media do not reach more people as Hoff et al. conclude in their research (qtd. by Schwartz 2015, 4). Nevertheless, it is of significant importance to describe how social media affect the communication among the users as well as their interaction with politicians.

5.3 Users’ engagement with politicians’ accounts

Taking into account the preferences of users and the influence of the economic crisis, the way that users interact on social media platforms will be fully developed. Another difference that characterizes the reaction of the users on social media is their preferences regarding the features of the platforms.

47

Figure 8

Users’ preferences on specific features of social media platforms

USERS 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 post/tweet comment Facebook like share/retweet messenger

Complied by the author

The graph above shows how the interviewees prefer to interact actively on social media platforms through posts, tweets and comments. This does not mean that they interact only in that way; these are just the most usual interactions they have. As it is clear, most of them prefer to open the discussion more than to react with likes or private chat on Facebook messenger. It is remarkable that only one person prefers to share/retweet. Nine of the interviewees follow politicians on Facebook, Twitter or Youtube. One of them mentions that he interacts with them on their public pages on Facebook without following them. He specifically says that “I do not follow politicians on Facebook since ‘follow’ is translated as ‘like’. However, I like to interact with everyone even with politicians that I do not support”. To get a better picture of this interaction Christos Kalarias claims that he likes to share politicians posts/tweet linked with his comment or he just comments directly on politicians’ posts/tweets. He actually tries to write aggressive comments since he believes that politicians seek to attract these kinds of comments through their posts/tweets. Furthermore, he follows only politicians with the same political position and replies to other users’ comments only when they are extremely provocative. He also likes to swear on his comments since anonymity gives him this opportunity. Natalia Katsimiga mentions that she comments a lot on posts/tweets and she also replies to users’ comments. Besides, she claims that comments are the only way to develop a political dialogue. Mina Kostopoulou and Giannis Kavakas who follow only politicians they support, rarely comment on their posts and sometimes share their posts. Sofia Labiki does not interact with politicians; she is following a few of them in order to read their posts. Kostas Anastassopoulos says that he interacts with like or 48

comment on politicians’ posts only when the content of the post is really provocative. Valia Tsiblakaki even though she follows some politicians, refuses to interact with them while Christos Natsis follows only politicians with opposed political positions, not to interact with them but to take feedback for his posts. On the contrary six of the interviews do not follow or interact with politicians at all. It should be noticed once more that interviewees are regular users of social media platforms, but they prefer to post and discuss political issues with their followers/friends and not with politicians. Kakanis41 declares that he does not even want to know about politicians’ accounts; “following politicians updates seems like I am watching TV, and I disapprove TV”. He uses social media as his personal blog. He puts his posts/tweets without expecting to communicate with someone. Mixalis Kouvaras neither follows nor interacts with politicians. He believes that communicating with them is like supporting them. Voutsina and Eleftheriadis are debating political issues only with friends. Voutsina also says that “I do whatever develops interaction with my friends but at the same there is no reason to communicate with politicians”42.

This discussion shows that users are very conscious about the way they use social media platforms, and the way they interact with other users. Of note is that the majority of every day users do not use social media to interact with politicians even if they do use the online platforms primarily for political purposes. Overall it seems that citizens are pursuing their own desires on social media and conducting their own actions without being influenced by politicians’ implicit direction. Ekmas and Hermida’s point of view, that the transparency of the online communication between politicians and journalists engage more politicians, is not even mentioned by the users (2014, 11). Some of the users comment politicians’ posts/tweets but only when something is provocative. Moreover, it is remarkable that most of the users intentionally ignore politicians or they do not find a reason to engage with them. These findings will be discussed in details in the following section which will give the central argument of this thesis.

5.4 The online model of political communication in Greece and the reasons affecting interactivity on social media

According to the interviewed citizens’ claims there are two main reasons that influence the interactivity between politicians and users on social media platforms. 49

The factors are feelings that citizens have towards politicians and the way politicians manage their accounts, respectively.

To begin with, the interviews show that politicians’ updates create mainly negative feelings in users. Feelings like anger, indignation, disappointment, or intention to troll, dominate online. Besides, it is reasonable that feelings that citizens have about politician in real life affect also their online behavior. The economic crisis established a bizarre relationship between Greek citizens and politicians, notably a negative one. Mylonas (2014) explains that the “economy is always political, because it is organized by political interventions” (306). Thus, it makes sense a country with economic problems would also have problems with political institutions and their representatives. Greek citizens have the intense feelings of contempt and dislike for politicians in general; in addition, the austerity measures and the political disloyalty deteriorate their relations (Marantzidis, 2016). Thus, according to interviewees, Greek citizens transfer their disappointment about politicians to social media platforms. This means that not only do politicians’ posts/tweets provoke users but users are negatively disposed towards them as well. Thus, either they do not comment at all on their updates or their comments depict their negative feelings and hardly develop a debate. To give a few examples, some of the interviewees maintain that they do not even care about politicians’ updates; hence they do not want to interact with them. Manolis Eleftheriadis claims that not answering to politicians is a way to show that you ignore them; while Mixalis Kouvaras avoids interacting with politicians since he believes that this action increases their popularity. In addition, Christos Karalias says that he intentionally put only aggressive comments on politicians’ accounts. These beliefs could also be considered as a form of reaction that certainly limits the online engagement of users with politicians. Furthermore, even if users are supportive to a politician or his/her ideas, it is not certain that they will react positively with comments or shares. Kostopoulou43 says that “it is more difficult to congratulate a politician than to criticize him/her”. On the other hand, Kouvaras claims that there are users that are afraid to express their support because of the other users’ negative reaction that sometimes takes the form of cyber bullying. Generally, these developments show that social media function as affective media rather than rational media. When considering that social media are platforms through which users can develop their thoughts, it is logical that social media functions as affective media. Also, through these answers it becomes clear the logic that Greek users interact with politicians. 50

However, it is interesting to look into the collected data from politicians’ accounts and then further discuss the interviewees’ opinion on this topic. It should be clarified that the users that participated in the construction of the following graph are unknown and not necessarily the users that were interviewed. Moreover, we will check only the way that users interact on politicians’ posts -likes, comments and shares- without examining the content of their comments. The content of the users’ comments was presented in the previous chapter.

Figure 9

Users’ reaction on politicians’ posts

1/9/2015-31/10/2015

ZAHARIADIS K. shares XRISTIDIS P.

commen PAPADHMOULI ts S D. KYRTSOS G.

likes KYRANAKIS K.

KALLIANOS G.

posts AMYRAS G.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Complied by the author

During the period between 1st of September to 31st of October, the overall users’ reaction to politicians’ posts on Facebook shows that ‘like’ is the most common form of interaction even if the number of ‘likes’ is not exorbitantly high. It is also determined that comments and shares are far fewer than likes. Although, only the posts of politicians that come from the government or the second larger party (Papadimoulis, Kyranakis and Kirtsos) receive many ‘likes’ and this does not necessarily correspond to the frequency of politicians’ posts. These data illustrate two different things. First, that the reaction on politicians’ posts is generally low and second that the response of users seems to be related to the power of the political party that the politician belongs to. It is worth mentioning that the latter was expected, as it is generally agreed that the more powerful a political party, the more 51

credible its members are considered to be. In addition, this form of interaction potentially is not only because people are afraid to write comments and argue with other users. ‘Like’ could be considered as the easiest way of interaction and political participation on social media platforms. This is also the reason that some of the interviewees complain that the abilities that social media platforms provide could limit the development of a productive debate. Dilo44 insists that ’‘Like’ decreases ‘comment’”.

Explaining more deeply this data, according to most of the interviewees there is no reason to write a comment since most of the politicians do not self-manage their accounts, which proves that the lack of authenticity previously discussed, affects users’ reaction and consequently the engagement of users with politicians. There is also an assumption that politicians do not even read the comments45. This discourages users to comment on politicians’ posts. But according to politicians’ claims this is not true. Politicians (at least the interviewed politicians) use comments as helpful feedback about their work. This study cannot prove if all politicians read the comments but in case they do, there is a misunderstanding that limits the interaction between users and politicians. As a final point, all the interviewees maintain that there is one-sided communication. “Politicians post something and they do not care about the discussion that follows.”46 This outcome conforms with the collected data from politicians’ accounts which were analyzed in previous chapter, but not to politicians’ claims. “Politicians use social media for self- promotion and canvassing reasons. They hardly ever communicate with citizens.”47. This finding concurs with other research studies which prove that at least Twitter is used for campaigning, self-promotion and spread of information more than engagement with citizens within debates (Golbeck et al. 2010; Grant et al. 2010; Waters & Williams 2011; Vergeer et al. 2011). On this basis, even if Greece is a special case, because of the peculiarities previously discussed, it could also be attributed to factors considered in these research studies. A combination of the mismanagement of the online platforms by politicians (opinion that is also expressed by politicians themselves) and the negative inclination of users, limits the reaction they have with each other. The following figure visualizes the current model of online political communication in Greece in regards to our findings.

52

Figure 10

An examination of the model of online political communication in the Greek context

Complied by the author

Through this study it becomes clear that the online model of political communication contradict to other studies which claim that social media platforms provide users with two-way channel of communication. The existing form of communication is more like one-way channel of communication since interaction between Greek politicians and citizens is limited or even non-existent. Neither politicians nor users seem to be willing to communicate with each other. Politicians use social media to spread information but they do not engage with citizens. At the same time, citizens even if they use social media platforms for political purposes, they interact mainly with other citizens and not with politicians. They insist that they use social media platforms as tools of information and communication, but not to interact with politicians. Contact between politicians and users, happens occasionally under specific circumstances. This result differs from Bruns and Highfield’s (2013) findings, which consider that the increasing adoption of social media, and the growing level of political participation raises the interaction between citizens and politicians. In recent years, the number of social media accounts in Greece has increased dramatically, and citizens, in turn, have become active users of the online platforms; though this particular increase does not necessarily affect the interaction between users and politicians. The relation that users have with politicians and the way that politicians use their accounts play a key role in their online engagement. However, what is the role of journalists in this new model of political communication during the period of crisis? Has become more relevant? Furthermore, how do journalist attribute to the interaction between citizens and politicians on social media? The next chapter 53

emphasizes the role of journalists on the online environment during the Greek crisis and how they view the interaction between politicians and users.

54

JOURNALISTS

6.1 Introduction

This chapter will focus on the research question that investigates the way in which online political communication influences the role of journalists. The interviews by sic Greek journalists aim to answer the final sub-question: How do journalists use social media messages of politicians and citizens’ in Greece, and how do they perceive the online behavior of these actors? In order to understand journalists’ role in the current online environment, the context behind their integration in the new political communication environment needs to be described. By explaining the mainstream media crisis in Greece, in relation to journalists’ profession, a better understanding of the role they play will be illustrated. Also, it will be discussed how the new online model of political communication, and the way that users communicate with each other online, affect Greek journalists in general. Finally, the interaction of politicians and users will be further discussed from the perspective of journalists, as directly and indirectly involved professionals on the political communication.

6.2 Increasing use of social media by journalists in response to crisis

Since journalists are associated with both mainstream and social media, a relatively objective picture about the current situation of mainstream media will explain the reason why journalists use intensively social media. Firstly, George Kirtsos insists that, after the outbreak of the crisis, advertising agencies focused more on social media. As a result the mainstream media’s funding was depleted48. Consequently, the quality of the journalistic product that mainstream media provided was limited49. This is one aspect of the economic problems that mainstream media faced because of the Greek crisis, and it was followed by a significant decline in their quality and their audience. The decrease in advertising profit on mainstream media encourages journalists to use the online platforms intentionally50. Both journalists and organizations they work for, are searching for new ways to attract advertisers; for this reason, they use online platforms that provide a communicative landscape where potential ‘clients’ are gathered and can be approached. Also, journalists, under the fear of unemployment and professional failure, try to remain the mediators of information on social media51. Hence, they adopt social media as tools of their work and they conflate social media with mainstream media52. 55

Moreover, another issue that both public and private mainstream media are presenting in Greece is the inability (intentionally or not) to depict the current reality that Greek people are facing53. According to all interviewees the economic, individual and political interests influenced mainstream media to be a source of propaganda. Greek citizens were identified as irritated by both the propaganda coming from the mainstream media, as well as from the indifference for their own opinions54. At the same time, according to the interviewees, newspapers which were the main reliable source of political news were not that useful anymore. Once online newspapers became available, people prefer the cheapest and easiest way of accessing information.55” The main consequence was the discrediting of mainstream media and a turn to social media in order to find a semblance of truth and express their repressed voice without any cost56. This massive participation of politicians and citizens on the online platforms made also the online presence of journalists necessary.

In conclusion, the current economic crisis has increased the use of social media by politicians, journalists and users for a variety of reasons. All of the interviewed journalists agree, that the development of social media is related to the evolution of technology. Nonetheless, politicians’ active political participation on the online environment occurs mainly because of the increasing number of online accounts and the uprising importance of social media for Greek society.

6.3 The role of Greek journalists in the context of social media platforms

All of the journalists that were interviewed actively use several social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram. Facebook and Twitter have been used almost since the platforms were set up showing their influence and significance. Nevertheless, the majority of them became more active after the emergence of the crisis. Also, they argued that they do not keep a passive role on social media, using them as a common source of information, though they are active users.

To briefly recapitulate, it is important to identify the main reasons for journalists’ use of social media, based on the opinion of the interviewees’. Firstly, in order to become informed; they take the information from online newspapers, blogs, politicians’ announcements and other journalists’ opinions through the online platforms. In that way, they seek to understand the trends and opinions of society, which provides 56

deeper insights for their work. Moreover, journalists use social media in order to promote their work in mainstream media57. This opinion conforms to Ekmas and Hermida’s assertion that previously analyzed (2014, 6). Given that mainstream media are in crisis, social media became useful tools to advertize journalists’ personal work and the organization which they work for58. Last, the majority of the interviewed journalists point out, that social media platforms enable them to express their personal opinion and discuss with other users, within reasonable limits. Journalists in general, participate online not only as mediators of the message but as ‘ordinary’ users, since they are also directly influenced by the crisis. All these reasons, could complete the several researches which claim that journalists mainly use social media to find and approach sources of information (Ahmad 2010; Hermida 2010; Broersma and Graham 2012). This is definitively one of the reasons journalists participate in social media; though it seems that the decision to use online platforms depends on multiple parameters

Despite this, the active participation of journalists on social media creates some difficulties in regards to their professional role. Sometimes, journalists react as ‘ordinary’ users and thus lose their reliability as professionals. One potential explanation is that social media are new tools that entered into people’s lives, not as tools of journalism but as a means of communication in general. However, Vasilis Vasilopoulos claims that journalists should take more care within social media. “Journalists represent the organization they belong to; thus, they should be always careful with the content of their uploads. Also, journalists can interact with other users but they should not exaggerate and end up offending themselves and the organization they are working for. Journalists are not ‘ordinary users’ but professionals of social media.”59 The same opinion was also expressed by Marianna Mitropoulou who claims that citizens want to learn from journalists, not to discuss with them. Consequently, journalists should be impartial on social media and work in the same way that they work on mainstream media60. In general, social media have a significant importance as means of communication in Greece. Given that mainstream media have lost their reliability, citizens perceive social media either as the main source of their information or as a stimulus for further updating61. In addition, interviewees surmise that during a period of a significant crisis, like the referendum on July 2015, more and more people are using social media because of their ability to convey a message immediately on a global level62. Taking into account that both citizens and politicians in most cases consider the information transmitted 57

by journalists valid and important, the expression of journalists’ personal opinion can be considered as manipulation. Hence, the role of journalists should conform to this fact. Nevertheless, this is not totally achievable. Terzis and Stefanopoulos claim that it is difficult not to take a position during a period of crisis even if you are journalist. “The role of journalists is practically informative. But since everyone is commenting about crisis, it is impossible not to take a position when things become worse.”63 Kostas Arvanitis agrees with this opinion and claims that social media give journalists a freedom of expression which is usually lacking in the mainstream media they work for. As a consequence, both the content of the online political discussions, which comes massively from any participant of the online platforms, and the features of social media that promote interactivity ramify the message that journalists spread. These assumptions confirm Ekmas and Hermida’s research that shows confusion between the professional and the personal role of journalists (2014, 6). The difference is that this confusion comes also from the crucial political situation of Greece and not only from the features of the online platforms. Since journalists are not necessarily the mediators of the message, they occasionally perceive social media more as places that they can take part in political debates than places to convey their political information.

In relation to interviewees’ opinion, journalists face challenges on social media related to the way in which citizens interact in an online environment. Taking as a fact Ekmas and Hermida’s assertion (2014,14) which also correspond to interviewees’ assertion, information can be transmitted directly from politicians to citizens and occasionally the other way around; thus journalists have, to a degree, lost the role of the messenger. More specifically, as it also is depicted in the new model of political communication of Greece (Figure 10) citizens receive messages from politicians via social media and then have the ability to communicate it directly to other users often combined with their ideas, opinions, and convictions.. It is a regular phenomenon that citizens create their own online audience too, especially when they are especially politically active on their online accounts and show a reliable profile to their followers64. It appears that many citizens take to some extent the role of journalists on the online environment. This increases the competition that journalists have online, and consequently the way they use social media65. Giorgos Terzis claims that journalists now have to be quicker and more effective than other users in several different online platforms. 58

This discussion partly proves that modern journalists in Greece have to face new challenges. Ekman and Hermida’s claim (2014) that journalists are currently both ‘media actors’ and ‘media sources’ can be partly applied to the case of Greek journalists; though it is a fact that complicates their work. Also, the direct contact that social media Provides, and the way Greek citizens interact online, makes journalism an increasingly competitive and demanding profession. A careful review of the particular circumstances proves that the role of journalists has to some extend changed not only because of the existing crisis in Greece but also because of the insertion of social media into the political communication landscape. The increasing involvement of citizens and politicians on online platforms and the way they communicate with each other influence the role of journalists. The next section investigates the journalists’ point of view regarding the interaction of politicians and users on Web 2.0.

6.4 Journalists’ viewpoint over the online interaction between politicians and citizens

In relation to interviewed journalists’ point of view there is hardly any engagement between politicians and users on social media platforms. Even if there are some exceptions, politicians and users participate in online environment for different reasons. Firstly, politicians use social media platforms only for self-promotion with ultimate purpose to increase their popularity. That explains the reason that they do not react further to users’ comments. More specifically, they simply post or tweet with the intention of keeping their audiences interest and to increase their popularity66. The assertion of interviewees confirms the claims of several researchers who have posited similar arguments (Schwartz, 2015, 1; Ausserhofer and Maireder 2013, 243). Another issue all of the journalists raised, is that politicians do not manage their accounts. According to Kostas Arvanitis, politicians’ accounts on social media are completely constructed, and the reason that they create them is simply to gain another tool to manipulate public opinion. Moreover, all of the journalists claimed that politicians (or their colleagues) use social media platforms “incorrectly”. The higher level of exposition consequently leads to a higher number of mistakes67. Sotiris Stefanopoulos68 claims that, “It is different to give an interview once a week on mainstream media, than be constantly updating a social media profile on a daily basis. It is inevitable to make mistakes.” This constant exposure does harm the image of politicians and influences their engagement with citizens on both online and 59

offline environment69. Terzis70 believes that “foreign politicians are better-organized on social media than Greek politicians”; this is partially justified by the general disorganization of the Greek society, provoked by the crisis”. Silas Serafim, also claims that the image of politicians is different when they appear in the mainstream media, or when they talk in the parliament in relation to the way they express on online platforms. Specifically, he argues that politicians use Facebook not because it is a platform that serves political communication with citizens, but because politicians can hide their intentions more effectively since they control the platforms. Vasilis Vasilopoulos has a different opinion about the use of Facebook by politicians. He insists that politicians tend to avoid Facebook, as it is the platform with the most interactive character, where users react actively and immediately to whatever they see71. This interaction can lead to a debate, which politicians try to avoid72 something that coincides with the interviewed users’ opinions.

According to the interviewed journalists, another negative factor for the achievement of interaction is citizens’ online behavior. According to them, citizens use social media platforms to reduce the increased pressure of the society. Citizens do not want to react with politicians but only relieve their anger and express their objection to their decision/actions. That limits the democratic dialogue with politicians although it potentially encourages communication with other citizens who share same concerns. For Giorgos Terzis this attitude against politicians is a natural consequence of a society that has become dominated with exasperation. According to Mitropoulou73 “Citizens feel vulnerable and suspicious, and for that reason, they react in that way on online platforms”. Giorgos Terzis thinks that social media are a ‘pocket version’ of reality; hence, in a country in which communication is in a crisis, this crisis is transferred onto social media. Moreover, in relation to journalists’ opinion the anonymity on the accounts remains a major problem. Other journalists consider anonymity as a limitation of social media and others as a ‘virus’ of the Greek society74. In general, interviewees believe that citizens use social media for information, to express opinions, and to communicate with other citizens, but not with the primary intent of interacting with politicians.

In summary, even if the interaction on social media between these two actors is not really achieved from both actors’ side, there is room for improvement. Journalists argue that politicians should manage their accounts and should begin to reply on users’ comments thus to contribute to the evolution of a productive dialogue which is important for both politicians and users75. Finally, the elimination of cyber bullying 60

of users against politicians will potentially motivate politicians to change the way they react on social media platforms76. Having met the primary objective of this research and answered the main query which was how the new model of political online communication works for the three actors studied –politicians, citizens and journalists- it is now possible to move into the final chapter which illustrates the conclusion of this thesis.

61

7. Conclusion

This research aimed to examine the way politicians engage with citizens on social media platforms in Greece, a country facing an economic crisis and a crisis of institutions. It also intended to determine how these interactions influenced the role of journalists. The research delved into how journalists have been able to adapt to this engagement. The study sought to observe their ever-changing role in the modern online political environment.

Most of the cited research considers social media as platforms of interaction and are analyzed as two-way channels of communication (Nilsson and Carlsson, 2013, 662). Nevertheless, social media do not work exactly like that in Greek society for a variety of reasons. To begin with, Greek politicians deem social media as significant tools in their political strategy and therefore actively participate online. However, they use these platforms for promoting and campaigning rather than engaging with citizens. This behavior conforms to several other studies like Waters and Williams’, which maintain that politicians use these platforms principally to ‘broadcast’ their message (2011). Greek politicians manage social media in the same way they behave towards mainstream media. They do not take advantage (intentionally or not) of the interactive nature these platforms provide to users.

In the same way, Greek citizens actively use social media platforms for political purposes. The decline of mainstream media combined with the economic difficulties that citizens face, push them to a massive and regular use of social media. Their online participation serves their need to be informed, to release pressure, and to communicate. Nonetheless, their communication remains in the framework of interaction between citizens with citizens. Numerous researchers are of the opinion that the nature of the platforms does not facilitate engagement between citizens and politicians and this is applicable in Greece’s case (Schwartz 2015, 1; Ausserhofer et Maireder 2013, 310). Citizens do not contact politicians and there are two main explanations for this phenomenon. Firstly, their relationship with politicians after the outbreak of the economic crisis was seriously damaged and secondly, citizens are frustrated with how politicians use their social media accounts. In addition, whenever citizens engage politicians online, in most instances their behavior is negatively disposed.

Further analyzing the reasons of journalists’ activity in social media, it was identified that, the massive participation of politicians and users on online platforms, the crisis 62

of mainstream media and the general economic crisis force Greek journalists to actively use social media too. It is obvious and confirmed by several researchers that journalists have lost their information monopoly (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 3). Their role has become more complicated not only because they have to adapt their practices on the new environment of political communication. The way that politicians and users interact online also change or even disturb their public service.

It has been suggested that the rise of social media changes the model of political communication (Bruns 2008; Jenkins 2005; Shirky 2008). The idea is that political communication has turned from one-way traffic on mainstream media, to two-way communication between politicians and citizens on social media. The interesting finding through this research is that both politicians and users are not willing to engage with each other on social media platforms. This leads to the conclusion that social media appear to serve a different purpose from what researchers currently understand them to serve. Social media, under the circumstances of the Greek crisis, function as a one-way branding channel, approximately comparable to mainstream media. This argument also differs from Ekmas and Widholm’s assertion that social media works very differently from the mainstream media (2014, 4). It could be said that social media in Greece partly replaced the problematic mainstream media, though the facilities these platforms provide are not deployed as one would expect on the basis of the affordances of platforms.

Despite these many findings, the limited amount of time for this research did not allow for a greater number of interviews and data collection from politicians and citizens. This is considered a restriction. However, it could be interesting to look into the accounts of all politicians and investigate the political strategy they follow. Further research could examine if the strategy of Greek politicians on online platforms (given that the engagement with citizens is limited) affects citizens’ votes. This could assist the development of a more democratic political strategy that serves both Greek politicians and Greek citizens.

63

REFERENCES

Ahmad, Ali Nobil. “Is Twitter a Useful Tool for Journalists?” Journal of Media Practice 11.2 (2010): 145–155. Web.2016.

Ausserhofer, Julian, & Axel Maireder “NATIONAL POLITICS ON TWITTER.” Information, Communication & Society 16.3 (2013): 291–314. Web.2016.

Bennett, Lance W., et al. When the Press Fails: Political Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Print.

Bennett, W. Lance, and Shanto Iyengar. “A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication.”Journal of Communication 58.4 (2008): 707–731. Web. 2016.

Broersma, Marcel, Bas den Herder, and Birte Schohaus. “A QUESTION OF POWER.” Journalism Practice 7.4 (2013): 388–395. Web.2016.

Broersma, Marcel, and Todd Graham. “Social media as beat.” Journalism Practice 6.3 (2012): 403–419. Web. 2016. < http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512786.2012.663626>

Broersma, Marcel, and Todd Graham. “TWITTER AS A NEWS SOURCE.” Journalism Practice 7.4 (2013): 446–464. Web.2016.

Bruns, Alex, & Tim Highfield. “POLITICAL NETWORKS ON TWITTER.” Information, Communication & Society 16.5 (2013): 667–691. Web.2016. 64

Bruns, Axel. “Gatekeeping, Gatewatching, Real-Time Feedback: New Challenges for Journalism.” (2011): 224-237. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.

Clay, Shirly. The political power of social media. Foreign Affairs, Jan. 2011. Web. 27 May 2016.

Creswell, John W. RESEARCH DESIGN Qualitative, Quantitative. And Mixed Methods Approaches SECOND EDITION. 2006. Web. 21 Apr. 2016.

Cristian Vaccari & Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. “What Drives Politicians’ Online Popularity? An Analysis of the 2010 U.S. Midterm Elections.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 10.2 (2013): 208–222. Web.2016.

Danou, Manina. “Οι Έλληνες πολιτικοί στην κόλαση των Social Media.” [Greek politicians into hell of Social Media]. E. Kathimerini (2016): n.pag. Web. 9 June 2016.

Doual, Aziz, Philip J. Auter, Brad C. Wedlock, Brandon R. Rudyk. The Influence of Social Media in the Early 21st Century: A Meta-Analysis of a Decade of Research (2001- 2011). 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.

Dutton, W. H. (1999). Society on the line: Information politics in the digital age. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Print.

Ekman, Mattias, & Andreas Widholm. “Politicians as Media Producers.” Journalism Practice 9.1 (2014): 78–91. Web.2016. 65

ELSTAT. Έρευνα κρίσης τεχνολογιών πληροφόρησης και επικοινωνίας από νοικοκυριά και άτομα. [A survey about the crisis of information and communication on families and individuals]. PIREAUS: n.p., 11 Nov. 2015. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.

Eurostat. Πλοήγηση.[ Eurostat Surfing] statistics explained. n.d. Web. 20 May 2016.

Fenton, Natalie. “Left out? Digital Media, Radical Politics and Social Change.” Information, Communication & Society 19.3 (2015): 346–361. Web. 2016.

Flick, Uwe. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2014. Print.

Gerbaudo, Paolo. “Rousing the Facebook Crowd: Digital Enthusiasm and Emotional Contagion in the 2011 Protests in Egypt and Spain.” International Journal of Communication 10. (2016): 254–273. Web. 2016.

Gibson, Rachel. “Web Campaigning from a Global Perspective.”Asia-Pacific Review 11.1 (2004): 95–126. Web.2016.

Glasius, Marlies, and Armine Ishkanian. “Surreptitious Symbiosis: Engagement Between Activists and NGOs.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations26.6 (2014): 2620–2644. Web.2016.

Golbeck, Jennifer, Justin M. Grimes, and Anthony Rogers. “Twitter Use by the U.S. Congress.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (2010): n/a–n/a. Web. 2016. 66

Grant, Will J., Brenda Moon, and Janie Busby Grant. “Digital Dialogue? Australian Politicians’ Use of the Social Network Tool Twitter.” Australian Journal of Political Science 45.4 (2010): 579–604. Web.2016.

Groshek, Jacob, and Ahmed Al-Rawi. “Anti-Austerity in the Euro Crisis: Modeling Protest with Online-Mobile-Social Media Usage, Users, and Content.” International Journal of Communication 9. (2015): 3280–3303. Web. 2016.

Hermida, Alfred. “TWITTERING THE NEWS.” Journalism Practice 4.3 (2010): 297–308. Web. 2016.

Highfield, Tim, and Sky Croeser. “FCJ-193 Harbouring Dissent: Greek Independent and Social Media and the Antifascist Movement.” The Fibreculture Journal 26 (2015): 137–159. Web.2016.

Hopmann, David Nicolas, Claes H. de Vreese, and Erik Albaek. “Incumbency Bonus in Election News Coverage Explained: The Logics of Political Power and the Media Market.”Journal of Communication 61.2 (2011): 264–282. Web. 2016.

HuffPost Greece. Γιώργος Πλειός: ‘Την περίοδο της κρίσης τα μέσα ενημέρωσης έγιναν “υπηρέτες” των εξουσιών.’ [George Pleios: During the period of the crisis media became ‘servant’ of the authorities] HuffPost Greece (2016): n.pag. Web. 20 May 2016. 67

Hutchins, Brett. “The Many Modalities of Social Networking: The Role of Twitter in Greens Politics.” Environmental Communication10.1 (2014): 25–42. Web.2016.

Kalyviotou, Maria. “Γιώργος Πλειός: Εκφοβισμός και δαιμονοποίηση οι τεχνικές των μίντια” [George Pleios: Intimidation and demonizing, the media techniques]. I Avgi Online (2013): n.pag. Web. 9 June 2016.

Kassimi, Aleksandra. Αύξηση χρήσης Social Media [The increase of social media]. E Kathimerini (2016): n.pag. Web. 20 May 2016.

Klinger, U., and J. Svensson. “The Emergence of Network Media Logic in Political Communication: A Theoretical Approach.” New Media & Society 17.8 (2014): 1241–1257. Web.

Klinger, Ulrike. “MASTERING THE ART OF SOCIAL MEDIA: Swiss Parties, the 2011 National Election and Digital Challenges.” Information, Communication & Society 16.5 (2013): 717–736. Web.2016.

Kroustali, Dimitra. “Απογοητευμένοι οι Έλληνες από το πολιτικό σύστημα.” [Greek people are disappointed with the political system]. To Vima (2015): n.pag. Web. 2016.

Kushin, Matthew J, Washington State, and Kelin Kitchener. “Getting Political on Social Network Sites: Exploring Online Political Discourse on Facebook.” First Monday 14.11 (2009): n.pag. Web. 27 May 2016.

68

Laclau, Ernesto. The Populist Reason. New York: Verso Books, 2005. Print.

Larsson, A. O., and H. Moe. “Studying Political Microblogging: Twitter Users in the 2010 Swedish Election Campaign.” New Media & Society 14.5 (2011): 729–747. Web. 2016.

Lester, L., and B. Hutchins. “Power Games: Environmental Protest, News Media and the Internet.” Media, Culture & Society 31.4 (2009): 579–595. Web.2016.

Lindqvistxx, Håkan. Twitter ökar bland journalister. 27 Sept. 2013. Web. 25 May 2016.

Marantzidis, Nikos. “Δημοκρατία σε κρίση και πολιτικός κυνισμός [Democracy into crisis and political cynicism]. E Kathimerini(2016): n.pag. Web. 20 May 2016.

Marwick, A., and D. Boyd. “To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17.2 (2011): 139–158. Web.2016.

Milioni, D. L. “Probing the Online Counterpublic Sphere: The Case of Indymedia Athens.” Media, Culture & Society 31.3 (2009): 409–431. Web.2016.

Milioni, D. L., V. Doudaki, and N. Demertzis. “Youth, Ethnicity, and a ‘reverse digital divide’: A Study of Internet Use in a Divided Country.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 20.3 (2014): 316–336. Web.2016.

Moe, Hallvard, and Anders Olof Larsson. “UNTANGLING A COMPLEX MEDIA SYSTEM.” Information, Communication & Society16.5 (2013): 775–794. Web.2016. 69

Moeller, J., and C. de Vreese. “The Differential Role of the Media as an Agent of Political Socialization in Europe.” European Journal of Communication 28.3 (2013): 309–325.Web.2016.

Mylonas, Yiannis. “CRISIS, AUSTERITY AND OPPOSITION IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA DISCOURSES OF GREECE.” Critical Discourse Studies 11.3 (2014): 305– 321.Web.2016.

Newman, Isadore, and Carolyn R. Benz. Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the Interactive . N.p.: SIU Press, 1998. Print.

Newton, Kenneth. “May the Weak Force Be with You: The Power of the Mass Media in Modern Politics.” European Journal of Political Research 45.2 (2006): 209–234. Web.2016.

Nikolopoulos, Grigoris. “Ολα όσα θέλετε να μάθετε για την οικονομική κρίση [Everything about the economic Crisis].” To Vima (2009): n.pag. Web. 2016. http://www.tovima.gr/finance/finance-news/article/?aid=257482

Nilsson, Bo, and Eric Carlsson “Swedish Politicians and New Media: Democracy, Identity and Populism in a Digital Discourse.” New Media & Society 16.4 (2013): 655–671.Web.2016.

O’neill, Bonnie. “New Zealand politicians’ use of social media applications: A political social capital perspective.” 2010. Web. 27 May 2016.

O’Reilly, Tim. “What Is Web 2.0.” (2005): n.pag. Web. 27 May 2016.

Parkinson, Hannah Jane. “How Tsipras and Varoufakis Turned Greek Tragedy into Twitter Triumph.” The Guardian (2015): n.pag. Web. 27 May 2016. 70

Pempek, Tiffany A., Yevdokiya A. Yermolayeva, and Sandra L. Calvert. “College Students’ Social Networking Experiences on Facebook.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30.3 (2009): 227–238. Web.2016.

Pleios, G (2013). Τα ΜΜΕ απέναντι στην κρίση. [The media against the crisis]. In G. Pleios (Ed.), Η κρίση και τα ΜΜΕ [The crisis and the media] (pp. 87-134). Αθήνα: Παπαζήσης. Print.

Poell, T., and E. Borra. “Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr as Platforms of Alternative Journalism: The Social Media Account of the 2010 Toronto G20 Protests.” Journalism 13.6 (2011): 695–713. Web.2016.

Poell, Thomas & José van Dijck (2015). Social Media and Activist Communication. In The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Community Media, 527-537, edited by C. Atton. London: Routledge.

Poell, Thomas, and Kaouthar Darmoni. “Twitter as a Multilingual Space: The Articulation of the Tunisian Revolution Through #sidibouzid.” NECSUS. European Journal of Media Studies 1.1 (2012): 14–34. Web.2016.

Poell, Thomas, and Sudha Rajagopalan. “Connecting Activists and Journalists.” Journalism Studies 16.5 (2015): 719–733. Web.2016.

Poell, Thomas. “Social Media and the Transformation of Activist Communication: Exploring the Social Media Ecology of the 2010 Toronto G20 Protests.” Information, Communication & Society 17.6 (2013): 716–731. Web.2016.

71

Poell, Thomas. Rasha, Abdulla. Bernhard, Rieder. Robbert, Woltering & Liesbeth Zack. “Protest Leadership in the Age of Social Media.” Information, Communication & Society 19.7 (2015): 994–1014. Web.2016.

Rieder, B. Studying Facebook via data extraction: the Netvizz application. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference (2013): 346–355. ACM Press. Web. 2016.

Rogers, Richard. Digital Methods. United States: MIT Press, 2015. Print.

Sanders, Karen, and Karen S. Communicating Politics in the Twenty-First Century. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave/MacMillan, 2008. Print.

Saunders, Mark N. K., et al. Research Methods for Business Students (5th Edition). 5th ed. New York: Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2009. Print.

Schwartz, Sander Andreas. “Campaigning and Contestation: Comments on Politicians Facebook Pages During the 2011 Danish General Election Campaign.” Social Media + Society 1.2 (2015): n.pag. Web.2016.

Sidebar Monitor. “Monitor.” n.d. Web. 20 May 2016.

Sideris, Tasos. “Οταν έσκασε η ‘φούσκα’ των ΜΜΕ” [When the ‘bubble’ of mainstream media burst]. E. Kathimerini (2013): n.pag. Web. 7 June 2016.

Skovsgaard, Morten, and Arjen Van Dalen. “Dodging the gatekeepers?” Information, Communication & Society 16.5 (2013): 737–756. Web.2016.

Sormanen, Niina, and William H. Dutton. “The Role of Social Media in Societal Change: Cases in Finland of Fifth Estate Activity on Facebook.” Social Media + 72

Society 1.2 (2015): n.pag. Web.2016.

Stamati, Teta, Thanos Papadopoulos, and Dimosthenis Anagnostopoulos. “Social Media for Openness and Accountability in the Public Sector: Cases in the Greek Context.” Government Information Quarterly 32.1 (2015): 12–29. Web.2016.

Stieglitz, Stefan, and Linh Dang-Xuan. “Social Media and Political Communication: A Social Media Analytics Framework.” Social Network Analysis and Mining 3.4 (2012): 1277–1291. Web.2016.

Stieglitz, Stefan, Tobias Brockmann, and Linh Dang Xuan. “Usage of Social Media for Political Communication Recommended Citation.” Association for information systems AIS electronic library (AISeL) (2012): 22. Web. 7 Feb. 2016.

Vaccari, Cristian, Andrew Chadwick, and Ben O’Loughlin. “Dual Screening the Political: Media Events, Social Media, and Citizen Engagement.” Journal of Communication 65.6 (2015): 1041–1061. Web.2016.

Vaccari, Cristian. Augusto, Valeriani. Pablo, Barberá. Rich, Bonneau. John T., Jost. Jonathan, Nagler. Joshua A., Tucker. “Political Expression and Action on Social Media: Exploring the Relationship Between Lower- and Higher-Threshold Political Activities Among Twitter Users in Italy.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20.2 (2015): 221–239. Web.2016.

Vergeer, M., L. Hermans, and S. Sams. “Online Social Networks and Micro- Blogging in Political Campaigning: The Exploration of a New Campaign Tool and a New Campaign Style.” Party Politics 19.3 (2011): 477–501. Web. 2016. 73

Waters, Richard D., and Jensen M. Williams. “Squawking, Tweeting, Cooing, and Hooting: Analyzing the Communication Patterns of Government Agencies on Twitter.” Journal of Public Affairs 11.4 (2011): 353–363. Web. 2016.

Wihbey, John. “How does social media use influence political participation and civic engagement? A meta-analysis - journalist’s resource.” Citizen Action. Journalist’s Resource, 18 Oct. 2015. Web. 2016.

Yannis Theocharis, Will Lowe, Jan W. van Deth & Gema García-Albacete. “Using Twitter to Mobilize Protest Action: Online Mobilization Patterns and Action Repertoires in the Occupy Wall Street, Indignados, and Aganaktismenoi Movements.” Information, Communication & Society 18.2 (2014): 202–220. Web.2016.

74

NOTES

1 Political cynicism is related with the lack of trust to politicians and the political system in general (Marantzidis, 2016). 2 ELSTAT is the Hellenic Statistical Authority (ELSTAT, 2015) 3 The communist wing-party KKE do not permit its members to participate on social media (Danou, 2016). 4 In quantitative research the collected data are statistical (Creswell, 2006). 5 Monitor is an online search engine reports that records, in real-time, posts from Greek news sites, blogs, forums and Greek users of social media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram) (Sidebar Monitor, 2016) 6 Kallianos, Giannis. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 18 Mar. 2016. 7 Zahariadis, Costas. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 16 Mar. 2016. 8 Papadimoulis, Dimitrios. Phone interview with the author. Athens. 18 Mar. 2016. 9 Zahariadis, Costas. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 16 Mar. 2016. 10 Christidis, Pavlos. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 16 Mar. 2016. 11 Amiras, Giorgos. Phone interview with the author. Athens. 26 Mar. 2016. 12 Kyranakis, Konstantinos. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 25 Mar. 2016. 13 Kyranakis, Konstantinos. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 25 Mar. 2016. 14 New Democracy is the largest opposition political party in Greece. 15 Papadimoulis, Dimitrios. Phone interview with the author. Athens. 18 Mar. 2016. 16 Kirtsos, George. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 20 Mar. 2016. 17 Kirtsos, George. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 20 Mar. 2016. 18 Kirtsos, George. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 20 Mar. 2016. 19 Kirtsos, George. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 20 Mar. 2016. 20 Kallianos, Giannis. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 18 Mar. 2016. 21 Papadimoulis, Dimitrios. Phone interview with the author. Athens. 18 Mar. 2016. 22 Kyranakis, Konstantinos. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 25 Mar. 2016. 23 Zahariadis, Costas. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 16 Mar. 2016. 24 Amiras, Giorgos. Phone interview with the author. Athens. 26 Mar. 2016. 25 Christidis, Pavlos. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 16 Mar. 2016. 75

26 Monitor is an online search engine reports that records, in real-time, posts from Greek news sites, blogs, forums and Greek users of social media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram) (Sidebar Monitor, 2016) 27 ELSTAT is the Hellenic Statistical Authority (ELSTAT, 2015) 28 Two of the interviewees, the politician Kallianos and the journalist Vasilopoulos consider the population under 44 years old as the young generation. 29 Kirtsos, George. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 20 Mar. 2016. 30 Zahariadis, Costas. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 16 Mar. 2016. 31 Kyranakis, Konstantinos. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 25 Mar. 2016. 32 Kirtsos, George. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 20 Mar. 2016. 33 Terzis, Giorgos. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 24 Mar. 2016 34 Eleftheriadis, Manolis. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 11 Mar. 2016. 35 Voutsina, Avgi. Phone interview with the author. Athens. 14 Mar. 2016. 36 Katsimiga, Natalia. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 12 Mar. 2016. 37 Derveniotis, Spiros. Phone interview with the author. Athens. 23 Mar. 2016. 38 Eleftheriadis, Manolis. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 11 Mar. 2016. 39 Labiki, Sofia. Phone interview with the author. Athens. 25 Mar. 2016. 40 Eleftheriadis, Manolis. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 11 Mar. 2016. 41 Kakanis, Ioannis. Phone interview with the author. Athens. 23 Mar. 2016. 42 Voutsina, Avgi. Phone interview with the author. Athens. 14 Mar. 2016. 43 Kostopoulou, Mina. Phone interview with the author. Athens, 11 Mar. 2016. 44 Dilo, Ellie. Phone interview with the author. Athens. 11 Mar. 2016. 45 Dilo, Ellie. Phone interview with the author. Athens. 11 Mar. 2016. 46 Kostopoulou, Mina. Phone interview with the author. Athens, 11 Mar. 2016. 47 Kavakas, Giannis. Face to face interview with the author. Athens, 19 Mar. 2016. 48 Stefanopoulos, Sotiris. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 14 Mar. 2016. 49 Kirtsos, Georgos. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 20 Mar. 2016. 50 Stefanopoulos, Sotiris. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 14 Mar. 2016. 51 Stefanopoulos, Sotiris. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 14 Mar. 2016. 52 Serafim, Silas. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 13 Mar. 2016. 53 Stefanopoulos, Sotiris. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 14 Mar. 2016. 76

54 Stefanopoulos, Sotiris. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 14 Mar. 2016. 55 Arvanitis, Kostas. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 16 Mar. 2016. 56 Stefanopoulos, Sotiris. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 14 Mar. 2016. 57 Terzis, Giorgos. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 24 Mar. 2016. 58 Terzis, Giorgos. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 24 Mar. 2016. 59 Vasilopoulos, Vasilis. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 15 Mar. 2016. 60 Mitropoulou, Marianna. Phone interview with the author. Athens. 15 Mar. 2016. 61 Vasilopoulos, Vasilis. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 15 Mar. 2016. 62 Terzis, Giorgos. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 24 Mar. 2016. 63 Terzis, Giorgos. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 24 Mar. 2016. 64 Stefanopoulos, Sotiris. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 14 Mar. 2016. 65 Stefanopoulos, Sotiris. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 14 Mar. 2016. 66 Stefanopoulos, Sotiris. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 14 Mar. 2016. 67 Stefanopoulos, Sotiris. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 14 Mar. 2016. 68 Stefanopoulos, Sotiris. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 14 Mar. 2016. 69 Stefanopoulos, Sotiris. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 14 Mar. 2016. 70 Terzis, Giorgos. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 24 Mar. 2016. 71 Vasilopoulos, Vasilis. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 15 Mar. 2016. 72 Vasilopoulos, Vasilis. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 15 Mar. 2016. 73 Mitropoulou, Marianna. Phone interview with the author. Athens. 15 Mar. 2016. 74 Arvanitis, Kostas. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 16 Mar. 2016. 75 Vasilopoulos, Vasilis. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 15 Mar. 2016. 76 Vasilopoulos, Vasilis. Face to face interview with the author. Athens. 15 Mar. 2016.

77

Appendix 1 Sample of interviews

QUESTIONS ADRESSED TO POLITICIANS

GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. Πόσες πλατφόρμες χρησιμοποιείτε; Διαχειρίζεστε μόνος σας τον λογαριασμό σας;/How many accounts in social media you have? Are you personally managing these accounts? 2. Γιατί χρησιμοποιείτε τα social media; θεωρείτε ότι μία ενεργή δραστηριότητα στα social media συμβάλει στη δημοτικότητα ενός πολιτικού;/For what reason you use social media? 3. Έχετε ιδιαίτερη προτίμηση και αν ναι σε ποια και γιατί;/Do you prefer a specific social media platform and for what reason? 4. Υπάρχει κάποια συγκεκριμένη λειτουργία κάποιας πλατφόρμας που σας αρέσει περισσότερο (πχ. το following ή το friending); /Is there any specific function of social media you like most (e.g. “following or “friending”)? 5. Από πότε χρησιμοποιείτε τα social media; Γίνατε πιο ενεργός στην περίοδο της κρίσης;/When did you start using social media? Did you become more active after the outbreak of the economic crisis? 6. Ακολουθείτε άλλους users; Ποιους και αν ναι γιατί;/ Do you follow other users? Who you follow and for what reason? 7. Αν έδινες έναν χαρακτηρισμό για τα social media ποιος θα ήταν;/Give a label that in your opinion characterizes social media.

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

8. Τι περιεχόμενο έχουν συνήθως οι αναρτήσεις σας;/What is usually the content of your posts? 9. Καθορίζετε τη συχνότητα που χρησιμοποιείς τα social media ή προκύπτει;/Do you determine the frequency of the use of social media platforms or it depends on specific occasions? 10. Όταν έχετε να επικοινωνήσετε κάτι σημαντικό/ενδιαφέρον χρησιμοποιείτε πρώτα το fb, το twitter, το YouTube ή τα μέσα μαζικής 78

ενημέρωσης (τηλεόραση, ραδιόφωνο);/ When you want to communicate something important/interesting, do you first use fb, twitter, YouTube or mass media (TV, radio)? 11. Δέχεστε κριτική στα social media και αν ναι από ποιους;/Are you being criticized through social media? Who criticizes you? 12. Διαβάζετε τα σχόλια που σας κάνουν στα social media και αν ναι απαντάτε; Τι ρόλο παίζουν αυτά τα σχόλια; Απαντάτε στα σχόλια;/ Do you read the comments you receive and if so, do you respond? What in your opinion is the role of comments? 13. Θεωρείτε ότι η αλληλεπίδραση των users με τους πολιτικούς επηρεάζεται αποκλειστικά από το περιεχόμενο της εκάστοτε συζήτησης ή και από τη δομή της πλατφόρμας που χρησιμοποιείται στην κάθε περίπτωση;/ How the technological architecture of social media platforms shape how people use them and how the interaction takes place? 14. Πως επικοινωνείτε με τους χρήστες (πολιτικούς, δημοσιογράφους και απλούς χρήστες) στα social media? Πόσα retweet/post κάνετε? /What method do you use when communicating with followers? How often do you reply to comments or retweet? 15. Η επικοινωνία μεταξύ πολιτικών και πολιτών θεωρείται οριακή. Συχνά μάλιστα ενθαρρύνει διαπληκτισμούς και χυδαία φρασεολογία παρά βαθύτερη δημοκρατική συζήτηση. Ποια είναι η γνώμη σας πάνω σε αυτό. / The communication between politicians and citizens is considered to be quite marginal, often results in insulting language and does not encourage a deeper democratic debate. What is your opinion about that? 16. Oι πολλές ευκαιρίες για διαμόρφωση, αλλαγή και επιρροή της πολιτικής ταυτότητας στο Διαδίκτυο θα μπορούσε να οδηγήσει σε ευτελισμό της πολιτικής./ The opportunities to shape, change and influence political identities on the Internet could lead to a trivialization of politics. Is that true? 17. Θεωρείται πως ο κόσμος επηρεάζεται περισσότερο από τα social media από ότι από τα υπόλοιπα μέσα μαζική ς επικοινωνίας;/Do you think that people are affected more by social media than mainstream media? 18. Υπάρχει σωστός και λάθος χειρισμός των social media σε περίοδο κρίσης;/Is there a wrong and a right way to use social media in a period of crisis? 79

19. Η εντατικοποίηση της χρήσης των social media από τους απλούς users και τους επαγγελματίες πολιτικούς/δημοσιογράφους σχετίζεται με την κρίση;/Do you think the intensification of use of social media by citizens, politicians and journalists is related to the crisis? 20. Για ποιο θέμα κάνετε πιο συχνά αναρτήσεις και γιατί;/What is the most popular topic you used to post on social media and why?

80

QUESTIONS ADRESSED TO CITIZENS

GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. Πόσες πλατφόρμες χρησιμοποιείς;/ How many accounts in social media you have? 2. Έχεις ιδιαίτερη προτίμηση και αν ναι σε ποια και γιατί;/ Do you prefer a specific social media platform and for what reason? 3. Γιατί χρησιμοποιείς τα social media;/ For what reason you use social media? 4. Υπάρχει κάποια συγκεκριμένη λειτουργία κάποιας πλατφόρμας που σου αρέσει περισσότερο (πχ. το following ή το friending)και πως τη χρησιμοποιείτε;/ Is there any specific function of social media you like most (e.g. “following or “friending”)? 5. Ακολουθείτε άλλους users; Ποιους και γιατί;/ Do you follow other users? Who you follow and for what reason? 6. Πως αλληλεπιδράτε με τους υπόλοιπους χρήστες (πολιτικούς, δημοσιογράφους και απλούς χρήστες) στα social media?/ In what way you interact with other users (politicians, journalists. citizens)? 7. Από πότε τα χρησιμοποιείς; Έγινες πιο ενεργός στην περίοδο της κρίσης;/ When you started use social media? You became more active after the outbreak of the economic crisis? 8. Tι περιεχόμενο έχουν οι αναρτήσεις σου στα social media;/ What is the content of your posts usually? 9. Αν έδινες έναν χαρακτηρισμό για τα social media ποιος θα ήταν;/ Give a label that in your opinion characterizes social media.

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

10. Ακολουθείς πολιτικούς στα social media και αν ναι γιατί;/ Do you follow politicians on social media? Why? 11. Όταν ένας πολιτικός λέει κάτι σημαντικό το μαθαίνεις πρώτα από το Facebook, το Twitter, το YouTube ή τα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης;/ When a politician announce something important you learn it form Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or the mainstream media? 12. Τι συναισθήματα προκαλούν οι αναρτήσεις των πολιτικών;/ What feelings the politicians’ post create? 81

13. Παίρνετε θέση/απαντάτε στις αναρτήσεις των πολικών και σε πολιτικές συζητήσεις στα social media;/ Are you taking sides in politicians’ posts or in political debates on social media? 14. Οι πολιτικοί απαντούν στα σχόλια του κόσμου στα social media;/ Do politicians reply your comments? 15. Η επικοινωνία μεταξύ πολιτικών και πολιτών θεωρείται οριακή. Συχνά μάλιστα ενθαρρύνει διαπληκτισμούς και χυδαία φρασεολογία παρά βαθύτερη δημοκρατική συζήτηση. Ποια είναι η γνώμη σας πάνω σε αυτό./ The communication between politicians and citizens is considered to be quite marginal, often results in ‘bad’ language and does not encourage a deeper democratic debate. What is your opinion about that? 16. Θεωρείτε ότι η αλληλεπίδραση των users με τους πολιτικούς επηρεάζεται αποκλειστικά από το περιεχόμενο της εκάστοτε συζήτησης ή και από τη δομή της πλατφόρμας που χρησιμοποιείται στην κάθε περίπτωση;/ How the technological architecture of social media platforms shape how people use them and how the interaction takes place? 17. Θεωρείς πως χρησιμοποιούνται σωστά από τους πολιτικούς;/ Do you think that politicians use social media platforms properly? 18. Γιατί νομίζεις πως οι πολιτικοί χρησιμοποιούν τα social media;/ In your opinion, why politicians use social media?/Θεωρείτε πως οι πολιτικοί χρησιμοποιούν τα social media για την αυτοπροβολή τους ή και για άλλους λόγους; 19. Σας επηρεάζουν οι αναρτήσεις των πολιτικών; Θετικά ή αρνητικά;/ Do politicians’ posts influence you? Positively or negatively? 20. Εμπιστεύεστε περισσότερο τα social media ή τα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης για πολιτικά θέματα;/ What do you trust more for political issues? Social media or mainstream media?

82

QUESTIONS ADRESSED TO JOURNALISTS

GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. Πόσες πλατφόρμες χρησιμοποιείτε;/ How many accounts in social media you have? 2. Για ποιον λόγο χρησιμοποιείς τα social media;/ For what reason you use social media? 3. Έχετε ιδιαίτερη προτίμηση σε κάποια πλατφόρμα και αν ναι σε ποια και γιατί;/ Do you prefer a specific social media platform and for what reason? 4. Υπάρχει κάποια συγκεκριμένη λειτουργία κάποιας πλατφόρμας που σας αρέσει περισσότερο (πχ. το following ή το friending);/ Is there any specific function of social media you like most (e.g. “following or “friending”)? 5. Από πότε τα χρησιμοποιείς; Έγινες πιο ενεργός στην περίοδο της κρίσης;/ When you started use social media? You became more active after the outbreak of the economic crisis? 6. Ποια θεωρείς πως είναι η πιο λειτουργική πλατφόρμα για την πολιτική;/ What social media platform is the most functional for political issues? 7. Αν έδινες έναν χαρακτηρισμό για τα social media ποιος θα ήταν;/ Give a label that in your opinion characterizes social media. 8. Θεωρείτε ότι η αλληλεπίδραση των users με τους πολιτικούς επηρεάζεται από το περιεχόμενο της εκάστοτε συζήτησης ή και από τη δομή της πλατφόρμας που χρησιμοποιείται στην κάθε περίπτωση;/ Do you believe that the content of each discussion or the layout of social media influence the interaction of users with politicians?

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

9. Ποιος πρέπει να είναι ο ρόλος του δημοσιογράφου στα social media;/ What is the main role of a journalist on social media? 10. Τι στάση κρατάτε εσείς ως δημοσιογράφος;/ How you are seating between politicians and users? 11. Έχει αλλάξει τον τρόπο που διαχειρίζεστε την πληροφορία εξαιτίας των social media;/Does the way you deal with information change because of social media? 83

12. Oι δημοσιογράφοι εύκολα αναπαράγουν πολιτικά tweets, που συχνά εστιάζουν σε αρνητικότητα, συγκρούσεις και τα σκάνδαλα. Ποια είναι η θέση σας πάνω σε αυτό και για ποιο λόγο γίνεται; / Journalists produce news about political tweets, they are often doing so by focusing on negativity, conflicts and scandals. What is your opinion about that and how would you justify this fact? 13. Πιστεύετε ότι η οικονομική κρίση έπαιξε ρόλο στη χρήση των social media από πολιτικούς αλλά και users;/Do you think that economic crisis played a key role concerning the use of social media? 14. Θεωρείτε πως η εικόνα των πολιτικών μέσα στα social media είναι αντιπροσωπευτική της πραγματικότητας;/ What you are getting through social media from and about politicians? 15. Γιατί πιστεύετε ότι οι Έλληνες πολιτικοί χρησιμοποιούν τα social media;/ For what reason Greek politicians use social media? 16. Θεωρείτε πως οι πολιτικοί χρησιμοποιούν τα social media για την αυτοπροβολή τους ή και για άλλους λόγους;/ For what reason Greek politicians use social media? 17. Η επικοινωνία μεταξύ πολιτικών και πολιτών θεωρείται οριακή. Συχνά μάλιστα ενθαρρύνει διαπληκτισμούς και χυδαία φρασεολογία παρά βαθύτερη δημοκρατική συζήτηση. Ποια είναι η γνώμη σας πάνω σε αυτό. / The communication between politicians and citizens is considered to be quite marginal, often results in ‘bad’ language and does not encourage a deeper democratic debate. What is your opinion about that? 18. Θεωρείτε πως υπάρχει σωστός και λάθος χειρισμός των social media σε περίοδο κρίσης;/ Is there wrong and correct way to use social media when the crisis is a occurring? 19. Ποια συζήτηση/ανάρτηση στα social media από πολιτικό το τελευταίο διάστημα σας έκανε εντύπωση;/ What post on social media from a politician surprised you recently? 20. Ποιος είναι ο ρόλος των social media στην περίοδο της κρίσης;/ What is the role of social media during economic crisis?