The Bridge between Public Relations and the World of Politics

Sonia Falcon

Luckacovic

Intro to PR 2330-010

8 November 2021
 In the year of 2020, many young adults were able to be practice civil engagement for the

first time in their lives. They were able to participate in not only local elections but the

presidential election. Many young adults were eager to place their votes but, the question many

had for these young voters was “how have you been following these candidates?” For myself

personally, I was able to track these candidates through many news sources and articles because I

was in speech and debate, and it was necessary I knew as much information as possible. For

others, their news was solely from social media. This creates a knowledge gap between young

adults who were receiving their news via news outlets on television or news articles, and social

media outlets. This knowledge gap not only affects young people but also older generations who

stop furthering their political knowledge. Through this gap, biases are also made that should not

even exist but sadly, they do. These biases are the basis of Diffusion of Innovation Theory and

how it is observed in our world today. Alongside this theory, it is clear to see the Two-Step flow

theory also in effect due to the bias and knowledge gap. In “Introduction to Public Relations” by

Janis Teruggi Page and Lawrence J. Parnell these two theories are explained as essential pieces

to public relations and politics. Diffusion of Innovation theory as a sequential process with the

public to allow the public to adopt the idea (Page & Parnell, n.d.). Everett Rodgers, the creator of

this theory, explains that there is a six-step process: awareness, knowledge, evaluation, trial,

adoption, and reinforcement. Through these steps, “research shows that a public’s response to a

certain persuasive appeal that calls for behavior change depends on where it lies in the diffusion

process” (Page & Parnell, n.d.). Through the same text, Paige and Parnell define the Two-Step

flow, created by Paul Larzarsfield and Elihu Katz, theory, where the media can also influence

key spokespeople, experts, and leaders (Page & Parnell, n.d.), who in return influence certain

public groups or individuals. These “opinion leaders” take the mass media message and then
pass on the content to others through their personal perception regarding the topic (Page &

Parnell, n.d.). Both theories are evident when breaking down the way public relations affects the

political realm. Today, I will explain how social media hurts the world of politics by discussing

how the agenda setting hypothesis is at work during this process. Then, further provide

information as to why the Diffusion of Innovation is the foundation as to the way social media

makes an impact on political matters. Lastly, I will put these two theories together and go into

detail through research and examples from the research.

How Social Media Causes Disruption to Politics: The Agenda-Setting Theory

Understanding the basics of the Agenda Setting Theory allows anyone to begin to make

connections and comparisons between Public Relations and Politics that has been right in front

of them this whole time. Larzarsfield and Katz’s theory also allows research and studies to take

place to highlight the constant presence of their theory. Agenda Setting plays the villain role

when breaking down the research. For instance, in Rethinking Political Communication in a

Time of Disrupted Public Spheres by W. Lance Bennett and Barbra Pfetsch, the authors explain

how political communication and other like areas are inside a playbook that is centered around

the way “social conditions define audiences, the communication processes that send messages to

them, and the effect of these processes” (Bennett & Pfetsch 2018). This is the most upfront way

to describe agenda setting being at play. With there being “disruption” in politics due to social

media the traditional means of communication have been lost and there is a rare ability to have

traditional communication today. This creates biases to be made behind a screen rather than

having a face-to-face discussion and knowing how to properly disagree with another individual.

Another non-proactive finding is that there are many outlets an individual has access to via social

media. As described within the article, this leads to the framing of a Tweet or Facebook post to
be easily misconstrued by the reader due to the lack of factual evidence or verified sources. This

is where the disruptions begin within political spheres. Exposure to Political Disagreement in

Social Media Versus Face-to-Face and Anonymous Online Settings by Matthew Barnidge and

Reluctance to Talk About Politics in Face-to Face- and Facebook Settings: Examining the

impact of Fear of isolation, Willingness to Self-Censor, and Peer Network Characteristics by

Michael Chan both highlight this disruption to a tee. Both journals investigate and study the very

act of Agenda Setting occurring in the online world of political posts and commentary. Through

these social platforms, users can quickly access headlines but fail to further understand the article

past the headline and one sentence summaries of an event or situation. Michael Chan focuses on

the way people become unwilling to share or express their political self-face-to-face but rather on

social media. The “negative indirect effect” (Chan.) that is flooding the United States is that all

age groups create a strong opinion via Facebook or Twitter but fail to continue this opinion in a

real-life conversation. This confidence strips many of basic communication skills to fight for

what they believe or stand for in a healthy way. Whereas Matthew Barnidge references this same

concept, but also highlights the new enemy we are faced with in online settings. Anonymity. A

user may not feel confidence in sharing a political post or news article but gains this confidence

through an anonymous persona. Through both examinations, Agenda Setting is evident because

the media begins to gain the power of users determining which stories to make prominent. Thus,

influencing what the public should think about and share.

Diffusion of Innovation: Foundation to How social media Affects Politics

Introduction to Public Relations by Janis Teruggi Page and Lawrence J. Parnell define

Diffusion of Innovations theory as a process that an individual experiences when navigating

online spaces such as the online political world. Derek Anderson, author of U.S. High School
Students’ Social Media Use and Their Political Socialization, conducted a study to further

analyze both the positive and negative consequences from young adults using social media as a

new source. Through his findings, he was able to calculate the following: 26.5% of students

consume the news through social media, 23.2% through National Television, 22.3% from local

tv news and 16.5% from online publications (Anderson.). 70% of students reported that they

spend more than an hour viewing the news per week and 43% spend less than an hour

(Anderson). This is significant because the statistics come from 2008, when social media was

barely beginning to conquer our spaces and it is an eye-opening moment for citizens. It was

made clear that our education system is failing to encourage traditional means of news. In Social

Media and the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election by Dr. Emily Metzgar and Albert Maruggi,

explain how adults become so consumed with social media, that it becomes their one source of

news because they do not understand the true value of traditional media sources. If a student

posts their political perspective on social media, the odds of their “followers” having a thought

that opposes their statement are very low. When a social media platform places an advertisement

for a political figure, it is likely that the interactions made with the post are from those who agree

or support the politics or other idea behind the post. This very concept is what Anderson, Dr.

Metzgar, and Maruggi’s research and the Diffusion of Innovation theory reference. Diffusion of

Innovation isn’t all negative when it comes to the presence it holds within politics. The media

may be the one place young people receive their news but, at least they are informed in the

slightest way. Social media allows expression to flourish and exist through other means than

protests, marches, letters sent to Government officials, and other traditional ways of political

expression. In Social Media Expression and the Political Self by Daniel S. Lane, Slgi S. Lee, Fan

Liang, Dam Hee Kim, Liwei Shen, Brian E. Weeks, and Nojin Kwak, discusses the way a person
is first able to view their own “political self”. The journal argues that the dynamics of political

expression on social media influences not only political behavior, but also a citizen’s

fundamental political self-concept (Lane and Others). The authors also explain how social media

platforms place excitement within induvials to politically engage. This excitement steams from

what is described as a valued social goal. This goal is what makes the excitement look more like

a “persona” rather than an actual benefit to a person. The goal is described as an individual

wanting to look politically active on social media to follow the majority rather than becoming the

minority.

Diffusion of Innovation and Agenda Setting: At work with Social Media Politics

With knowing the basics to both Agenda Setting and Diffusion of Innovation theory,

there is more than just the foundation of pros and cons when these theories mix with social

media and politics. In Can Social Media Incivility Induce Enthusiasm: Evidence from Survey

Experiments by Spyros Kosmidis and Yannis Theocharis, the authors explain how Agenda

Setting and DOI may cause harm. Although there is a chance of harm, there is also a list of

positives. The first being enthusiasm rising among citizens. This enthusiasm can be seen when a

social media platform’s users begin to share more content that relates to their own personal

opinions. Although this may sound like an easy route to create bias, it allows the user to feel

included in the conversation on the platform. They can engage with the post and feel a sense of

comfort when participating through engagement (Kosmidis and Theocharis). This also leads the

user to see others engagement and use their information as a search tool when going to “fact

check” whatever has been said. This process leads users to having a desire to be correct and learn

more which will cause even more in the online engagement in conversations. In Public Sphere

Participation Online: The Ambiguities of Affect by Peter Dahlgren, the author also highlights the
fact that although social media platforms may amplify Agenda Setting and the DOI theories, it

leads users to harness their emotions and feelings towards navigating the political space they

have created for themselves online. Dahlgren further explains the way social media is embedded

in our day to day lives and how it will only continue to grow more and more within our daily

routines. Therefore, making it known that journalists, politicians, and all other political related

figures must remain ethical in what they publish into the online world because of the impact it

continues to make. Friendships and alliances are also an area of growth the author has been able

to track over the years. When online users agree with one another, no matter if their opinion is

the majority or the minority, they create a safe space for one another to express their true

political selves. Overall, these two articles express how excitement can be formed when

discovering your political self, no matter the platform

Applications and Implications

After extensive research through the mentioned journals, it’s clear to see that Agenda

Setting and the Diffusion of Innovation theories cause disruption but also excitement for many.

With that being said, there are many things that be done in order to boost the positives and push

out the negatives. First, by knowing what to do with the presented information. As a young

citizen in this country, it now becomes my responsibility to learn when I see either of these

theories at work. To not only educate others on how social media can be a tool when forming

their political selves, but also teaching them on how to spot a media bias when seen. Young

people benefit from social media platforms posting current events that are politically driven but,

can also cause disruption if they fail to do their own personal research. Traditional and new

media platforms are all accessible to most and are what citizens need to be reminded of from

time to time. One major change that could be made is that journalists, the press, and any other
individuals that report the news are held liable for the information that is put in a Facebook post

or a Tweet. The media needs to take more time and consideration before making all posts. I

understand this is something that has been progressing over the years but, at times the media falls

ten steps back when a post is fact checked and is proven to be fabricated or false. Lastly, one

major key that all the mentioned journals fail to address is, what our future will look like for both

social media and politics. These are both fields that have drastically changed in just the past three

years alone. The advancement of these two areas has led to major growth. With that growth

comes more responsibility and new threats. It is up to the reader or app user to stay

knowledgeable about these theories, framing, and basic knowledge about what is happening in

the world around them.

Conclusion

In summary, it’s crucial that we upkeep our political knowledge by not just using social

media alone to tell us what is important but, to also read traditional news media to decide for

ourselves what is important. I first addressed the way social media causes harm to the world of

politics through the agenda setting theory. Then, used the Diffusion of Innovation theory to

further explain the disruption social media causes for individuals and their political self. And

lastly, provided benefits to having social media as an option for political knowledge by

explaining how both theories lead to excitement and engagement for many. The world of politics

is forever changing and reshaping but, there is much that can be done with this change. The

change will continue to allow the Greta Thunberg’s of the world find their voices and begin the

change they want to see happen in the world. Gaining 100% credibility may not happen for

social media today or tomorrow but, it is not impossible.

Anderson, D. (2020). U.S. High School Students’ Social Media Use and Their Political

Socialization. Communication Today, 11(2), 166–175.

Barnidge, M. (2017). Exposure to Political Disagreement in social media Versus Face-to-Face

and Anonymous Online Settings. Political Communication, 34(2), 302–321.

Bennett, W. L., & Pfetsch, B. (2018). Rethinking Political Communication in a Time of

Chan, M. (2018). Reluctance to Talk About Politics in Face-to-Face and Facebook Settings:

Examining the Impact of Fear of Isolation, Willingness to Self-Censor, and Peer Network

Characteristics. Mass Communication & Society, 21(1), 1–23.

Dahlgren, P. (2018). Public Sphere Participation Online: The Ambiguities of Affect.

Kosmidis, S., & Theocharis, Y. (2020). Can Social Media Incivility Induce Enthusiasm?

Evidence from Survey Experiments. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84, 284–308.

Lane, D. S., Lee, S. S., Liang, F., Kim, D. H., Shen, L., Weeks, B. E., & Kwak, N. (2019). Social

Metzgar, E., & Maruggi, A. (2009). Social Media and the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election.

Journal of New Communications Research, 4(1), 141–165.