Populist communication by digital means: presidential Twitter in Latin America

References

• Aalberg, T., Esser, F., Reinemann, C., Strömback, J., & de Vreese, C. H. (Eds.). (2017). Populist political communication in Europe. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Adam, S., & Maier, M. (2010). Personalization of politics. A critical review and agenda for research. Communication Yearbook, 34(1), 213–257.
   Google Scholar
• Adi, A., Erickson, K., & Lilleker, D. G. (2014). Elite Tweets: Analyzing the Twitter communication patterns of Labour Party peers in the House of Lords. Policy & Internet, 6(1), 1–27. doi: 10.1002/1944-2866.POI350
   Google Scholar
• Aharony, N. (2012). Twitter use by three political leaders: An exploratory analysis. Online Information Review, 36(4), 587–603. doi: 10.1108/14684521211254086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amado, A. (2016). Política pop: De líderes populistas a telepresidentes. Buenos Aires: Ariel.
   Google Scholar
• Arias, D., & Guerrero, E. (2016). La batalla en 140 caracteres. Fundamedios. Quito, Ecuador: Fundamedios. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1TWBxUV
   Google Scholar
• Arnson, C., & De la Torre, C. (Eds.). (2013). Latin American populism in the XXI century. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Press and John Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Balmas, M., & Sheafer, T. (2016). Personalization of politics. The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, 34, 1–9. doi: 10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc021
   Google Scholar
• Becerra, M. (2015). De la concentración a la convergencia: Políticas de medios en Argentina y América Latina. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
   Google Scholar
• Botero, C. (2011). Annual report of the special rapporteur for freedom of expression, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Washington: Organization of American States. Retrieved from http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/reports/annual.asp
   Google Scholar
• Botero, C. (2013). Annual report of the special rapporteur for freedom of expression, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Washington: Organization of American States. Retrieved from http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/reports/annual.asp
   Google Scholar
• Britto García, L. (1989). El Poder sin la Máscara. Caracas: Alfadil.
   Google Scholar
• Burson Marsteller. (2015). Twiplomacy study 2015. Retrieved from http://twiplomacy.com/blog/twiplomacy-study-2015/
   Google Scholar
• Camaj, L., & Santana, A. D. (2015). Political deliberation on Facebook during electoral campaigns: Exploring the relevance of moderator’s technical role and political ideology. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(4), 325–341. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2015.1100224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162. doi: 10.1080/10584600590933160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, R., Bacha, C. H., & Just, M. R. (Eds.). (2017). Twitter and elections around the world: Campaigning in 140 characters or less. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• De Ipola, E. (1982). Ideología y discurso populista. Buenos Aires: Folios.
   Google Scholar
• De la Torre, C. (2017, January–February). Los populismos refundadores: Promesas democratizadoras, prácticas autoritarias. Nueva Sociedad. Retrieved from http://nuso.org/articulo/los-populismos-refundadores/
   Google Scholar
• De la Torre, C., & Peruzzotti, E. (2008). El retorno del pueblo populismo y nuevas democracias en América Latina. Quito: FLACSO Ecuador.
   Google Scholar
• Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centered politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 757–774. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.782330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedom House. (2016). Freedom on the Net. New York, NY: Freedom House. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2ey4aiG
   Google Scholar
• Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & van’t Haar, G. (2013). Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters: The use of Twitter during the 2010 UK general election campaign. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 692–716. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.785581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, T., Jackson, D., & Broersma, M. (2016). New platform, old habits? Candidates’ use of Twitter during the 2010 British and Dutch general election campaigns. New Media & Society, 18(5), 765–783. doi: 10.1177/1461444814546728
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, W. J., Moon, B., & Grant, J. B. (2010). Digital dialogue? Australian politicians’ use of the social network tool Twitter. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 579–604. doi: 10.1080/10361146.2010.517176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guerrero, M., & Marquez-Ramirez, M. (Eds.). (2014). Media systems and communication policies in Latin America. New York: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Jagers, J., & Walgrave, S. (2007). Populism as political communication style: An empirical study of political parties’ discourse in Belgium. European Journal of Political Research, 46(3), 319–345. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00690.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jungherr, A. (2016). Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(1), 72–91. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2015.1132401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitzberger, P. (2009). Las relaciones gobierno-prensa y el giro político en América Latina. Posdata, 14, 157–181.
   Google Scholar
• Kitzberger, P. (2010). Giro a la izquierda, populismo y activismo gubernamental en la esfera pública mediática en América Latina. In B. Sorj (Ed.), Poder político y medios de comunicacion (pp. 61–69). Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.
   Google Scholar
• Kruikemeier, S. (2014, May). How political candidates use Twitter and the impact on votes. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 131–139. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2012). Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society, 14(5), 729–747. doi: 10.1177/1461444811422894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latinobarómetro. (2016). Informe 2016. Santiago de Chile. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1lUWoa2
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, B. A., & Veenstra, A. S. (2016). How (not) to talk on Twitter: Effects of politicians’ Tweets on perceptions of the Twitter environment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(1), 8–15. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0319
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moffit, B. (2016). The global rise of populism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 542–563. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mudde, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2013). Exclusionary vs. Inclusionary populism: Comparing contemporary Europe and Latin America. Government and Opposition, 48(2), 147–174. doi: 10.1017/gov.2012.11
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organization of American States. (2015). Annual report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 2015: Annual report of the office of the special rapporteur for freedom of expression. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2gSea7c
   Google Scholar
• Panizza, F. (Ed.). (2005). Populism and the mirror of democracy. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Ponce, M., & Rincón, O. (Eds.). (2013). Caudillismo, e-política y teledemocracia: Comunicación de Gobierno en América Latina. Montevideo: Fin de siglo, Universidad Católica del Uruguay.
   Google Scholar
• Ramos, I. (2013). Trayectorias de democratización y desdemocratización de la comunicación en Ecuador. Íconos – Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 0(46), 67–82. doi: 10.17141/iconos.46.2013.133
   Google Scholar
• Santana, A. D. (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18–33. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2013.813194
   Google Scholar
• Small, T. A. (2011). What the hashtag? A content analysis of Canadian politics on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 14(6), 872–895. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2011.554572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart, J., Mazzoleni, G., & Horsfield, B. (2003). Conclusion. Power to the media managers. In G. Mazzoleni, J. Stewart, & B. Horsfield (Eds.), The media and neo-populism: A contemporary comparative analysis (pp. 217–236). Westport: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Theocharis, Y., Barberá, P., Fazekas, Z., Popa, S. A., & Parnet, O. (2016). A bad workman blames his Tweets: The consequences of citizens’ uncivil Twitter use when interacting with party candidates. Journal of Communication, 66(6), 1007–1031. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Aelst, P., Sheafer, T., & Stanyer, J. (2012). The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 203–220. doi: 10.1177/1464884911427802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vergeer, M. (2015). Twitter and political campaigning. Sociology Compass, 9(9), 745–760. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waisbord, S., & Amado, A. (2014). Periodismo partido al medio. In A. Amado (Ed.), La comunicación pública como espectáculo (pp. 211–285). Buenos Aires: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.
   Google Scholar
• Waisbord, S. (2013). Vox populista. Buenos Aires: Gedisa.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, C. B., & Gulati, G. J. (2013). Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the congressional elections of 2006 and 2008. New Media & Society, 15(1), 52–71. doi: 10.1177/1461444812457332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanatta, L. (2014). El populismo. Madrid: Katz Editores.
   Google Scholar