Conflict is in many ways the essence of politics. So it is unsurprising that when trying to stand out in a media environment characterised by an abundance of information, politicians frequently use ‘conflict frames’. Social media provides politicians with the opportunity to circumvent journalists, communicating directly with voters, but it also functions as an extension of, and gateway to, traditional media. Politicians often use social media to help secure their presence in traditional media outlets. And since the media frequently has a preference for reporting on conflict and disagreement, it can often seem like it’s all conflict all the time.

More about the issues

Van der Goot: ‘American politics frequently dominates news coverage, even in other countries, and even a cursory glance at the state of US politics and its media’s political coverage suggests that harsh, ad hominem political conflict has never been more prevalent. But is that the case everywhere? In America the conflict comes down to essentially two people, but in the Netherlands, for example, with our proliferation of political parties, conflict can be more about differentiating oneself on the issues, and less about attacking other individuals directly.’

Nevertheless, the notoriously rough and tumble world of social media also plays a growing role in Dutch politics. For example, it is increasingly common for Dutch politicians to keep their smartphones at hand during parliamentary debates. This enables them to swiftly go online to discredit their opponents’ arguments, reach out to their supporters or attract the attention of the media. And they often do this by using conflict.

Substance is the key

But although conflict may be inherent in politics, not all conflicts are created equal. Van der Goot suggests the type of conflict is the most important consideration, with some having more detrimental effects than others. Van der Goot: ‘The substance of the conflicts is key. While people may find conflict acceptable when it is conducted in a civil manner, once politicians begin to insult each other, it can cause people to dislike them. Similarly, when politicians disagree over basic facts, this may negatively impact the extent to which citizens find them trustworthy.’

Using her typology, Van der Goot found that online conflicts between Dutch parliamentarians are predominantly civil, focus on the issues rather than factual disagreements, and, importantly, that conflicts with these characteristics do not affect citizens’ attitudes toward politics negatively. It is only when the conflicts tip over into uncivil attacks and battles over factual issues that it begins to have a detrimental effect on citizens’ political engagement and on their opinions about politicians.

Understanding each other’s viewpoints

Van der Goot: ‘Given these findings, in the future we shouldn’t be focusing on how to remove conflict from politics, but instead on we can ensure that political battles bring about more positive change. By fostering constructive and respectful dialogue and conflicts based on issues, we can help to understand each other’s viewpoints and actively engage citizens in the democratic process. This should be a shared responsibility placed on both politicians and journalists. Politicians are encouraged to behave civilly and refrain from questioning the reliability of factual evidence, and the media then bears the responsibility for rewarding politicians who do so.’

Defence details

Emma van der Goot: Online Battles: Conflict frames in political actors´ online communication: context, content, and consequences. Supervisors: Prof. S. Kruikemeier and Prof. G.J. de Ridder. Co-supervisors are Prof. R. Vliegenthart and Dr M. Hameleers.

Time and location

Wednesday, 11 September, 13:00, Agnietenkapel