dissertation_social media and politics_july 2015_s chetcuti

MA in Communications, Media and PR Stephen Chetcuti

P a g e 1 | 106

Examining the influence of Maltese politicians’ use of Facebook and Twitter on voters: promoting dialogue or

manipulating the public sphere?

Stephen Chetcuti

Submitted for the degree of MA in Communications, Media and Public Relations

July 2015

University of Leicester Department of Media and Communications


P a g e 2 | 106

Abstract

Social media did not exist at the turn of the millennium, but now feature as an

important part in the way we conduct our lives. Malta is no exception, and social

media has entered into practically every household on the islands. This

dissertation explores the manner in which a traditional aspect of Maltese life,

people’s relationship with politicians, plays out on Facebook and Twitter. This

research used a sequential model of the mixed methods research (Wimmer and

Dominick, 2013:121) with qualitative and quantitative tools, and determines that

while the Maltese people have retained their near-obsessive relationship with

politicians, the country’s oral culture has transitioned from village squares and

grocery small talk to social media platforms. It concludes that politicians lack

certain digital skills and often use these platforms as billboards, but they also play

an important role is creating a public sphere where they influence and are

influenced by voters.

Word Count: 15,305


P a g e 3 | 106

Acknowledgements

My heartfelt thanks go to Alex Grech, Fr Joe Borg and Carmen Sammut for their

guidance and support, to long-time friend and Herman Grech for his constant

availability, and Martin Debattista and Kristina Chetcuti for their time.

My gratitude extends to Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, Opposition Leader Simon

Busuttil and Alternattiva Demokratika Arnold Cassola for fitting me into their busy

schedules.

To all the people who took part in the voters’ survey, especially Stephen Muscat,

Lawrence Pisani and Patricia Tabone, who all accepted my request for an in-depth

interview.

To all the politicians who completed the politicians’ survey.

Finally, my appreciation goes out to my tutor, Eileen Sheppard, to the academic

and administrative staff at the University of Leicester, and to

Andreas Anastasiou – I would have never made it without you.


P a g e 4 | 106

Dedication

To my brother Michael, who is fighting a brain tumour.

To my four girls: I can’t promise I won’t start any other academic courses, but I‘ll

try my best.

To my late father: Sorry I never got to tell you I was doing a master’s degree – it

was meant to be a surprise.

And finally, to my mother and sister, simply for being there.


P a g e 5 | 106

Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2: Politics in Malta .......................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Politics in Malta explained ............................................................................................ 10

2.1.1 Recent election results .......................................................................................... 12

Chapter 3: Theoretical Concept and Literature Review ........................................................... 14

3.1 Theoretical Aspects of the Public Sphere .................................................................. 14

3.1.1 Participation in the public sphere ........................................................................ 15

3.1.2 The public sphere versus the private sphere .................................................... 16

3.1.3 Different times, same principle ............................................................................ 18

3.2 Literature review ............................................................................................................ 19

3.2.1 Virtualisation of debates ....................................................................................... 20

3.2.2 Habermas, the public sphere and the internet .................................................. 21

3.2.3 Other public spheres ............................................................................................. 24

3.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 25

Chapter 4: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 27

4.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 27

4.2 Quantitative survey among voters............................................................................... 27

4.3 Politicians’ survey .......................................................................................................... 29

4.4 In-depth interviews ........................................................................................................ 30

Chapter 5: Findings and Discussion ........................................................................................... 31

5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 31

5.2 Survey among voters .................................................................................................... 31

5.3 Politicians’ survey .......................................................................................................... 32

5.4 In-depth interviews ........................................................................................................ 34

5.5 Findings and discussion .............................................................................................. 34

5.5.1 Debate? What debate? ......................................................................................... 35

5.5.2 Politicians on social media ................................................................................... 38

5.5.3 Pressing ‘like’ .......................................................................................................... 43

Chapter 6: Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 47

6.1 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 47

6.2 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 50

6.3 Further research ............................................................................................................ 50

Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 52


P a g e 6 | 106

7.1 Appendix A: Voters’ survey: The use of social media by politicians (English version)

...................................................................................................................................................... 52

7.1.1 Appendix B: Voters’ survey: The use of social media by politicians (Maltese

version) .................................................................................................................................... 56

7.1.2 Appendix C: Voters’ survey: Question D1a ............................................................. 60

7.1.3 Appendix D: Voters’ survey: Question D1b ............................................................. 60

7.1.4 Appendix E: Voters’ survey: Question D2 ................................................................ 61

7.1.5 Appendix F: Voters’ survey: Question D3 ................................................................ 61

7.1.6 Appendix G: Voters’ survey: Question D4 ............................................................... 62

7.1.7 Appendix H: Voters’ survey: Question Q1 ............................................................... 65

7.1.8 Appendix I: Voters’ survey: Question Q2 ................................................................. 68

7.1.9 Appendix J: Voters’ survey: Question Q3 ................................................................ 69

7.1.10 Appendix K: Voters’ survey: Question D4 ............................................................. 69

7.1.11 Appendix L: Voters’ survey: Question Q5 .............................................................. 70

7.1.12 Appendix M: Voters’ survey: Question Q6 ............................................................. 70

7.1.13 Appendix N: Voters’ survey: Question Q7 ............................................................. 73

7.1.14 Appendix 0: Voters’ survey: Question Q8 .............................................................. 74

7.1.15 Appendix P: Voters’ survey: Question Q9 ............................................................. 74

7.1.16 Appendix Q: Voters’ survey: Question Q10 ........................................................... 75

7.1.17 Appendix R: Voters’ survey: Question Q11 ........................................................... 75

7.1.18 Appendix S: Voters’ survey: Question Q12 ........................................................... 76

7.2 Appendix T: Politicians’ survey ..................................................................................... 80

7.2.1 Appendix U: Politicians’ survey – Response rate ................................................... 84

7.2.2 Appendix V: Politicians’ survey Q1 ........................................................................... 84

7.2.3 Appendix W: Politicians’ survey Q2 .......................................................................... 84

7.2.4 Appendix X: Politicians’ survey Q3 ........................................................................... 85

7.2.5 Appendix Y: Politicians’ survey Q4 ........................................................................... 85

7.2.6 Appendix Z: Politicians’ survey Q5 ........................................................................... 85

7.2.7 Appendix AA: Politicians’ survey Q6......................................................................... 86

7.2.8 Appendix AB: Politicians’ survey Q7......................................................................... 86

7.2.9 Appendix AC: Politicians’ survey Q8 ........................................................................ 86

7.2.10 Appendix AD: Politicians’ survey Q9 ...................................................................... 87

7.2.11 Appendix AE: Politicians’ survey Q10 .................................................................... 87

7.2.12 Appendix AF: Politicians’ survey Q11 .................................................................... 87

7.2.13 Appendix AG: Politicians’ survey Q12 .................................................................... 88

7.2.14 Appendix AH: Politicians’ survey Q13 .................................................................... 88

7.2.15 Appendix AI: Politicians’ survey Q14 ...................................................................... 89


P a g e 7 | 106

7.2.17 Appendix AK: Politicians’ survey Q16 .................................................................... 89

7.2.18 Appendix AL: Politicians’ survey Q17 ..................................................................... 90

7.2.19 Appendix AM: Politicians’ survey Q18 ................................................................... 91

7.3 Appendix AN: Pool questions for semi-structured interviews .................................. 91

7.3.1 Appendix AO: Bios .................................................................................................... 100

References ................................................................................................................................... 103


P a g e 8 | 106

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

From seventeenth century coffee houses, the public sphere has transformed

from a geographically limited area reserved for the literate to the cyberspace era of

the twenty-first century. Jürgen Habermas’ The Structural Transformation of the

Public Sphere (1989) introduced a theory by which discussion of societal problems

has an influence on political action and which has been widely utilised to

understand, frame, and inform public opinion. The information superhighway has

created vast opportunities for political participation, and this is no exception in

Malta, a country with a pluralist polarised political system. The discussion will

focus the hyperlocal context of the islands, which highlights the closeness and

personal contact between politicians and people, and how this relationship has

transferred from village squares to social media. This dissertation is organised as

follows:

Chapter 2 explains the political and voting system in Malta, namely the single

transferable vote. It highlights the extreme polarisation on the islands, which often

lead to fierce – sometimes violent – election campaigns, and a system that allows

political parties to own TV and radio stations, newspapers, and other media. This

chapter also explains how Maltese people feel it is their ‘duty’ to vote, and that

turnout for elections is always above 90 per cent – one of the highest in the world

(Grech, 2009). The results are often too close to call, with the difference between

the main two parties as low as 0.5 percent, giving new meaning to the expression

‘every vote counts’.

Chapter 3 explores the theory that informs this research. For this research

project, the Habermasian public sphere theory is used. In principle, it suggests that

public opinion can be formed through debate in a public sphere which is open to

everyone, where status is irrelevant, everyone is treated as equals, and the better

argument prevails. This section discusses the advantages and disadvantages of

the public sphere theory as hypothesised by Habermas. This chapter considers

literature related to the use of two social media platforms, Facebook and Twitter,

as a public sphere and the virtualisation of debates.


P a g e 9 | 106

The methodology is outlined in Chapter 4, namely a sequential model of the

mixed methods research (Wimmer and Dominick, 2013:121) with qualitative and

quantitative tools. Two surveys were conducted followed by in-depth interviews.

The first was administered to 200 semi-randomly selected people of voting age

(18-74) in Malta. The people were questioned in relation to their usage of social

media vis-à-vis politics and politicians. At the same time, a survey was held among

all 130 party-affiliated politicians on the islands (parliamentarians, members of the

European Parliament, and party-approved candidates). They were questioned

about their use of social media, feedback they receive and related topics. In the

second part, 12 people – including three voters who had taken part in the survey,

and the leaders of the three political parties in Malta – participated in in-depth

interviews. These six interviews also served for triangulation purposes.

Furthermore, a number of academics, experts and journalists gave their insights

on politicians’ presence and influence on social media.

Chapter 5 brings together all the findings of this research. This section explores

a number of issues, including the manner in which Maltese people debate, their

oral cultural and the Maltese people’s obsession with politicians. The research

highlights the lack of digital literacy among Malta’s political elite, but comes to the

conclusion, explained in Chapter 6, that a networked public sphere without

politicians would not be sustainable and concludes that while politicians influence

people, the opposite is also true. Study limitations and possible further research is

suggested at the end of this chapter.


P a g e 10 | 106

Chapter 2: Politics in Malta

2.1 Politics in Malta explained

Malta is an archipelago in the middle of the Mediterranean that has a population

of just over 425,000 (National Statistics Office of Malta, 2014). As Fenech

(2008:1,049) notes, Malta is fiercely partisan in its political thinking and elections

are “polarised and fiercely fought”. Since 1966, two parties have dominated

parliament, the Labour Party (LP) and Nationalist Party (PN) – in the 2008

elections, these two parties were separated by barely over 1,500 votes, or 0.5

percent (ibid). Attempts by numerous other political groups failing to make

significant inroads (University of Malta, undated). A third party, the Malta Green

Party, or Alternattiva Demokratica (AD), which literally translates as ‘democratic

alternative’, was founded in 1999, but has not managed to win a parliamentary

seat despite its 5,506 first count votes. However, AD has been more successful in

local council elections.

Political groupings in Malta are akin to tribes, leading Baldacchino (2002,

quoted in Sammut, 2007:26) to claim that the conflicts between the LP and PN are

similar to “ethnic hostilities” that has led the island to be described as a “’nationless

state’”, with the church acting as the uniting institution. Grech (forthcoming:107)

maintains that, “in Malta, structures are socially created by dominant institutions,

and are inert and resistant to change”. This is furthered by an openly partisan

press (Sammut, 2007:10, 25) since political parties are legally allowed to own

media, with both PN and LP operating television and radio stations, newspapers

and news web portals. This is exacerbated by the “technology of othering” (original

emphasis) (Fine, 1994 in Sammut, 2007:34), which creates identities among one

grouping and demonises the other with an “ʽus-them’ partisan paradigm”

(Baldacchino, 2002:203). This animosity has been prevalent since independence

in 1964 and escalates tremendously during general election periods (Sammut,

2007:28). This is because elections are a winner-takes-all affair and apathy can

result in defeat:

The electoral pendulum swings slightly from one side to the other,

according to the voting decisions of a small segment of the electorate.

Because of the narrow margin between the two main parties, at the polling


P a g e 11 | 106

booths every vote counts. Elections are won or lost because of a few

thousand votes.

The winning party can then make sure their supporters are given “privileged

access to … resources” (Mitchell, 2002, quoted in Grech, forthcoming:130). Voters

are strongly encouraged to carry out ‘their duty’ to vote – a term used to present

the idea as though it were an obligation rather than a right. Families go to great

lengths to take sick or elderly relatives to polling booths (ibid:29), often with help

from their party of allegiance. As Pirotta (1994, quoted in Grech, forthcoming:131)

notes:

On Election Day, cloistered nuns have been known to abandon the

seclusion of their convents to join other voters at the polls. Other voters, sometimes only a few days away from the grave, can also be seen being ferried, frequently at their own volition, from their sick beds to some polling station in order that they too may register a preference

In what has become an election tradition, the national airline offers heavily

subsidised flights to bring Maltese voters back to Malta to vote (Debono, 2013:4)

as voting is only allowed in designated places, not electronically, nor in mobile

booths or embassies. The primary interest of the political system is in maintaining

a hold on power rather than consensus (Grech, forthcoming:126). Political parties

can mobilise their voters because they have a clear indication of people’s voting

preferences by street and even by house (Hirczy, 1995:258).

Politics in Malta is personal and politicians, candidates and MPs all carry out

door-to-door canvassing, especially during election periods (Sammut, 2007:29).

This close personal contact with people leads parties to often select medical or

legal professionals as candidates as they have experience in dealing with people

and are generally trusted (ibid:30). This is very important because Malta is one of

the few countries to use a single transferable vote system. While the system helps

to ensure that a vote really counts, it has other less desirable consequences.

Thus, for example, “a contender’s worst rivals are one’s own party contestants

[because] in each district a number of candidates compete to obtain votes to

represent their party in parliament” (ibid:30). Voters are presented with a relatively

long list of candidates from all parties and independents, and they vote by inserting

a number in appropriate boxes next to a candidate’s name. For a vote to be

considered valid, a voter must include the number ‘1’ next to a candidate’s name.


P a g e 12 | 106

Adding second, third and more preferences is possible but not obligatory. Most

voter do. In the 1987 elections, just 3.4 percent of votes were not transferable

(Hirczy, 1995:261). This system results in candidates putting in a great deal of

effort to secure enough votes from their supporters, and to secure second or third

preference votes from supporters of other candidates, irrespective of party

allegiance. With Malta being so small, the quota needed to secure election is

relatively small and therefore a candidate would more or less know who his

supporters are. Once a candidate reaches a quota, calculated by dividing the total

number of valid votes cast and divided by the seats available form that district plus

one, his/her remaining votes become second preference votes and the process

continues down the preferences until all 65 members of parliament are elected.

The number ‘1’ votes are also used to determine which party wins the election and

has a right to form the next government. Malta is also one of a handful of countries

that does not have candidate lists decided by the party. Ballot papers include

candidates in alphabetical order, with many speculating that having a surname

with a letter early in the alphabet increases the chances of election significantly.

This is because, after deciding who gets their first preference, the voter continues

with the subsequent preferences in alphabetical order. The system encourages

candidates work very hard to win as much support as possible:

Candidates go to great lengths in building their personal network of

supporters, ‘nursing’ prospective constituencies for months before the

election, holding public meetings, conducting house-to-house calls and

seeking to establish themselves – or to reemphasise an already established

position – as local patrons, doing favours and trying to win friends (Howe,

1987, quoted in Hirczy, 1995:263).

People, for their part, do their utmost to choose a winning candidate, as “only a

successful candidate can share the spoils of victory” (Hirczy, 1995:264). In

practice, Malta’s electoral single transferrable vote system makes it next to

impossible for a small party to get a candidate elected to parliament (Fenech,

2008:1053).

2.1.1 Recent election results

The closeness of results in general elections is staggering. Since 1966, the two

major political parties have been divided by a maximum of four percentage points,


P a g e 13 | 106

within the 48 per cent to 52 per cent region (University of Malta, undated). The

elections held in 2008 were extremely close, with 0.55 percent separating the two

parties, or 1,580 votes from a voting population exceeding 290,000. The only

exception was the last election, held in 2013, where the Labour Party (LP)

trounced the Nationalist Party (PN) by an unprecedented 36,000 votes (ibid). An

LP victory was expected, but the margin surprised most commentators. The

election victory for the LP came after nearly 25 uninterrupted years of PN

governments. AD also had its best showing ever, managing just under two percent

of the vote.


P a g e 14 | 106

Chapter 3: Theoretical Concept and

Literature Review

3.1 Theoretical Aspects of the Public Sphere

The ideals of the public sphere are synonymous with democracy, participation,

communication and self-determination. First expounded by Jürgen Habermas in

his book Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1989), the public sphere

incorporated the gathering of people to discuss matters of mutual interest, with the

resultant formation of an opinion. Habermas explained that “the public sphere was

constituted in discussion (lexis), which could also assume the forms of consultation

and of sitting in the court of law, as well as in common action (praxis), be it the

waging of war or competition in athletic games” (Habermas, 1989:3). Habermas, a

critical theorist who formed part of the second generation of the Frankfurt School

(Thomassen, 2010:16), suggests in his theory that a public sphere is created when

people freely engage in any form of discussion, irrespective of the space where

they are. Everybody has equal access to the public sphere and all participants are

considered equal. Discussions in the public sphere should be conducted without

any limitations caused by fear of reprisal, and there should be no control over the

public sphere. In fact, Habermas asserts that there should be no State interference

in the public sphere, which “itself remain[s] a part of the private realm” (Habermas,

1989:11, 18, 141):

The bourgeois public sphere may be conceived above all as the sphere

of private people come together as a public; they soon claimed the public

sphere regulated from above against the public authorities themselves, to

engage in a debate over the general rules governing relations in the

basically privatised but publically relevant sphere of commodity exchange

and social labour (ibid:27).

In the public sphere’s infancy, the bourgeois met in coffee houses to discuss

literature and politics. As time passed, and more people became literate, the public

sphere grew exponentially and a larger ʽspace’ was needed. This came in the form

of the press (ibid:24). Habermas observes that the eighteenth century “moral

weeklies” (ibid:42) were an integral part of the early public sphere and even helped


P a g e 15 | 106

expand the coffee house discussions to include thousands of newly-literates. The

mass media were used as a way of extending the public sphere (ibid:169), even

though the political aspect of the sphere was later lost to commercialism and

propaganda (ibid:175). The problem with this new situation was that the private

interests of media owners did not reflect the interests of private people as a public

(ibid:189), the general good. Habermas complains of the introduction of public

relations that led to “opinion management”, with companies or individuals

introducing material in the press that made its way into the public sphere as being

of genuine interest to the public when in actual fact it was propaganda or

misinformation (ibid:193, 194). However, he also saw publicity as a democratic

idea as anyone, in theory, could state their opinion and this could be discussed in

the public sphere and eventually become public opinion (ibid:219). Habermas

believes that the modern public is passive and interested in ‘infotainment’,

rubberstamping any decision taken by the authorities without debate, a position he

would later soften. A number of scholars, as this paper explores, believed

Habermas was too critical on this point (Thomassen, 2010:35).

3.1.1 Participation in the public sphere

Habermas wrote his public sphere theory more than 50 years ago, but after its

publication in English in 1989, it became the dominant public sphere theory.

Habermas has had both support for his theory, but also considerable criticism.

One of the biggest critics of Habermas is feminist thinker Nancy Fraser

(1997:110), who asserts that the public sphere

designates a theatre in modern societies in which political participation is

enacted through the medium of talk. It is the space in which citizens

deliberate about their common affairs…; it is a site for the production and

circulation of discourses that can in principle be critical of the State.

Fraser (1997:111) maintains Habermas’ theory needs “to undergo some critical

interrogation and reconstruction” as his notion of a bourgeois or liberal model of

the public sphere no longer holds true, replaced as it were by the “current ‘welfare

State mass democracy’”. She criticises the liberal model of the public sphere as

discussions in the public sphere did not materialise, a situation also recognised by

Habermas. The “utopian” public sphere ideal never happened, she reiterates


P a g e 16 | 106

(ibid:113), and institutional machinery resulted in certain groups being excluded,

including women and minorities. Fraser calls into question the assumption made

by Habermas that debate in the public sphere was possible on socially equal

terms. Writing in 2006, Habermas stated that “an all-inclusive civil society must

empower citizens to participate in and respond to a public discourse that, in turn,

must not degenerate into a colonising mode of communication” (quoted in Benson,

2009:182). Habermas, however, also makes it clear that “universal access” was a

fundamental part of the public sphere, despite harsh criticism from many quarters,

suggesting that “a public sphere from which specific groups would be eo ipso

excluded was less than merely incomplete; it was not a public sphere at all”

(Habermas, 1989:85). Participation is a fundamental issue in any debate regarding

the public sphere. Unlike in Greek times, membership of the public sphere is open

to anybody who is interested in participating and, in theory, “there can be no

agenda to predefine the topic of public conversation” (original emphasis;

Benhabib, 1997:79). At the same time, the distinction between social and political

does not make any sense in the modern world. According to Habermasian theory,

participation is a “chief prerequisite” in a modern world (ibid:86). She comments

that this modern view of participation is not intended as a space where politicians

can battle it out, but rather “it is viewed democratically as the creation of

procedures whereby those affected by general social norms and collective political

decisions can have a say in their formulation, stipulation, and adoption” (ibid:87).

Benhabib (ibid) further contends that, “the public sphere comes into existence

whenever and wherever all affected by general social and political norms of action

engage in a practical discourse, evaluating their validity”. Additionally, in a

democratic society, there can be as many audiences as there are debates.

Benhabib criticises Habermas’ later work which, she comments, is influenced by

the Frankfurt school of thinking and sees the public change from “a ‘reasoning’ to a

‘consuming’ one” (ibid:88), thus leaving the principle of dialogue in limbo.

3.1.2 The public sphere versus the private sphere

In the early days, people moved in and out of the private sphere to enter and

participate in the public sphere (Habermas, 1989:46, 51). Habermas (ibid:141-142)

explains that the bourgeois public sphere existed in “the tension-charged field

between state and society” and, with the birth of capitalism, “a repoliticised social


P a g e 17 | 106

sphere emerged to which the distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ could not be

usefully applied”. This, Habermas claims, is what eventually led to the downfall of

the bourgeois public sphere. This fusion of State and society made differentiation

according to private and public complicated (ibid:148). The modern world,

Habermas states, is characterised by the “loss of the private sphere and of

ensured access to the public sphere” especially because of economic and societal

demands (ibid:157). Within the public sphere, the “autonomy of private people”

had to be ensured in both the public civil society and private family (ibid:224). In

fact, “the guarantees of basic rights rest on the demarcation of the public sphere

and of a public sphere operative in the political realm not directly subject to

interference by public authority” (ibid:226). Habermas (1989:231) suggests an

interesting middle sphere that exists between the public and private spheres, one

created as a result of the interconnection between the State and society.

On the other hand, Schudson (1994, quoted in Benson, 2009:189) argues that

the normative idea of free discussion does not exist, and debates can only take

place where rules are laid down; because of this, the State must be included. Even

Habermas, writing in 2007, suggests that in certain cases the State should

intervene (quoted in Benson, 2009:191). Fraser argues that a finite separation

between State and society is not really necessary for a functioning public sphere

(1997:133). However, she counter-argues that a separation is required as the

public sphere acts as a “counterweight” to the authority of the State (ibid:134).

Thomassen (2010:53) insists that Habermas’ ‘lifeworld’ – the process ideated by

Habermas in which people come together and form an understanding based on

their background and a ’shared social world’ – must be protected from the

systems, namely the State and market, but both can also work hand-in-hand with

appropriate legislation enacted by a strong public. Where the public sphere exists,

therefore, is a question that remains under debate. Bernhard Peters, a close

collaborator of Habermas, suggests that society is divided into the centre and

periphery; the former constitutes four layers, namely parliament, the judiciary,

government and civil service, while the latter is composed of the lifeworld and its

private spheres (1993, quoted in Benson, 2009:181). The public sphere is the

space in between the centre and periphery.


P a g e 18 | 106

3.1.3 Different times, same principle

Habermas admits that his key ideas on the public sphere were written at a

different time with different circumstances, which led him to come to certain

conclusions he himself disagrees with today (1997:438-439). However, he also

insists that:

in spite of the objections raised, I continue to stay with the intention that

guided the study as a whole. The mass democracies constituted as social-

welfare States… can claim to continue the principles of the liberal

constitutional State only as long as they seriously try to live up to the

mandate of a public sphere that fulfils political functions (ibid:441).

Habermas is somewhat critical of the present day public sphere, which he

claims has been turned into a business with pre-set rules and where “consensus…

has become largely superfluous” (ibid:164). Habermas declares that election

campaigns are not contested within a public sphere any longer as this has become

a field taken over by publicists, even though he concedes that “parliamentary

elections continue to count on the liberal fictions of a public sphere in society”

(ibid:211). He asserts that people prefer to speak within closed circles of family

and friends rather than engage to influence public opinion (ibid:213) and this is

done merely to convince the hesitant. He adds that the all-important floating

voters, the very people who could affect the outcome of an election are “recruited

predominantly from the large reservoir of less interested, less informed, and

apathetic citizens, to the extent that they are not altogether indifferent and do not

ignore the election” (ibid:214). It is these voters who are generally targeted by

electoral campaign managers, Habermas remarks, and all parties try to attract

people from this reservoir (ibid:215). The political public sphere has now been

transformed into one in which political parties, through “staged and manipulative

publicity”, take centre stage in the public sphere with the tacit agreement of an

audience grouped according to their beliefs or opinions, whereby:

a no longer intact public of private people dealing with each other

individually would be replaced by a public of organized private people. Only

such a public could, under today’s conditions, participate effectively in a

process of public communication via the channels of the public spheres

internal to the parties and special-interest associations and on the basis of


P a g e 19 | 106

an affirmation of publicity as regards the negotiations of organizations with

the state and with one another (Habermas, 1989:232).

3.2 Literature review

Although social media platforms have been around for more than a decade, its

impact is being felt now with the improvement of both hardware and software

applications that have made it (nearly) possible for people to be always online and

connected. Politicians are using social media tools to connect with their

constituents, bypassing the traditional media (Grant et al, 2010:579). The two

social media being dealt with in this dissertation are Twitter and Facebook. Twitter

is intended for public consumption, meaning that tweets are visible to anyone,

while Facebook is private in that it only allows a user’s feed to become visible once

the user has accepted a person as a ‘friend’ (ibid:580). One key point for Twitter is

that a user can tailor his newsfeed according to his tastes (ibid:597) and select

who and what to see. All social media platforms are online areas where users can

generate and disseminate content, access information, interpret and organise

information, and form part of a framework for presenting information (Klinger and

Svensson, 2014:5). These platforms have changed the way information is

produced, called “produsage” (ibid:6). This means that a great deal of information

comes from “amateur activity”. The internet and social media in particular are

made up of different types of people. A Forrester Research survey has defined six

types of Web 2.0 users, namely: creators, critics, collectors, joiners, spectators

and inactives. These definitions underline the different level of participation.

- Creators write post, take photos, make videos and subsequently upload the

data

- Critics respond to posts and provide ratings and reviews

- Collectors organise content using feeds and tagging

- Joiners use social media in tandem, have multiple profiles

- Spectators, the most common, read posts, watch videos and check reviews

- Inactives have an online presence but never post or create content

(von Brockdorff, undated)


P a g e 20 | 106

Unsurprisingly, two camps – for and against social media becoming the new

virtual public spheres that replaces Habermas’ coffee houses – have emerged and

are discussed below.

3.2.1 Virtualisation of debates

Coleman (1999:68) suggests that “the relatively recent emergence of new

media technologies has given rise to initial hopes for the revival of a public sphere

of unmediated discourse“. There is what Kies describes as a “virtualisation of

political debates [that] is taking place” (2010, quoted in Rasmussen, 2014:1,316).

While the lowering of the threshold to join the public sphere has made for greater

participation, it has also resulted in increased scepticism towards political

groupings as ties created on the web are considered weak and the quality of

arguments poor (Rasmussen, 2014:1,317/8). Debates are held in anarchic

structures and people are easily influenced by commentary on the media and

pressure from politicians (ibid:1,318). As a consequence of this, “streams of

communication are, in the process, filtered and synthesised in such a way that

they coalesce into bundles of topically specified public opinions” (Habermas, 1996,

quoted in Rasmussen, 2014:1,319). Benkler asserts that despite the fact that the

internet may not be overly democratic, it still offers users the opportunity to adopt

“practices that lead to the emergence of a new hierarchy” (2006:241). The internet

provides more space for a far greater number of speakers than the mass media,

and adds that the topology of the web boosts certain components of the public

sphere (ibid:246), such as information overload and being heard over the clutter.

The internet offers “a limitless discursive space, with dramatically expanded

possibilities for productive and enlightening meaning-formation” (Rasmussen,

2013:98). The internet is described as “the most important development in

contemporary communication, which has produced a global ‘public sphere’”

(Ubayasiri, 2006:4). The political class has recognized this shift, In fact, studies

among politicians in Sweden have shown that digital is the new reality and, as one

politician remarked, “in five years, all will have a thing like this [here he showed his

smartphone]; we are going there, you can’t stop the development” (Nilsson and

Carlsson, 2013:7). They quote Gibson (2004) in maintaining that new media

created “better contact between elected officials and citizens” (ibid:8). However,

they also warn of a darker side, where the interaction between people and voters


P a g e 21 | 106

can degenerate into name-calling and the use of vulgar language. Coleman opines

that a great deal of online debate is “bad-tempered”, the result of people failing to

learn proper debating methods following the disappearance of street corner or

village square meetings (1999, quoted in Iosifidis, 2010:624). This has not stopped

a flood of people from taking to social media, especially since Habermas’ original

idea of the public sphere has changed over the years into a “multi-layered sphere

of online and social networks which are increasingly important in engaging and

mobilizing citizenship and in shaping the discourse within which rational discussion

takes place” (Iosifidis, 2010:619). Dutton, following Castell’s description, goes as

far as proclaiming the internet the “Fifth Estate” (2007, cited in Iosifidis:621). The

internet has re-ignited the interest in the public sphere as a virtual venue for

discussion as it allows a high degree of interactivity that was not possible with

other means of communication, and most places on the internet fall outside State

control, allowing unchecked debate and allowing, in theory, anyone to have a

platform to debate (Iosifidis, 2010:622). “What is genuinely novel with the Internet

in a democratic perspective is that it cancelled the social division between

speakers and listeners of the public sphere and made everyone into potential

participants…,” Rasmussen notes (2014:1,316). Grech quotes Castells (2007),

who claimed that the new communication tools give people the opportunity to

“challenge the discourse and operations of dominant institutions and power blocs”

(Grech, forthcoming:1) and operate a “horizontal network of interactive

communication” (ibid:30).

3.2.2 Habermas, the public sphere and the internet

Habermas shows his distaste for new technology by stating that there is a

“decentring of unedited inputs, where the intellectual can no longer constitute a

focal point” (2009, quoted in Rasmussen, 2014:1,319). In 2006, Habermas,

speaking at a ceremony, barely touched upon the internet and deemed it of “little

significance to the public sphere” (Rasmussen, 2014:1,320). Habermas observes

that the “use of the internet has both broadened and fragmented the contexts of

communication” and adding that “the price we pay for the growth in egalitarianism

offered by the internet is the decentralised access to unedited stories,” (quoted in

Ubayasiri, 2006:8). As late as 2005, Habermas still considered the mass media as

the main arena of the public sphere, an assumption that was certainly true for


P a g e 22 | 106

Malta. Habermas is not alone in his criticism of the internet as a viable public

sphere. Commentators, quoted in Rasmussen (2014:1,321), have suggested that

internet is not up to the task (Negroponte, 1995), could lead to a decline in civil

engagement (Putnam, 2001), or was detrimental to the formation of public opinion

and creates polarisation (Sunstein, 2009). The internet is a place, Rasmussen

asserts, which gives a loud voice to a small minority. Sunstein suggests that

groups with different opinions do not meet online, with the result that not only is

there no consensus, but views become more extreme (ibid:1,323). Another

warning comes from O’Neill (2010, quoted in Nilsson and Carlsson, 2013:3), who

claims that popular interference could lead to a “trivialisation of politics” and

important legislation may be influenced by “populist” thinking.

Another concern raised was that the supposed “good” contact with voters was

just a misconception of reality (Nilsson and Carlsson, 2013:9), and the “push-the-

button democracy” was potentially dangerous as it produced results based on half

or un-truths. This was further compounded by the anonymous nature of internet,

which has increased polarisation (DiMaggio et al, 2001:321), despite the positive

effect that the internet lowers barriers to access. Nevertheless, while the internet

has contributed to more participation, this has not been to the overwhelming

degree claimed by some, such as Castells or Latour (Benson, 2009:189).

According to Dahlberg (2001, quoted in Ubayasiri, 2006:7), the internet has failed

to fulfil its promise of being the new public sphere. Although Habermas seems to

be ambiguous on the issue of the internet, others have expressed their conviction

that the internet has the criteria required to function according to the theory of

multiple public spheres. From Barber to Schudson, Milioni to Youchai and Benkler,

many believe the internet provides a step towards greater democratic and

participatory public sphere (Rasmussen, 2014:1,322), and observe that it has

removed barriers to communication and participation. Others describe the internet

as the “magic elixir” in terms of people’s participation in politics (Stromer-Galley,

2000, quoted in Klinger and Svensson, 2014:2). Social media platforms have

opened the way for more political commentators and reduced the number of

gatekeepers, thereby increasing the contributions and non-political actors (Elmer

et al, 2012, quoted in Rasmussen, 2014:1,320). Social media provides ordinary

users with the opportunity to use the “online megaphone” to engage in discussions

with others, or have their voice heard, without inhibitions or restrictions (Grech,


P a g e 23 | 106

forthcoming:51). This is even more valid with the ability of social media to filter and

collect related items via re-tweets, feeds and hashtags, which allow users to follow

a conversation, giving people the tools to manage the overload of information

(Rasmussen, 2014:1,323). This also creates a network of ideas similar to the

definition given by Castells (2008, quoted in Grech, forthcoming:70), who

compares the public sphere to “networks of communication that relate many-to-

many in the sending and receiving of messages in a multimodal form of

communication that bypasses mass media and often escapes government

control”. Grech (forthcoming:70) continues:

The advent of the internet was a prompt for media theorists to revive the

notion of the public sphere – not as some idealised modern-day version of

the coffee houses and literary salons of early modern Europe, but within the

framework of a network society that organises its public sphere on the basis

of media communication networks.

Grech, however, also suggests that the claim that technology is encouraging

more political participation may be exaggerated (forthcoming:75). He quotes

Papacharissi (2002, in Grech, forthcoming:83), asserting that technology itself

creates a public space but not necessarily a public sphere. By this, he opines that

while technology may create the platform or opportunity to debate, it does not

mean that debate is taking place. There is a tendency for people to become more

passive rather than engage in debate, so the normative Habermasian ideal of

contribution to the public sphere by all parties fails to materialise (Grech,

forthcoming:46). Adut also criticises the dominant (Habermas) public sphere,

claiming it is “characterized by idealism and normativism”, rendering it unrealistic

(2012:238). West (2013:155) questions whether the internet is a real arena for

public debate at all, arguing that the internet is “used by the public for arguments

concerning already settled opinions, a far cry from the fruitful and thoughtful

debates demanded by a true public sphere”. West believes that internet is just a

tool that helps mobilise people in and around existing public spheres, but is not in

itself a public sphere (2013:158). Instead, West (2013:158) proposes that:

at best, the Internet might be half of a public sphere… [with] no more or

no less potential to serve as a deliberative component in a public sphere


P a g e 24 | 106

than do other communication media: the only reason it has been proposed

as such is its popularity…

One reason why West comes to this conclusion is that there are no formal

mechanisms in place to ensure that what is discussed in the public sphere ends up

before legislators. There is also little dialogue or critical discussion on Facebook or

Twitter, a fact made worse by certain inherent factors, such as Twitter’s 140-

character word limit. Further, content on the internet is highly partisan (Iosifidis,

2010:624-6), an opinion also shared by Dahlberg (2007:838), who adds that

people are unwilling to listen to the other side and “it is also well known that

asymmetries in power offline are being replicated online, leading to inequalities in

how different discourses are enabled and fostered online”. This leaves weak or

non-influential people without a say, dispelling the notion of the internet as a public

space in the Habermasian sense, where status is unimportant.

One of the biggest criticisms levelled against Habermas is the fact that he only

considered the existence of one bourgeois public sphere as opposed to multiple

spheres, and this also explains his initial pessimism about the state of the public

sphere (Thomassen, 2010:50), a view he was later to change (Habermas,

1997:425). Allen insists that there exists a “post-bourgeois conception” of the

public sphere, and she quotes Fraser’s four assumptions: social equality is a must;

there are a number of public spheres, not just one; there should be no restriction

on what is deliberated; and, rather than distinguish between society and the State,

there should be a distinction between weak publics (those who follow) and strong

publics (those who decide) (1996, quoted in Allen, 2012:823/4). Habermas also

agrees with Fraser’s thinking and takes on a number of her ideas in subsequent

publications (Allen, 2012:824).

3.2.3 Other public spheres

The prevalence of Habermas’ public sphere theory means that other theories

remain under-explored. While it is not within the scope of this dissertation to

include a comparison between public sphere theories, it is interesting to examine

some other options briefly:

The liberal representative (liberal elite) public sphere suggests that

people’s role is to elect representatives who then debate among themselves

without any involvement of voters (Downey et al, 2012:338). The media also


P a g e 25 | 106

have a role to play in providing people with the necessary information to

allow them to judge the operations of political parties in power (and

opposition) and make their voices heard through the ballot box.

The participatory liberal (republican) public sphere takes a

diametrically opposite view and believes that people should be included in

every political decision taken. They actively participate in debate by directly

giving opinions and making arguments (ibid:339).

Ari Adut (2012:244), a critic of the dominant Habermas public sphere,

believes in the semiotic public sphere, one made of spaces – be it a public

street or the internet – that contain common semiotics (signs) which shape

the relationship between people who provide and share content. Adut says

it is a realistic sphere, unlike the dominant sphere, composed of a

“collection of strangers whose attention is fixed on the same thing”

(ibid:254).

Contrary to Habermas, Bourdieu believes the public sphere needs to

be large, not small, to achieve its full potential (Benson, 2009:183).

Bourdieu’s field theory (he does not use the term ‘public sphere’) includes a

number of overlapping fields – political, religious, academic, and so on –

and they “compete to impose [their] particular vision of the social world on

society as a whole” (ibid:183). Both Habermas and Bourdieu agree on the

ideal of the better argument prevailing.

3.3 Conclusion

Web 2.0 has revolutionised, or re-awakened, the public sphere. Habermas

himself is philosophical and concedes, despite earlier resistance, that the internet

might, after all, have contributed to changing his public sphere theory:

There is considerable evidence attesting to the ambivalent nature of the

democratic potential of a public sphere whose infrastructure is marked by

the growing selective constraints imposed by electronic mass

communication. Thus if today I made another attempt to analyse the

structural transformation of the public sphere, I am not sure what its

outcome would be for a theory of democracy – maybe one that could give

cause for a less pessimistic assessment and for an outlook going beyond

the formulation of merely defiant postulates (1997:457).


P a g e 26 | 106

The public sphere as laid out by Habermas, therefore, must undergo “some

critical… reconstruction” to fit in the present day social media realities, and this is

reflected in the discussion that will be held in Chapter 5 of this dissertation.

Habermas’ key principles of equal status and access to the public sphere, no

limitations in discussions and consensus still hold firm. This all plays out in a

scenario where the internet presents “the possibility of a qualitative shift” Coleman

(1999:69) in the means of political communication. It provides the space for more

participation in virtual public spheres, providing people with an “online megaphone”

(Grech, forthcoming:51) to make their opinion heard. It also allows spectators and

collectors the opportunity to build their opinion even if they do not want to be part

of the debate itself. Coleman suggests that new media are a “paradigmatically

distinct and potentially empowering” (1999:69), offers people a great opportunity to

contribute to the decision-making process. However, he notes that new media

provide no guarantee for increased democracy, and may fall into the habits of the

existing media, having a few publish to many rather than many-to-many. It is

universally acknowledged that the utopian public sphere per se does not exist, but

the concept, even if the subject of fierce debate, is a reality. It took decades for

people, including politicians, to get used to the workings of the media as a public

sphere, and it will also take time to adapt to the social media as the new platforms

for a modern-day public sphere. This may be especially hard for politicians used to

doing what was done in the past. These points form an integral part of the themes

explored in Chapter 5.


P a g e 27 | 106

Chapter 4: Methodology

4.1 Methodology

The research was carried out in three stages using a sequential model of the

mixed methods research (Wimmer and Dominick, 2013:121). First, qualitative and

quantitative surveys were undertaken to build a picture of the use of social media

among voters (Appendices A and B) and politicians (Appendix T) in Malta. In both

cases, pilot testing (Mytton, 1999:72) was carried out and changes made

according to the feedback received. Also, within the limits imposed by the scope of

this dissertation, reliability and validity issues were addressed (Hansen 2005:18-

19; Deacon et al, 2007:133-136). In the final stage, interviews were held with key

stakeholders as a form of triangulation and to obtain deeper insight into the topic.

4.2 Quantitative survey among voters

In the first instance, a questionnaire (Appendices A and B) was commissioned

to explore people’s use of social media via-à-vis politicians. The universe (Mytton,

1999:23: Wimmer and Dominik, 2012:89) for this survey was the population of

Malta of voting age. MISCO, a local company in Malta, carried out the survey. A

stratified random sample method (Mytton, 1999:29: Wimmer and Dominik,

2012:101: Deacon et al, 2007:49) was chosen to ensure equal representation of

gender, location, age, and occupation (Appendices C, D, E, F, G). This method

was chosen for a number of reasons – first, it encompassed the entire country and

socio-economic grouping, and avoided the potential limitations as is the case with

mall intercepts (Wimmer and Dominick, 2012:95). Second, this type of survey

allows for a better distribution across the different age groups. Thirdly, this type of

survey is time and cost effective. A total of 437 people were contacted randomly

and 200 responses were achieved, resulting in an answer rate of 45.7 per cent.

This figure (200) is described by Comrey and Lee (1992, quoted in Wimmer and

Dominick, 2012:105) as ‘”fair” for a sample for generalisation. The survey was

conducted via mobile phones as mobile telephony coverage in Malta is around 88

per cent (Malta Communications Authority, 2014b), making this medium ideal

because researchers could find the person targeted by the survey, as opposed to

phoning a landline where any member resident in a household could answer. The


P a g e 28 | 106

respondents for the survey were aged from 18 to 74 (Appendices C and D). Just

over half (53.5 percent) were male (Appendix E). Respondents came from all over

Malta, including 11 from Gozo (Appendix F), the other inhabited island of the

country. Respondents came from a wide spectrum of backgrounds – from lawyers

and company directors to government employees, housewives and people living

on social benefits (Appendix G). Back calls were also made to ensure the answers

given were as indicated in the survey results (Mytton, 1999:79). To verify the

results through triangulation (Wimmer and Dominick, 2012:49, Helland, 2007:16,

Seiter, 1996:19-20), three participants from the voters’ survey and three from the

politicians’ survey were selected for in-depth interviews. For the voters, a true

random number generator (random.org) was used to give all respondents an equal

chance of being selected for the interviews. This computer system selects a

number between one and a specified number and chooses randomly. Of the 200

respondents, 42 had indicated that they were willing to participate in the in-depth

interviews, hence the computer number generator was set from one to 42. A

number of selections was made before suitable candidates were found. It proved

difficult to convince people to participate in an in-depth interview since the timing of

the requests coincided with local elections and a referendum on spring hunting,

both of which created an intensification of the polarisation in the country (see

Chapter 2, pg:11, 12). Based on sampling and statistical theory, the standard error

of the survey was calculated based on a standard formula (Mytton, 1999:43). This

dissertation used a 95 percent confidence limit. As an example to calculate the

standard error, the percentage of people (49%) who use the internet several times

a day (x) (Appendix J) was used, with the sample size (n) of 200, the total number

of respondents. The formula suggested by Mytton was as follows:

x (100 – x)

n


P a g e 29 | 106

There, the standard error, using the example cited above, is calculated as

follows:

The result was a standard error value of 3.5 percent, and with a 95 percent

confidence rate, two standard deviations from the mean were used to find the true

figure for a result (Mytton, 1999:41, 42). Therefore, keeping the same example, the

true figure of people in Malta using the internet many times a day would fall

anywhere between 42 percent and 56 percent.

4.3 Politicians’ survey

At the same time, a descriptive survey (Wimmer and Dominick, 2012:192) was

conducted among politicians to explore their use of social media as a virtual public

sphere platform to connect with the electorate. The universe for the survey was all

politicians, and candidates who were approved to stand for the next elections on

behalf of the three main political parties. No sampling was required as the

relatively small size of the politician population made it easy to include the entire

politicians’ population in Malta. A total of 131 politicians were contacted, but it was

later found that one participant was not a politician. Of the remainder, 35 replied,

with a higher-than-expected response rate of 26.9 percent (Appendix U). The

exercise, conducted online by the service provider Survey Monkey, ran for two

weeks and included one reminder. One risk with this survey was that politicians

could answer according to what they expect people want to hear, and may also

exaggerate their social media use.

Using a similar calculation as the one suggested by Mytton, a more precise

estimate can be determined for the politicians’ survey. The question used as an

example is whether Twitter feedback was positive or somewhat positive, with 60

percent choosing this option (Appendix AH). Therefore:

49 (100 – 49)

200

60 (100 – 60)

130


P a g e 30 | 106

In this case, the standard error is 4.3 percent, so the real percentage of positive

or somewhat positive feedback politicians get from Twitter ranges from 55.7

percent to 64.3 percent.

4.4 In-depth interviews

The final qualitative part of the methodology included in-depth interviews with

voters, politicians, journalists and academics. These types of interviews allow for

standard questions to be asked, followed by specific questions based on the

answers received (Wimmer and Dominick, 2012:142) and specific to the research

topic. The semi-structured face-to-face interviews (Deacon et al, 2007:67) allowed

for considerable flexibility and better options to explore the question. However,

there are disadvantages, namely moving off topic, interviewer or interviewee

fatigue, interviewer bias and interviewees mentioning what people expect to hear.

The idea of a focus group (Wimmer and Dominick, 2012:136) including all or some

respondents was not considered because of the high risk of conflict, the potential

for using this research as a political platform and logistical problems. All the

required ethical standards involving human research, following the University of

Leicester guidelines, were adopted for the interviews.


P a g e 31 | 106

Chapter 5: Findings and Discussion

5.1 Introduction

This section discusses the findings from the data collected for this research

project, including a survey conducted among voters aged 18 to 74, a survey

among all party-affiliated Maltese politicians, and 12 in-depth interviews with

politicians, journalists, academics and voters. The transcripts of the interviews are

available if required.

5.2 Survey among voters

A survey was conducted among eligible voters in Malta, which totalled just over

333,000 people for the last general elections in 2013 (Electoral Commission Malta,

2013). A total of 200 respondents were interviewed. There was a near equal

percentage of voters from the two major political parties, 30.5 percent from the

Labour Party (LP), 28 percent from the Nationalist Party (PN), and one percent

from Alternattiva Demokratika (AD). A further 30.5 percent refused to state any

party allegiance (Appendix M).

Two out of three respondents use social media (Appendix I), half of whom used

the internet several times a day and a further 33 percent going online at least once

a day (Appendix J). Unsurprisingly, 96.3 percent said they had a Facebook profile

(Appendix K), while 17.8 percent used Twitter (Appendix L). The main reason for

using social media for 45.9 percent was social activities, and 23 percent for news.

Barely five percent of respondents said politics was the most important reason why

they use social media.

The survey showed that 48.7 percent said television was their main sources of

news, with 14.2 per cent and 11.7 percent respectively putting Facebook and

newspapers in second and third places (Appendix H). Twitter was not chosen as

the main source of news by any respondent. Just 37 percent of the electorate

followed politicians on social media (Appendix N). The vast majority of

respondents (83 percent) said they had no objections to politicians having a

presence on social media, with only 8.1 percent objecting (Appendix O). There is a

near equal split on the trustworthiness of politicians in the eyes of the electorate. A


P a g e 32 | 106

total of 47.4 percent said they could not speak openly with politicians, compared to

42.2 percent who said they could (Appendix P).

Somewhat contradictorily, 86.5 percent of respondents said social media was a

good tool for politicians to communicate with people, with just seven percent

disagreeing (Appendix Q). Asked if social media was a good place to discuss

issues such as politics and religion, 71 percent agreed (Appendix R). Comments

from respondents varied, from warnings that social media can be misused, to

claims that Facebook in particular should be used for genuine discussion through

informed debate. Another said he felt uncomfortable ‘talking’ on Facebook

because people did not really know who was on the other end.

5.3 Politicians’ survey

A survey was conducted among politicians to determine their use and

perception of social media. The response rate, just under 27 percent (Appendix U),

was higher than expected. This may be explained by the interest politicians have

in the new media platforms. Of the respondents, 97 percent made use of social

media (Appendix W), two-thirds of whom did so “to connect with the electorate,

speak to constituents and get a feel for what people want/need” (suggested

answer) (Appendix X). Publicity, with a weighted average of 1.87 (versus 1.44 for

the most popular answer), was also deemed important. When asked if they felt

they would be disadvantaged (versus other candidates) without social media

accounts, 94 percent agreed (Appendix Y). Politicians in Malta see constituents

from their district as their main target audience (71 percent), but were open to

welcoming anybody from any party and any location (65 percent) to ‘like’ their

page or join them as ‘friends’ (Appendix Z). Practically all politicians, 97 percent,

had a Facebook page and most, 67 percent, used it for both personal and political

goals. Feedback for the overwhelming majority was either very or somewhat

positive (88 per cent). While 30 per cent said they believed feedback was honest,

nearly half (45.5 per cent) said feedback was not always honest. A respondent

said: “Facebook is good to assess trends but feedback is not always genuine.”

Asked whether Facebook is an appropriate site for a public discussion, a near

equal amount agreed and disagreed (27 percent and 24 percent respectively), but

half the respondents said it depended on what subject was being discussed

(Appendices AA-AG).


P a g e 33 | 106

Slightly fewer politicians, three in four, have a Twitter account. Similar to

Facebook, 60 percent said feedback was very or somewhat positive, but 40

percent gave no answer. The use of Twitter is not as widespread as Facebook,

and politicians’ reactions were also slightly more cautious. One respondent

claimed that care was required as feedback was “politically motivated”, while

another warned against fake account, a point also raised by Nilsson and Carlsson

(2013:8). Despite the concerns, 44 percent still believed that Twitter was suitable

for public discussions, although 32 percent disagreed (Appendices AF-AJ). The

majority of Maltese politicians (68 percent) believe voters engaged them in

discussion and debate, a theory backed by a further 29 percent who said this

happened sometimes (Appendix AK). Confirming a long-held belief that Maltese

voters were loyal to their party; 71 percent of politicians believed that people vote

for ‘their’ party irrespective of whatever happens or results achieved (Appendix

AL). Despite this belief, a number of respondents said the situation in Malta was

changing:

No party can rely on their core group any more. As shown in previous

elections [in 2013] a great majority of people are ready to switch between

one party to another sometimes out of conviction, and in other instances out

of convenience. But that is democracy after all (PN parliamentarian).

The number of floating voters is increasing. [This is a] positive attitude

(LP candidate).

I was about to press the first answer [people vote for same party

whatever happens], but I believe that the electorate is changing and social

media is key in this shift. Social media users are more connected to their

networks rather than party affiliates (PN candidate).

Although in the past the trend was that a large percentage of people

followed their party whatever happens, this seems to have changed over

the past 10 years, thus making the local political scene more interesting to

follow and making politicians more accountable (LP candidate).

Numerous politicians commented that they used social media to raise

awareness on important issues, for publicity, and to keep abreast of what was

happening. “It’s a very powerful tool to relay your message and share your

thoughts while receiving instant feedback,” one LP candidate said.


P a g e 34 | 106

5.4 In-depth interviews

Twelve in-depth interviews were conducted to further explore the question

posed by this research project. The interviewees included Prime Minister Joseph

Muscat and Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil. Their views were not only important

in terms of their role as political leaders, together with AD Chairman Arnold

Cassola, but also because they were among the first adopters of social media

tools in the Maltese politicians’ community. Three people, who had participated in

the voters’ survey, were also interviewed. These six interviews were also included

for triangulation purposes (Deacon et al, 2007:33). Additionally, four academics –

Carmen Sammut (media scholar), Fr Joseph Borg (senior lecturer at the University

of Malta), Martin Debattista (digital media researcher) and Alex Grech (strategist

and social media academic) – and two Times of Malta journalists, Herman Grech

(Head of Media) and Kristina Chetcuti, were also interviewed.

5.5 Findings and discussion

The key question being raised is whether politicians contribute to dialogue

Facebook and Twitter public spheres. To do this, the particularities and history of

Malta as outlined in Chapter 2 must be borne in mind. The “ethnic hostilities”

between political factions (Baldacchino, 2002) are still prevalent in Malta,

especially during election times. Malta, after all, has a typical southern European

polarised pluralist political system. It is evident in the connections between the

people and its political leaders:

Polarized pluralist systems are typically complex political systems with

many contending parties, often themselves made up of contending factions.

This results in a public sphere that is structured differently from the liberal

public sphere in which the central element of political communication is

assumed to be the appeal of political actors to a mass public of individual

citizens. In a multiparty system of this sort, the most important element of

political communication is the process of bargaining that takes place among

parties, factions, and other social actors allied with them. Much of this

process of communication takes place outside the open public sphere, or

enters it tangentially or in coded, cryptic form. (Hallin and Mancini,

2004:132).


P a g e 35 | 106

Hallin and Mancini’s description paints a realistic picture of the Maltese political

circumstances, but social media have given people strong platforms from where to

voice their opinions, whether symbolically or vociferously, as individuals or a public

of private people. This section explores how Malta’s oral culture has moved from

village squares to the information superhighway, and how politicians are

influencing users on these platforms, and vice-versa.

5.5.1 Debate? What debate?

Fr Joseph Borg, a seasoned media expert and senior lecturer at the University

of Malta, explains that Malta has an oral culture and the “intervening time between

the oral culture and electronic culture was short and we did not have an

intervening period of print as others did“. It must be remembered, he submits, that

the Maltese alphabet was only standardised in the 1930s. Malta’s psycho-cultural

needs were first satisfied via radio phone-ins after pluralisation in the 1990s and

now by social media. True as this may be, strategist and social media academic

Alex Grech asserts that Maltese “do not have a culture of debate”, adding: “We do

not know how to articulate ideas in this country. It’s only red (LP) or blue (PN). As

long as we remain so polarised, we are incapable of having a debate...” Dahlberg

(2007) also states that opposing factions often do not want to listen to the other

side. This leads like-minded people to create their own private sphere of

discussion, with the inherent risk of further strengthening extreme views rather

than seeking consensus. Dr Grech claims that nobody cares whether Joe Public

says anything, except members of his echo chamber. “This does not mean that

nobody is listening. Some people are very influential in their own group, but that’s

very difficult in the public sphere.” He describes Malta as having a hyperlocal

clientelist populist public sphere, insisting that a Habermasian public sphere

“doesn’t exist and I doubt it will ever happen”. Media scholar Carmen Sammut

agrees that the public sphere in the Habermasian sense does not exist, but this

was true anywhere, as suggested by Fraser (1997:113) and others. She maintains

that “you can have a variety of voices in society who engage in dialogue and

negotiation… Joe Public says his own, too, but in his echo chamber, in his sphere,

in his group of people”, an idea also suggested by Habermas, who claimed that

this also created a “homogenous climate of opinion” (1989:213). A public sphere

does exist, however, and Dr Sammut notes that media personalities act as


P a g e 36 | 106

“multipliers” and “opinion leaders” who have their say and create other public

spheres. Herman Grech, of the Times of Malta, is also sceptical about Maltese

people’s ability to debate: “The first thing we do is not think how we can attack an

argument with another argument but calling them names.” Mr Grech observes that

his newspaper’s online platform is “probably the main forum” for online

engagement, but admits that the debate on the newspaper’s portal is not always

“the most intelligent”. This aligns with O’Neill (2010, quoted in Nilsson and

Carlsson, 2013:3), who warned that popular interference could lead to a

“trivialisation of politics” and important legislation may be influenced by “populist”

thinking. Also, Rasmussen’s (2014) affirms that the quality of debate online was

generally poor and the best argument does not necessarily prevail, as is the case

with a Habermasian public sphere. This thinking also ties in with the notion of the

tyranny of the majority (Thomassen, 2010). Digital media researcher Martin

Debattista contends that Maltese people fail when it comes to contributions to the

public sphere because “we are not mature in the way we contribute to the public

sphere. Part of the problem is cultural. We (the Maltese)… are hot headed

Mediterraneans”. Housewife Patricia Tabone, from St Julian’s, insists that it is not

a matter of debate, but rather people expressing an opinion either to create a

controversy or raise awareness, suggesting that, “it’s not a debate where there’s a

conversation… I don’t think there is room for discussion.” This may also be

because for older generations, the days when fear of retribution prevailed may still

be around, making people wary of what to say and to whom. Many interviewees –

AD chairman Arnold Cassola, Kristina Chetcuti, Fr Borg and Dr Grech – contend it

may be just a perception, but it nonetheless exists. The sixties to the eighties were

characterised by political violence and expressing an opinion against the

government could result in being targeted. Those years were blighted by violent

acts, both psychological and physical (Vella, 2015). This has led many people to

be fearful of openly expressing an opinion and may have also affected the

deliberative skills of an entire generation.

Although the ability of Maltese people to debate is quested by many

interviewees, the research shows that many public spheres exist and people are

engaging in debate, even if this does not necessarily take on the form of a

conversation. All three party leaders concur. PN Leader Simon Busuttil claims that

politicians who have thousands of followers (on social media) will inevitably find it


P a g e 37 | 106

difficult to carry out a genuine conversation-type debate because of the sheer

volume of feedback. Apart from the personal messages he receives, his strategy is

to raise issues on social media, which generally results in a “flood” of answers. It

may not be a one-on-one conversation, but the results are equally positive. Prime

Minister Joseph Muscat finds the feedback of people who message him privately

(using social media platforms, including Facebook’s Messenger) more valuable.

This results in the creation of the persona of a politician focused on appeasing the

strong polarisation existing on the islands, which, Dr Muscat remarks, still affects

the way in which the Maltese people debate. AD Chairman Prof. Cassola stresses

that through direct messages, for example on Facebook, the party receives

valuable information and also creates meaningful bonds with potential voters. This

creates a valuable tool for two-way conversation, he notes.

Stephen Muscat, a 24-year-old web designer who participated in the voters’ survey,

opines that the internet is a great tool for politicians to communicate with people. His

views match Ubayasiri (2006:4), who terms the internet a “global ‘public sphere’”. Mr

Muscat’s outlook is also backed by statistics which put internet penetration in Malta at 71

percent, and in the 90+ percentage region for people aged 18-49 (Malta Communications

Authority, 2014a). It also means, however, that a considerable proportion of the populatin

does not have access to social media public spheres where, Mr Muscat insists, debate in

the public sphere is taking place, even though content is superficial and often degenerates

and ends up in insults, a common global trend in online debate (Coleman, 1999; Iosifidis,

2010; Nilsson and Carlsson, 2013). Sunstein (2009, quoted in Rasmussen

2014:1,323) suggests that homogenous groups meet online with the result that

views become more extreme. Ironically, the verbal abuse often targeted at the AD

leader on social media has had some beneficial effects, as Prof. Cassola explains:

Unless they are extremely bad, I tend to leave them [the comments], I

prefer having a few insults as they normally get a reaction, [people]

defending [the party and me]. I tend to not intervene as much as possible. It

helps to create a dialogue and more attention... but then you have the

private messages, which I think are the best. Those are the people who are

really involved.

Degenerating into “bad-tempered” tirades is the result of a lack in debating

skills, as suggested by Coleman (1999, quoted in Iosifidis, 2010:624) and Nilsson


P a g e 38 | 106

and Carlsson, (2013:7). Foul-mouthed antics are often the result of Maltese

people’s obsession with politics, as Dr Busuttil notes that:

in the absence of having our favourite football team playing in the

Champions League, the national obsession here in Malta is with politics and

politicians. And obviously, the higher your rank as a politician, the higher the

obsession with you – in favour and against. What I realised when I was

elected two years ago (as PN leader) is that from one day to the next, half

the country hated me.

Polarisation in Malta runs deep, making contact between opposing factions

somewhat difficult. Politicians often post or tweet remarks that while seemingly

innocuous, could encourage people into resorting to abusing opponents.

Reflecting Gibson’s (2004, quoted in Nilsson and Carlsson, 2013:8) suggestion

that new media created “better contact between elected officials and citizens”, Dr

Busuttil remarks that:

this is part of the price that one has to pay for this free space, but that’s a

small price to pay for such an ample space, for such a great possibility and

for such great empowerment for people to express their views and for

democracy to flourish.

With such platforms available, and all the opportunities they offer, people have

been quick to flock to social media, especially Facebook. The next section will

discuss politicians’ presence on social media and their interaction with the users of

these platforms, most of whom are the same voters who will determine, through

the ballot box, whether the same politicians are elected to office.

5.5.2 Politicians on social media

When social media became popular in Malta, politicians started populating the

likes of Facebook and Twitter. Some are conversant with the ‘netiquette’ that

governs the use of Facebook and Twitter, others are not. In an article in Times of

Malta (2012), journalist Christian Peregin writes that “social media experts are

neither convinced nor impressed by the ‘conservative’ approaches adopted by the

political parties, where interaction is far from raw and somewhat staged.” Peregin

contends that the PN website only allowed private messages rather than public

comments, and the leaders’ attempts at connecting with people via online chat


P a g e 39 | 106

tools were more for show than anything. He quotes blogger Alison Bezzina, who

suggests that “it would make more sense to have open internet forums where

people were left free to criticise and ask questions while someone diligently

addressed issues”. In the same article, social media expert Toni Sant is reported

as stating that “both parties are using social media too blatantly to push their

political messages without a human touch.” Kristina Chetcuti, also from the Times

of Malta, wrote an article in 2013 severely criticising politicians for their dim

approach to Facebook. ‘Good Day to All!!! Politicians’ pathetic use of social media’

(Chetcuti, 2013) argues that people in Malta are polarised, sticking to one group or

another, but never crossing swords in debate. Today, things are not that different,

with social media used as billboards with no dialogue, Ms Chetcuti remarks during

an interview for this research project, adding that “I think in Malta we are still in the

‘I’m happy I’m on Facebook’ stage and many politicians… still haven’t realised

what to use it for.” Even Prime Minister Muscat admits that most politicians use

social media as a billboard. Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil claims that even

though it may have been the case, things are changing:

Maybe initially one might have been a bit overzealous... Sometimes,

when a tool is new, you might not know how to use it well. I think now with

experience, people (politicians) are using it better.

Dr Sammut disagrees, insisting that many politicians still do not know how to

use Facebook and “many end up being ridiculed and use it in a way that shows

exactly what they are – big-headed [and] frivolous…” Asked to rate politicians’

contribution to the networked public sphere, Dr Grech replied: “To the public

sphere? Absolutely nothing, just broadcast. They have no idea of engaging with

anybody except people in the media… That’s what we are doing now, fabricating

our public persona online.” This may stem from the fact that social media platforms

are an extension of Malta’s oral culture, Fr Borg continues, “giving another

dimension to our orality. Instead of being at the grocer, at a bar or on the bus-stop,

I now have, theoretically, a universal forum…”. It is “light-years easier,” Fr Borg

observes, “to post something rather than call a radio station or write a letter to a

newspaper”, which previously were the only means a person had to contribute to

the public sphere. “Phone-in programmes and social media are a technologically

more refined manifestation of our orality,” Fr Borg continues, supporting what


P a g e 40 | 106

Klinger and Svensson describe as social media being a “networked-enhanced

word of mouth” (2014:8). Fr Borg opines that this has contributed to create a public

sphere that is “alive and kicking“, noting that there is an attempt by institutions to

influence this space in the same way that they try to influence traditional media, a

concern also raised by Dr Sammut. In this, they corroborate the view of

Rasmussen (2014:1318), who warned of pressure from politicians and media

commentary. Dr Grech concedes that the Maltese “nascent public sphere” is

blighted by political manoeuvring. This was done in a subtle manner, Prof. Cassola

remarks, and authorities try to “depict you as a crackpot” if you contradict them.

However, Fr Borg claims these attempts at influencing the social media space are

drowned out by the sheer numbers of contributors to the public sphere. The

scenario is relatively new for politicians used to one-way communication, with

social media giving people the opportunity to have their opinion heard. There is “a

vibrant debate”, Fr Borg insists, even if people appear to be following party or

church lines:

Now you might say that when people debate, they are mirroring what the

party [they support] or the church is saying. But in reality, they are reflecting

the party because the party is a reflection of the people … I believe that

Maltese people, given a chance, want to express themselves. And

cyberspace is giving them the chance to express themselves without any

constraints.

Unlike in the ‘old’ days of newspapers, when a handful of people wrote letters to

the editor, comments today come from a variety of people. Accordingly, Fr Borg

notes, the reach is incredible, as shown by recent controversies that garnered

support from thousands in a very short time. It is these voices, however muted,

that come together and influence politicians’ decisions. Rasmussen (2014),

quoting Habermas, claims that the public sphere debate was not intended as a

decision-making tool but to allow people to voice their opinions for people in

authority to hear and act accordingly. Dr Busuttil believes Facebook has

strengthened the process of democratisation as it empowers people to speak:

I think it (social media) is an open space, it’s a free space and it’s a

space that politicians would do well to get used to. If you can’t handle social


P a g e 41 | 106

media, then you can’t handle people. And I think it is a good opportunity to

have interactive exchanges with people.

Malta may be a ‘Facebook country’, as described by Dr Busuttil, but Mr

Debattista believes that digital literacy needs teaching, because “it’s one thing

pressing a button, but it’s another thing knowing what you are doing when you are

pressing that button.” Politicians who try to create their own rules on Facebook are

bound to fail, Mr Debattista states, adding:

’If I have to be on Facebook, I won’t do this, I won’t do that. I will do this, I

will do that. These are boundaries. Be careful, tread careful[ly] – but I am on

Facebook’. Politicians who act this way are not maximising the potential of

Facebook. They would be erecting a protective wall, but there is a flip side.

It protects you from outside threats but it also hinders you from venturing

outside and engaging with people.

The result is that while politicians may be seen as present, and their efforts may

also influence a number of people to act in certain ways, social media users are

not passive members of the platform and the building barriers may have undesired

results. Institutions and politicians, Mr Debattista comments, are adopting new

technology that could lead to the “emergence of a new hierarchy (Benkler,

2006:241). However, this is not happening:

Here, the usual [Maltese] self-defence mechanisms kick in. So you see a

lot of government departments and ministries on Facebook, but do they

allow contributions on their walls from users? Not all of them, because they

fear losing control when the whole issue of public sphere is not having

control. By its nature, the public sphere should be an open platform and

everyone can contribute. If you control the public sphere, it’s still public and

still a sphere, but it is reminiscent of dictatorial public sphere where

everything is controlled, 1984-like.

Dr Grech reiterates that one of the problems is that politicians “are not educated

in the fine art of digital literacy”. Showing your face and not communicating is mere

distraction, he insists. The crux of social media is not simply posting a message,

but getting a message back and inviting others to talk and debate (Stewart-Weeks

in Grant et al, 2010:594). Proving Dr Grech’s point, Sliema pensioner Lawrence

Pisani, who participated in the voters’ survey, suggests that politicians should learn


P a g e 42 | 106

how to use social media, noting that “some comments are childish and ridiculous

and you just want to turn off… and say ‘to hell with them’.” Often, posts are very

superficial and do not delve deeply enough into issues. Mr Pisani argues. He

believes Facebook and Twitter constitute a public sphere, but criticises politicians

for being absent or evasive, noting that “the debate right now is between

individuals and not politicians… From politicians, I’m afraid, they either ignore you

completely or the answer is… vague.” Ms Tabone, a 38-year-old voter who also

participated in the survey, points out that it is not easy to communicate with

politicians on social media, adding: “I don’t think you get through to a politician

through Facebook or Twitter. It’s more for you [to] know what they are doing…”

She notes that before the last election, leaders held Google Hangouts and online

chats with people, but these stopped, which she described as “a pity because… if

it were done on a weekly basis for half an hour, you’d get the people’s pulse of

what they are really going through...”.

On the other hand, Fr Borg submits that ‘meeting’ people on social media is

better for politicians than appearing on television, as the former was as close as

possible to meeting people in real life, permitting “a sort of in between direct

personal contact and mass media [exposure]”. Facebook is tantamount to the

village square where politicians and people can chat about mundane things, but

also about important issues, irrespective of the fact that sometimes politicians

sometimes write senseless posts. This interaction is crucial and helps define the

relationship between politicians and constituents. Fr Borg argues it is fine if

politicians post a picture of their village feast, for example, as this is an important

aspect of the Maltese culture. They should also raise pertinent questions on

important issues, such as noise pollution at these boisterous feasts. This,

however, was not happening, which might explain why this research has shown

that politicians’ contributions fall short of expectations, leading many interviewees

to insist that these contributions were often shallow and lack depth. However, the

vast majority of respondents in the voters’ survey welcome politicians on social

media, and politicians, in a separate survey, also claimed to receive mostly

positive feedback from people. The next section discusses how people act on

social media and the way these platforms can bridge voters and politicians.


P a g e 43 | 106

5.5.3 Pressing ‘like’

As mentioned by Mr Debattista in the previous section, there is more to social

media than pressing a button. By pressing ‘like’ on Facebook or ‘favourite’ on

Twitter, you sends a message. “You are taking a position,” Fr Borg opines, as a

large number of likes or signing online petitions is intended to put pressure on the

authorities. So while politicians and institutions try their best to influence people, it

may be more a case of people influencing politicians. It is easy for people, from the

comfort of their home, to support a cause. Mirroring Nilsson and Carlsson’s

concern on what they term a “push-the-button democracy” (2013:9), Dr Sammut

believes it should go deeper than simply pressing ‘like’:

I think it gives you the perception that you are participating in the public

sphere, that you are making your opinion felt, but when it comes to

substantive politics it doesn’t mean anything. There is a difference between

pressing ‘like’ and then following up with total inaction… People fleetingly

like something, more fleetingly look at an issue, and then move on to

discuss something totally different. And they are under the impression that

because they pressed ‘like’ a few times or commented on a subject, they

are changing things. I think it requires a bit more than that.

That is only half the picture, Dr Sammut continues, suggesting that there is a

health debate over and above just pressing ‘like’. She insists that politicians can

hear people directly on social media or through third parties. Dr Sammut uses the

example of political party executives who may be exposed and influenced by

opinions they hear of social media platforms, and adopt these opinions as their

own. This is the true, real concept of the public sphere in action. These opinions,

presented to the executive bodies, can then be assimilated into the party’s line of

thinking. Dr Sammut adds:

Political parties are accepting the fact that you cannot have one

monolithic perspective. Today, whoever is in political structures has to

accept the fact that they are going to be challenged more. And if they want

to remain in their position, they have to feel the pulse of the people. Social

media is a way of doing this…”

Fr Borg takes on a different perspective and insists that influencing anyone,

especially people who have a formed opinion, is difficult. Even the majority of


P a g e 44 | 106

politicians (70 percent), surveyed for this dissertation, claim that people vote for

their party whatever the party did, a fact that underlines the importance of people’s

political identity, which forms an intrinsic part of Maltese social fabric. Just eight

percent of the people surveyed disagreed with having politicians on social media,

possibly in the belief that their presence leads to further polarisation and division.

The results are unsurprising if you believe Mr Grech (Times of Malta) who insists

that “there are still a lot of people who simply do what their leader tells them”. One

case in point was the spring hunting referendum. Mr Grech suggests that “had Dr

Muscat kept out of it… it would have gone for a No vote. But he decided to speak

out… and he did so because he realised he could sway it.” In the end, the Yes

vote won by a very small majority. Dr Muscat, who admitted to bringing up the

subject twice in the run-up to the vote, disagrees with Mr Grech, suggesting that

such assumptions were an affront to people’s intelligence. Dr Muscat asserts that

politicians’ role is very important in society:

When politicians in any society are absent, a vacuum is created that is

filled by other people, maybe not politicians, but some of these [people]

eventually end up [becoming] politicians... People look for some sort of

leadership, not necessarily to agree with what is being said, but even to

smear them. Most of the times, the debate on a subject or on an idea being

put forward by a leader – be it the cultural sphere, political sphere or

religious – is the raison d’etre of the public sphere. Remove it, and what is

left? One of the key roles of the public sphere is to influence the decisions

you are taking (as a politician). If there is nobody to influence, or nobody is

listening, the whole reason for debate ends.

Dr Busuttil concedes that politicians concurrently manipulate and contribute to

the public sphere:

It’s a bit of both. I suppose that in politics there is a great deal of

manipulation, but there is also a great deal of contribution to achieving the

truth, to pursuing worthwhile objectives. I would like to think that I am in

politics to do that and not to waste my time by fooling around and being

more of a salesman than a statesman.

That might be the case for Dr Busuttil, whose parliamentary seat is safe, but

things may be different for candidates who face serious competition to get elected.


P a g e 45 | 106

Hence, politicians’ actions on Facebook and Twitter may be aimed at selling

themselves, hence the use of social media as a political billboard and the creation

of an online persona. Politicians, therefore, go to great lengths to appease

constituents, even at the risk of committing a faux pas, which, according to many

contributors to this research, are plentiful. Despite his misgivings, Mr Grech still

believes politicians contribute to the debate, “provided they are not spewing

rubbish”. Mr Debattista agrees, insisting that politicians could contribute far more

effectively if they kept their defence mechanisms and over-cautiousness under

control:

Politicians are control freaks. Politicians by nature want to control the

agenda [and] the media… to push their own agenda and initiatives.

Facebook [for political parties] is a double edged sword – if handled

correctly, you can deal a few blows to your ‘enemies’ and use it to your

advantage, but if mishandled you can cut yourself.

Mr Debattista opines that politicians must remain on social media as their

absence might be construed as indifference. While politicians may still be learning

the social media ropes, it is clear that their presence on public spheres is a

fundamental element to debate taking place, especially on Facebook. The vast

majority of people survey for this research have Facebook accounts, with just over

17 percent claiming to use Twitter. However, Dr Muscat believes Twitter will

overtake the “dying” Facebook within five years, because “people who want to

send you their feedback… barely need more than 140 characters.” His thoughts

are backed by research carried out by Grant et al (2010:59), which shows that

politicians are benefiting from the use of Twitter because this platform is used as

an important source of information by journalists (Broersma and Graham, 2012 in

Klinger and Svensson, 2014:8). This is ideal for a media public sphere, which is

still very strong in Malta and also feed the networked public sphere. In fact, Dr

Grech remarked, somewhat ironically, that if an event is not covered by the media,

then it did not happen. Contrary to the Prime Minister, Dr Busuttil believes the

space limitations of Twitter do not allow Maltese to express themselves in their

truly Mediterranean way. “People”, he continues, “want to say it, they want to say it

out loud, and they want to say all they want to say without any limits.” Despite the


P a g e 46 | 106

technological advances, however, the Maltese culture requires physical contact,

according to both Dr Busuttil and Dr Muscat. The latter states:

I don’t believe we will end up in a virtual world, maybe because we have

a strong Mediterranean tradition. There will be more personal private

contact and mass events will be more confined and far in between.

Dr Busuttil describes meeting people in person as the “most powerful element

that would clinch a vote”. However, social media is a new reality especially

because it makes participation in a debate so easy.


P a g e 47 | 106

Chapter 6: Conclusion

6.1 Conclusion

Nilsson and Carlsson (2013:11-12) propose that as democracy is an ever

mutating phenomenon, social media could be considered:

saviours of both representative democracy and the legitimacy of elected

politicians… Before the expansion of new media… ‘ordinary’ people did not

have contact with politicians to the same extent as nowadays. Today

anyone has the opportunity to participate in public political debates.

It is up to individuals to choose whether to take advantage of this opportunity.

While interaction with politicians in Malta was always relatively high, social media

has made opportunities for communication immense. Also, social media provide

the platform for people to research information and participate in online

discussions with a variety of audiences: politicians, people in their own sphere,

and people they do not know.

In Malta, which has a passion for politics, as claimed by both Dr Muscat and Dr

Busuttil, most people want politicians on social media – to debate, criticise or

simply interact. This research also found that despite the fact that fewer than 40

percent of respondents to the voters’ survey followed politicians on social media,

most suggested that social media was is a good tool for politicians to

communicate. Though this may initially sound contradictory, it is a natural

transition of the country’s oral culture, with Fr Borg describing social media as “a

technologically more refined manifestation of our orality“. Facebook and Twitter as

public spheres are further complemented by media personalities acting as opinion

leaders and multipliers, as Dr Sammut explains. The research clearly shows that

Maltese people revel at the prospect of being able to take on politicians on social

media, to listen, discuss, and follow. Very few people interviewed said politicians’

presence on social media platforms in Malta were detrimental or had a negative

impact on voters. The networked public sphere also intertwined with the private

sphere, which a number of interviewees believe was far more predominant in

Malta. In Structural Transformation, Habermas laments that the modern world is

characterised by the “loss of the private sphere and of ensured access to the


P a g e 48 | 106

public sphere” especially because of economic and societal demands (1989:157).

But he also claims that people prefer to speak within closed circles of family and

friends rather than engage to influence public opinion (ibid:213). This is the case in

Malta. Alex Grech, Martin Debattista and Carmen Sammut all mentioned the ‘echo

chamber’, for example, in which people spoke in their own private spheres to a

closed group of friends. This is important because, as Rasmussen (2014:1,323)

observes, it can create or strengthen extremist views, making the idea of a public

sphere redundant, or be used to convince the hesitant.

Whether Maltese people – politicians or voters – can debate is in itself

debatable. One certainty is that the networked public sphere in Malta is taking

shape with all parties agreeing that people are starting to use online platforms, and

want to do it without restrictions with the objective of becoming the ‘Fifth Estate

(Dutton, 2007, cited in Iosifidis:621). Politicians themselves see Facebook and

Twitter as appropriate places to interact with constituents and also claim that

people engage in debates with them, a view shared by the majority of politicians

surveyed. They also admit, however, that most people will still vote for the same

party irrespective of what that party did, but still need a presence on social media

as they would otherwise feel disadvantaged in electoral campaigns against fellow

candidates, a feeling also expressed in the politicians’ survey. This is why, as

mentioned earlier, politicians tend to use social media platforms as billboards.

Martin Debattista contended this was also down to habits of old, where defence

mechanisms kicked in, not allowing the politicians themselves to make full use of

the social media potential. This resulted in the use of social media as one-way

communication tools, effectively a ‘billboard’ of their activities. This view is echoed

by Thomassen (2010:46) who suggests that “the political elites… try to manage –

that is, manipulate – the public sphere. Most often they succeed in doing so... It is

one-way communication rather than dialogue”.

On the other hand, Dr Grech and Ms Chetcuti expressed doubts whether the

public sphere did function in Malta, the former claiming that a functioning public

sphere will not come into existence in his lifetime in Malta. Others spoke of a

culture of ‘fear of retribution’ that makes people think twice before expressing an

opinion. This may also stem from the very presence of politicians on social media,

with people anxious to not be publically labelled as belonging to one party or

another. One of the more concerning issues is whether politicians are using social


P a g e 49 | 106

media correctly. Political leaders interviewed for this research project were

diplomatic when speaking about their colleagues, but academics, voters and

journalists stated that the majority of Maltese politicians do not know how to use

social media platforms, and there was a lack of digital literacy among Malta’s

political class, the vast majority of whom ran their own social media. The positive

aspect is that Malta’s size allows people to contact politicians privately via social

media, even though answers are not always forthcoming o rare vague, as Mr

Pisani stated.

In conclusion, social media give people a chance to have a “direct impact on

established politicians” (Nilsson and Carlsson, 2013:2). These platforms are

establishing themselves as the “main loci for mediated communication” and as

such politicians are migrating towards these platforms (Klinger and Svensson,

2014:5). It is a move that is welcomed by more than four in five of the Maltese,

with 71 percent viewing social media as a good place for a debate, even on

sensitive issues. The majority of politicians maintain their intentions for using social

media is to connect with the electorate. Despite misgivings on the digital

competence of many politicians, their veiled attempts at influencing people and

use of social media as billboards, the electorate seems more than happy to have

them there. Journalist Herman Grech notes that politicians contribute to the public

sphere, “provided they are not spewing rubbish” on their social media pages.

Prime Minister Muscat adds that if politicians were absent, the whole idea of a

networked public sphere became redundant. Accordingly, he suggests that, rather

than politicians influencing people, it is more the case of people influencing or

lobbying politicians. This research project’s survey results show that more than 85

percent believe social media is a good tool for politicians to communicate, even

though just two in five actively follow politicians on the same platforms. It is also a

subtle way for voters to have easy access of their own to politicians, a point

mentioned by Mr Debattista. The two sides – politicians and voters – feed off each

other on social media platforms, and while many may complain about an overload

of politics or questionable posts and tweets, it seems clear that one party needs

the other. New technology has brought out fundamental changes in the way

society operates, and Maltese people are embracing the new opportunities, but the

mentality of the people and the manner in which they interact with politicians has

remained fundamentally the same. The influence politicians had on people before


P a g e 50 | 106

social media, therefore, is the same today – however, social media has given

voters more tools to express themselves and in turn influence and lobby

politicians, confining monolithic ideas and unilateral decisions to history.

6.2 Limitations

While the politicians’ survey targeted the entire politicians’ population, the voters’

survey included only 200 people and hence considered only ‘fair’ in terms of being

generalizable for a population, in accordance with the views of Wimmer and

Dominick (2013:105). This survey was conducted in the language selected by

respondents, Maltese or English, as the country is bilingual. However, other

possible language influences were not taken into account in this study. This may

affect people who feel uncomfortable speaking in English, the lingua franca of

Facebook and internet. Little or no reference was made to the content of tweets

and Facebook posts, even though a content analysis may have been useful. Malta

has a relatively high penetration of access to the internet – 75 percent of all

households are connected compared with 73 percent for the EU27 countries – but

125,000 Maltese have never used the internet (Malta Communications Authority,

2015: 7, 18). This digital divide, a potential issue for Facebook and Twitter as

public spheres, was not taken into consideration. Finally, the population on the

web is not a good reflection of the general population, with a marked lack of senior

citizens and a prevalence of highly-educated males (Ceron et al, 2013:345).

6.3 Further research

1. The research conducted for this project has revealed there is a lack of data

with regard to the direct effects of politicians’ social media efforts. It is suggested

that future, possibly long-term, studies focus on whether politicians (i) are having

the desired effect on people, and, (ii) are being more successful in electoral

campaigns.

2. A content analysis of the Facebook posts and tweets of all Maltese

politicians over a defined period, including the number of comments received and

the frequency of posts and tweets, is suggested. These can be divided into

different categories, namely (i) political messages, (ii) requests for feedback, and

(iii) reactions to other tweets/posts, (iv) re-tweets and re-posts, and, (v) actual


P a g e 51 | 106

feedback. This study can be coupled with a comparative analysis of electoral

results to determine what influence social media has on voters.


P a g e 52 | 106

Appendices

7.1 Appendix A: Voters’ survey: The use of social media by politicians (English version) Good morning/afternoon, (__________) MISCO International. We are currently conducting a survey on behalf of a Master’s student. This survey is for the purpose of understanding people’s opinions on the use of the social media by politicians. We are interested in your opinion. This survey will only take 5 minutes to complete. We guarantee that everything said will remain confidential.

Q1 Please rank in order of importance, your top three main sources for news about politics. READ OUT AND CODE BY PREFERENCE.

Main sources for news about politics

Ranking ( please choose your top 3 sources

A. Newspapers WRITE IN

B. Television WRITE IN

C. Facebook WRITE IN

D. Twitter WRITE IN

E. Other social media

WRITE IN

F. Friends/ Family WRITE IN

G. Word of mouth WRITE IN

Q2 Do you use social media (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc.)? SR

1. Yes

2. No – GO TO Q10

99. Do not know

ASK Q3 TO Q9 IF Q2 = 1 Q3 How often do you make use of the social media? SR

1. Several hours per day

2. Once a day

3. A few times a week

4. Once a week

5. Once a month

99. Do not know


P a g e 53 | 106

Q4 Do you use Facebook? SR

1. Yes

2. No

Q5 Do you use Twitter? SR

1. Yes

2. No

Q6 I will read out a number of reasons why people make use of Social Media. Please rank the reasons in order of importance, where 1 indicates the most important reason and 4 indicates the least important reason which leads you to make use of social media. READ OUT AND CODE BY PREFERENCE.

Reasons for using social media

Ranking from 1-4

A. Social Activity

WRITE IN

B. News

WRITE IN

C. Politics

WRITE IN

D. Everyone is doing it

WRITE IN

Q7 Do you follow any politicians on the social media? SR

1. Yes

2. No

97. Refused

Q8 Do you think it is acceptable for politicians to be present on the social media? SR

1. Yes

2. No

99. Do not know

Q9 Do you feel you can speak openly with politicians on the social media? SR

1. Yes

2. No

99. Do not know

3. It depends on the topic

ASK ALL Q10 Do you think that social media is a good tool for politicians to communicate with people?

1. Yes

2. No

99. Do not know


P a g e 54 | 106

Q11 Do you think that the social media is a good place to freely discuss issues such as religion, politics, etc.? SR

1. Yes

2. No

99. Do not know

Q12 Do you have any further comments that you would like to make in regard to this topic? WRITE IN: _______________________________________________________

97. No further comments to make

Q13 Which party did you vote for in the 2013 last election? SR

1. Alternattiva Demokratika

2. Partit Laburista

3. Partit Nazzjonalista

4. Another party

5. Did not vote

97. I refuse to answer this question

Demographics D1 How old are you?

1. 15-25

2. 25-34

3. 35-44

4. 45-54

5. 55-64

6. 65-74

7. 75+

99. Refused

D2 What is your occupation? WRITE IN AND CODE BELOW: ____________________________

1 Professional / Managerial (high ranking police/army officers, engineer, accountant, lawyer, doctor)

2 Business Owner (more than 10 employees)

3 Business Owner (less than 10 employees)

4 Clerks/Executives/Administration Staff/Sales Representatives/Supervisors/Office Workers/ Stock Controllers/Housekeepers

5 Armed Forces/Police

6 Skilled Workers (plumbers, electricians, tile layers, carpenter, photographers, Heavy vehicle drivers, Bus drivers)

7 Unskilled Workers (sales assistants, waiters, care workers, cleaners, factory workers, delivery persons, labourers)

8 Student/Apprentice

9 Living on Social Benefits /Unemployed


P a g e 55 | 106

10 Housewife

11 Pensioner

D3 In which locality do you live in? WRITE IN: ___________________________________________________________ D4. Would you like to pass on your contact details to the student carrying out the research so that he may call you should he wish to better understand your responses? (READ OUT) DO NOT PUSH IF THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT WANT TO GIVE DETAILS.

97. Refused

Name: WRITE IN __________________________________________________

Email: WRITE IN ___________________________________________________

Mobile phone: WRITE IN ____________________________________________________

ASK IF D4 ≠ 97 D5. Would you be interested in a more in-depth interview on the subject with the student carrying out the dissertation? This will help him obtain a more detailed picture of the situation in Malta

1. Yes

2. No

On behalf of MISCO as well as the Master’s student, I would like to thank you for your time. ENDS


P a g e 56 | 106

7.1.1 Appendix B: Voters’ survey: The use of social media by politicians (Maltese version) L-għodwa it-tajba/wara nofsinhar it-tajjeb, jiena (__________) minn MISCO International. Qegħdin nagħmlu riċerka f’isem student li qed jagħmel il- Masters. L-iskop ta’ dan is- survey huwa biex nifhmu l-opinjonijiet tan-nies fuq l-użu tas-social media mill-politiċi. Aħna interessati fl-opinjoni tiegħek. Dan is-survey mhux ser idum iktar minn 5 minuti. Nassigurawh li kollox ser jibqa’ kunfidenzjali.

Q1 Jekk jogħġbok semmi fl-ordni t’importanza, it-tlett sorsi ewlenin għall-aħbarijiet tal-politika. READ OUT AND CODE BY PREFERENCE.

Sorsi ewlenin ghall-aħbarijiet tal-politika

Ranking ( please choose your top 3 sources)

A. Gazzetti WRITE IN

B. Televixin WRITE IN

C. Facebook WRITE IN

D. Twitter WRITE IN

E. Social media oħra

WRITE IN

F. Ħbieb/ familja WRITE IN

G. Bill-fomm WRITE IN

Q2 Tagħmel użu mis-social media (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc.)? SR

1. Iva

2. Le – GO TO Q10

99. Ma nafx

ASK Q3 TO Q9 IF Q2 = 1 Q3 Kemm spiss tagħmel użu mis-social media? SR

1. Spiss matul il-ġurnata

. Darba fil-ġurnata

3. Spiss matul il-ġimgħa

4. Darba kull ġimgħa

5. Darba kull xhar

99. Ma nafx

Q4 Tagħmel użu minn facebook? SR

1. Iva

2. Le


P a g e 57 | 106

Q5 Tagħmel użu minn Twitter? SR

1. Iva

2. Le

Q6 Issa ser naqra numru ta’ raġunijiet għaliex in-nies jagħmlu użu tas-social media. Jekk jogħġbok niżżel ir-raġunijiet fl-ordni t’importanza, fejn 1 jindika l-aktar raġuni importanti u 4 jindika ir-raguni l-inqas importanti li iġġegħlek tuża is-social media. READ OUT AND CODE BY PREFERENCE.

Raġunijiet għaliex tagħmel użu mis-social media

Ranking from 1-4

A. Attività soċjali WRITE IN

B. Aħbarijiet WRITE IN

C. Politika WRITE IN

D. Kulħadd jagħmel hekk

WRITE IN

Q7 Issegwi xi politiċi fuq is-social media? SR

1. Iva

2. Le

97. Rifjut

Q8 Taħseb li huwa aċċettabli li il-politiċi jkunu preżenti fuq is-social media? SR

1. Iva

2. Le

99. Ma nafx

Q9 Tħossok liberu/a titkellem mal-politiċi fuq is-social media? SR

1. Iva

2. Le

99. Ma nafx

3. Jiddependi fuq il-każ

ASK ALL Q10 Taħseb li is-social media hija għodda tajba għall-politiċi biex jikkomunikaw man-nies?

1. Iva

2. Le

99. Ma nafx

Q11 Taħseb li is-social media huwa mezz fejn wieħed jista’ jiddiskuti liberament temi bħal reliġjon u politika eċc? SR

1. Iva

2. Le

99. Ma nafx

Q12 Tixtieq tagħmel xi kummenti rigward dan is-suġġett?


P a g e 58 | 106

WRITE IN: _______________________________________________________

97. M’għandhix iktar kummenti

Q13 Għal liema partit ivvotajt ghall-aħħar elezzjoni tal-2013? SR

1. Alternattiva Demokratika

2. Partit Laburista

3. Partit Nazzjonalista

4. Partit ieħor

5. Ma ivvotjatx

97. Nirrifjuta nwieġeb din il-mistoqsija

Demographics D1 Kemm għandek żmien?

1. 15-25

2. 25-34

3. 35-44

4. 45-54

5. 55-64

6. 65-74

7. 75+

99. Rifjut

D2 Inti taħdem bħalissa? Jekk iva, x’inhu x-xogħol tiegħek? WRITE IN AND CODE BELOW: ____________________________

1 Professional / Managerial (high ranking police/army officers, engineer, accountant, lawyer, doctor)

2 Business Owner (more than 10 employees)

3 Business Owner (less than 10 employees)

4 Clerks/Executives/Administration Staff/Sales Representatives/Supervisors/Office Workers/ Stock Controllers/Housekeepers

5 Armed Forces/Police

6 Skilled Workers (plumbers, electricians, tile layers, carpenter, photographers, Heavy vehicle drivers, Bus drivers)

7 Unskilled Workers (sales assistants, waiters, care workers, cleaners, factory workers, delivery persons, labourers)

8 Student/Apprentice

9 Living on Social Benefits /Unemployed

10 Housewife

11 Pensioner

D3 F’liema lokalità tgħix? WRITE IN: ___________________________________________________________


P a g e 59 | 106

D4. Tixtieq tgħaddi id-dettalji personali tiegħek lill-istudent li qed jagħmel din ir-riċerka, biex b’hekk ikun jista’ jikkuntatjak jekk ikollu l-ħtieġa li jsaqsik xi mistoqsijiet biex jifhem aħjar it-tweġibijiet tiegħek? (READ OUT) DO NOT PUSH IF THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT WANT TO GIVE DETAILS.

97. Ma nixtieqx nirrispondi

Isem: WRITE IN __________________________________________________

Email: WRITE IN ___________________________________________________

Mobile phone: WRITE IN ____________________________________________________

ASK IF D4 ≠ 97 D5. Tkun interessat/a tipparteċipa f’intervista aktar dettaljata mal-istudent li qed jagħmel it-teżi? B’hekk l-istudent ikollu stampa aktar iddettaljata dwar is-sitwazzjoni f’Malta.

1. Iva

2. Le

F’isem MISCO kif ukoll l-istudent, nixtieq nirringrazzjak għall-ħin tiegħek. ENDS


P a g e 60 | 106

7.1.2 Appendix C: Voters’ survey: Question D1a [D1a] How old are you?

ENDS 7.1.3 Appendix D: Voters’ survey: Question D1b

[D1b] Which of the following age groups do you belong to?

ENDS


P a g e 61 | 106

7.1.4 Appendix E: Voters’ survey: Question D2 [D2] Gender

ENDS 7.1.5 Appendix F: Voters’ survey: Question D3 [D3] Where do you live?

ENDS


P a g e 62 | 106

7.1.6 Appendix G: Voters’ survey: Question D4 [D4] What is your occupation?

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid 82 41.0 41.0 41.0

accountant 4 2.0 2.0 43.0

accounts clerk 1 .5 .5 43.5

accounts officer 1 .5 .5 44.0

administration 1 .5 .5 44.5

administrator 2 1.0 1.0 45.5

Ambulance Driver 1 .5 .5 46.0

Animal Welfare Officer

1 .5 .5 46.5

Assistant Head 1 .5 .5 47.0

audit manager 1 .5 .5 47.5

Aviation security 1 .5 .5 48.0

Avukat (lawyer) 1 .5 .5 48.5

Awditur (auditor) 1 .5 .5 49.0

Awditura (auditor) 1 .5 .5 49.5

Bankier (banker) 1 .5 .5 50.0

bar owner 1 .5 .5 50.5

beauty therapist 1 .5 .5 51.0

Benej (builder) 1 .5 .5 51.5

Carpenter 1 .5 .5 52.0

child care worker 1 .5 .5 52.5

Child carer 1 .5 .5 53.0

cleaner 1 .5 .5 53.5

clerk 2 1.0 1.0 54.5

Clerk 1 .5 .5 55.0

company director 1 .5 .5 55.5

Customer care 1 .5 .5 56.0

Director 2 1.0 1.0 57.0

direttur ta zewg kumpaniji (director of two companies)

1 .5 .5 57.5

driver 1 .5 .5 58.0

electrician 1 .5 .5 58.5

employed mal-gvern 1 .5 .5 59.0

Engineer 1 .5 .5 59.5

Ex painter 1 .5 .5 60.0


P a g e 63 | 106

factory worker 1 .5 .5 60.5

farmer 1 .5 .5 61.0

financial Manager 1 .5 .5 61.5

flower arrangements 1 .5 .5 62.0

free-lance 1 .5 .5 62.5

general manager in shipping

1 .5 .5 63.0

Ghalliema (teacher) 1 .5 .5 63.5

ghalliema tal malti (teacher of Maltese)

1 .5 .5 64.0

Government 1 .5 .5 64.5

graphic designer 1 .5 .5 65.0

Gurnalista (journalist) 1 .5 .5 65.5

Gvern 1 .5 .5 66.0

head of department 1 .5 .5 66.5

hospital worker 1 .5 .5 67.0

Housekeeper 1 .5 .5 67.5

ICT 1 .5 .5 68.0

impjegat mal gvern (civil servant)

1 .5 .5 68.5

importer 1 .5 .5 69.0

insurance manager 1 .5 .5 69.5

internet marketer 1 .5 .5 70.0

IT 1 .5 .5 70.5

IT consultancy 1 .5 .5 71.0

IT related 1 .5 .5 71.5

jeweller 1 .5 .5 72.0

jimporta il-karozzi (car importer)

1 .5 .5 72.5

kinder teacher/ assistant

1 .5 .5 73.0

Lecturer 1 .5 .5 73.5

Leonardo project as an artistic

1 .5 .5 74.0

lsa 1 .5 .5 74.5

ma tal gazetti - printer 1 .5 .5 75.0

machine operator 1 .5 .5 75.5

manager 1 .5 .5 76.0

Manager at elderly home

1 .5 .5 76.5

manager ta' hanut 1 .5 .5 77.0

mechanic 2 1.0 1.0 78.0

Mekkanik (mechanic) 1 .5 .5 78.5

nail technician 1 .5 .5 79.0

nurse 1 .5 .5 79.5


P a g e 64 | 106

Office clerk 1 .5 .5 80.0

Office online site manager

1 .5 .5 80.5

officer 1 .5 .5 81.0

part time clerk 1 .5 .5 81.5

Perit (architect) 1 .5 .5 82.0

physiotherapist 1 .5 .5 82.5

Plaster 1 .5 .5 83.0

Profesjoni (professional)

1 .5 .5 83.5

radiography 1 .5 .5 84.0

sales design consultant

1 .5 .5 84.5

sales manager 1 .5 .5 85.0

salesman 1 .5 .5 85.5

Salesman 1 .5 .5 86.0

secretary 1 .5 .5 86.5

self employed 2 1.0 1.0 87.5

Self employed 2 1.0 1.0 88.5

self-employed salesman

1 .5 .5 89.0

self employed 1 .5 .5 89.5

self-employed 1 .5 .5 90.0

senior social worker 1 .5 .5 90.5

ship assistant 1 .5 .5 91.0

Skrivan (clerk) 1 .5 .5 91.5

Social media and website administrator

1 .5 .5 92.0

software developer 1 .5 .5 92.5

sprayer 1 .5 .5 93.0

Store Keeper 1 .5 .5 93.5

storekeeper 2 1.0 1.0 94.5

Storeman 1 .5 .5 95.0

student / waterpolo player

1 .5 .5 95.5

teacher 2 1.0 1.0 96.5

Teacher 1 .5 .5 97.0

technician 1 .5 .5 97.5

Technician 1 .5 .5 98.0

Tourist guide 1 .5 .5 98.5

unemployed 1 .5 .5 99.0

watchman 1 .5 .5 99.5

web developer 1 .5 .5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

ENDS


P a g e 65 | 106

7.1.7 Appendix H: Voters’ survey: Question Q1 Frequencies Statistics

[Q1.1] Please rank in order of importance your top three main sources for news about politics, starting with the most important one. MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE

[Q1.2] Please rank in order of importance your top three main sources for news about politics, starting with the most important one. SECOND MOST IMPORANT SOURCE

[Q1.3] Please rank in order of importance your top three main sources for news about politics, starting with the most important one. LEAST IMPORANT SOURCE

[Q1.1] Please rank in order of importance your top three main sources for news about politics, starting with the most important one. MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid Newspapers 23 11.5 11.7 11.7

Television 96 48.0 48.7 60.4

Facebook 28 14.0 14.2 74.6

Other social media 14 7.0 7.1 81.7

Word of mouth 1 .5 .5 82.2

Radio 6 3.0 3.0 85.3

Online news portals 5 2.5 2.5 87.8

Internet (unspecified) 4 2.0 2.0 89.8

Don't know / Not interested / Do not follow politics

20 10.0 10.2 100.0

Total 197 98.5 100.0 Missing System 3 1.5 Total 200 100.0

[Q1.2] Please rank in order of importance your top three main sources for news about politics, starting with the most important one. SECOND MOST IMPORANT SOURCE


P a g e 66 | 106

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent


Television 34 17.0 19.0 38.0

Facebook 41 20.5 22.9 60.9

Twitter 6 3.0 3.4 64.2


Friends/Family 3 1.5 1.7 68.2

Word of mouth 3 1.5 1.7 69.8

Radio 32 16.0 17.9 87.7

Online news portals 1 .5 .6 88.3


No other 16 8.0 8.9 98.9


2 1.0 1.1 100.0


[Q1.3] Please rank in order of importance your top three main sources for news about politics, starting with the most important one. LEAST IMPORANT SOURCE

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent


Television 25 12.5 15.5 34.8

Facebook 22 11.0 13.7 48.4

Twitter 6 3.0 3.7 52.2


Friends/Family 13 6.5 8.1 65.2

Word of mouth 10 5.0 6.2 71.4

Radio 22 11.0 13.7 85.1

Political events 1 .5 .6 85.7


No other 17 8.5 10.6 98.8


2 1.0 1.2 100.0



P a g e 67 | 106

Bar Chart


P a g e 68 | 106

ENDS

7.1.8 Appendix I: Voters’ survey: Question Q2 [Q2] Do you use social media (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc.)?

ENDS


P a g e 69 | 106

7.1.9 Appendix J: Voters’ survey: Question Q3

ENDS 7.1.10 Appendix K: Voters’ survey: Question D4 Frequencies [Q4] Do you use Facebook?

ENDS


P a g e 70 | 106

7.1.11 Appendix L: Voters’ survey: Question Q5 Frequencies [Q5] Do you use Twitter?

ENDS 7.1.12 Appendix M: Voters’ survey: Question Q6

[Q6.1] I am going to read out a number of reasons why people make use of Social Media. Please mention these reasons in order of importance, starting with the most important reason. MOST IMPORTANT REASON

[Q6.2] I am going to read out a number of reasons why people make use of Social Media. Please mention these reasons in order of importance, starting with the most important reason. SECOND MOST IMPORTANT REASON

[Q6.3] I am going to read out a number of reasons why people make use of Social Media. Please mention these reasons in order of importance, starting with the most important reason. THIRD MOST IMPORTANT REASON


P a g e 71 | 106

Frequency Table [Q6.1] I am going to read out a number of reasons why people make use of Social Media. Please mention these reasons in order of importance, starting with the most important reason. MOST IMPORTANT REASON

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid Social activity 62 31.0 45.9 45.9

News 31 15.5 23.0 68.9

Politics 6 3.0 4.4 73.3

Everyone is doing it

30 15.0 22.2 95.6

DK 6 3.0 4.4 100.0


[Q6.2] I am going to read out a number of reasons why people make use of Social Media. Please mention these reasons in order of importance, starting with the most important reason. SECOND MOST IMPORTANT REASON

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent


News 43 21.5 33.3 61.2

Politics 18 9.0 14.0 75.2


26 13.0 20.2 95.3

DK 6 3.0 4.7 100.0


[Q6.3] I am going to read out a number of reasons why people make use of Social Media. Please mention these reasons in order of importance, starting with the most important reason. THIRD MOST IMPORTANT REASON

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent


News 30 15.0 24.4 37.4

Politics 41 20.5 33.3 70.7


27 13.5 22.0 92.7

DK 9 4.5 7.3 100.0


P a g e 72 | 106


Bar Chart


P a g e 73 | 106

ENDS 7.1.13 Appendix N: Voters’ survey: Question Q7 [Q7] Do you follow any politicians on the social media?

ENDS


P a g e 74 | 106

7.1.14 Appendix 0: Voters’ survey: Question Q8 [Q8] Do you think it is acceptable for politicians to be present on the social media?

ENDS 7.1.15 Appendix P: Voters’ survey: Question Q9 [Q9] Do you feel you can speak openly with politicians on the social media?

ENDS


P a g e 75 | 106

7.1.16 Appendix Q: Voters’ survey: Question Q10

[Q10] Do you think that social media is a good tool for politicians to communicate with people?

ENDS 7.1.17 Appendix R: Voters’ survey: Question Q11

[Q11] Do you think that the social media is a good place to freely

discuss issues such as religion, politics, etc.?

ENDS


P a g e 76 | 106

7.1.18 Appendix S: Voters’ survey: Question Q12 (+ translation, where required) Comments from survey with Maltese voters (aged 18-74)

# Original comments English translation (where required)

3 Ifhem jekk id diskussjoni tkun fuq partit wiehed idejaqni. Pero fuq tarif generali ma nidejaqx

I get annoyed if discussions centre around one party. But I don’t mind when it’s on general knowledge

4 Politicians should listen more

5 Sincerita mill politici (We need ) politicians to be sincere

7 Il kanditat jew politku juri ix xoghol tieghu juzah bhala il mirror image tax xoghol li kapaci jaghmel biex ikun ellett fil kanditatura.

Politicians need to show what they can do in their jobs, be a sort of mirror image, so they can get elected.

13 Iva sa kemm is social media tintuza tajjeb taghmel il gid. Ghax jekk tintuza hazin tista taghmel hafna hsara

As long as social media is used properly, it can be a great thing. But if misused, it can be very dangerous.

18 Hemm sejra id dinja u sewwa jaghmlu. trid tbidel maz zmien

That’s the direction everyone is heading to, and it’s the way politicians should go, too. You have to keep up with times.

20 Social media tilhaq generu ta' nies specjalment zghazagh li ma jarawx ahbarijiet jew jaqraw gazzett

Social media reaches a section of the population, especially youths, who do not watch the news (on television) nor read newspapers

28 Li politiki jifhmu l-poplu min xiex ghaddejjin, halli jevalwaw il-valuri li jhaddnu huma

Politicians should (use social media to) understand what people are going through so they (politicians) can determine which values they hold dear

29 Kulhadd jirispetta l opinjoni ta xulxin

Everyone should respect the opinion of others

30 Social media taf tkun tajba biex tmexxi xi prodott u politici biex jaghtu ragunijiet pero nemmen hafna li ghandha tidhol hafna l-eta. ma naqbilx li tfal taht l-eta(12 year olds) tisata' tkun ta' hsara

Social media is great to promote products or for politicians to have a platform to express their views. But age is very important and I believe there should be limits, and as such underage kids (12 year olds) should not be there as this could cause them more damage than good

31 Social media is more information not discussion

33 Social media is a waste of time

35 Fiz-zminijiet tal-lum ghal-politici social media hija importanti.

Social media is important for politicians nowadays

48 Data protection hija important Data protection is important

58 Social media mhux kulhadd jaf juzah

Not everybody knows how to use social media


P a g e 77 | 106

62 Ikun hemm izjed tahdidit (programmi)

There should be more discussion programmes

65 Naqbel li l politici juzaw is social media imma ma in nies ma ghandhom hin bizzejjed

I agree that politicians should use social media, but people don’t have enough time for it.

71 Hemm bzonn li l kap ta l-oppozizzjoni jaghmel iktar pressjoni fuq il gvern biex irahhas il petrol u d dawl

The Opposition Leader should put more pressure (on the government) to reduce petrol and electricity prices

73 Biex jaghtu kas aktar il-kummenti li jaghmlu

(Social media is good for) politicians to listen to people more.

84 Better use of social media is needed

85 Nixtieq ikun aktar sigur ghaliex kelli xi viruses

I want to have more security as my computer was infected with viruses

87 Biex il-kummenti jkunu validi Comments should make sense

98 Ikun hemm aktar informazzjoni sura u min jikteb fuq il-facebook ikun responsabbli ta' dak li kiteb

There should be proper information and people should also be accountable for what they write on Facebook

99 Sometimes the gist of the topic is not clear from politicians

102 Politici daqqa 'l hawn u daqqa 'hemm

Politicians are not consistent

104 Hawn hafna restriction There are many restrictions

107 Li il politici inkunu nafu x jhasbu huma u mhux jibqu biss gallarija li nkunu nafu il pozizjoni taghhom u jekk ma jkunux qieghdin jghidu is sew nghidulhom ma nidejqudx u mhux inhallu l affarijiet ghaddejin. inkunu kapaci li nitkelmu

Politician should use the platforms to say what they think rather than just use it as a showcase, and if what they’re saying is not true or correct, people should have the courage to say so not leave everything go by without reacting.

111 Li meta jitkellmu il Malti jitkellmu bill Malti u bl Ingliz bl Ingliz. Jekk jibdew bill Malti ikomplu bill Malti.

They should either speak Maltese or English – if they start in Maltese, they should continue in Maltese

115 Dak li jkun ghandu juza s social media ghal affarijiet importanti u genwini

Social Media should be used for important and genuine subjects

117 Construction hawn hafna, il-barranin hadulna xoghlna, il-maltin qed jaqalaw fuq wicchom

There is a great deal of construction work, but the foreigners have taken all our work and Maltese are on the losing end

121 Social media can be used negatively

126 Ma tkunx taf ma min qed titkellem. ghax nahseb dawn in nies (il politici) ikollom terzi

You don’t really know who you are speaking to as politicians have staff taking care of their accounts, Facebook for example


P a g e 78 | 106

persuni li jiehdu hsieb il facebook per ezempju.

127 Politici jghidu x'inhuma jaghmlu u le u meta issaqsi ma iwigbux

Politicians should say what they are and are not doing, but when you ask they don’t tell you

133 Min jitfa xi haga ikun hemm regoli

There should be rules for people who say or upload things

136 Fl opinjoni tieghi naqbel li jitkellmu face to face. Zghazagh mohhom wisq fuq il mobile ma ghandhomx komunikkazjoni bejnithom.

I think there should be face to face discussions. Today, young peole are constantly on their mobiles and there is no real communication between them

137 Depends on the viewers and the subject

138 Jista jkun tajjeb u anka hazin u ghalhekk triq toqghod attent

It can be good or bad, and because of this you have to be very careful.

139 Nispera li jkunu varsjali (mhux one sided, tkun fair ma kulhadd) kif suppost ikunu l affarijit

I hope it’s not one-sided. It should be fair for everyone. That’s how it should be.

142 Mhux sew li isir tghajjir dwar religjonijiet, specjalment illum

There shouldn’t be insults against any religion, especially today.

148 Social media ghanda tkun riservata ghal common people in the street u lpolitici ghandom jevALAW HUMA

Social media should be just for common people and politicians should (just) see what discussions take palce

151 Ma tkunx tkomdu li tiddiskuti Meta titkellem hu differenti minn meta tikteb

It’s not a comfortable platform to discuss issues. Speaking is different.

156 Gieli jkun hemm nies fil media mhux ta stoffa fuq is suggett li jkunu qed jitkellmu.

Often you get people in the media who are not well versed in certain topics.

160 Jien kiku nixtiqom li lanqas biss jikkumentaw ghax mghandix bzonn brainwashing peres li mas jinteressawnix

I would prefer if they didn’t even comment because I don’t need to be brainwashed, and these things don’t interest me.

168 L-politici mghandhomx juru l-hajja personali taghhom fuq social media imma ghandhom juzaw social media ghal ragunijiet ta professjoni biss

Politicians should not use social media for their personal lives but purely for their profession.

169 Social media posts are open to interpretation

173 Kliem with respect Respectful comments

182 Fil-pajjiz hemm bzonn iktar edukazzjoni ta' x'tikteb fuq facebook, ma jaqbilx li ghandu ikun hemm ritratti ta' tfal fuq facebook

There needs to be further education on what to write on Facebook, and there should be no pictures of children.


P a g e 79 | 106

183 Gieli persuna jghid kelma ghal gid u tiswieh ta deni

Sometimes people say things in a good way and it turns out to be very detrimental to them.

185 It’s easier to get to the people

186 Jien ma nirriflettix il-maggoranza tan-nies

My opinions do not reflect those of the majority.

ENDS


P a g e 80 | 106

7.2 Appendix T: Politicians’ survey

Welcome to My Survey

My name is Steve Chetcuti – you may remember me working as a journalist / editor for The Malta

Independent. I am conducting a research project, entitled Examining the influence of Maltese

politicians’ use of Facebook and Twitter on voters: promoting dialogue or manipulating the public

sphere? as part of my Master’s degree at the University of Leicester, United Kingdom.

Thank you for participating in our survey. Your feedback is important. If you are interested in receiving

a copy of the research project (with approval from the University), please send (blank) mail to

[email protected] with the subject line Research Project.

Research at the University of Leicester that involves human participants is approved by an Ethics

Department. Should you have any questions on the study, you can contact the Research Lead

Steve Chetcuti on +41 (0)79 109

5117 or [email protected]

Introduction

1. The purpose of this research is to explore politicians' use of social media.

The survey will take 57 minutes to complete. Participation is voluntary and

confidential, and there are no consequences of declining to participate. No

discomfort, stress, or risks are anticipated. Even if you begin the webbased

online survey, you can stop at any time. Please answer every question as

accurately as possible. The research will help

provide a better understanding of what people want and don’t want visàvis

social media. The results of the study will be used for scholarly purposes

only. Any reports or publications based on this research will use only group

data and will not identify you or any individual as being affiliated with this

project.

By clicking “yes”, you acknowledge that you have read this information

and agree to participate in this research. You are free to withdraw your

participation at any time without penalty.

mlj Yes

mlj No

Social Media

2. Do you use social media?

mlj Yes

mlj No

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


P a g e 81 | 106

Social Media General

3. Why do you use social media?

Most important Important Neutral Not so important Least important

N/A

To connect with the nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

electorate, speak to constituents and get a feel for what people want/need

Other politicians have mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj

accounts For publicity nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Other (please state level of importance)

4. Do you think you will be disadvantaged in elections if you do not have

social media accounts?

mlj Yes, I will be disadvantaged without social media accounts

mlj No, I will not be disadvantaged without social media accounts

mlj Don't know

mlj Other (please specify)

5. Who is your target audience for social media (multiple answers possible)?

fec Party constituents in your district(s)

fec All constituents in your district(s)

fec Supporters / canvassers

fec Anybody from any party from any locality

fec Other (please specify)

Facebook

6. Do you have a Facebook page

mlj Yes

mlj No

Facebook


P a g e 82 | 106

M7. What do you Facebook for?

lj It's my personal account and I don't use it in connection with my political career

mlj I use it in connection with my political career only

mlj Both personal and my political career


8. What feedback do you usually get from people on Facebook?

mlj Very positive

mlj Somewhat

positive mlj Somewhat negative mlj Very negative

mlj No answer

9. Do you think people are honest with their feedback on Facebook?

mlj Yes

mlj No

mlj Not always

mlj Depends on subject


10. Do you think Facebook is an appropriate site for a public discussion?

mlj Yes

mlj No



Twitter

11. Do you have a Twitter account?

mlj Yes

mlj No

Twitter

12. What do you Twitter for?

mlj It's my personal account and I don't use it in connection with my political career

mlj I use it in connection with my political career only

mlj Both personal and my political career

mlj Other (please specify

13. What feedback do you usually get from people on Twitter?

mlj Very positive

mlj Somewhat positive


P a g e 83 | 106

mlj Somewhat negative

mlj Very negative

mlj No answer

14. Do you think people are honest with their feedback on Twitter?

mlj Yes

mlj No

mlj Not always



15. Do you think Twitter is an appropriate site for a public discussion?

mlj Yes

mlj No



16. Do people in Malta engage in discussions / debates with politicians?

mlj Yes

mlj No

mlj Sometimes

mlj Don't know

Other please specify)

17. Do people vote for ‘their’ party, irrespective of their performance, policies, etc?

mlj A large percentage follow their party whatever happens

mlj A large percentage do not follow their party whatever happens

mlj Don't know


18. Social media is a tool I use to compete in elections against:

mlj Other candidates of my own party in my district(s)

mlj Candidates of other parties in my district(s)

mlj All candidates contesting in the same district(s) as me

mlj No answer

mlj Other (please specify

19. Any other comments?

20. If you would like to participate in an indepth interview for this research, include

your name and/or email address in the box below:

ENDS


P a g e 84 | 106

7.2.1 Appendix U: Politicians’ survey – Response rate

ENDS 7.2.2 Appendix V: Politicians’ survey Q1

ENDS

7.2.3 Appendix W: Politicians’ survey Q2

Powered by

Q2: Do you use social media?

Answered: 34 Skipped: 1

ENDS


P a g e 85 | 106

7.2.4 Appendix X: Politicians’ survey Q3

Powered by

Q3: Why do you use social media?


ENDS 7.2.5 Appendix Y: Politicians’ survey Q4

ENDS

7.2.6 Appendix Z: Politicians’ survey Q5

Powered by

Q5: Who is your target audience for social media (multiple answers

possible)?


ENDS


P a g e 86 | 106

7.2.7 Appendix AA: Politicians’ survey Q6

Powered by

Q6: Do you have a Facebook page


ENDS 7.2.8 Appendix AB: Politicians’ survey Q7

Powered by

Q7: What do you Facebook for?


ENDS 7.2.9 Appendix AC: Politicians’ survey Q8

Powered by

Q8: What feedback do you usually get from people on Facebook?


ENDS


P a g e 87 | 106

7.2.10 Appendix AD: Politicians’ survey Q9

Powered by

Q9: Do you think people are honest with their feedback on Facebook?


ENDS 7.2.11 Appendix AE: Politicians’ survey Q10

Powered by

Q10: Do you think Facebook is an appropriate site for a public

discussion?


ENDS 7.2.12 Appendix AF: Politicians’ survey Q11

Powered by

Q11: Do you have a Twitter account?


ENDS


P a g e 88 | 106

7.2.13 Appendix AG: Politicians’ survey Q12

Powered by

Q12: What do you Twitter for?


Powered by

Q12: What do you Twitter for?


ENDS 7.2.14 Appendix AH: Politicians’ survey Q13

Powered by

Q13: What feedback do you usually get from people on Twitter?


ENDS


P a g e 89 | 106

7.2.15 Appendix AI: Politicians’ survey Q14

Powered by

Q14: Do you think people are honest with their feedback on Twitter?


ENDS 7.2.16 Appendix AJ: Politicians’ survey Q15

Powered by

Q15: Do you think Twitter is an appropriate site for a public discussion?


ENDS 7.2.17 Appendix AK: Politicians’ survey Q16

Powered by

Q16: Do people in Malta engage in discussions / debates with politicians?


ENDS


P a g e 90 | 106

7.2.18 Appendix AL: Politicians’ survey Q17

Powered by

Q17: Do people vote for ‘their’ party, irrespective of their performance,

policies, etc?


Powered by

Q17: Do people vote for ‘their’ party, irrespective of their

performance, policies, etc?Answered: 34 Skipped: 1

Others (please specify): Comments from politicians “No party can rely on their core group any more. As shown in previous elections a great majority of people are ready to switch between one party to another sometimes out of conviction, and in other instances out of convenience. But that is democracy after all” (PN parliamentarian) “The number of floating voters is increasing. A positive attitude” (LP candidate) “I was about to press the first answer but I believe that the electorate is changing and social media is key in this shift. Social media users are more connected to their networks rather than party affiliates” (PN candidate) “Although in the past the trend was that a large percentage of people followed their party whatever happens, this seems to have changed over the past 10 years thus making the local political scene more interesting to follow and making politicians more accountable” (LP candidate) ENDS


P a g e 91 | 106

7.2.19 Appendix AM: Politicians’ survey Q18

Powered by

Q18: Social media is a tool I use to compete in elections against:


Powered by

Q18: Social media is a tool I use to compete in elections against:


ENDS 7.3 Appendix AN: Pool questions for semi-structured interviews Appendix AN includes the question pool prepared for the in-depth interviews. Being semi-structured, not all questions were used, and others were included during the interviews as follow up questions. Additionally, certain interviews were time-limited. Examining the influence of Maltese politicians’ use of Facebook and Twitter on voters: promoting dialogue or manipulating the public sphere? Dr Joseph Muscat, Prime Minister of Malta and Leader of the Labour Party

You were one of the first politicians to have social media (when you were an MEP, right) – what made you take that road?

Do you follow any strategy or are posts done randomly according to the news of the day?

Are social media good communication tools? Why?

Who do you speak with on Facebook / Twitter?


P a g e 92 | 106

Strategist and Social Media academic Alex Grech said we have a clientelist populist public sphere and politicians have no accountability – how would you react?

In 2013, TOM journalist Kristina Chetcuti wrote: Perhaps the politician who has more or less grasped the function of social media as an information source is Prime Minister Joseph Muscat. Although he overdoes it at times, sounding a bit too chummy for a PM, he is consistent in his Twitter usage, posts comments and links on political issues. Is that fair comment?

Internet is the equivalent of the modern public sphere, a place where people can virtually meet and discuss issues – do you agree with this statement?

Habermas states that a public sphere can be categorised in three concepts: openness to participation, challenges to authority and the rational-critical discourse (strength of argument, not status) – does this exist in Malta, in particular the third point?

Do we have a system whereby we vote for politicians, they decide everything and the media informs us what’s happening? Then five years later, we speak through our vote)

Do you think the presence of politicians on social media is manipulating dialogue or initiating debate?

You were accused of subtle political interference in the hunting referendum, something tantamount to the death of the public sphere (as your comments made debate superfluous): Do you agree? How would you counter?

In 2011, Henry Frendo speaks about a culture of “fear in the bones” and a reluctance to ask questions – do you believe this is true?

Are we mature enough to debate without insult?

Has social media improved dialogue with constituents? How?

Political parties make a show of ‘public consultations’ or ‘public meetings’ – is there really any debate or just a one-way monologue?

In 2011, after the divorce referendum results, you said: “[…] this decision also signifies the birth of an era where political parties can no longer expect to tell people what to do. Malta has a new generation of voters who acted independently of the political parties” (TOM). Do you think social media played an important role in this?

Are we a “nation of fence-sitters” (Boissevain in Grech, pg 201), not taking sides to make sure we are in line with the ruling party and a fear to criticise, a legacy of the Mintoff days?

Do you consider FB and T as ideal for constructing real authentic politicians, or is that won on the ground, meeting people F2F?

Can PN and LP supporters really meet and discuss issues civilly on a FB or Twitter public sphere? Is social media making Labourites more Labour, and Nationalists more Nationalist?

Do we have a system whereby we vote for politicians, they decide everything and the media informs us what’s happening? Then five years later, we speak through our vote).

You use Twitter to break news – why do you choose this media?

Any other comment?


P a g e 93 | 106

Prof. Arnold Cassola, Alternattiva Demokratika Chairman






Strategist and Social Media academic Alex Grech says there is no Habermasian public sphere in Malta – do you agree?

Are we a nationless people, our identities based on political affiliation, and does FB and T serve to further this idea?


AD attracts 3,000 votes or thereabouts, and thanks to our political system has little chance of electing an MP. How can social media as an alternative media help?


We, as Maltese, cannot come to grips with perceived criticism and everything is considered an insult: is this fair comment and if so, does it quash any possibility of the creation and maintenance of a public sphere? Are we mature enough to debate without insult?

Can Maltese people discuss political issues on FB and T without insulting each other?

Is politicians’ presence on FB and T conducive to communication or just a notice board? Do you discuss with people? Do we have a clientelist populist public sphere?




Nearly all respondent of my survey used FB but under 20% use Twitter – do you think that politicians therefore use Twitter as a means to get their voice in the newspapers, or are targeting audiences other than the electorate?

Are AD supporters ‘shouted down’ on social media?


P a g e 94 | 106


Any other comment? Dr Simon Busuttil, Nationalist Party leader and Leader of the Opposition

When did you set up your Facebook (FB) and Twitter (T) accounts?

You were one of the first politicians to have social media (when you were an MEP, right) – what made you take that road?




In 2013, TOM journalist Kristina Chetcuti wrote: Almost all politicians in Malta have so far missed the point of social media. They use it as a tool to show how cute and busy they are. They are not to provide the public with more insight or better connection to their party. Or if they do, it’s being lost amid photos of fireworks, parrots and coffees and shoes. – Do you agree with her assessment?

Is social media making Labourites more Labour, and Nationalists more Nationalist?



Are we a nationless people, our identities based on political affiliation? Do FB and T serve to further strengthen this division or foster unity?


The subtle political interference in the referendum – by both yourself and Dr Muscat – on hunting is tantamount to the death of the public sphere: Do you agree?

In 2012, the PN set up a digital media strategy team – why was this done? Was there a perceived need to have added communication with people? Did it allow for two-way conversation?

One of your roles was to lead a process of re-engagement with civil society – did this include a social media aspect?

Is there a democratic deficit in terms of public sphere in Malta? (Bee 67)

There is a difference between information (1-way, people get to know) and communication (2-way, people have a say) – which do you think is prevalent in Malta? For example, we have a DOI but no DOC?


P a g e 95 | 106

So how much vertical interaction (top-to-bottom-to-top) is there in our society?


In 2011, Bondi wrote: Now democracy was invented precisely to allow opinions to clash, thereby producing a healthier, more open society. But the assumption of classic democratic thought always was that opinions are rationally formed and based on facts. The social media are shattering this assumption. Do you agree?

We, as Maltese, cannot come to grips with perceived criticism and everything is considered an insult: is this fair comment and if so, does it quash any possibility of the creation and maintenance of a public sphere? Are we mature enough to debate without insult?

Can Maltese people discuss political issues on FB and T without insulting each other?

Has social media improved dialogue with constituents? How?




Can PN and LP supporters really meet and discuss issues civilly on a FB or Twitter public sphere?

Any other comment? Kristina Chetcuti, journalist, Times of Malta

Do you use it to get stories, comments from politicians?

Have you experienced any instances whereby politicians posted or tweeted something they later regretted or which you think they shouldn’t have done, or which you would have never said?

Internet is the equivalent of the modern public sphere, a place where people can virtually meet and discuss issues – do you agree with this assessment?

Do you think politicians are invading this space and should leave it as the exclusive domain of the voters?

When we asked Maltese politicians if FB / T were good places for a debate, there was a mixed reaction. What do you think?

What communications tools do politicians in Malta use? Are they working?

How about the traditional Sunday dialogue meetings, or mass meetings close to elections – have these become a thing of the past?

Does a person’s identity, as a Labourite or Nationalist, impact their contribution to the public sphere?

On 20 May 2010, Karl Farrugia was given a fine and suspended sentence for a comment on Facebook – irrespective of whether you agree to


P a g e 96 | 106

the comment (on Pope Benedict), isn’t this enforcement of the Press Act somewhat exaggerated, especially in terms of public debate? (Grech, pg152)

Does Malta have a hybrid media system that works with a combination of traditional and social media?

There is a rise in citizen journalist style of media (TOM editorial, 8 Jan 2012) – is this a good or bad thing?

Is social media creating the conditions to allow for the public sphere to thrive, but in doing so is moving towards infotainment and away from news / political discussions / etc.?


Do we have a litigious society that believes in retribution, and because of this reason we don’t want to get involved in public discussions?

You wrote, in 2013, that: Social media is fast becoming the real-time information source on what people are thinking about issues and legislation - Two years on, is this still the case?

The subtle political interference in the referendum – by both Dr Muscat and Dr Busuttil – on hunting is tantamount to the death of the public sphere: Do you agree?

Less than one in five have Twitter accounts, but more than 2/3 of politicians have accounts – is this just another way of connecting with media rather than people?


Examining the influence of Maltese politicians’ use of Facebook and Twitter on voters: promoting dialogue or manipulating the public sphere? Which describes Malta best?

Do we have a public sphere in the Habermasian sense (open to all, critical rational debate)?

Any other comments?

Herman Grech, Head of Media, Times of Malta

Do you use it to get stories, comments from politicians?

Social media is a way politicians can by-pass journalists – do you think it’s a good idea? Can politicians shoot themselves in the foot?




What communications tools do politicians in Malta use? Are they working?

Who do you think do politicians target?


P a g e 97 | 106

Should journalists also be on social media? Why?



On 20 May 2010, Karl Farrugia was given a fine and suspended sentence for a comment on Facebook – irrespective of whether you agree to the comment (on Pope Benedict), isn’t this enforcement of the Press Act somewhat exaggerated, especially in terms of public debate? (Grech, pg152)

Does Malta have a hybrid media system that works with a combination of traditional and social media?

Is there a risk that print media disappears together and is replaced by purely online media?

There is a rise in citizen journalist style of media (TOM editorial, 8 Jan 2012) – is this a good or bad thing?

Is social media creating the conditions to allow for the public sphere to thrive, but in doing so is moving towards infotainment and away from news / political discussions / etc.?




Less than one in five have Twitter accounts, but more than 2/3 of politicians have accounts – is this just another way of connecting with media rather than people?

Examining the influence of Maltese politicians’ use of Facebook and Twitter on voters: promoting dialogue or manipulating the public sphere? Which describes Malta best?



Any other comments? Dr Carmen Sammut, Media Scholar Head of Department of International Relations, Faculty of Arts, University of Malta

Does a public sphere – or many public sphere – exist in Malta?

How do political parties create public spheres?


P a g e 98 | 106

National public spheres emerge based on social, economic and political conditions. What are these conditions in Malta and what type of public sphere has this created?

Is there a democratic deficit in terms of public sphere in Malta?

Is the public sphere a safeguard to democracy in Malta?

In 2009 you wrote about the merits of a public sphere driven by working class media and in 2011 you mentioned people’s trust in the media declining with little room for civic society to forward its agenda (AG, pg 261). How about 2015, what’s the situation today?

Is politicians’ presence on FB and T an attempt by the hegemony to take over that space?

Do you consider politicians’ presence on social media as positive?

How real is the public sphere in Malta?

Does hitting ‘Like’ mean I am participating in the public sphere?




Is there a risk of online character assassination, especially from bloggers like DCG or people writing in online comments sections of the media?




You were, are, the chairman of the Labour Party’s think-tank Ideat (The aim of Fondazzjoni Ideat is to develop, propose and promote progressive politics for the 21st century. As a centre for political studies, Fondazzjoni Ideat will have a central and proactive role in the promotion of both political and academic education, whilst analysing the challenges and opportunities that Malta faces. Its aim is also to explore and put forward innovative ideas, as well as to implement any necessary reforms. Through the concept of diversity and inclusivity, the foundation will serve as an intellectual force which will strive to better the quality of discussions between the Partit Laburista, the civil society and those who hold both progressive and moderate viewpoints. Fondazzjoni Ideat is registered as a non-profit organisation under the Maltese law) – do you think this gave the edge over the PN with regards social media communication?

Any other comment?


P a g e 99 | 106

Fr Joseph Borg. Senior Lecturer, University of Malta (Academic, media professional)

Does a public sphere – or many public sphere – exist in Malta?

You were the subject of attacks by bloggers and the media over the years – is the public sphere in Malta more of a bullying ring rather than a space for debate, at least when it comes to hot issues, such as politics or religion?

On 6 June 2012, you called for tighter control of online discourse (New regulatory paradigm for the media, TOM). What was your intention? What prompted you to make such a call?

Do you think that since, to use your own words, many journalists are “big-headed and self-opinionated dilettantes”, people are feeling the need to become more involved I their own affairs via public spheres?

Do you consider politicians’ presence on social media as positive?

Is politicians’ presence on FB and T an attempt by the hegemony to take over that space?


How real is the public sphere in Malta?

Does hitting ‘Like’ mean I am participating in the public sphere?





Strategist and Social Media academic Alex Grech says there is no such thing as a Habermasian public sphere in Malta – do you agree?

Do politicians need being taught how to be good digital citizens?


Any other comment? Voters (Questions for people who participated in voters’ survey) Do you want to use your name? If no, I will use age /political party / occupation

Do you follow politicians?



P a g e 100 | 106


Do you always vote for the same person (No. 1 vote) or do you change according to their performance?

Have you always voted for the same party?

Do social media posts affect the manner in which you vote / you will vote?

Do you think you can be convinced to change your allegiance by social media posts? Or do you follow politicians you like only?

Do you follow politicians from other parties?

What in your opinion is the best means of communication politicians can use?

Regarding house visits, should politicians still go out and meet people?




Can people from different political parties sit down together or on FB or Twitter to discuss politics without resorting to shouting, fighting or vulgar language?

If politicians stopped using social media, would it affect you?



Any other comments? ENDS 7.3.1 Appendix AO: Bios Fr Joseph Borg, Senior Lecturer at the University of Malta

Fr Joseph Borg is a well-known media personality, commentator, senior

lecturer and winner of the Gold Award for Journalists. He writes a regular

blog for The Times. Full bio.

Simon Busuttil, Opposition Leader and Leader of the Nationalist Party

Simon Busuttil, a career politician, is the Leader of the Nationalist Party and

Opposition Leader. He took office on 13 May 2013. Bio. Bio (Maltese).

https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/josephborg

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28120/SIMON_BUSUTTIL_home.html

http://www.pn.org.mt/?page_id=71


P a g e 101 | 106

Alternattiva Demokratika Chairman Arnold Cassola

A professor of Maltese and comparative literature, Arnold Cassola was one

of the founding members of Alternattiva Demokratika. Although never elected

to the Maltese parliament, he was elected to the Italian chamber of deputies.

He has written a number of books and is AD chairman. Full bio.

Kristina Chetcuti, Journalist, Times of Malta

Kristina Chetcuti, a seasoned journalist, works with The Times of Malta

Martin Debattista, Digital Media Researcher

Martin Debattista, a former journalist, is a Digital Media Researcher and

currently works at the Ministry of Education and leads a project aimed at the

introduction of tablets to school children around the islands. LinkedIn bio

Alex Grech, Strategist and Social Media Academic

Dr Alex Grech is a strategist and social media academic. He is a visiting

senior lecturer at the University of Malta and hold a PhD from the University

of Hull. Full bio

Herman Grech, Head of Media, Times of Malta

Herman Grech is Head of Media for Times of Malta and co-presents one of

the most popular early evening talk shows on Malta, Times Talk. LinkedIn bio

Joseph Muscat, Prime Minister of Malta and Leader of the Labour Party

Joseph Muscat, a former journalist, is the Prime Minister of Malta and Leader

of the Labour Party (LP). Full bio.

Stephen Muscat

Stephen Muscat, 24, a web designer from St Julian’s, participated in the

voters’ survey conducted by MISCO for this dissertation

Lawrence Pisani

Lawrence Pisani, 65, from Sliema, is a pensioner and participated in the

voters’ survey conducted by MISCO for this dissertation

Dr Carmen Sammut, Media Scholar

Dr Carmen Sammut is the Head of Department of International Relations,

Faculty of Arts, at the University of Malta and is currently chairman of the

Ideat Foundation, a Labour Party think-thank. Full bio.

https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/arnoldcassola

https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=7923822&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=Be_T&locale=en_US&srchid=295003951436001859366&srchindex=1&srchtotal=4&trk=vsrp_people_res_name&trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A295003951436001859366%2CVSRPtargetId%3A7923822%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary%2CVSRPnm%3Atrue

https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/alexgrech

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/herman-grech/67/4b8/68

https://www.gov.mt/en/Government/Government%20of%20Malta/Prime%20Ministers%20of%20Malta/Pages/Dr-Joseph-Muscat.aspx

https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/carmensammut


P a g e 102 | 106

Patricia Tabone

Patricia Tabone, 38, a housewife from St Julian’s, participated in the voters’

survey conducted by MISCO for this dissertation

ENDS


P a g e 103 | 106

References

Adut, A. (2012) A Theory of the Public Sphere, Sociological Theory, Vol. 30, No. 4 (December 2012), pp. 238-262, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41818929?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (accessed 14 March 2015)

Allen, A. (2012) The Public Sphere: Ideology and/or Ideal?, Political Theory Vol. 40: 822, http://ptx.sagepub.com/content/40/6/822.citation (accessed 22 August 2014)

Baldacchino, G. (2002) A Nationless State? Malta, National Identity and the EU, https://www.academia.edu/408147/A_Nationless_State_Malta_National_Identity_and_the_EU (accessed 5 July 2015)

Benhabib, S. (1997) Models of Public Sphere: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition and Jürgen Habermas, pp: 73-98, in Calhoun, C. (ed.) (1997) Habermas and the Public Sphere, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

Benkler, Y. (2006) Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, Yale University Press, London, http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester/reader.action?docID=10170022 (accessed 8 April 2015)

Benson, R. (2009) Shaping the Public Sphere: Habermas and Beyond, Springer Science + Business Media, New York, https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/006/243/Benson%202009%20American%20Sociologist%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 15 April 2015)

Ceron, A., Curini, L., Iacus, S. M., and Porro, G. (2013) Every Tweet Counts? How sentiment analysis of social media can improve our knowledge of citizens’ political preferences with an application to Italy and France, New Media Society 2014 16: 340, http://nms.sagepub.com/content/16/2/340 (accessed May 5, 2014)

Chetcuti, K. (2013) “Good Day to All!!!!” Politicians’ pathetic use of social media, Times of Malta, September 8, http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130908/opinion/-Good-Day-to-All-Politicians-pathetic-use-of-social-media.485242 (accessed 16 May 2014)

Coleman, S. (1999) The New Media and Democratic Politics, New Media Society, 1999 1: 67, http://nms.sagepub.com/content/1/1/67 (accessed 5 May 2014)

Dahlberg, L. (2007) Rethinking the Fragmentation of the Cyberpublic: from Consensus to Contestation, New Media and Society, vol. 9, no. 5, pp: 827-847, http://nms.sagepub.com.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/content/9/5/827.full.pdf+html (accessed 8 July 2015)

Deacon, D., Pickering, M. Golding, P. and Murdock, G. (2007) Researching Communications (Second Edition), Hodder Education, London, UK

Debono, D. (2013) Access to Electoral Rights Malta, EUDO Citizenship Observatory, http://eudo-citizenship.eu/admin/?p=file&appl=countryProfiles&f=132-Malta-FRACIT.pdf, pg:4, (accessed 5 July 2015)

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41818929?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://ptx.sagepub.com/content/40/6/822.citation

https://www.academia.edu/408147/A_Nationless_State_Malta_National_Identity_and_the_EU

https://www.academia.edu/408147/A_Nationless_State_Malta_National_Identity_and_the_EU

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester/reader.action?docID=10170022

https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/006/243/Benson%202009%20American%20Sociologist%20FINAL.pdf

https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/006/243/Benson%202009%20American%20Sociologist%20FINAL.pdf

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/16/2/340

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130908/opinion/-Good-Day-to-All-Politicians-pathetic-use-of-social-media.485242

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130908/opinion/-Good-Day-to-All-Politicians-pathetic-use-of-social-media.485242

http://nms.sagepub.com.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/content/9/5/827.full.pdf+html

http://eudo-citizenship.eu/admin/?p=file&appl=countryProfiles&f=132-Malta-FRACIT.pdf

http://eudo-citizenship.eu/admin/?p=file&appl=countryProfiles&f=132-Malta-FRACIT.pdf


P a g e 104 | 106

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E. Neuman, R. and Robinson, J. P. (2001) Social Implications of the Internet, Annual review of Sociology, Vol. 27 (2001), pp. 307-336, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2678624?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (accessed 18 April 2015)

Downey, J., Mihelj, S, and König, T. (2012) Comparing Public Spheres: Normative Models and Empirical Measurements, European Journal of Communications, 27(4) pp. 337-353 http://ejc.sagepub.com.ezproxy4.lib.le.ac.uk/content/27/4/337 (accessed 14 March 2015)

Electoral Commission Malta, General Election Results 2013, http://www.electoral.gov.mt/Elections/General (accessed 19 April 2015)

Fenech, D. (2008) The 2008 Maltese General Election: The Tortoise and the Hare, West European Politics, 31:5, 1049-1054, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402380802234755 (accessed 20 April 2015

Fraser, N. (1997) Rethinking the Public Sphere, A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy, pp: 109-142, in Calhoun, C. (ed.) (1997) Habermas and the Public Sphere, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

Grant, W. J., Moon, B., and Grant, J. B. (2010) Digital Dialogue? Australian Politicians’ Use of the Social Network Tool Twitter, Australian Journal of Political Science, 45:4, 579-604, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10361146.2010.517176 (accessed 20 April 2015)

Grech, A., Blogging the Hyperlocal: The Disruption and Renegotiation of Hegemony in Malta, University of Hull, publication forthcoming (also available: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.587011)

Grech, H. (2009) Malta has Highest Free Voter Turnout in the World, Times of Malta, 15 February, http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090215/local/malta-has-highest-free-voter-turnout-in-the-world.245033 (accessed 5 July 2015)

Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK

Habermas, J. (1997) Further Reflections on the Public Sphere, pp: 421-461, in Calhoun, C. (ed.) (1997) Habermas and the Public Sphere, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

Hallin, D. C. and Mancini, P. (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics, West Nyack, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press

Hansen, A. (2005) Content Analysis, Module 5: Unit 28 of the MA in Mass Communication (by distance learning). Centre for Mass Communication Research, University of Leicester, United Kingdom

Helland, K. (2007) Methodological Approaches in the Study of Media Organisations and Production, Module 3: Unit 26b of the MA in Mass Communication (by distance learning). Centre for Mass Communication Research, University of Leicester, United Kingdom

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2678624?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://ejc.sagepub.com.ezproxy4.lib.le.ac.uk/content/27/4/337

http://www.electoral.gov.mt/Elections/General

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402380802234755

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10361146.2010.517176

http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.587011

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090215/local/malta-has-highest-free-voter-turnout-in-the-world.245033

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090215/local/malta-has-highest-free-voter-turnout-in-the-world.245033


P a g e 105 | 106

Hirczy, W. (1995) Explaining near Universal Turnout: The Case of Malta, European Journal of Political Research 27: 255-272, 1995, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Holland, http://www.karacsonygergely.hu/letoltesek/malta.pdf (accessed 30 July 2014)

Iosifidis, P. (2010) The Public Sphere, Social Networks and Public Service Media, Information, Communication & Society, 14:5, 619-637, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2010.514356 (accessed 14 March 2015)

Klinger, U. and Svensson, J. (2014) The Emergence of Network Media Logic in Political Communication: A Theoretical Approach, New Media Society, DOI 10.1177/1461444814522952, http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/02/18/1461444814522952 (accessed 5 May 2014)

Malta Communications Authority (2014a), Internet & eCommerce Use by Individuals Survey 2014 https://www.mca.org.mt/sites/default/files/attachments/surveys/2015/Internet%20and%20eCommerce%20Use%20by%20Individuals%20Survey_2014.pdf (accessed 12 April 2015).

Malta Communications Authority (2014b), MCA Market Research, Consumer Perception Survey Results – Mobile Telephony https://www.mca.org.mt/sites/default/files/attachments/surveys/2014/consumer-perception-survey-2013-mobile.pdf (accessed 12 April 2015)

Malta Communications Authority (2015) Networked Societies, http://www.mca.org.mt/sites/default/files/pageattachments/MCA%20Network%20Society%2040Page%20Web%20Brochure.pdf (accessed 4 July 2015)

Mytton, G. (1999) Handbook on Radio and Television Audience Research, UNESCO/UNICEF

National Statistics Office Malta (2014), World Population Day 2014, http://nso.gov.mt/en/News_Releases/View_by_Unit/Unit_C3/Population_and_Tourism_Statistics/Pages/World-Population-Day.aspx (accessed 28 February 2015)

Nilsson, B. and Carlsson, E. (2013) Swedish Politicians and New Media: Democracy, Identity and Populism in a New Digital Discourse, New Media Society, DOI: 10.1177/1461444813487964, http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/28/1461444813487964 (accessed 14 May 2014)

Peregin, C. (2012) Politicians struggle with social media – ‘Party agenda prevents true engagement’, Times of Malta, 21 August, http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120821/local/Politicians-struggle-with-social-media.433736 (accessed 27 March 2015)

Random.org Website https://www.random.org/

Rasmussen, T. (2013) Internet based Media, Europe and the Political Public Sphere, Media Culture Society 35:97, http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/35/1/97 (accessed 22 August 2014)

Rasmussen, T. (2014) Internet and the Political Public Sphere, Sociology Compass, Volume 8, Issue 12, pages 1315-1329, December 2014,

http://www.karacsonygergely.hu/letoltesek/malta.pdf

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2010.514356

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/02/18/1461444814522952

https://www.mca.org.mt/sites/default/files/attachments/surveys/2015/Internet%20and%20eCommerce%20Use%20by%20Individuals%20Survey_2014.pdf



https://www.mca.org.mt/sites/default/files/attachments/surveys/2014/consumer-perception-survey-2013-mobile.pdf

https://www.mca.org.mt/sites/default/files/attachments/surveys/2014/consumer-perception-survey-2013-mobile.pdf

http://www.mca.org.mt/sites/default/files/pageattachments/MCA%20Network%20Society%2040Page%20Web%20Brochure.pdf

http://www.mca.org.mt/sites/default/files/pageattachments/MCA%20Network%20Society%2040Page%20Web%20Brochure.pdf

http://nso.gov.mt/en/News_Releases/View_by_Unit/Unit_C3/Population_and_Tourism_Statistics/Pages/World-Population-Day.aspx

http://nso.gov.mt/en/News_Releases/View_by_Unit/Unit_C3/Population_and_Tourism_Statistics/Pages/World-Population-Day.aspx

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/28/1461444813487964

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120821/local/Politicians-struggle-with-social-media.433736

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120821/local/Politicians-struggle-with-social-media.433736

https://www.random.org/

http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/35/1/97


P a g e 106 | 106

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/soc4.12228/full (accessed 15 March 2015)

Sammut, C. (2007) Media and Maltese Society, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD, USA

Seiter, E. (1996) Ethnographic Method in Audience Research, Module 5: Unit 27 of the MA in Mass Communication (by distance learning). Centre for Mass Communication Research, University of Leicester, United Kingdom

Thomassen, L. (2010) Habermas – A Guide for the Perplexed, Continuum International Publishing Group, London

von Brockdorff, M. (undated) The 6 Different Types of Social Media Users – Which One are You? on http://www.webgeekly.com/lessons/social-media/the-6-different-types-of-social-media-users-which-one-are-you/ (accessed 2 April 2015)

Ubayasiri, K. (2006) Internet and the Public Sphere: A Glimpse of YouTube, Central Queensland University, http://ejournalist.com.au/v6n2/ubayasiri622.pdf (accessed 8 April 2015)

University of Malta, Malta Elections, A Collection of Electoral Data for the Maltese Islands, http://www.um.edu.mt/projects/maltaelections/elections/parliamentary (accessed 4 March 2015)

Vella, M. (2015) A theory of Violence, MaltaToday, 4 March, http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/50213/a_theory_of_violence#.Va5jsNxJfpR (accessed 21 July 2015)

West, M. D. (2013) Is the Internet an Emergent Public Sphere?, Journal of Mass Media Ethics: Exploring Questions of Media Morality, 28:3, 155-159, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08900523.2013.792702 (accessed 14 March 2015)

Wimmer, R. D. and Dominick, J. R. (2012) Mass Media Research: An Introduction, 10th Edition, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, UK

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/soc4.12228/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/soc4.12228/full

http://www.webgeekly.com/lessons/social-media/the-6-different-types-of-social-media-users-which-one-are-you/

http://www.webgeekly.com/lessons/social-media/the-6-different-types-of-social-media-users-which-one-are-you/

http://ejournalist.com.au/v6n2/ubayasiri622.pdf

http://www.um.edu.mt/projects/maltaelections/elections/parliamentary

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/50213/a_theory_of_violence#.Va5jsNxJfpR

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/50213/a_theory_of_violence#.Va5jsNxJfpR

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08900523.2013.792702

dissertation_social media and politics_july 2015_s chetcuti

Documents