UDC

81ʼ272

Authors

Diana S. Sergeeva
Southern Federal University;
ul. Bol’shaya Sadovaya 33, Rostov-on-Don, 344006, Russian Federation;
e-mail: dinusik61@yandex.ru

Abstract

This article analyses the modern information space, namely the opportunities of social networks when forming a politician’s image. Different types and key functions of social networks (specifically, Twitter) are considered here; the importance of social media in the modern political process is substantiated. The author describes the mechanism of political image making having analysed tweets from the personal pages of the 2016 US presidential candidates. The continuous sampling method was used, the amount of sampling reaching 400 units (a tweet was taken as a research unit). The paper studied the model of political image making suggested by the famous Russian expert in PR technologies I.L. Vikentyev and its constituent elements. It should be noted that it is the first time that this model is used in linguistic research. The article provides a percentage ratio of each model element used by the politicians in question. By means of the descriptive method, on the objective basis, the paper presents detailed characteristics of each candidate. The following conclusions are the most significant results of the research: 1) the model of a politician’s image making includes 5 elements: positioning, exaltation, adverse publicity, detuning, and personal promotion; 2) each of the politicians in question applied one or two elements of this model to easier and faster implant their image in mass consciousness; 3) a skilful use of each element allows them to create the desirable positive image satisfying the interests of the electorate.

Keywords

politician’s image, model of image making, social network, Twitter

References

1. Brown J.A. The Social Psychology of Industry. Harmondsworth, 1954. 230 p.
   
2. Viler K. Bez effektivnoy kommunikatsii net effektivnogo upravleniya. Otlichitel’nyy oblik i imidzh mestnoy administratsii [Without Effective Communication There Is No Effective Management. Distinctive Look and Image of Local Administration]. Obninsk, 2002. 356 p.
   
3. Feofanov O.A. Novye tekhnologii v reklame [New Technologies in Advertising]. St. Petersburg, 2003. 384 p.
   
4. Adi A., Erickson K., Lilleker D.G. Elite Tweets: Analyzing the Twitter Communication Patterns of Labour Party Peers in the House of Lords. Policy & Internet, 2014, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–27.
   
5. Kara-Murza S.G. Manipulirovanie soznaniem [Mind Control]. Moscow, 2001. 832 p.
   
6. Avery J. Advertising Campaign Planning: Developing an Advertising-Based Marketing Plan. Chicago, 1997. 304 p.
   
7. Williamson J. Decoding Advertising: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising. London, 1993. 318 p.
   
8. Kirillova N.B. Mediasreda rossiyskoy modernizatsii [Media Environment of Russian Modernization]. Moscow, 2005. 400 p.
   
9. Bruce B. Images of Power: How the Image Makers Shape Our Leaders. London, 1992. 380 p.
   
10. LaMarre H.L., Suzuki-Lambrecht Y. Tweeting Democracy? Examining Twitter as an Online Public Relations Strategy for Congressional Campaigns. Public Relat. Rev., 2013, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 360–368.
    
11. Maslow A.H. Motivation and Personality. New York, 1954. 258 p.
    
12. Feofanov O.A. SShA: reklama i obshchestvo [The USA: Advertising and Society]. Moscow, 1974. 262 p.
    
13. Kruikemeier S. How Political Candidates Use Twitter and the Impact on Votes. Comput. Hum. Behav., 2014, vol. 34, pp. 131–139.
    
14. Christensen C. Wave-Riding and Hashtag-Jumping: Twitter, Minority ‘Third Parties’ and the 2012 US Elections. Inf. Commun. Soc., 2013, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 646–666.
    
15. Averchenko L.K. Psikhologiya i psikhoanaliz reklamy [The Psychology and Psychoanalysis of Advertising]. Samara, 2001. 752 p.
    
16. Vikent’ev I.L. Priemy reklamy i Public Relations [Advertising Methods and Public Relations]. St. Petersburg, 1995. 281 p.
    
17. Wierzbicka A. Yazyk, kul’tura, poznanie [Language, Culture, Cognition]. Moscow, 1997. 411 p.