Politische Social-Media-Influencer als Meinungsführer?

Abstract

Im Zuge der Digitalisierung finden große Teile der Meinungsbildung heute in Netzwerken statt, in denen Angebote neuer Kommunikator:innen neben die Berichterstattung professioneller Journalist:innen treten. Der Artikel widmet sich einem Typ dieser neuen reichweitenstarken Akteure der politischen Öffentlichkeit, der zwar gesellschaftlich viel Aufmerksamkeit auf sich zieht, in der politischen Kommunikationsforschung aber noch weitgehend unbekannt ist: politischen Social-Media-Influencer:innen (im Folgenden PSMI). Ziel des Beitrages ist es, theoretische Annahmen über PSMI zu treffen, um sie empirischer Forschung zugänglicher zu machen. Dafür werden PSMI auf Grundlage einer systematischen Literaturanalyse erstmalig definiert und ihre Eigenschaften mit jenen von politischen Meinungsführern verglichen. Die Analyse zeigt in konzeptionell-theoretischer Hinsicht, dass die Kommunikationsrolle von PSMI als Weiterentwicklung von Meinungsführerschaft beschrieben werden kann, hin zu einer Form von mediatisierter, (semi-)professioneller und öffentlicher Kommunikation, die auf strategischer Selbstinszenierung beruht. Mithilfe des Meinungsführerkonzepts lassen sich erste Annahmen formulieren, die mit Befragungen und Inhaltsanalysen empirisch überprüft werden sollten, um die Bedeutung von PSMI in der politischen Öffentlichkeit differenzierter bestimmen zu können. Under the conditions of online communication and social media, large parts of opinion formation processes take place in networks, in which offerings from new communicators take their place alongside the reporting of professional journalists. This article focuses on one type of new actors in the political public sphere who are attracting a lot of attention in society and politics but are still largely unknown in political communication research: political social media influencers (hereafter referred to as PSMI). On platforms such as YouTube and Instagram , some PSMI reach levels of impact that are similar to those of traditional mass media outlets. Since PSMI create a feeling of personal intimacy with their audience and address them as part of a shared community. Their content, which is often professionally produced, is perceived as horizontal communication among peers, at least by parts of their young audience. However, interaction is not purely illusory, when PSMI actively involve their audience in content production processes, for example. In order to make PSMI more accessible for empirical research and to learn more about opinion formation in the digital sphere, this article aims to make theoretical assumptions based on the opinion leader concept. This concept focuses on the mechanisms of horizontal communication processes and their influence potentials. By using it as a framework for analysis, the reflection on PSMI as new relevant actors in political communication is not based on normative demands, as known for example from journalism research, but rather on characteristics as preconditions of exerting opinion leadership and therefore influence. Based on a systematic literature review, the article at hand systematizes definitions of social media influencers to introduce the term political social media influencer and compares this type of political communicator with the well-researched political opinion leader. I define political social media influencers as users who became well known in social media and, as self-created personal brands, regularly distribute self-produced political content with which they reach and potentially influence a dispersed audience. The analysis shows that PSMI and political opinion leaders share similar characteristics. They are both extroverted, self-confident, and communicative individuals who occupy central positions within larger social (online) networks. They talk about political topics with people in their social networks who perceive them as credible communicators. This gives both political opinion leaders and PSMI potential for political influence. Yet, the concepts are not identical, as the following differences show.The role of PSMI is much more preconditioned than that of opinion leaders. Unlike political opinion leaders, PSMI are in principle public communicators who are dependent on social media platforms and their logics and algorithms. In communication spaces where attention is contested, they must build an authentic personal brand and an audience that regularly consumes their content based on (semi-)professional media communication work. This staging work, which condenses the roles of producer, protagonist, and multiplier of online content into one person, also makes PSMI interesting for external stakeholders who cooperate with PSMI, such as organizations that carry out political education work. Opinion leaders, on the other hand, are not deployed strategically, are not dependent on publicity or technology, and can exert influence without any personal brands; because the trust placed in them depends not only on their communication, but also on personal relationship structures, which PSMI cannot draw on in a comparable way. With the help of the opinion leader concept, the paper was able to make assumptions about PSMI, who are still under-researched. First , it could be assumed that especially young men with a higher level of formal education stand out as PSMI. Second , it can be assumed that it is possible to differentiate between PSMI who know a lot about politics and PSMI who know less. Third , both types will attribute the same amount of political knowledge to themselves and both types will be attributed expertise by their followers. Fourth , it might be, that the information behavior differs between “knowledgeable” and “less knowledgeable” PSMI and that they use a wide range of online media and platforms as sources of information. Fifth , PSMI are assumed to be politically participatory individuals, just like opinion leaders. These assumptions should be empirically verified with surveys. However, content analyses are also needed for a more differentiated classification of PSMI in the political public sphere. It would be interesting, for example, to investigate the extent to which PSMI’s political knowledge affects the quality of the content. Furthermore, in view of the heterogeneous focus of topics, goals and self-conceptions of PSMI, it would make sense to work out a typology in order to organize the research field. Opinion leader research can also be useful for this purpose. For example, self-assessment scales from opinion leader research could be used to determine which PSMI perceive themselves as opinion leaders and whether and how this self-perception is expressed in their public communication.From a conceptual-theoretical point of view, the presented similarities and differences show that the communication role of PSMI can be described as a further development of opinion leadership, towards a form of mediatized, (semi-)professional and public communication based on strategic self-staging. Such an understanding requires adjustments to the opinion leader concept, which should be expanded to include a number of factors, such as professional structures such as influencer networks and agencies as well as elaborate communication and staging strategies. Knowledge about different types of PSMI, about their goals, opinion leader potentials, and messages would not only enrich political communication research, but also the public discourse about the impact of these high-reach political communicators in the political public sphere.