Abstract
Over recent years, the Western world has witnessed the (re-)rise of populism, which was marginal compared to the (once-)dominant ideologies of globalisation and European integration. This article examines the role played by the Twitter practices of politicians and the news media in mainstreaming populism through a case study of the 2016 Brexit referendum debates. The communicative freedom of politicians and the extensive attention given to them by users enabled the presenting of populist arguments as a legitimate part of debates about the referendum. The news media paid overwhelming attention to politicians and focused on the issues of immigration and the economy in their tweets, creating the sphere of legitimate controversy where populist arguments appeared in parallel with those supporting globalisation and European integration. In this case, the Twitter practices of British politicians and the news media led to the extensive – but largely uncritical – presence and articulation of populist claims on Twitter. Their strong presence alongside pro-EU and pro-globalisation arguments gave these populist perspectives a central place in the debates on the referendum. The mainstreaming of populism through the Twitter practices of politicians and the news media is inextricably linked with, and thus needs to be understood within, the broader context of rising populism where the (once-)dominant ideologies of globalisation and European integration are in decline.
Keywords
Introduction
An ideology “is a value or belief system that is accepted as fact or truth by some group. It is composed of sets of attitudes toward the various institutions and processes of society” (Sargent, 2009, p. 311). It is discursive and embodied in discourses (Hebdige, 2016). The domination of one ideology over others changes alongside the transformation of social dynamics. Once losing legitimacy, mainstream – or “central” and “dominant” in Raymond Williams’ terms (Williams, 2016) – ideologies can drop to a marginal position. By contrast, “marginal” ideologies can be accepted as part of the “mainstream” after gaining legitimacy (Ang, 1991). In this process, the news media – and potentially the Internet and social media – play a crucial role and can legitimise deviant topics or views which would usually be excluded from or criticised in the media (Hallin, 1989). Uncritical salience in media coverage of these topics would allow them to achieve legitimacy and mainstream status.
The recent (re-)rise of populism is often seen as accompanying the surge in anti-globalisation sentiment and the crisis of globalisation (Cox, 2017; Cuperus, 2007; Milner, 2019; Peters, 2018). In the United Kingdom (UK), the established discourses of globalisation and European integration have played a central role in shaping government policies since 1997 (Hay & Smith, 2005). British New Labour governments embraced globalisation and European integration, although there were calls for reform at the European level (Hay & Smith, 2005). However, later, along with the surfacing of more reservation about globalisation and European integration, post-New Labour governments paid more attention to social and environmental justice and the consequences of globalisation (Lynch, 2010).
Compared with the dominance of the globalisation and European integration discourses, populism was a marginal ideology in the last few decades. However, the UK, alongside other Western democratic societies, has recently experienced a spike in populism, which is demonstrated by the results of important political events such as referenda and elections (Alvares & Dahlgren, 2016; Krämer, 2017). The once marginal political ideology of populism has gradually found its way into mainstream political debates and is moving toward the centre. The news media are often blamed for mainstreaming populism and legitimising the claims of populist politicians (Birenbaum & Villa, 2003; Mazzoleni, 2008). In light of the part played by the Internet, particularly social media, in facilitating the spread of populism (Engesser et al., 2017; Postill, 2018), a question arises: whether and how do the online practices of users contribute to the mainstreaming of populism?
This article examines how the social media practices of politicians and the news media on Twitter mainstreamed populism through a case study of the 2016 Brexit referendum debates on Twitter. Politicians, in particular, Nigel Farage, received enormous communicative freedom and extensive attention from ordinary Twitter users. The distinctive communicative style of his tweets conveyed a “man on the street” tone, which enabled him to gain considerable popularity. The tweets of Boris Johnson echoed Farage’s populist claims. Remain politicians expressed different viewpoints but did not criticise the populist claims made by Farage and Johnson. The lack of denunciation justifies and accepts populist claims as legitimate arguments about controversial issues surrounding the referendum.
Meanwhile, the news media paying overwhelming attention to politicians and their focus on the topics of immigration and the economy created the sphere of legitimate controversy, in which populist arguments were not only given the spotlight but also included as a legitimate part of the debates. Here, the Twitter practices of British politicians and the news media led to the extensive – but largely uncritical – presence and articulation of populist claims alongside pro-EU and pro-globalisation arguments. Such articulation and presence mainstreamed these populist perspectives by giving them a central place in the debates about the referendum. The mainstreaming of populism on Twitter, however, is inextricably linked with, and thus needs to be understood within, the broader context of rising populism where the (once-)dominant ideologies of globalisation and European integration are in decline.
What is populism?
While acknowledging there are different perspectives of, and contextual variations in, the concept of populism, this article uses the term as an anti-establishment ideology that juxtaposes the interests of “the people” against those of the “elites” and “others” (Bonikowski, 2017; Gusterson, 2017; Inglehart & Norris, 2016; Engesser et al., 2017). The critical elements of the populist ideology include “emphasising the sovereignty of the people”, “advocating for the people”, “attacking the elites”, “ostracising others”, and “invoking the heartland” (Engesser et al., 2017). However, populism can also be a kind of “discursive strategy selectively employed by political outsiders” to try to change the political status quo (Bonikowski, 2016). In the wake of the electoral victories of populist parties, populism has been increasingly entering mainstream politics and becoming a mainstream political discourse (Akkerman et al., 2016; Curran, 2004; Mondon, 2013).
In the UK, populism was marginal compared to the (once-)dominant ideologies of globalisation and European integration. For many years, the majority of the British population favoured EU membership. In the 1975 UK European Communities membership referendum more than two-thirds of voters voted to continue EC membership. Recently, however, populism rose amid the emergence of Euro-scepticism and the anti-globalisation movement (Taggart, 2004). Emphasising British “differentness” (Spiering, 2004, p. 127), Euro-scepticism doubts the benefits of European integration and EU membership (Boomgaarden et al., 2011; Eichenberg & Dalton, 1993).
The surge of populism in the UK and Europe is evident in the recent electoral successes of populist political parties, such as the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the French National Front. In Italy, for example, voters in 2018 supported populist parties – the Five Star Movement and the League – to lead the next government. Global issues such as the EU migration crisis have fuelled the rise of populism. Such populism presents the features of nationalist populism, expressing hostility towards immigrants (Gusterson, 2017) and stressing the sovereignty of the nation-state. It defends the interests of those who have been economically disadvantaged under the influence of globalisation or neoliberalism. Bonikowski sees this as a conflation of nationalism and populism (2017).
The media, populist politicians, and the mainstreaming of populism
In spite of being a contested ideological concept, populism is “a communication phenomenon” (Vreese et al., 2018). The news media include populism in their coverage extensively but uncritically. They are thus blamed for legitimising and mainstreaming populism and facilitating its rise (Alvares & Dahlgren, 2016; Birenbaum & Villa, 2003; Rooduijn, 2014; Vreese et al., 2018; Waisbord, 2003). The European media, for example, are criticised for legitimising the claims of populist leaders (Mazzoleni, 2008). A “supply and demand” relationship has been established between the news media – particularly the tabloid media – and populist leaders; “the media, intentionally or not, may serve as powerful mobilisation tools for populist causes” (Mazzoleni, 2008, p. 50). Popularising populism through the news media is also exemplified in the case of Front National and Le Pen in France (Birenbaum & Villa, 2003) and the case of the UKIP in the UK (Block & Negrine, 2017; Deacon & Wring, 2016).
Social change and issues, such as the global financial crisis and the surge in populist public sentiment, are one explanation for the news media giving coverage to populism and populist politicians. In the Danish context, for example, social change – such as an increase in the number of refugees and the unemployment rate – was behind populism moving from being “extreme to mainstream” in media coverage in the 1980s (Yılmaz, 2006). The communication style of populist politicians is another reason for why populism receives attention from the news media (Block & Negrine, 2017; Deacon & Wring, 2016). Populist parties and politicians have been found to have effective communicative and public relation strategies and performance styles (Deacon & Wring, 2016; Ekström et al., 2018).
In recent years, the relationship between social media and populism has increasingly caught the interest of scholars (see, for example, Gerbaudo, 2018a; Krämer, 2017; Postill, 2018). Social media sites offer a place where the people rally, form masses, and speak out against partisan voices (Gerbaudo, 2018a). Scholars argue that social media platforms support the rise of ‘populism 2.0’ and right-wing populism (Gerbaudo, 2014, 2018a; Krämer, 2017). With the popularity and pervasiveness of social media, populist discourses have flourished on social platforms. Nevertheless, more research is needed to understand the role played by the media, and in particular social media, in spreading populism (Vreese et al., 2018).
Employing communication strategies, populist politicians have been actively using not only the mainstream media but also omnipresent social media to promulgate their ideas among supporters (Bracciale & Martella, 2017; Engesser et al., 2017; Kreis, 2017; Zulianello et al., 2018). Beyond populist politicians, other politicians can also use social media to serve their respective interests and to disseminate their beliefs (Postill, 2018). The traditional news media have tried hard to maximise their own impact on social media. Following journalistic practices, they have sought to adapt their content (social media posts) to suit social platforms. For example, due to the word limit of Twitter, the news media have to keep their posts short, although traditional journalistic principles and routines still influence how journalists approach Twitter (Barnard, 2012; Lasorsa, 2012; Papacharissi & Easton, 2013). When politicians and the news media supporting different ideologies debate and “compete” for attention on social media, would their social media practices contribute to mainstreaming populism? And if so, how does it happen?
The case
In order to address these questions, this study chose to examine the social media practices of key British politicians and the news media during the 2016 UK European Union (EU) membership referendum – also referred to as the 2016 Brexit referendum – on Twitter. In the referendum, Britain voted to leave the EU by 52 per cent to 48 per cent. The divide in public opinion between Remain and Leave was evident before the referendum.1
The referendum case is an excellent one to address the research aim for two reasons. Firstly, the division between Leave and Remain occurred within (rather than between) mainstream British political parties and among party leaders and MPs (Vasilopoulou, 2016), which suggests the support for populist values was not aligned with political parties’ ideologies. Secondly, British news outlets officially declared their support for Remain or Leave before the referendum (Hobolt, 2016; Loughborough University, 2016). Their ideological inclinations and journalistic practices would thus influence their social media practices. In turn, this makes the role played by the social media practices of individual politicians and the news media in the spreading of populism particularly interesting.
Twitter is one of the most popular social media platforms, where users can send out 140-character2
The word limit of tweets was still 140 characters when the present study was conducted. In 2017, Twitter increased its word limit from 140 to 280 characters (Sulleyman, 2017).
Accessed on December 6th 2018, at
We collected and archived 12,644,199 related tweets (see the trend of tweets in Fig. 1) in real-time one month before June 23rd 2016 (the referendum day) by using the Twitter Streaming Application Programming Interface (API). These tweets were published in the public domain and contained any of the following seven hashtags: “#Referendum”, “#VoteLeave”, “#VoteIn”, “#EUref”, “#VoteOut”, “#VoteStay”, and “#Brexit”. The hashtag decision was made based on the two types of observation conducted at the start of data collection: (1) by collecting a small sample of tweets and then manually analysing the hashtags used; and (2) by reading and assessing Tweets in real-time to make sense of the use of hashtags on Twitter. The use of referendum-related hashtags in tweets indicates users’ firm intention to link their tweets to the topic of the referendum. However, these hashtags may not necessarily be the same set of the most popular hashtags used in all tweets. We acknowledge our sampling strategy may have influenced the data collected and the findings of the study.
Twitter handles of 9 key British politicians and their political affiliations and attitudes toward the referendum
Twitter handles of 9 key British politicians and their political affiliations and attitudes toward the referendum
Daily trend of referendum tweets one month before (and on) the referendum day.
In our analysis, the first step was to identify key media and politician Twitter accounts. We included the Twitter account of Nigel Farage, the then leader of the populist UKIP, and those of other eight politicians. They were important members of their political parties and had different attitudes toward the referendum (Table 1). All of them were among the Top 1000 most popular Twitter users. The level of popularity was determined by the number of tweets, including both original tweets and retweets an account has in the dataset. We excluded @michaelgove because this account did not send any original relevant tweets before the referendum. We also included thirteen Twitter accounts of twelve British news outlets (Table 2), which appeared among the Top 1000 most popular users. In the case of the Times, given the Sunday Times and Times held different stances toward the referendum, the study included both Twitter accounts. We then analysed the tweeting practices of, and interactions between, these two groups, the activity level of their accounts, and the popularity of their tweets. The level of activity was measured by the number of original tweets sent by a Twitter account.
Thirteen Twitter handles of key British news media and their attitudes toward the referendum
The second stage was to conduct a critical thematic analysis of the content of these original tweets. A critical thematic analysis examines not merely what themes are “recurring, repeating and forceful” and in which ways, but also the reasons for their recurrence, repetition, and forcefulness, by linking to broader social ideologies and values (Antony & Thomas, 2010; Lawless & Chen, 2019). In our analysis, after importing all the tweets onto NVivo, we assessed them by identifying frequently occurring words and phrases. Then, we qualitatively coded the tweets and analysed the codes in search of the main issues, key agendas and arguments. Finally, we examined what ideologies and values are embodied in these words, phrases and themes. Apart from the critical thematic analysis, we paid attention to the communicative strategies and styles of politicians’ tweets. For the tweets of the news media, we also coded and categorised spoken news sources – whose words were quoted – in media tweets, to identify whose views were given publicity by the news media. For politicians who were identified as spoken news sources in the analysis, we also coded their stances toward the referendum. Additionally, we analysed the frequency of the appearance of key politicians as news actors who were mentioned in the news media tweets.
The analysis reveals that Twitter acted as an open forum where politicians expressed their respective views, and the news media adhered to routine journalistic practices. In general, the nine politicians accounts were less active but more popular4
When approaching the referendum day, especially from June 16th 2016, the original tweets of the news media received more retweets than those of politicians. However, we considered politicians were still more popular than the news media on Twitter, because the news media sent out original tweets ten or even a hundred times more than politicians.
Although David Cameron was reportedly Eurosceptic, he was categorised as a “Remainer” according to his attitude to the referendum.
The numbers of retweets and original tweets (by nine politicians’ and thirteen news media’s Twitter accounts) before (and on) the referendum.
Politicians tweeted about the referendum in support of campaign goals. Their tweets displayed their attitudes toward the referendum and constructed arguments with ideological implications. Not only Nigel Farage, the then leader of the populist UKIP, but also Boris Johnson of the Conservative Party, who became the Prime Minister in the UK three years later (in 2019), made populist claims in their tweets. Notably, whilst Nigel Farage sharply criticised David Cameron in his tweets, his and Boris Johnson’s arguments did not receive significant criticism from politicians who tweeted in favour of globalisation and remaining in the EU. Farage and Johnson were extremely popular, with higher levels of popularity than most media accounts on Twitter (Fig. 2). Their tweets were populist and emotional, encouraging people vote to leave the EU to change the status quo, to protect the sovereignty of the UK, and to shield the interests of the locals.
The 155 original tweets of @Nigel_Farage aimed to mobilise the local population and promulgate the nationalist-populist arguments of the Leave campaign. His tweets, speaking on behalf of the people against the elites, took the people’s side, as exemplified in the tweet: “People in Bolton sick of establishment scare tactics. They want to Leave EU & get their country back #BrexitBusTour
Nigel Farage also argued that if we do not curb immigration, including free movement and illegal migrants, our population will explode and damage our public services, education, and housing. He complained about Britain’s high financial costs of EU membership, which also hurts the local fishing industry, local business, and the interests of residents. Celebrating the support of mainstream politicians, such as Boris Johnson, Farage accused Remainers, such as David Cameron and the government, of being wrong and lying. He harshly criticised the EU for being bossy and disastrous, and accused Britain of having helped Turkey to gain EU membership, as exemplified in the tweet “Turkey and others are to receive funding from the UK to help those countries prepare for full EU membership!” (June 19th 2016).
Most of his tweets were his own comments. His occasional citation of academic views and mentioning of historical events, like the Battle of the Somme, implied that the referendum is a battle against the invasion of the EU and a fight for the freedom of the British nation. This historical reference could trigger voters’ patriotism and nationalism. The following tweet is representative: “We remember the Battle of Jutland 100 years ago today and the huge sacrifices made for our freedom” (May 31st 2016).
Compared to @Nigel_Farage, the 49 original messages of @BorisJohnson were less emotional but still nationalist and populist. His main arguments focused on immigration and the economy, for example, in relation to the financial costs of EU membership. He called to take back control and dubbed the referendum day “Independence Day”. He rejected the arguments of big businesses and economists who said that the Brexit vote would have damaging economic consequences. He stood up to the elites by accusing big corporations and elites of being “wrong”. One of his messages, for example, referred to a 1981 statement as an “attack” on Mrs Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, suggesting economists could make mistakes: “And remember the 364 economists inc 2 Nobel prize winners who attacked Mrs T in 1981 #VoteLeave #InOrOut” (June 3rd 2016). The arguments of Boris Johnson, which criticised the elites and supported leave, are a substantial addition to the populist arguments of Nigel Farage.
In the virtual space of Twitter, the populist claims of @Nigel_Farage and @BorisJohnson confronted the arguments of the other seven Remain politicians.6
They were categorised as “Remainers” because of their attitudes toward the referendum.
Consider, for example, the tweets of @David_Cameron and @jeremycorbyn.7
Jeremy Corbyn’s previous stance toward remaining in the EU was not clear, as shown in his “seven out of 10” statement on the EU. Despite so, he was classified as a “Remainer” based on his attitude toward the referendum.
Likewise, Jeremy Corbyn’s tweets also reflected the perspectives of the elites and supported the idea of European integration. His arguments, however, resonated with the narratives of the previous New Labour government, which believed reforms were needed at the European level. His tweets spoke from the perspectives of the Labour leader and “trade union leaders” rather than the people or workers. @jeremycorbyn supported Remain, stressing the benefits of Britain’s EU membership. However, he criticised the current Tory government. His tweets served the interests of the Labour Party. His arguments mainly focused on the rights of workers, the NHS, and jobs and blamed the Tories for neglecting these issues. Corbyn repeatedly mentioned the views of trade union leaders and expressed his dream of establishing “a real social Europe”, calling for the reform in the EU. He also advocated rejecting the politics of fear, implying populist politicians were playing the “fear” card and were using the fear of migrants as a political weapon in the campaign. However, he did not speak from the perspective of the people. Additionally, he completely neglected Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson and did not denounce nor respond to their arguments.
The way the nine British politicians used Twitter and the content of their tweets show that Twitter offered them a forum where they were able to articulate their positions with respective ideological inclinations. The massive popularity of politicians on Twitter means a wide circulation of their messages, promoting their embodied ideological components. Populist claims made by both Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson were presented as part of the political arguments about the controversial referendum. In particular, the communicative style of Nigel Farage was much more accessible than that of Remain politicians. The presence and articulation, but lack of criticism, of populist arguments, appeared alongside other political arguments, thereby legitimising and mainstreaming them in the debates about the referendum.
The research presented in this article reveals that the news media adhered to journalistic practices on Twitter, exemplified by their use of traditional news sources. Cited as primary news sources, politicians – including those holding populist claims such as Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson – were given extensive attention and publicity. As a result, the news media’s tweets (referred to as “media tweets” in the remainder of the article) included, elaborated and evolved the position statements of politicians into two sides of legitimate debates about the referendum. All twitter accounts of the news media cited spoken news sources from both sides of the debates about the referendum. The majority of spoken news sources were economic, political or cultural elites – either individuals or institutions. The most prominent type of spoken news sources was “Politicians” with 643 occurrences, accounting for 65.3 per cent of all 985 spoken news sources. Prohibited by the word limit of Twitter, the news media seldom explained why and how in their tweets, although they often included links to reports containing relevant, more detailed analysis. Consequently, these tweets merely presented different viewpoints – as “he said, and she said”, ping-pong journalism without offering meaningful stories or critical analysis.
Overall, media tweets gave most attention to David Cameron and Nigel Farage as news sources and news actors. For example, David Cameron, the most quoted politician, was cited 121 times as a spoken news source, followed by Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn (64 and 59 times respectively). Cameron and Farage were also most frequently mentioned in media tweets as news actors. Boris Johnson and Michael Gove were also among the most frequently quoted spoken news sources (47 and 45 times respectively). However, Nick Clegg and Caroline Lucas, key politicians for the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, rarely received attention. Moreover, a detailed analysis of the stances of the politicians quoted reveals a clear division between Leave and Remain (Fig. 3), indexing the controversy constructed by politicians with opposing views about the referendum.
Attitudes of politician spoken news sources quoted by different types of the news media’s Twitter accounts.
Media tweets constructed two primary agendas – immigration and the economy, ahead of other minor topic areas, such as public services, sovereignty, independence and institutional reform. Media tweets also interpreted the aforementioned contested political arguments made by politician news sources. The ideological stance of the news media influenced the interpretation of these agendas and the meaning of politicians’ arguments. The issue of immigration, for example, was most prominent in the tweets of right-wing Leave newspapers: @DailyMailUK, @Daily_Express, and @TheSun. The arguments constructed in their tweets justify the populist claims made by Nigel Farage and others. Although citing both sides of the arguments, these tweets of right-wing Leave newspapers advocated anti-immigration voices. They associated immigration with “public fear” and the perceived “migrant crisis”, stressing the tragedies of migrants trying to cross the Channel and highlighting the flow of “illegal” migrants “sneaking” into the UK, the criminal activities of immigrants and the perceived need to curb immigration. In relation to concerns about free movement, their tweets reported on the “public fear” and pressure triggered by the influx of migrants on the population, housing, public services and jobs in Britain. They implied that the current government and the UK’s EU membership would lead to the arrival of more migrants. Opinions cited in the tweets of Leave newspapers, such as @theSun and @Telegraph, blamed Cameron for his ignorance of the “influx” of migrants and accused Remain elites such as Cameron and Osborne of being “too rich to understand mass migration fears”. By contrast, they treated Nigel Farage favourably and uncritically. The tweets of @theSun, for example, constructed an image of illegal immigrants by citing words of political elites like Nigel Farage as exemplified in the following tweet: “‘We will have migrant bodies on UK beaches if we remain in the EU’: Nigel Farage’s warning
“Immigration” was also prominent in the tweets of Remain newspapers, in particular, @guardian and @independent. The content of their tweets about immigration defended the “free movement of people”, outlined the contribution made by migrants to British society and the economy, and differentiated EU immigration from illegal immigration. @guardian, for example, quoted politicians such as David Cameron, Jeremy Corbyn, and Gordon Brown, who argued that Brexit would not help immigration and the “real problem” was “illegal” immigration. Likewise, @independent cited politicians such as Angela Eagle and Ed Miliband, who argued EU immigration had been used as “alibi” by Brexit campaigners, such as Nigel Farage, and immigration is important and a good thing to the UK. The Leave and Remain newspapers thus constructed two opposing discourses in their tweets, respectively supporting populism and European integration.
The tweets of broadcasters cited both sides of arguments in relation to immigration. The majority (about 65 per cent) of the immigration tweets of @SkyNews, for example, reflected the viewpoints of Brexiteers, particularly Nigel Farage, concerning immigration on the grounds of a growing number of immigrants, illegal immigrants, and the EU’s power over the UK’s home immigration policies. However, some 20 per cent of the tweets did mention migrant workers should not be blamed and Brexit would not change immigration but would damage the economy, the economic contribution of migrants and the governmental elite. Broadcasters’ tweets about immigration juxtaposed populist arguments against pro-Europe arguments. Such juxtaposition constructs them as legitimate arguments in debates about controversial issues regarding the referendum.
Media tweets about the economy had similar effects. In tweets about the economy, broadcasters and Remain newspapers cited political and economic elites who were warning of the negative economic consequences of Brexit. Prominent among them are George Osborne, “10 labour city leaders”, the “IMF”, “French economy minister”, “US Federal Reserve chairwoman Janet Yellen”, and the “Bank of England”. Their tweets also quoted the elite members who accused Leave politicians, such as Boris Johnson, of telling lies and being untruthful and criticised Brexiteers for ignoring the disastrous economic consequences of Brexit. By contrast, the tweets of Leave newspapers supported populist arguments by uncritically covering more messages from Brexiteers such as Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson. They also criticised Remainers for “scaremongering” about the economy.
In these ways, the populist claims of Leave politicians, and in particular, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, were put under the spotlight in media tweets and mainstreamed as a legitimate element of debates about the referendum.
The findings in this study echo the views of other scholars about the role played by social media in facilitating the rise of populism (see for example Engesser et al., 2017; Postill, 2018). It is also well understood that politicians use Twitter to gain a (perceived and/or real) political advantage (Golbeck et al., 2010; Graham et al., 2013; Grant et al., 2010; Jackson & Lilleker, 2011; Rauchfleisch & Metag, 2016). The research presented in this article demonstrates the importance of the tweeting practices of politicians and the news media in creating a sphere of legitimate controversy where populist claims were mainstreamed into legitimate political debates. In a time when populist values are no longer always attached to the ideologies of political parties, how individual politicians promulgate or denounce them becomes crucial. As shown in this research, while Leave politicians uttered their populist arguments in an accessible style, Remain politicians were uncritical of these populist statements. Instead, they focused on expressing their opinions from the perspectives of the pro-EU and pro-globalisation elites, addressing their own or own party’s political interests. The articulation of populist arguments by Leave politicians, without receiving any criticism from Remain politicians (on Twitter), places them at one side of the debates about the referendum, with Remain politicians’ arguments on the other.
Politicians also exerted influence when the news media extensively, although uncritically, cited their arguments in media tweets. The tweeting practices of the news media were in accordance with journalistic practices and influenced by the news media’s stances toward the referendum. In particular, in the tweets of the right-wing Leave newspapers, uncritically and favourably quoting populist politicians such as Nigel Farage would give legitimacy to these politicians and their populist claims. Giving voices to both Leave and Remain politicians and focusing on the issues of immigration and the economy, the tweets of the news media presented the populist views in conjunction with the arguments supporting European Integration and globalisation-which were made from the perspectives of established elites. They thus constructed the sphere of legitimate controversy allowing populist arguments to become part of the political debates. What is striking, in this case, is the role played by the tweeting practices of individual politicians and the news media in conveying opposing ideologies and including populist arguments into legitimate debates. In this way, mainstreamed and legitimised, populism came to occupy a central place in the political debates surrounding the Brexit referendum.
Social media communication about populism should be seen “as part of a larger information system” (Vreese et al., 2018, p. 432). The mainstreaming of populism on Twitter mirrors the emergence of populism and the decline in the dominance and establishment of globalisation and Europe integration in context. Prior to the referendum, British society witnessed a surge in Euro-scepticism as a significant part of the population blamed immigration and globalisation for their own situation and economic standing. Populist politicians used rising Euro-scepticism to gain a foothold in politics. Often, the more aberrant remarks they make, the more attention they would receive, and the better they would enthuse their supporters. Notably, embracing public sentiment is no longer limited to UKIP politicians, but an appealing strategy to politicians from all political parties. The debate about the UK’s EU membership had moved “from the margins to the mainstream of British politic”, as part of “the mainstreaming of Euro-scepticism in the UK”, and British news media, in particular the tabloids, were the vital driving force behind it (Startin, 2015). The right-wing news outlets such as The Daily Telegraph and the Sun have represented (and even stirred up) the rising sentiment of Euro-scepticism. They have been facilitating the discussion of populism by continuously focusing on issues like immigration and by “othering” non-national migrants (Tong & Zuo, 2019), which is consistent with the findings of this study. Populist politicians, such as Nigel Farage, have received extensive media coverage and have created a symbiotic relationship with the media (Block & Negrine, 2017; Deacon & Wring, 2016). The Mail, for example, constructed the mythology of Nigel Farage as “a man on a mission” and as a “hero” (Kelsey, 2016, p. 971).
The degree to which populism is a welcome feature of the contemporary political landscape is open to debate and discussion, and the actions of the news media cannot be seen as the only explanatory factor in the rise of populism. Populist parties across Europe have achieved successive electoral victories, many of which predate the extensive use of social media, and are the result of carefully constructed communication and public relation strategies (Deacon & Wring, 2016). There is also no homogeneity in the news media. The level of publicity received by populist political actors in media coverage is subject to journalistic principles and practices, which involves careful analysis and critique. What is more, populist arguments put forward by right-wing newspapers might be challenged by left-wing newspapers and political actors holding different political values. Also notable, is that politicians using the tools offered to them by social media platforms, do not have to rely on the news media to get their messages across to the public and are thus able to communicate directly with larger numbers of citizens. Clearly, populist discourses thrive more easily on social media platforms, where the gate-keeping role of the news media is absent, and right-wing populist politicians have mastered the affordances of social media to propagate their populist ideas actively.
This line of argument suggests that the (relatively) free flow of information on social media platforms is a precondition for spreading populist values (Figenschou & Beyer, 2014; Figenschou & Ihlebæk, 2019; Figenschou & Thorbjørnsrud, 2017). More important, however, is social media’s potential to mainstream populist values into political debates about controversial issues in the sphere of legitimacy controversy. By being included in political debates, deviant political values gain the status of legitimacy and are pushed toward the centre. In this research, whilst Remain politicians were successful in promoting their own values on social media, they failed to denounce populist values as deviant. This suggests a fatal misunderstanding by the Remain camp of the way in which Twitter works in shaping political discourse. It also points to Twitter as an alternative ‘virtual’ sphere where different views are expressed and evolve to form the basis of legitimate debates in the public domain. Adhering to journalistic practices, such as citing news sources and researching the validity of statements and claims, becomes a hindrance in the Twitter sphere, and in the case presented here resulted in populist statements going unchallenged.
This case study explores the social media practices of politicians and the news media when communicating about the UK’s EU referendum in 2016. The study contributes to the existing literature about social media communication as well as Brexit studies (such as Agarwal et al., 2018; Grčar et al., 2017). It shows how the Twitter practices of the two groups resulted in the mainstreaming of the populist ideology by including populist claims within the boundaries of legitimate debates about the referendum. The research reported in this article has benefited from the combination of computational and qualitative analysis of the tweets and tweeting practices of these two groups. However, the adopted sampling strategy and the focus on selected politicians and the news media may have influenced the findings and discussions. In future research, it would be helpful to examine the activity of a broader range of actors, and of a broader range of social media platforms, and the impact of the social media practices of politicians. Additionally, interesting insights would be gained from comparing the content of the traditional news media with their social media counterparts. What is evident from this research, is that the use of social media platforms like Twitter is going to play an increasingly important role in electoral and political debates and that political parties will seek to maximise their use of the medium.