I’m in Copenhagen today, at the first meeting of a Nordic network on political communication online headed by Lisbeth Klastrup. The object today is to get some overview of activity in the different Nordic countries, and I’ve been tasked with presenting the Norwegian scene. Which, it turns out, is not that easy, especially since I guess I’ve actually been paying more attention to the US campaigns – oh dear, but, they’re just more entertaining, you know? And they’re using social media far more interestingly, at this point, with great hubs and commentators like TechPresident to keep us up to date about what’s going on. So anyway, I’m going to start by talking about the things that fascinate me about uses of social media in political communication: the user-generated things and the ways voters – and to some extent, campaigners – are inventing new ways of communicating and promoting their opinions. Here are a few examples I’ve enjoyed:

These are all examples of remix culture, amateur production, user-generated culture, mashups. In the US, a 2005 survey by Pew showed that 59% of all teens uploaded their own content to the internet. 19% of all teens uploaded remixes of various kinds. There are to my knowledge no equivalent surveys of Nordic Also a product of American culture, where political advertising on television – the 30 second spot – is immensely important in campaigns. (There’s a wonderful recent documentary on this by CNN, “Campaign Killers”, that I can’t figure out how to buy or download – here are the teaching notes for it though.)

Other interesting developments in the US campaigns are the use of Facebook – for instance in the US Politics application that I think was set up by Facebook in connection with a television debate in January (at least that’s when I became aware of it.)

In Norway things are certainly not as sophisticated yet, but then, that’s not too surprising. The local elections in September 2007 used YouTube, but in a pretty elementary way – local elections obviously carry less critical mass than national elections because fewer voters are involved in each election. In France last year, it seemed use of the web was more sophisticated than in the US elections in 2004. This year’s US elections are using social technology far more. Presumably the national elections in Norway in September 2009 will be more interesting, seen from an online perspective.

What did happen in the 2007 local elections was that political parties started using YouTube. Arbeiderpartiet and many other parties published short, boring talking-head videos of every candidate. Most of these have about 36 views – and they don’t invite viral spreading. Apart from being extremely boring, they have comments and embedding disabled. I only found one campaigner who actually used YouTube’s features of answering other politicians’ videos in new videos (actually that was disabled so he fudged it), and he was ignored by the politician he answered.

screenshot of Valg 2007 - VG NettVG, one of the major tabloids, tried to forge their own online platform for politicians, Valg 2007. It’s basically a blogging system for politicians, presented as though all local Norwegian politicians are on it: “Your local politician blogs here!”. It encourages me to see what my local politicians are saying – but there’s only one blogger in Bergen, who’s from a party I’ve never even heard of. That’s a pretty small party, I’d say. Being utterly proprietory, this system doesn’t pull in other local politicians who have been blogging for years (e.g. Heikki HolmÂs. If I were a politician I’d be pretty suspicious of starting a blog on a tabloid newspaper’s website.

Arbeiderpartiet, which is the largest party in the coalition government, are currently working on updating their program, and their website invites everyone to “take part in the debate”. They’ve got their web 2.0 rhetoric right, but do they follow through?
screenshot from arbeiderpartiet.no
Unfortunately, the answer is a clear no. The debate pages are slick and video-dense, with some cool Flash effects, and yes, they’re also posted to YouTube – with comments open, hooray! But the “take part” section is rather pathetic. Here are the options for participating:

Right. Send them an SMS (when I’m back in Norway I’ll try and see what/if they answer), send the talking head an email (no way to connect to other voters there), visit her blog – which is on VG Nett’s politician thing, in fact, or their Facebook group – which has had no activity since the election and where the few voter questions are not answered by the party – or go to YouTube, which is, perhaps, the best option. The interface for the videos is nice, though:

That’s about it for now – more later.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “political communication online: in norway?”

  1. Martin G.

    Oh, my. I would have loved to be there. I want to learn more about this. We expect prolific & extensive blogging reports! 😉

  2. morley winograd

    Good post. We just published a book in US summarizing the pre-2008 impact of social networks on American politics and describing how it will evolve. You might be interested. See website for more information.

  3. Vox Publica » links for 2008-02-15

    […] jill/txt ¬ª political communication online: in norway? Forskere dr??fter politisk kommunikasjon p?• nettet. (tags: politikk medier internett) […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

screenshot of blogpost from sept 11, 2001, about blogger.com showing blog posts about the attacks
Networked Politics social media

25 years since September 11

I’ve been reading through my blog posts on September 11, 2001 and the days that followed. The things that stand out to me – in addition to the horror of the attack itself – are how massively we (or at least I) used the web to understand what was happening, […]

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]