POLITICAL COMMUNICATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE: MEDIA, LANGUAGE, AND POWER IN THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT

Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 235 235 Volume 11, 2025, 235-239 h1ps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18051957 POLITICAL COMMUNICATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE: MEDIA, LANGUAGE, AND POWER IN THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT Ștefan Radu Bogdan Stănescu PhD Candidate, University of Craiova Abstract The article analyses the profound transformations in political communication amid the development of the internet and social networks, highlighting how the online environment has redefined the relationships among politicians, the media, and citizens. Digital platforms have become central tools for promoting political messages, mobilising the electorate, interacting directly with the public, and monitoring public opinion in real time, thereby facilitating the personalisation of communication and expanding civic participation. At the same time, the study highlights the risks associated with this environment, in particular the proliferation of fake news, disinformation, and scandal politics, which can influence public perceptions and contribute to a crisis of legitimacy of the traditional political system. From a linguistic and discursive perspective, the article highlights the essential role of language in constructing online political messages, including the use of rhetorical strategies, emotion, message simplification, and multimedia elements. In conclusion, the relationship between politics, media, and the online environment is complex and dynamic, offering significant opportunities for the democratisation of political participation, but also significant challenges that require a critical and responsible approach from political actors and citizens. Keywords: political communication, social media, political discourse, online environment, civic mobilisation Introduc)on The expansion of digital technologies has reshaped the public sphere and altered the condiWons under which poliWcal communicaWon takes place. The emergence of the internet and online media has not only diversified channels of informaWon but has also reconfigured the temporal, spaWal, and symbolic dimensions of poliWcal interacWon (Chadwick, 2017; Benne1 & Pfetsch, 2018). CommunicaWon is no longer confined to insWtuWonalised media outlets or clearly defined poliWcal arenas, but unfolds within networked environments characterised by speed, connecWvity, and constant feedback. Within this evolving context, poliWcal communicaWon increasingly operates according to the logic of digital media (Appel et al., 2019). The immediacy of online pla^orms, the dominance of visual and audiovisual formats, and the pressure to capture public a1enWon have influenced how poliWcal messages are constructed and disseminated (Weismueller et al., 2021). PoliWcal parWes began strategically integraWng social media pla^orms into their campaign communicaWon to maximise outreach and voter engagement (Gossner et al., 2004). These changes raise important quesWons about the nature of poliWcal discourse, the role of language, and the balance between informaWon, persuasion, and emoWonal appeal in contemporary poliWcal communicaWon. At the same Wme, the growing visibility of poliWcal processes in the online environment has intensified public scruWny of poliWcal actors and insWtuWons. PoliWcal communicaWon is conWnually evaluated, reinterpreted, and contested by diverse audiences. This heightened exposure affects not only poliWcal strategies but also ciWzens’ expectaWons regarding transparency, accountability, and parWcipaWon in democraWc life (McNair, 2017). Scholarly debates in poliWcal communicaWon and media studies have increasingly focused on the implicaWons of these transformaWons (AlAfnan, 2025). Researchers have examined how digital media challenge established disWncWons between producers and consumers of poliWcal content, between public and private communicaWon, and between naWonal and transnaWonal poliWcal spaces. The online environment thus emerges as a complex communicaWve ecosystem in which poliWcal meanings are constantly negoWated. In this broader theoreWcal and social framework, the present study situates its analysis of poliWcal communicaWon in the digital age. Rather than treaWng the internet merely as a technological tool, the arWcle approaches it as a communicaWve environment that shapes poliWcal language, discourse pracWces, and modes of parWcipaWon. By exploring these dynamics, the arWcle seeks to contribute to ongoing discussions about the changing nature of poliWcs in a mediated and networked society. Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 236 236 Poli)cs and social media With the advancement of technology and the rise of the internet and social media pla^orms, poliWcal communicaWon and debate have migrated mainly to the digital space (Popa et al., 2019). This is due to the many advantages the online environment offers in terms of access to audiences, direct interacWon and distribuWon of content. Social media pla^orms, blogs, videos, direct interacWon with thousands of people at the same Wme, the seamless flow of poliWcal discourse - all create a new conglomerate for the poliWcal sphere. PoliWcians, poliWcal parWes and organisaWons are acWvely using social media pla^orms such as Facebook, Twi1er (Enli & Skogerbø, 2013), Instagram and LinkedIn to promote their messages, a1ract supporters and interact directly with voters. These pla^orms allow for rapid distribuWon of informaWon, organisaWon of online events and real-Wme responses to quesWons and concerns. Some poliWcians and parWes even have blogs and websites where they publish arWcles, speeches, policy posiWons and other relevant informaWon. These can give voters more insight into the poliWcal pla^orms and visions of candidates. Videos and podcasts are frequently used to present their pla^orms and policy posiWons, and these formats can be more a1racWve and accessible to younger audiences and make complex issues more straigh^orward to understand. In the case of elecWon campaigns, paid adverWsements on the internet to promote their candidates and poliWcal messages can be segmented to reach specific audiences, allowing a high degree of personalisaWon. In addiWon, social media offers the opportunity for direct interacWon with voters through comments, private messages and live broadcasts, increasing the level of transparency and connecWon between poliWcians and ciWzens. PoliWcal debates take place on online pla^orms, where people express their opinions and argue their posiWons (Fortunato et al., 2016). The online environment also makes it easier to mobilise and organise protests or poliWcal events. Last but not least, monitoring public opinion in real Wme is made much easier online by analysing discussions and trends on social media. The rise of fake news However, the online environment also brings challenges, such as the spread of fake news or the manipulaWon of informaWon (Van Aelst et al., 2017). These can have a significant impact on poliWcal discourse and public opinion (Al-Rawi & Prithipaul, 2023). Fake news oken involves manipulaWng language to create headlines and content that grab a1enWon and create sensaWon. This can include using strong words or phrases, exaggeraWng or distorWng informaWon and using an alarming or emoWonal tone. Fake news is oken accompanied by stories constructed in such a way as to appear credible. These stories may include ficWWous or distorted details and may use persuasive techniques to convince readers. In terms of sources, fake news uses unreliable or fabricated sources to support the claims made in the news story. This may include ficWWous quotes or a1ribuWng non-existent informaWon to non-existent or unauthenWcated sources (Stanescu, 2024). It can also involve the manipulaWon of images and graphics to support false claims. This may include altering photographs, creaWng distorted graphics or using images from other contexts to mislead (Stănescu, G. C., 2020). From a psychological point of view, fake news oken focuses on exploiWng public anxieWes, prejudices or feelings (Vosoughi et al., 2018). It may address sensiWve or controversial topics to generate strong reacWons. Rhetorical techniques can also be used to create persuasion, which refers to appeals to emoWons, the use of persuasive figures of speech and the construcWon of arguments that appear to be logically valid but are in fact false. SomeWmes fake news can be presented in the form of irony or parody, making it even more challenging to interpret. In such cases, language can be used to create a mixture of humour and confusion. In conclusion, fake news is a linguisWcally complex phenomenon(Grieve & Woodfield, 2023) as it involves the manipulaWon of language, content and rhetorical techniques to create fake news that appears credible and influences public opinion. Understanding these elements is essenWal to uncover and counter fake news. Overall, the online environment has redefined the way poliWcal communicaWon takes place, bringing with it both opportuniWes and new challenges. In recent decades, poliWcs has taken over every possible space, be it classic media or new social media. InformaWon is propagated through all kinds of media: from TV, newspapers, to adverWsements and broadcasts on all types of internet channels, and people's opinions and the way they act poliWcally are shaped by these influences. The material promoted by the media, in all its forms, influences people. Individuals react and act on images, sounds, videos, and texts based on their own values, interests and percepWons. PoliWcs and relaWons among individuals in socieWes across the world are being transformed by new technologies for targeWng individuals and sophisWcated methods for shaping personalised messages. The latest technologies challenge boundaries of many kinds - between news, informaWon, entertainment, and adverWsing; between media, with the arrival of the World Wide Web; and even between naWons. Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 237 237 The poliWcal process, in all its forms, is being mirrored and even exposed much more widely on the Internet, and this is mainly due to the opWons that the online environment offers. It is a beauWful space not only for those who work in the poliWcal climate, but also for those who consume this informaWon, and for the media, social organisaWons and many other forms of manifestaWon that result from this field. Media, poli)cs and the online environment The influence of the media on poliWcal debate has significant consequences for the poliWcal process. Media poliWcs has its own rules and language, including simplifying the message, construcWng images, personalising poliWcs and creaWng narraWves, and using strategies such as discrediWng poliWcal opponents through revelaWons (whether true, false or parWal) to influence public opinion (Thompson, 2000). Media poliWcs also involves significant expenditure, parWcularly when conducted outside poliWcal campaign periods. It requires considerable financial investment and resources to maintain a favourable media presence, which can lead to poliWcians' dependence on donors and their lobbyists. The internet has been a powerful tool for civic engagement and ciWzen mobilisaWon. Social media pla^orms and online groups allow ciWzens to express their opinions, coordinate their acWons and parWcipate in poliWcal debates. Media poliWcs and its consequences, such as personalisaWon, image creaWon, financial dependence on self-interested donors and scandal-based poliWcs, can contribute to a crisis of poliWcal legiWmacy (Fallows, 1996; Dautrich and Hartley, 1999). Therefore, this does not imply a complete withdrawal of people from the poliWcal sphere, but instead suggests that there is a tendency to lose trust in tradiWonal poliWcs and poliWcians. Instead, people are turning to alternaWve poliWcal pracWces, such as voWng for third parWes, abstaining, engaging in referendum poliWcs or exploring forms of poliWcal mobilisaWon outside the tradiWonal party system. The internet has democraWsed access to informaWon, as ciWzens can now access news and poliWcal analysis from a variety of sources and form their own opinions. This democraWsaWon of informaWon has made poliWcians more accountable to the public and brought more transparency to the poliWcal process. Obviously, the media and the internet have contributed to the personalisaWon of poliWcs. PoliWcians strive to create images and messages that match the specific preferences and values of different groups of voters, and this personalisaWon can lead to stronger engagement by ciWzens. There is a flip side, as with most relaWvely new acWons in this online environment. Scandal poliWcs, misinformaWon, fake news and disinformaWon campaigns can influence public opinion and affect poliWcal processes, requiring a careful approach and increased discernment on the part of ciWzens. As the media and the internet have exposed more aspects of poliWcs, some socieWes have experienced a crisis of legiWmacy in poliWcs. This has led to increased support for alternaWve poliWcs, such as third parWes, and the exploraWon of unconvenWonal methods of poliWcal mobilisaWon. This crisis of poliWcal legiWmacy translates into a loss of trust in the tradiWonal poliWcal system. This is partly a1ributed to the pracWce of media poliWcs, which can generate distrust in poliWcians and the poliWcal process. In the context of the legiWmacy crisis, the effect may be that many ciWzens start to engage in alternaWve forms of poliWcal expression. These may include social movements, insurgent poliWcians or a1empts to connect civil society with newer poliWcal leaders. The Internet plays a significant role in this new poliWcal landscape. When used independently by ciWzens, grassroots organisaWons and poliWcal entrepreneurs, the internet becomes a pla^orm of choice. The online environment is valued for its ability to build extensive networks at low cost. These networks are based on individual mulW-direcWonal connecWons and can conWnue to grow in an open and non-centrally controlled way. This allows it to expand indefinitely and to configure itself around overarching themes that evolve as network interacWons occur. The online zone offers significant opportuniWes for ciWzens and organisaWons to engage in poliWcs in a more direct and autonomous way, countering the crisis of poliWcal legiWmacy and tradiWonal media poliWcs. This is due to the internet's ability to create open and dynamic networks that can transform the poliWcal process through acWve ciWzen parWcipaWon. The relaWonship between poliWcs, media and the internet is complex and constantly changing. For all the challenges and opportuniWes it presents, this relaWonship has a profound impact on how poliWcs is understood, communicated and experienced by ciWzens. A careful and responsible approach to this relaWonship is essenWal to ensure more transparent and parWcipatory poliWcal processes. And all these exposures can be explained by the way words have played a key role in the communicaWon process. The way poliWcal life is presented by online media has led to mulWple changes in language and discourse. The Internet has brought with it a diversificaWon of vocabulary and speaking style in the presentaWon of poliWcs. Keywords, neologisms and expressions associated with the online environment have been integrated into poliWcal discourse. The modern poliWcian also faces pressure to communicate clearly and concisely in the digital environment, which can lead to the use of more simplified and direct language. Online media has introduced Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 238 238 mulWmedia elements into poliWcal presentaWon, including videos, infographics and visual presentaWons. These add addiWonal dimensions of communicaWon that do not rely exclusively on text and speech, but also on non-verbal elements such as gestures and tone of voice. The Internet allows real-Wme communicaWon, and this affects poliWcal discourse. PoliWcians and media representaWves can use pla^orms such as Twi1er to deliver real-Wme messages to the public. This requires quick and concise communicaWon skills. CiWzens can also comment and respond to messages, which can influence how poliWcians react and adapt to public feedback. Finally, the internet and social media have made poliWcal discourse globally accessible. PoliWcians and the media can reach internaWonal audiences, which someWmes involves adapWng language and discourse to different cultures and linguisWc contexts. Obviously, technology also helps in this respect, to change the quality of speeches, involving analysis of tone of voice, pace of speech and how speech affects the percepWon of the audience. Without going into the essence of poliWcs as a form of social engagement, but to exemplify the power of communicaWon, as the balance of power can influence this process, modern poliWcs, developed in the online environment, is mass poliWcs. Networked poliWcs is individualised poliWcs, trying to connect to many other individuals, and this can lead to a fragmentaWon of poliWcs, a greater spread of referendum poliWcs and an unpredictability of poliWcal opinion. Clearly, these changes can erode the stable system of poliWcal representaWon that has characterised democracies for the last half century, and the role not only of poliWcians but also of the communicaWng pracWWoners seems to be between the conWnuaWon of tradiWonal party poliWcs, enacted through media poliWcs and increasingly delegiWmised, and the emergence of network poliWcs in a process characterised by the producWon of new actors. Conclusion The analysis presented in this arWcle highlights the extent of the transformaWons brought about in poliWcal communicaWon by the development of new media, which have changed not only the channels for transmipng poliWcal messages but also discursive pracWces, power relaWons, and forms of poliWcal parWcipaWon. The online environment has established itself as a central space for interacWon between poliWcal actors, the media, and ciWzens, where poliWcal meanings are constructed, negoWated, and contested at an accelerated pace. Although digital technologies have expanded the possibiliWes for informaWon, visibility, and civic engagement, they have also accentuated exisWng tensions in democraWc systems. The personalisaWon of poliWcal communicaWon, the dominant media logic, and the frequent use of emoWonal appeals and rhetorical strategies have profoundly influenced contemporary poliWcal discourse. In this context, the spread of disinformaWon, fake news, and scandal poliWcs poses significant challenges to the quality of public debate and trust in poliWcal insWtuWons. From a linguisWc and discursive perspecWve, the study highlights the essenWal role of language in shaping poliWcal realiWes in the online environment. The simplificaWon of the message, the emphasis on emoWon, and the integraWon of mulWmodal elements reflect the constraints and opportuniWes of digital pla^orms and influence how poliWcal messages are received and evaluated by the public. At the same Wme, the internet has facilitated the emergence of alternaWve forms of civic mobilisaWon and poliWcal expression, which can help counteract the crisis of legiWmacy in tradiWonal poliWcs. However, these forms of online parWcipaWon can generate fragmentaWon, volaWlity, and unpredictability in public opinion, calling into quesWon the stability of classical mechanisms of poliWcal representaWon. In conclusion, poliWcal communicaWon in the digital age must be understood as a complex and dynamic process, determined by the interacWon between technology, discourse, and social power structures. Responsible management of this environment requires not only the adaptaWon of poliWcal actors' strategies, but also the development of criWcal thinking and media literacy skills among ciWzens. Future research should conWnue to explore the long-term impact of digital poliWcal communicaWon on the funcWoning of democracy and public discourse. References AlAfnan, M. A. (2025). The role of memes in shaping poliWcal discourse on social media. Studies in Media and Communica0on, 13(2), 1. h1ps://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v13i2.7482 Al-Rawi, A., & Prithipaul, D. (2023). The public’s appropriaWon of mulWmodal discourses of fake news on social media. The Communica0on Review, 26(4), 327–349. h1ps://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2023.2242070 Appel, G., Grewal, L., Hadi, R., & Stephen, A. T. (2019). The future of social media in markeWng. Journal of the Academy of Marke0ng Science, 48(1), 79–95. h1ps://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00695-1 Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, Volume 11, 2025 239 239 Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). PERSONALIZED CAMPAIGNS IN PARTY-CENTRED POLITICS. Informa0on Communica0on & Society, 16(5), 757–774. h1ps://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2013.782330 Fortunato, D., Stevenson, R. T., & Vonnahme, G. (2016). Context and PoliWcal knowledge: Explaining CrossNaWonal variaWon in parWsan Lek-Right knowledge. The Journal of Poli0cs, 78(4), 1211–1228. h1ps://doi.org/10.1086/686689 Gossner, O., Hernandez, P., & Neyman, A. (2004). Dynamiques de communicaWon. Revue Économique, 55(3), 509. h1ps://doi.org/10.2307/3503380 Grieve J, Woodfield H. The Language of Fake News. Cambridge University Press; 2023. Ianoș Stănescu, G. (2015). Portrayals of Immigrants in European Media. Discourse as a Form of Mul0culturalism in Literature and Communica0on, 114-123. McNair, B. (2017). An introducWon to poliWcal communicaWon. Routledge. h1ps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315750293 Popa, S. A., Fazekas, Z., Braun, D., & Leidecker-Sandmann, M. (2019). Informing the public: How party communicaWon builds opportunity structures. Poli0cal Communica0on, 37(3), 329–349. h1ps://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1666942 Stanescu, G. C. (2024). Fake news, bots, and influencers: The impact of social media on Romania’s 2024 elecWons. Social Sciences and Educa0on Research Review, 11(2), 361-366. Stănescu, G. C. (2020). DisinformaWon during the cornavirus pandemic. An analysis of the types of fake news in four states. Social Sciences and Educa0on Research Review, 7(1), 349-361. Thompson, J. B. (2000). PoliWcal scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., De Vreese, C., Ma1hes, J., Hopmann, D., Salgado, S., Hubé, N., Stępińska, A., Papathanassopoulos, S., Berganza, R., Legnante, G., Reinemann, C., Sheafer, T., & Stanyer, J. (2017). PoliWcal communicaWon in a high-choice media environment: a challenge for democracy? Annals of the Interna0onal Communica0on Associa0on, 41(1), 3–27. h1ps://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551 Vlăduțescu, Ș., & Stănescu, G. C. (2025). The Role of ArWficial Intelligence in Romanian BroadcasWng: OpportuniWes and Challenges. Journalism and Media, 6(1), 22. h1ps://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia6010022 Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146– 1151. Weismueller, J., Harrigan, P., Coussement, K., & Tessitore, T. (2021). What makes people share poliWcal content on social media? The role of emoWon, authority and ideology. Computers in Human Behaviour, 129, 107150. h1ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107150