Tuesday, January 15, 2019

A Vocal and Volatile Online Public

link.springer.com; see also

The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy pp 65-99Cite as

Image result for digitalization
Image (not from article) from
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan Series in Global Public Diplomacy book series (GPD) 


This chapter offers a series of case studies demonstrating how the characteristics of digital publics have challenged diplomats’ norms, working routines and communicative cultures. The chapter is structured chronologically, so as to demonstrate that the digitalization of public diplomacy  [JB emphasis] did not occur in one day, nor was it the result of a single digital interaction. Rather, the digitalization of public diplomacy has been a long-term process in which digital technologies, digital publics and digital initiatives have all impacted the conduct of public diplomacy. The chapter illustrates the digitalization of American public diplomacy, before examining the digital initiatives of the governments of Hamas, Israel, Sweden and the EU. Each case study demonstrates the manner in which interactions between digital publics and diplomats have shaped the digitalization of public diplomacy.


  1. Abbasov, A. (2007). Digital diplomacy: Embedding information and communication technologies in the department of foreign affairs and trade. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/1058526/Digital_Diplomacy_Embedding_Information_and_Communication_Technologies_in_the_Department_of_Foreign_Affairs_and_Trade.
  2. Adesina, O. S. (2017). Foreign policy in an era of digital diplomacy. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1297175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahren, R. (2017, September). More Israelis like the EU than dislike it, poll finds. The Times of Israel. Retrieved from https://www.timesofisrael.com/more-israelis-like-the-eu-than-dislike-it-poll-finds/.
  4. Barlow, J. P. (1996). A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence.
  5. Bauman, Z., & Lyon, B. (2016). Remoteness distancing an automation. In Z. Bauman & B. Lyon (Eds.), Liquid surveillance (pp. 76–99). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Hansen, D. (2012a). The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2012b). Promoting transparency and accountability through ICTs, social media, and collaborative e-government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6(1), 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bjola, C., & Manor, I. (2018). Revisiting Putnam’s two-level game theory in the digital age: Domestic digital diplomacy and the Iran nuclear deal. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 33, 1–30.Google Scholar
  9. Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 317–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke, A. (2015). Business as usual? An evolution of British and Canadian digital diplomacy as policy change. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice (pp. 111–126). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Copeland, D. (2013). Taking diplomacy public: Science, technology and foreign ministries in a heteropolar world. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 56–69). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  12. Cull, N. J. (2008). Public diplomacy: Taxonomies and histories. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,616(1), 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cull, N. J. (2013). The long road to public diplomacy 2.0: The internet in US public diplomacyInternational Studies Review, 15(1), 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haaretz. (2015, March). Ask Hamas Twitter campaign quickly backfires. Haaretz. Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.com/askhamas-twitter-campaign-backfires-1.5336781.
  15. Hayden, C. (2012). Social media at state: Power, practice, and conceptual limits for US public diplomacyGlobal Media Journal, 11(21), 1–12.Google Scholar
  16. Haynal, G. (2011). Corporate diplomacy in the information Age: Catching up to the dispersal of power. In J. G. Stein (Ed.), Diplomacy in the digital age: Essays in honour of Ambassador Allan Gotlieb (pp. 209–224). Ontario: Signal.Google Scholar
  17. Hocking, B., & Melissen, J. (2015). Diplomacy in the digital age. Clingendael: Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael.Google Scholar
  18. Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 561–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kampf, R., Manor, I., & Segev, E. (2015). Digital diplomacy 2.0? A cross-national comparison of public engagement in Facebook and Twitter. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 10(4), 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khatib, L., Dutton, W., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Public diplomacy 2.0: A case study of the US digital outreach team. The Middle East Journal,66(3), 453–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010, April). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 591–600). ACM.Google Scholar
  22. Lampe, G. (2018). Understanding U.S. digital diplomacy [In person].Google Scholar
  23. Landau, N. (2018, May). Trade and tirades: The complicated truth behind Israel’s love-hate relationship with the EU. Haaretz. Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-eu-ties-a-love-hate-relationship-that-s-better-than-it-looks-1.6116399.
  24. Lee, G., & Kwak, Y. H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lichtenstein, J. (2010, July). Digital diplomacy. The New York Times.Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/magazine/18web2-0-t.html.
  26. Manor, I. (2014, July). An Epic Q&A session. The Times of Israel.Retrieved from https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/an-epic-qa-session/.
  27. Manor, I. (2016). Are we there yet: Have MFA s realized the potential of digital diplomacy? Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy, 1(2), 1–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manor, I., & Crilley, R. (2018a). Visually framing the Gaza War of 2014: The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Twitter. Media, War & Conflict.Google Scholar
  29. Manor, I., & Crilley, R. (2018b). The aesthetics of violent extremist and counter violent extremist communication. In C. Bjola & J. Pamment (Eds.), Countering online propaganda and extremism: The dark side of digital diplomacy. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. McNutt, K. (2014). Public engagement in the Web 2.0 era: Social collaborative technologies in a public sector context. Canadian Public Administration, 57(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Melissen, J. (2005). The new public diplomacy: Between theory and practice. In J. Melissen (Ed.), The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations (pp. 3–27). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mergel, I. (2013). Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the US federal government. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pamment, J. (2013). Introduction. In J. Pamment, New public diplomacy in the 21st century: A comparative study of policy and practice (pp. 1–19). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Pardo, S. (2016, August). What does Israel think about the European Union? European Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_what_does_israel_think_about_the_european_union_7101.
  35. Ross, A. (2011). Digital diplomacy and US foreign policy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 6(3–4), 451–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ross, A. (2015). Hillary Clinton’s FMR innovation advisor on digital diplomacy [TV]. Retrieved from https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/video/hillary-clinton-s-fmr-innovation-advisor-on-digital-diplomacy~582509.
  37. Slaughter, A. M. (2009). America’s edge: Power in the networked century. Foreign Affairs, 88, 94–113.Google Scholar
  38. Snead, J. T. (2013). Social media use in the US Executive branch. Government Information Quarterly, 30(1), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sotiriu, S. (2015). Digital diplomacy: Between promises and reality. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice(pp. 33–51). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Spry, D. (2018). Facebook diplomacy: A data-driven, user-focused approach to Facebook use by diplomatic missions. Media International Australia, 168(1), 62–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor, A. (2015, March). Hamas #AskHamas Twitter campaign is being mocked and it hasn’t even started yet. The Washington Post.Google Scholar
  42. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. The Stream. (2014, July). Israeli ambassador’s #AskDermer Q&A on Gaza goes terribly wrong. Al Jazeera. Retrieved from http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201407171922-0023936.
  44. The White House. (2018). President Trump says the Iran deal is defective at its core: A new one will require real commitments. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/president-trump-says-iran-deal-defective-core-new-one-will-require-real-commitments/.
  45. Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

No comments: