Damage Control: How Campaign Teams Interpret and Respond to Online Incivility

Abstract

ABSTRACTSocial media are critical to election campaigns, but they also expose candidates to incivility and abuse. While there is a growing literature on online incivility faced by politicians, little is known about how campaign teams interpret and respond to it. To address that gap, we analyze in-depth interviews with 31 candidates and campaign staff from the 2019 federal election in Canada. We find that campaign teams interpret incivility according to the intensity of messages’ content, but also their frequency, source, and target. They use these criteria to assess potential harms in three areas: security and psychological wellbeing, strategic campaign activities, and inclusive democratic discourse. Based on these assessments, campaign teams use a limited set of platform affordances to ignore, monitor, engage, or block uncivil voices. Our analysis shows that interpretations of incivility are more nuanced and multi-dimensional than most scholarship recognizes. We also reveal the often-hidden labor that campaign teams devote to content moderation, as they try to balance protecting themselves, defending their campaign messaging, and creating space for civil discussion. By paying closer attention to campaign teams’ mediation and moderation of online incivility, scholars can better understand its consequences for democratic political participation in elections.