Jay G. Blumler was one of the founding fathers and most influential figures in the field of political communication research. A central focus of his work was the examination of how the structural characteristics of political communication can obstruct democratic discourse—a process that, in recent decades, has been increasingly driven into crisis by shifting media dynamics. In a commemorative volume edited by his long-time collaborators, contributors revisit this crisis in light of the latest transformations in the political communication landscape. In this context, Márton Bene investigates the trend of the viralization of political communication, offering a Blumler-inspired structural analysis and assessing its implications for democratic discourse.
From Crisis to Virality: Is Popular Involvement Saving Democracy or Making It Worse?
In the 1990s, political communication scholars Jay Blumler and Stephen Coleman warned of a “crisis of communication for citizenship.” They argued that media and political elites were drifting away from the public, alienating citizens and undermining democracy. One possible solution, they believed, was to bring the public back in—to let citizens become active participants in shaping political discourse. Today, it seems that this kind of involvement is indeed happening.
Thanks to social media, citizens now play an unprecedented role in circulating political content. Politicians and journalists must craft messages that perform well in algorithm-driven spaces dominated by likes, shares, and comments. This shift has led to the “viralization of political communication”—a structural transformation with profound consequences.
This theoretical study examines how the viralization of political communication fits into the structural approach advanced by Blumler and his colleagues. It also explores the normative consequences of this transformation in light of available empirical research.
Citizens at the Center
In the traditional model of political communication, elites—politicians and media professionals—produced content while citizens remained passive recipients. But Blumler argued that this top-down model has broken down. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter now allow ordinary users to amplify, distort, or drown out elite messages. What citizens choose to engage with directly shapes what content spreads. Political actors are well aware that their success often depends on whether their posts are engaging enough to go viral.
This “bottom-up” influence has turned citizens into powerful intermediaries in the information chain. Studies show that people are more likely to engage with political content shared by friends than with content from official pages. Peer endorsement overrides partisan and trust-based filters, especially among less politically engaged users—a group traditionally hard to reach.
The study presents substantial empirical evidence showing that political and media actors increasingly adapt their communication strategies to citizens’ social media behavior. This marks a critical shift: in the past, political communication targeted citizens’ cognitive and emotional responses. Now, it also seeks to mobilize their social and communicative behaviors—an aspect long overlooked in the modern history of political communication.
The Logic of Virality
In theory, this shift could be good for democracy. Citizens, once distant from political discourse, are now at its center. But the kind of content that tends to go viral raises serious concerns.
Empirical studies on virality suggest that this environment incentivizes a communication style that is highly negative, simplistic, populist, and visuality-driven. Content that frames politics as a moral battle between good and evil performs particularly well—especially when aligned with populist narratives. While populist rhetoric isn’t new, today’s media ecosystem allows it to spread more effectively and with fewer checks. Unlike traditional journalism, which often contextualizes or critiques populist claims, social media allows such messages to circulate unchecked. Visual content plays a crucial role in this dynamic. Emotionally charged images and videos are more likely to go viral, which can lead to greater simplification and emotionally loaded messaging. Meanwhile, complex but vital topics—such as economic policy—are often sidelined in favor of more emotionally and morally polarizing issues like immigration or identity politics.
Winners and Losers in Viral Democracy
The viralization of political communication, however, brings closer communication between representatives and constituents, as political actors must adapt to the communicative needs of citizens. As a result, in a specific sense, political actors are more responsive to the demands of ordinary citizens, which can strengthen the representative link.
However, it also implies that this responsiveness is limited to citizens who take political action on these social media platforms: Not all citizens benefit equally from this new arrangement. Political representation inherently creates political inequalities, since those who have less access or inclination to express their opinions cannot have their voices heard by representatives. However, the antecedents of social media-based political activity differ from those of other forms of political participation.
Many people feel that social media is a dangerous and inappropriate space for political interaction. This implies that viralized political communication is responsive to the communicative needs of people with specific psychological backgrounds and social networks, while neglecting the perspectives of people who are more conflict-avoidant, fear isolation, are sensitive to rejection, or live in a more politically passive, closed, or homogeneous social context.
Meanwhile, catering to partisan supporters—who are especially active in engaging with political actors on these platforms—will become a key priority. This dynamic may further fuel political polarization, even though achieving broad viral reach also depends on mobilizing politically unaffiliated but active users. Thus, the viralization of political communication may not reduce political inequality—it may deepen it and add new layers to it.
A New Crisis?
In the spirit of Blumler’s approach, it’s clear: viralization is not just a trend—it is a structural transformation. It reshapes which messages succeed, whose voices are heard, and how citizens relate to politics.
Empirical evidence increasingly contradicts the early optimism of Blumler and others. Popular involvement through social media has not resolved the crisis of political communication; instead, it may be fueling a new one. Today’s political communication system appears optimized for outrage, division, and emotional manipulation—conditions that may hinder citizens’ ability to make informed, rational political decisions.
Still, it’s not all bleak. Some studies suggest that citizens who interact with political actors on social media feel more represented. The tone of political discourse has become more personal, helping to reduce the perceived distance between elites and the public. Yet these gains are uneven and come with trade-offs that merit closer examination.
In sum, while viralization has brought citizens into the heart of political communication, it has also introduced new challenges. If democracy is to thrive in this environment, we must grapple with the trade-offs of visibility, engagement, and representation—and remain wary of the forces that reward emotion over reason.
(Jay G. Blumler; Photo credit: website of University of Leeds)