Explore the vast range of titles available.

Social media is transforming how political power is exercised through communication, functioning both as a critical resource and as a catalyst for institutional adaptation in executive government. This article examines how social media is integrated into government communication, distinguishing between two dimensions: structure and process. Drawing on a literature review and a case study of Sweden—based on interviews with government press secretaries/media advisers and analysis of official documents—we develop a theoretical logic in which resources act as a causal mechanism driving the normalization of social media. We conceptualize this process as operating through two pathways: adaptation to new communicative requirements and the combination of different media, here termed strategic complementarity. The findings show that social media has become an embedded element of government communication, steadily reshaping routines, professional roles, and the balance between traditional and digital channels. This study contributes to understanding how governments manage hybrid media environments and highlights the underexplored role of social media as a potential driver of power redistribution.

This case study investigated how the language of White House press secretaries is modified by periods of scandal and by administration goals. We evaluated two administrations and their associated scandals: The Benghazi attack from the Obama administration and Russian election interference from the Trump administration. Results suggested the psychological and emotional focus of press secretaries changed during scandal compared to before scandal. That is, press secretaries had a more negative tone during each scandal compared to before each scandal. Contrary to prior evidence, time after scandal was not associated with a reduction in self-focus, and press secretary language patterns were largely not moderated by administration (nor their goals). Therefore, language patterns of press secretaries reveal their psychological and emotional processing during a scandal using naturally occurring and in-the-moment text data.

The blame game, with its finger-pointing and mutual buck-passing, is a familiar feature of politics and organizational life, and blame avoidance pervades government and public organizations at every level. Political and bureaucratic blame games and blame avoidance are more often condemned than analyzed. InThe Blame Game, Christopher Hood takes a different approach by showing how blame avoidance shapes the workings of government and public services. Arguing that the blaming phenomenon is not all bad, Hood demonstrates that it can actually help to pin down responsibility, and he examines different kinds of blame avoidance, both positive and negative. Hood traces how the main forms of blame avoidance manifest themselves in presentational and \"spin\" activity, the architecture of organizations, and the shaping of standard operating routines. He analyzes the scope and limits of blame avoidance, and he considers how it plays out in old and new areas, such as those offered by the digital age of websites and e-mail. Hood assesses the effects of this behavior, from high-level problems of democratic accountability trails going cold to the frustrations of dealing with organizations whose procedures seem to ensure that no one is responsible for anything. Delving into the inner workings of complex institutions,The Blame Gameproves how a better understanding of blame avoidance can improve the quality of modern governance, management, and organizational design.

The parliamentary media adviser is commonly portrayed as a partisan “spin-doctor,” with little distinction made between the inherent partisan nature of the role and the personal partisanship of the practitioner. Semistructured qualitative interviews with 21 journalists who became parliamentary media advisers highlight the difference between the two and offer practitioner perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of partisanship in that role. At one extreme is the “true believer”; at the other is the “legal advocate,” with the “committed expert” in between. In doing so, this article challenges the simple, dominant conception of the partisan “spin-doctor.”