Information sources shared on Facebook and Networking by Nigel Farage and the UKIP Party in the UK

This article explores how UKIP and Nigel Farage used social media to amplify their message. Mainly digital sources, such as websites and social media, were the preferred source type of both profiles, but more for UKIP than for N. Farage. The most shared digital content of both profiles was websites and social media accounts of their political parties. The second most used source type was print media – mainly national newspapers. Radio stations were the least used source by UKIP, while TV channels the least used source by N. Farage. The higher use of radio sources concerns links to LBC Radio, where he presented a show between 2019 and 2020. TV channels and radio were largely ignored by both profiles as sources. In terms of ownership, sources used by either profile were in their vast majority private due to prevailing type of ownership in the UK. Both profiles relied more on quality newspapers and magazines rather than tabloids but this was often accompanied by a critical approach to the content of such sources. The analysis found that Farage’s profile has only four reciprocal connections. In contrast, UKIP had a much larger reciprocal network of 25 different pages. While in terms of reciprocity the two profiles maintained different networks, the analysis of centrality showed a significant number of 63 pages shared the profiles of both UKIP and Nigel Farage. Although the profile of N. Farage had a much smaller reciprocal network and the number of shares of the two profiles by the central groups disseminating their messages was roughly equal, yet, the Brexit Party and N. Farage were the more successful political actors in the period of interest to this study – in the 2019 European Parliamentary elections.


Introduction
The study is focused on information sources shared on Facebook (FB) and their networking by selected populist leaders and populist parties in the UK in three periods in 2019 and 2020. The methodology and theoretical underpinning are described in a separate (common) chapter, therefore this article discusses only specific aspects of the methodology applied to this national case study. The two politically relevant selected populist actors were the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and Nigel Farage, leader of the party from 2006 to 2009 and 2010 and 2016. N. Farage was selected as a case because of his significance as a quintessential populist leader both of the UKIP and the Brexit Party (Kelsey 2016;Tournier Sol 2020). In addition to being the leader of both these parties, he was also a Member of the European Parliament and has had a prominent presence in British media, both as a commentator in radio and television programmes as well as because of being the focus of media coverage (Chicon 2020; Kelsey 2016). Soon after he left UKIP, he established the Brexit Party in November 2018. The Brexit Party was renamed into Reform UK in early 2021, but N. Farage quit its leadership soon after (Walker 2021). In summer 2021, he became a presenter in the GB News, a TV channel that has been described as the UK version of Fox News (Waterson 2021).
UKIP was selected as a case study because of its representativeness as a radical right, populist party which has had a significant influence in British politics in the last decade. Initially a singleissue party supporting withdrawal from the EU, it performed well in the 2013 local elections and the 2014 European Parliament elections (Cutts, Godwin and Milazzo 2017;Tournier-Sol 2015; Vassilopoulou 2019). Its success has been attributed to several reasons, including tapping into social and economic inequalities and disaffection with mainstream politics (Goodwin 2014), mobilising Eurosceptic tendencies and debates around national sovereignty (Boriello and Brack 2019; Tournier Sol 2015), focusing on immigration as a high-salience issue and (Evans and Mellon 2019;Tournier-Sol 2015), effectively using a populist rhetoric combining hostility to elites with representations of the people as 'victims' as well as racist and anti-immigration rhetoric (Breeze 2019;Tournier-Sol 2015), and receiving considerable media coverage (Kelsey 2016;Murphy and Devine 2020). Although its success in national elections has been limited -it only elected one MP in the 2015 elections, and none in subsequent ones -the party has had a significant impact in UK politics. In particular, UKIP's threat to the Conservative Party shaped the latter's agendas on immigration, the European Union and Brexit (Bale et al 2018;Tournier-Sol 2015;Usherwood 2019). In the case of UKIP, the party's FB page rather than that of the leader was selected as the key social media profile, as following the departure of Nigel Farage and in the period of data collection there were continuous leadership crises in the party (Klein and Pirro 2020;Tournier-Sol 2020). Data was gathered for three different periods. The selected electoral period for this research is the European Parliament elections of May 2019. This was dominated by the process of Brexit, and in particular issues around the negotiation of the withdrawal agreement with the European Union and its impact on the domestic political landscape, divided at the time over the potential of a 'no-deal' Brexit (Vasilopoulou 2020). The regular period selected for this research included the snap national elections of December 2019, triggered by the governing Conservative Party in order to address difficulties, due to its lack of Parliamentary majority, in managing the Brexit process (Prosser 2021). The Brexit Party opted not to contest seats likely to be won by the Conservative Party, due to its waning support since the strengthened Conservative Party was in a stronger position to pursue Brexit -the key issue for both parties -to its completion (Prosser Information Sources Shared on Facebook and Networking by Nigel Farage and the UKIP Party in the UK 2019). During the 'COVID' period, media coverage in the UK was dominated by issues related to the pandemic, and preoccupation with the pandemic led to increased consumption of TV news and online media (Ofcom 2020a;2020c).

The Media Landscape
The UK media landscape is considered pluralistic and with a high level of commercialisation, with both public and private TV broadcasters, a range of national and local print newspapers (Binderkrantz et al 2017;Craufurd Smith and Stolte 2012). According to the Reuters International report, adults rely increasingly on online media for news consumption, while the use of television as source of news has declined from 75% in 2019 to 55% in 2020 although the Reuters report notes a subsequent rise in consumption of TV news in following months due to the Covid-19 pandemic (Reuters 2020; Ofcom 2020a). The use of print media for news has similarly declined steeply from between 2013 and 2020, from 59% to 22% in January 2020 (Reuters 2020). News consumption differs among age groups, with younger people (16-24) more likely to use internet sources while older groups remaining attached to TV, radio and print media as news sources (Ofcom 2020a).
Social media penetration in the UK was estimated at 72% in 2020, with 50.89 million users spending on average 102 minutes a day on social media (Statista 2020). Almost three quarters of all UK adults have at least one social media profile. Usage is higher in the 16-24 and 25-34 age groups, with 95% and 93% having at least one social media profile but remains above average in the 35-44 (88%) and 45-54 (82%) age groups (Ofcom 2020b). Almost half of adults use social media for news consumption (Ofcom 2020a). As table 1 shows, FB is the most used for this purpose. Trust in media has declined since 2015 by 20 percentage points (Reuters 2020), possibly reflecting the dynamics of Brexit and broader polarisation on controversial issues. Nevertheless, some established media score relatively high for brand trust (Reuters 2020), with the BBC being the most trusted source. UK media have been characterised as Eurosceptic and many established newspapers and other media sources supported Brexit (Reuters 2020). While social media are used for news consumption, trust in them as news sources is low -6% according to the Reuters International report (2020). Yet, in 2019 26% of users reported that they do not fact-check news content accessed through social media (Ofcom 2020b). UKIP and the Brexit party (since January 2021 Reform UK) have also been adept at using both traditional and social media to disseminate their political agendas and messages (Davidson & Berezin, 2018;Gonawela et al 2018;Loucaides 2019;Savage 2019;Tournier-Sol 2020). Social media platforms have been instrumental in the manner both parties communicate with supporters, disseminate party messages within supportive communities while avoiding direct challenges from political opponents, but also for attracting supporters from other political groups and maintaining links to cognate political parties and groups (Davidson & Berezin, 2018; Loucaides 2020; Klein and Pirro 2020; Reed 2016; Ridge-Newman 2020). Nigel Farage, both as the leader of UKIP and later The Brexit Party has been adept at using both conventional -not limited to news formats but also for example entertainment shows -and social media for reaching out to his followers and disseminating his agenda (Gonawela et al 2018;Chicon 2020;Savage 2019). Further, he controversially had a slot in London Radio Station LBC, allowing him a further venue to disseminate his political message and populist rhetoric (Chichon 2020). Preference for social media usage is also linked to avoidance of fact-checking requirements of the more conventional media, resulting in the possible dissemination of 'fake news' (Kramer 2017).

Analytical Part 1: sources shared by Populist Leader and UKIP
This part explores the types of media sources that seem to be by and large preferred by populists. We focused on the source type, whether it is registered or not, whether it is public or commercial, and the level of transparency in its ownership. We attempted to figure out what type of media sources seemed to be preferred as well as ignored by populists. The analyses were carried out on FB data (Mancuso et al., 2020;Marincea, 2020), downloaded with the CrowdTangle app developed by FB.

Findings: Classification of sources
Digital sources such as websites and social media are by far the preferred source type of both profiles ( Figure 1). More than a third of all coded sources used by Nigel Farage are digital, with in the case of UKIP the percentage is even higher, almost half of all sources. The second most used source type is print media -mainly national newspapers, which account for about half and 40% of all sources used by the two profiles respectively. Radio stations were the least used source by UKIP, while TV channels the least used source by N. Farage. The higher use of radio sources by N. Farage (18%) concerns links to LBC Radio, where he presented a show between 2019 and 2020. Nevertheless, one observation we can draw from the findings is that TV channels and radio were largely ignored by both profiles as sources, while the also low presence of links to print media reflects the broader decline of consumption of print news in the UK (Reuters 2020; Ofcom 2020a). In terms of ownership, sources used by either profile were in their vast majority private (Figure 3). One reason for the extremely high percentage of sources coded as private is the predominantly private and commercial character of media in the two national contexts of most sources used by the two profiles, the UK and the US (Binderkrantz et al 2017;Craufurd Smith and Stolte 2012). In the UK, for example, only two broadcasters, the BBC and Channel4 can be characterised as public, while most print and online media are privately owned. A further reason is the presence of mainly FB and YouTube social media accounts of individuals or groups, and in particular of their own profiles and the UKIP party. The high use of social media sources also accounts for a relatively high proportion of sources that are not registered as media or news sources, constituting 32.2% of all sources used by UKIP and 33.9% by N. Farage.
Nevertheless, this has little bearing on the transparency of ownership of shared sources (Figure 4). Most UK-based news sources such as print newspapers and online news are registered as companies or are owned by media groups. This information is stated as rule in their webpages and can be further confirmed through a government website 1 . US and European media sources also contain similar information on ownership and editorial personnel. Further, other websites and social media sources shared by both profiles are on the whole clear in terms of ownership, either belonging to named individuals or groups such as, for example, various UKIP branches in the UK. Less transparent sources -especially in terms of funding -tend to be associated with conservative and alternative right websites and social media accounts such as the website Brexit Central, the YouTube channels of Prager U and Brexbox (a news site associated with the Brexit party but with no information on funding sources or key personnel), the webpages of political commentator Guido Fawkes and the Conservative Woman blog.
Information Sources Shared on Facebook and Networking by Nigel Farage and the UKIP Party in the UK Further analysis of the print and digital sources also reveals some interesting patterns. Both profiles rely more on quality newspapers and magazines (54% for UKIP and 59% for N. Farage) rather than tabloid 2 ones ( Figure 5). While this could be interpreted as an effort to rely on respected mainstream media not identified as populist, it should also be noted that in some cases links to such newspapers are accompanied by posts critical of the news contained in the linked source 3 .
The analysis of types of digital sources shared also revealed some interesting patterns (Figure 6). None of the profiles shared citizen journalism sources, and only UKIP shared a relatively 2 The distinction between 'quality' and 'tabloid' newspapers here relies on the content and journalistic style of the newspapers used by the two profiles. 3 For example, https://www.facebook.com/UKIP/posts/2659403670748173 high number of official or expert sources (20%). Shares of news aggregators were extremely limited. Farage shared rather relatively high level of mainstream media sources. The most shared digital content of UKIP profile was websites and social media accounts of political parties. However, Farage was more diverse, with majority of shared posts classifies as "others". In the case of the profile of N. Farage, all sources shared correspond to his own YouTube channel and FB page as well as FB posts by other Brexit party candidates and the official Brexit party account. Similarly, nearly all sources -with the exception of two Labour party sites -shared through the  UKIP account correspond to web pages and social media accounts linked to the party and its election candidates.
Therefore, the use of digital sources confirms existing research findings that UKIP and Farage use social media to amplify their message (Gonawela et al 2018;Klein and Pirro 2020;Reed 2016;Ridge-Newman 2020). The relatively high use of other, non-party, social media accounts and other websites by UKIP also appears to amplify populist messages: among such sources are several right wing commentators, some associated with alternative right views, such as UK commentators Katie Hopkins, who was banned from Twitter for promoting hate speech and YouTube commentator Sargon of Akkad (real name Carl Benjamin), an unsuccessful UKIP candidate and far-right activist eventually banned from YouTube for advocating the rape of a MP 4 (Klein and Pirro 2020).
The political orientation of the shared sources (Figure 7) also suggests a similar pattern of amplification of centre-right and right-wing ideologies and discourses. Sources with a radical right orientation were the most frequently shared by both UKIP and N. Farage (over a third and over a half respectively). The second most often source type was actually centre.right for both actors. It is difficult to draw strong conclusions on the basis of this finding, but the use of more centrist and even centre-left sources by both profiles suggests an effort to appear moderate. N. Farage, in particular, is thought to have distanced himself from UKIP over the latter's increasingly extreme political agendas (Klein and Pirro 2020; Tournier-Sol 2020), although his social media communications have often adopted tropes that are racist and hostile to migration (Stone 2020) UKIP has tried to attract Conservative voters, although under the G. Batten leadership it increasingly associated itself with the far-right political spectrum (Klein and Pirro 2020; Ridge-Newman 2020; Weaver et al 2018).

Electoral v. non electoral coverage
Some differences in the way sources were used by the two profiles can be observed during the three selected periods. Unlike UKIP, which used a similar number of sources during the election and regular periods, N. Farage shared approximately half the number of sources during the election period than in the regular one (Figures 8 and 9). In the case of UKIP, digital sources remain  Information Sources Shared on Facebook and Networking by Nigel Farage and the UKIP Party in the UK the most shared type among all three periods, with a slightly higher use of print sources during the regular period (Figure 8). Similarly, digital sources were the most shared by the profile of N. Farage in the electoral and regular periods, but print sources were the most shared during the COVID-19 pandemic period (Figure 9). Two conservative daily newspapers, the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, had the highest number of shares (six each) during this period, suggesting again the positioning of N. Farage in the right of the political spectrum. A further difference from the profile of UKIP is again that shares of radio sources are the 3 rd highest in the profile of Nigel Farage, again due to sharing content exclusively by LBC radio. A limitation, however, is that both profiles share considerably fewer sources during the COVID-19 period ( Table 2).
The pattern of ownership of sources in the three periods, by both profiles, remains the same as in the overall results: the overwhelming majority of shared sources are privately owned (Charts 8 & 9).

Analytical Part 2: Network analysis of sources that share UKIP and populist leaders' posts
We examined here several aspects. First, whether there were disproportions between the two networks (ex. one much bigger than the other). Second, network reciprocity -the degree of interconnection between different pages. Third, the degree of centrality, meaning of overlap between the two networks. Finally, we were interested to learn what pages were the connectors between the two, and if there was reciprocal sharing.

Network reciprocity
One striking difference between the two networks concerns the number of reciprocal connections with other profiles. The analysis found that profile of N. Farage had only four reciprocal connections: with The Brexit Party, which he was leading, the newspaper the Daily Telegraph, Štúdie a analýzy  Figure 10). The latter also run a website -Westmonster.com -that features among the sources shared by N. Farage. All other three reciprocal profiles were also among the sources shared a significant number of times by N. Farage: the Brexit Party 66 times, LBC Radio 54, and The Telegraph 47. In contrast, UKIP had a much larger reciprocal network of 25 different profiles. The scope of these reciprocal connections is however rather narrow. They include UKIP local branches and specific groups -youth, veterans and War Plan Purple, the 'cultural wing' of UKIP (Klein and Pirro 2020), UKIP MPs, MEPs and candidates, a former UKIP advisor, and an unofficial campaign group, I'm voting UKIP in the next elections 5 . The Brexit campaign website -Leave.eu also features among the reciprocal connections, suggesting the affinity of UKIP with support for Brexit. Only one news profile, RT UK, features among the reciprocal connections. However, the strength of reciprocal connections is variable -for example, the two profiles of Mike Hookem, one of the UKIP MEPs, were shared a total of 99 times during the election period, but the profiles of some other candidates just once or twice (Mancuso et al 2020).
One factor explaining the discrepancy in the sizes of the reciprocal networks of the two profiles might be the relatively recent establishment of the Brexit Party, which was founded in April 2019, soon before the European Parliament Elections in May 2019. For example, some of the branch FB pages -which in the case of UKIP constitute a considerable part of the reciprocal 5 https://www.facebook.com/ukipman/  Marincea, 2020 network -were set up between May and September 2019 6 , some after the election on May 23 2019. However, the limited reciprocal network of the Nigel Farage profile could also suggest a strategy of orienting his campaign towards other resources or keeping a tighter but stronger social media network.
A last observation is that the two reciprocal networks do not overlap. This can be attributed partly to electoral competition, since both parties in the 2019 EP election were competing in attracting the Brexit-supporting, right wing, nationalist electorate, as well as to the distance between N. Farage and UKIP from which he resigned (Klein and Pirro 2020;Tournier-Sol 2020).

Centrality
While in terms of reciprocity the two profiles maintain different networks, the analysis of centrality shows that there was a significant number of 63 profiles that have shared both the profiles of UKIP and Nigel Farage (Annex 1, Figure 11). This finding in itself suggests strong connections between the two profiles, which become clearer with the closer consideration of the types of central profiles. First, a significant number are groups supporting Brexit. At least 24 (some have closed down since the data collection or are private) out of the 63 profiles are Brexitsupporting groups, and an additional three anti-EU, while a further three groups opposing Brexit. Six profiles are 'appreciations groups' for Brexit-supporting, Conservative politicians. A further five are groups not exclusively focused on Brexit but with broader conservative, alt-right and anti-immigration politics, as well as at least one which has content promoting COVID-19 denialist views. While some of these groups tend to share one profile more than the other -for example, the top two sharers, I'm a Brexiteer and the Jacob Rees-Mogg Appreciation Group shared nearly twice as many posts by N. Farage than UKIP -the dynamics of Brexit appear to be a crucial factor in shaping network centrality around the two profiles.
A further noticeable feature of network centrality is the presence of groups that were directly linked to either the two parties, such as UKIP local branches or Brexit Party supporters' groups. Some of these parties tended to share one profile -the one they are linked with -more than the other. For example, the UKIP Sutton Surrey and Warrington and Leamington local FB groups shared mostly posts of the UKIP profile, while The Brexit party: Supporters and BREXIT PARTY SUPPORTERS UK privileged N. Farage posts. Yet, in some cases, such as the Bury, Lancashire UKIP group there is a smaller difference between the number of shares. This pattern is significant given the absence of reciprocity from the N. Farage profile. In essence, even though he had left UKIP, FB pages linked to the party continued to disseminate his profile.

Discussion
The analysis of the use of information sources shared by the two populist profiles in the UK both suggests the significance of the national context and exemplifies some already observed trends in their political communications, and those of populist actors more broadly. The low use of publicly owned sources, for example, reflects a media landscape dominated by privately owned and commercial outlets, both in the UK and the US, where many of the sources used by the two profiles are located. Similarly, the high levels of transparency of the sources, both media and otherwise, reflect oversight arrangements in the UK (and to an extent the US) where information on both businesses and charities is easily accessible. Further, while the use of digital and social media sources has been associated with populist parties, it should be observed that in the UK context this might reflect a broader trend of the declining use of TV, radio and print media as news sources (Reuters 2020; Ofcom 2019).
Two areas of the analysis seem to be particularly significant for understanding the strategies of the two profiles: the types of sources used, in particular digital ones, and the political orientation of such sources. First, both digital sources and newspaper sources were almost equally the key source of information shared by both profiles. This is quite unusual finding. It may reflect importance of British newspapers in a local media ecology. Secondly, both profiles showed a preference for sharing content from 'quality' over 'tabloid' newspapers. This could be interpreted as an effort to maintain an image of reliability and moderation and a distance from tabloid newspapers Štúdie a analýzy with controversial or politically extreme content -for example on migration or Brexit. Both UKIP and Nigel Farage have made efforts to distance themselves from extreme right views in the past. Hence, their use of reliable, establishment sources can be seen in the context of strategies to present themselves as politically mainstream political actors, different from more extreme ones -for example far-right ultranationalist and Islamophobic groups such as English Defence League (EDL) and Britain First -in the UK political environment.
While mainstream and independent media content, as well as social media content not linked directly to the two profiles or their parties was shared by the two profiles, it was digital content produced by the two profiles or their party mechanisms such as local party branches profiles on FB that was most frequently shared by both profiles. This is consistent with the arguments of existing research on the strategies of UKIP and N. Farage as well as on other populist parties (Kramer 2017;Reed 2016;Ridge-Newman 2020;Savage 2019;Weaver et al 2018). In the case of N. Farage, his sharing of content linked to LBC Radio, where he was a presenter during the selected time periods, illustrates the same tendency. Further, while the reciprocal network of N. Farage is limited, UKIP's reciprocal network consisted almost exclusively of accounts connected to the party, further suggesting a strategy of amplifying the party's political message within a network positively disposed towards UKIP.
The political orientation of the sources shared by the two profiles also provides some insights into their political communication strategies and agendas. While both profiles share content from websites that can be classified as centre left and centrist, most of the shared sources are within the ideological spectrum of the right. In particular, sources with a radical right orientation are the most frequently shared by N. Farage. Whereas this classification covers their party-generated content, other prominent alt right sources feature among those shared by either or both profiles, such as news outlets like Breitbart, Guido Fawkes, Fox News, YouTube channels such as Prager U and commentators such as Katie Hopkins. In short, both profiles disseminate predominantly centre-right and far right alt-right views (Klein and Pirro 2020) and appear to support the view that UKIP has 'filled a discursive gap after the BNP (British National Party), Britain First, and EDL were censored from social media platforms' (Klein andPirro 2020: 1395;also Hern 2019). The findings support Klein and Pirro's (2020) argument that after the Brexit referendum, UKIP's political communication strategies tried to target alt-right audiences active in particular online, insofar that the sources shared by the party's profile reflect this ideological space.
Nevertheless, the analysis of reciprocity suggests that this effort was not reciprocated by influential alt-right or right-wing media as none feature among the party's reciprocal network. Rather, the main disseminators of the two profiles' messages in the selected periods were other profiles supporting the 2016 referendum vote for leaving the EU, including FB groups with Brexit as their key focus, as well as appreciation groups of politicians who supported Brexit, and secondarily groups representing party branches or supporting either UKIP or the Brexit Party.
However, more research would be required to explore the relation between the findings of this research on social media networks and electoral success. The profile of N. Farage has a much smaller reciprocal network and the number of shares of the two profiles by the central groups disseminating their messages was roughly equal -3406 for N. Farage compared to 3347 for UKIP. Yet, the Brexit Party and N. Farage were the more successful political actors in the period