Cover not available

Article published In: Fifty years of agenda-setting research: Volume I
Edited by Chris J. Vargo
[The Agenda Setting Journal 2:2] 2018
► pp. 168–190

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

What’s political Twitter talking about?

Setting the media agenda for the 2016 presidential debates among influential left, center, and right political media

 | University of Iowa
 | University of Iowa
Published online: 13 November 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/asj.18018.hed
Abstract
This study explicates the concept of news media agendamelding. While only one-quarter of U.S. adults are on Twitter, it remains a popular platform among news media and political elites who often still set the public agenda for political discourse. Twitter provides insights into the issues that are at the top of the media and policy agendas, as well as how social media might influence the way journalists approach political issues. At the same time, there is concern about the influence of social media on political polarization. This study uses a specific set of influential Twitter users to examine one main question: Were there differences between right, left, and center political media reactions during the 2016 presidential debates? This study provides further evidence that there is, in fact, a conservative political Twitter media agenda that exists separately from liberal or nonpartisan media outlets.
Article outline
  • Literature review
    • Political Twitter and agenda-setting research
    • Twitter and journalists
    • Twitter and presidential debates
    • Media agendas on Twitter
    • Agendamelding
    • Political polarization and Twitter
  • Research questions
  • Method
    • Sample
    • Data collection
  • Data analysis
  • Results
  • Discussion and conclusion
  • Limitations and future research
  • References
References (46)
References
Behr, R. L., & Iyengar, S. (1985). Television news, real-world cues, and changes in the public agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(1), 38–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bode, L. (2016). Political news in the news feed: Learning politics from social media. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 24–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Byers, D. (2015, April 14). Twitter’s most influential political journalists. Politico. Retrieved from [URL]
Camaj, L. (2018). Motivational theories of agenda-setting effects: An information selection and processing model of attribute agenda-setting. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chadwick, A., O’Loughlin, B., & Vaccari, C. (2017). Why people dual screen political debates and why it matters for democratic engagement. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(2), 220–239. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coddington, M., Molyneux, L., & Lawrence, R. G. (2014). Fact checking the campaign: How political reporters use Twitter to set the record straight (or not). The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(4), 391–409. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conway, B. A., Kenski, K., & Wang, D. (2015). The rise of Twitter in the political campaign: Searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects in the presidential primary. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(4), 363–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 729–745. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emba, C. (2016, July 14). Confirmed: Echo chambers exist on social media. So what do we do about them? The Washington Post. Retrieved from [URL]
Erbring, L., Goldenberg, E. N., & Miller, A. H. (1980). Front-page news and real-world cues: A new look at agenda-setting by the media. American Journal of Political Science, 16–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freelon, D., & Karpf, D. (2015). Of big birds and bayonets: Hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 presidential debates. Information, Communication & Society, 18(4), 390–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glader, P. (2017, February 1). Ten journalism brands where you find real facts rather that alternative facts. Forbes. Retrieved from [URL]
Gottfried, J. A., Hardy, B. W., Holbert, R. L., Winneg, K. M., & Jamieson, K. H. (2017). The changing nature of political debate consumption: Social media, multitasking, and knowledge acquisition. Political Communication, 34(2), 172–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graham, D. A. (2016, September 26). Clinton keeps her cool: The Democrat’s command and poise left her rival looking frustrated, peevish, and out of sorts. The Atlantic. Retrieved from [URL]
Guo, L., & Vargo, C. (2015). The power of message networks: A big-data analysis of the network agenda setting model and issue ownership. Mass Communication and Society, 18(5), 557–576. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guo, L., Rohde, J. A., & Wu, H. D. (2018). Who is responsible for Twitter’s echo chamber problem? Evidence from 2016 US election networks. Information, Communication & Society, 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hess, A. (2017, March 3). How to escape your political bubble for a clearer view. The New York Times. Retrieved from [URL]
Kiley, J. (2017, October 23). In polarized era, fewer Americans hold a mix of conservative and liberal views. Pew Research Center Fact Tank: News in the Numbers. Retrieved from [URL]
Kreiss, D. (2016). Seizing the moment: The presidential campaigns’ use of Twitter during the 2012 electoral cycle. New Media & Society, 18(8), 1473–1490. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreiss, D., Meadows, L., & Remensperger, J. (2015). Political performance, boundary spaces, and active spectatorship: Media production at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. Journalism, 16(5), 577–595. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kohut, A., Doherty, C., Dimock, M., & Keeter, S. (2012). One-in-ten ‘dual-screened’ the presidential debate. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Retrieved from [URL]
Lasorsa, D. L., Lewis, S. C., & Holton, A. E. (2012). Normalizing Twitter: Journalism practice in an emerging communication space. Journalism studies, 13(1), 19–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lawrence, R. G., Molyneux, L., Coddington, M., & Holton, A. (2014). Tweeting conventions: Political journalists’ use of Twitter to cover the 2012 presidential campaign. Journalism Studies, 15(6), 789–906. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leonardi, P. M., & Meyer, S. R. (2015). Social media as social lubricant: How ambient awareness eases knowledge transfer. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(1), 10–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCombs, M. E., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. H. (2014). New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass communication and Society, 17(6), 781–802. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, S. C., & Mourão, R. R. (2016). Talking politics on Twitter: Gender, elections, and social networks. Social Media + Society, 2(3), 2056305116664218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, S. C., & Vargo, C. J. (2017). Election-related talk and agenda-setting effects on Twitter. The Agenda Setting Journal, 1(1), 44–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Molyneux, L., & Mourão, R. R. (2017). Political journalists’ normalization of Twitter: Interaction and new affordances. Journalism Studies, 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neuman, R. W., Guggenheim, L., Mo Jang, S., & Bae, S. Y. (2014). The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 193–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parmelee, J. H. (2013). Political journalists and Twitter: Influences on norms and practices. Journal of Media Practice, 14(4), 291–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). The agenda-building function of political tweets. New Media & Society, 16(3), 434–450. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parmelee, J. H., & Bichard, S. L. (2011). Politics and the Twitter revolution: How tweets influence the relationship between political leaders and the public. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. (2016, July 7). Top voting issues in the 2016 election. 2016 Campaign: Strong interest, widespread Dissatisfaction. Retrieved from [URL]
Rogstad, I. (2016). Is Twitter just rehashing? Intermedia agenda setting between Twitter and mainstream media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(2), 142–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, F. M., Hendricks, M. A., Choi, H., & Stephens, E. C. (2015). Who sets the news agenda on Twitter? Journalists’ posts during the 2013 US government shutdown. Digital Journalism, 3(6), 925–943. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saldaña, M., McGregor, S. C., & Gil De Zúñiga,, H. (2015). Social media as a public space for politics: Cross-national comparison of news consumption and participatory behaviors in the United States and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Communication, 91, 3304–3326.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skogerbø, E., & Krumsvik, A. H. (2015). Newspapers, Facebook and Twitter: Intermedia agenda setting in local election campaigns. Journalism Practice, 9(3), 350–366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
StatSocial. (2014). Retrieved from [URL]
Stroud, N. J. (2017). Selective exposure theories. In K. Kenski & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political communication (pp. 531–547). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, A. (2016, December 8). Parallel narratives: Clinton and Trump supporters really don’t listen to each other on Twitter. Vice News. Retrieved from [URL]
Usher, N., Holcomb, J., & Littman, J. (2018). Twitter makes it worse: Political journalists, gendered echo chambers, and the amplification of gender bias. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(3), 324–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vaccari, C., Chadwick, A., & O’Loughlin, B. (2015). Dual screening the political: Media events, social media, and citizen engagement. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 1041–1061. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vargo, C. J., Guo, L., McCombs, M. & Shaw, D. L. (2014). Network issue agendas on Twitter during the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Communication 641(2014), 296–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, S. (2017, February 27). Getting to the root of the “fake news” problem means fixing what’s broken about journalism itself. Niemen Lab. Retrieved from [URL]
Wells, C., Van Thomme, J., Maurer, P., Hanna, A., Pevehouse, J., Shah, D. V., & Bucy, E. (2016). Coproduction or cooption? Real-time spin and social media response during the 2012 French and US presidential debates. French Politics 14(2), 206–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue