Agenda trending: Reciprocity and the predictive capacity of social networking sites in intermedia agenda setting across topics over time

Media and Communication

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 15-27

  Groshek, Jacob ^a   Groshek, Megan Clough ^b  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Election coverage; Focusing events; Granger causality; Intermedia agenda setting; Social media

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010601682     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21832439     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.12924/mac2013.01010015     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. McCombs M, Shaw D. The Agenda-setting Function of the Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1972; 36(2):176–185.
2. Weaver DH. Audience Need for Orientation and Media Effects. Communication Research. 1980;7(3): 361–373.
3. Ghanem S. Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda setting. In: McCombs MD, Shaw DL, Weaver DH, editors. Communication and Democracy: Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-Setting Theory. Mahwah, NJ, USA: LEA; 1997. pp. 3–14.
4. McCombs M. Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publishing; 2004.
5. Groshek J. Homogenous Agendas, Disparate Frames: CNN and CNN International Coverage Online. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. 2008; 52(1):52–68.
6. Song Y. Internet news media and issue development: A case study on the roles of independent online news services as agenda-builders for anti-US protests in South Korea. New Media Society. 2007;9(1): 71–92.
7. Roberts M, Wanta W, Dzwo T. Agenda setting and issue salience online. Communication Research. 2002;29(4):452–465.
8. Papacharissi Z. The virtual sphere. New Media & Society. 2002;4(1):9–27.
9. Bruns A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York, NY, USA: Peter Lang; 2009.
10. Johnson TJ. The Abacus, 8-Track Tapes…and Agenda Setting? Available from: http://mediaconvergence.org/blog/?p=1054 (accessed on 10 December 2010)
11. Meraz S. Using Time Series Analysis to Measure Intermedia Agenda-Setting Influence in Traditional Media and Political Blog Networks. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2011;88(1):176–194.
12. Entman R. Cascading activation: Contesting the White House’s frame after 9/11. Political Communication. 2003;20(4):415–432.
13. Baum MA, Groeling T. Online media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication. 2008;25(4):345–365.
14. Boczkowski PJ. de Santos M. When more media equals less news: Patterns of content homogenization in Argentina’s leading print and online newspapers. Political Communication. 2007;24(2):167–180.
15. Reese SD. Theorizing a globalized journalism. In: Loeffelholz M, Weaver DH, editors. Global journalism research: Theories, methods, findings, future. London, UK: Blackwell; 2008. pp. 240–252.
16. Gans H. Democracy and the news. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press; 2003.
17. boyd dm, Ellison NB. Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2007;13(1), article 11.
18. Bennett WL, Iyengar S. A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication. 2008;58(4):707–731.
19. Kaufhold K, Valenzuela S, Gil de Zúñiga H. Effects of citizen and professional journalism on political knowledge and participation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2010;87(3/4):515–529.
20. Maier S. All the News Fit to Post? Comparing News Content on the Web to Newspapers, Television, and Radio. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 2010;87(3/4):548–562.
21. Sayre B, Bode L, Shah D, Wilcox D, Shah C. Agenda Setting in a Digital Age: Tracking Attention to California Proposition 8 in Social Media, Online News, and Conventional News. Policy & Internet. 2010;2(2): 7–32.
22. Papacharissi Z. A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 2010.
23. Ragas MW, Kiousis S. Intermedia Agenda-Setting and Political Activism: MoveOn.org and the 2008 Presidential Election. Mass Communication and Society. 2010;13(5):560–583.
24. Pfetsch B, Adam S. Media Agenda Building in Online and Offline Media—Comparing Issues and Countries. Proceedings of the 6th ECPR General Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland, 25–27 August 2011.
25. Kaufmann C. Threat inflation and the failure of the marketplace of ideas: The selling of the Iraq war. International Security. 2004;29(1):5–48.
26. Natarajan K, Xiaoming H. An Asian Voice? A Comparative Study of Channel News Asia and CNN. Journal of Communication. 2003;53(2):300–314.
27. Plasser F. From hard to soft news standards? How political journalists in different media systems evaluate the shifting quality of news. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 2005;10(2):47–68.
28. Zhao WX, Jiang J, Weng J, He J, Lim E, Yan H, Li X. Comparing Twitter and Traditional Media using Topic Models. Proceedings of the 33rd European Conference on Advances in Information Retrieval, Dublin, Ireland, 18–21 April 2011.
29. Kwak H, Lee C, Park H, Moon S. What Is Twitter, a Social Network or News Media? Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, Raleigh, NC, USA, 26–30 April 2010.
30. Birkland TA. Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting. Journal of Public Policy. 1998;18(1): 53–74.
31. Bennett LW, Livingston S. Gatekeepeing, Indexing, and Live-Event News: Is Technology Altering the Construction of News? Political Communication. 2003; 20(4):363–380.
32. Hermida A. From TV to Twitter: How Ambient News Became Ambient Journalism. M/C Journal. 2010; 13(2).
33. Williams A, Wardle C, Wahl Jorgenson K. “Have they got news for us?” Audience revolution or business as usual? Journalism Practice. 2011;5(1):85–99.
34. Swigger N. The Online Citizen: Is Social Media Changing Citizens’ Beliefs about Democratic Values? Political Behavior. 2013;35(3):589–603.
35. Yang J. Framing the NATO air strikes on Kosovo across countries: Comparison of Chinese and US newspaper coverage. International Communication Gazette. 2003;65(3):231–249.
36. Pan Z, Kosicki GM. Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication. 1993;10(1):55–75.
37. Walker LD, Waterman RW. Elections as Focusing Events: Explaining Attitudes toward the Police and the Government in Comparative Perspective. Law & Society Review. 2008;42(2):337–366.
38. New York Times. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com (accessed on 11 October 2010 until 24 November 2010).
39. Cable News Network. Available from: http://us.cnn.com (accessed on 11 October 2010 until 24 November 2010).
40. What the Trend. Available from: http://whatthetrend.com (accessed on 11 October 2010 until 24 November 2010).
41. Its Trending. Available from: http://itstrending.com (accessed on 11 October 2010 until 24 November 2010).
42. Sometime after data collection, itstrending.com has gone offline, at least temporarily as of writing. This situation does not diminish the effectiveness of itstrending as an unbiased aggregator of Facebook shares.
43. Frey L, Botan C, Kreps G. Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods. 2nd ed. Needham Heights, MA, USA: Allyn & Bacon; 2000.
44. Groshek J. Media, instability, and democracy: Examining the Granger-causal relationships of 122 Countries from 1946 to 2003. Journal of Communication. 2011;61(6): 1161–1182.
45. Tan Y, Weaver DH. Agenda-Setting Effects among the Media, the Public, and Congress, 19462004. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2007;84(4):729–744.
46. Enders W. Applied economics time-series. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
47. Stock JH, Watson MW. Introduction to econometrics. Boston, MA, USA: Addison; 2003.
48. Poole MS, McPhee RD, Canary, DJ. Hypothesis testing and modeling perspectives on inquiry. In: Knapp ML, Day JA, editors. Handbook of interpersonal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage; 2002. pp. 23–72.
49. Stationarity is defined as a quality of a process in which the statistical parameters (such as mean and standard deviation) of the process do not change with time.
50. These criteria can be derived using the VARSOC command in STATA and include final prediction error (FPE), Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), Hannan and Quinn information criterion (HQIC), and Schwarz’s Bayesian information criterion (SBIC).
51. Atukeren E. Christmas cards, Easter bunnies, and Granger-causality. Quality & Quantity. 2008;42(6): 835–844.
52. 2 = 6.27, p < .05). This finding reiterates the need for further modeling of agenda setting at both topical and temporal levels, with attention to examining (rather than extrapolating) a variety of social media outlets.
53. Groshek J, Dimitrova D. A Cross Section of Political Involvement, Partisanship and Online Media in Middle America during the 2008 Presidential Campaign. Atlantic Journal of Communication. 2013;21(2):108–124.
54. Gurevitch M, Coleman S, Blumler JG. Political Communication—Old and New Media Relationships. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2009;625(1):164–181.
55. Boulianne S. Does Internet Use Affect Engagement? A Meta-Analysis of Research. Political Communication. 2009;26(2):193–211.
56. Zhang W, Johnson TJ, Seltzer T, Bichard SL. The revolution will be networked: The influence of social networking sites on political attitudes and behavior. Social Science Computer Review. 2010;28(1):75–92.
57. Deuze M. Media Life. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 2012.
58. Huberman BA, Romero DM, Fang W. Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday. 2009;14(1).
59. Asur S, Huberman BA. Predicting the Future with Social Media. HP Labs Working Paper. Available from: ar xiv.org/pdf/1003.5699 (accessed on 10 December 2011).
60. Cobb R, Elder C. The politics of agenda-building: An alternative perspective for modern democratic theory. Journal of Politics. 1971;33(4):892–915.
61. Walgrave S, Van Aelst P. The Contingency of the Mass Media’s Political Agenda Setting Power: Toward a Preliminary Theory. Journal of Communication. 2006;56(1):88–109.