Focusing on a polarized issue—U.S. gun violence—this study examines agenda setting as an antecedent of political expression on social media. A state-of-the-art machine-learning model was used to analyze news coverage from 25 media outlets—mainstream and partisan. Those results were paired with a two-wave panel survey conducted during the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. Findings show mainstream media shape public opinion about gun violence, which then stimulates expression about the issue on social media. The study also reveals that partisan media’s gun violence coverage has significant cross-cutting effects. Notably, exposure to conservative media will decrease public salience of gun violence, pivot opinion in a more conservative direction, and discourage social media expression; and all of these effects are stronger among liberals.
BenklerY.FarisR.RobertsH. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press.
3.
BirklandT. A.LawrenceR. G. (2009). Media framing and policy change after Columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1405–1425.
4.
CamajL. (2014). The consequences of attribute agenda-setting effects for political trust, participation, and protest behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(4), 634–654.
5.
ChenH. T.GuoL.SuC. C. (2020). Network agenda setting, partisan selective exposure, and opinion repertoire: The effects of pro-and counter-attitudinal media in Hong Kong. Journal of Communication, 70(1), 35–59.
6.
ChenH. T.LinJ. S. (2021). Cross-cutting and like-minded discussion on social media: The moderating role of issue importance in the (de) mobilizing effect of political discussion on political participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 65(1), 135–156.
7.
ChoJ.AhmedS.KeumH.ChoiY. J.LeeJ. H. (2018). Influencing myself: Self-reinforcement through online political expression. Communication Research, 45(1), 83–111.
8.
ColemanR.WuH. D. (2010). Proposing emotion as a dimension of affective agenda setting: Separating affect into two components and comparing their second-level effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(2), 315–327.
9.
ColleoniE.RozzaA.ArvidssonA. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317–332.
DavlinJ.ChangM.-W.LeeK.ToutanovaK. (2018). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805.
12.
DearingJ. W.RogersE. M. (1996). Agenda-setting. SAGE.
13.
EvelandW. P. (2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research, 28, 571–601.
14.
EvelandW. P. (2002). News information processing as mediator of the relationship between motivations and political knowledge. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 26–40.
15.
FestingerL. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Standford University Press.
16.
GarrettR. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676–699.
17.
GarrettR. K.WeeksB. E.NeoR. L. (2016). Driving a wedge between evidence and beliefs: How online ideological news exposure promotes political misperceptions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(5), 331–348.
18.
GhanemS. (1996). Media coverage of crime and public opinion: An exploration of the second level of agenda setting. The University of Texas at Austin.
19.
Gil de ZúñigaH.JungN.ValenzuelaS. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319–336.
20.
GuoL.MaysK.WangJ. (2019). Whose story wins on Twitter? Visualizing the south china sea dispute. Journalism Studies, 20(4), 563–584.
21.
GuoL.MaysK.ZhangY.WijayaD.BetkeM. (2021). What makes gun violence a (less) prominent issue? A computational analysis of compelling arguments and selective agenda setting. Mass Communication and Society, 24(5), 651–675.
22.
GuoL.McCombsM. (Eds.) (2016). The power of information networks: New directions for agenda setting. Routledge.
23.
GutmannA.ThompsonD. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press
24.
HabermasJ. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. MIT press.
25.
Haider-MarkelD. P.JoslynM. R. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames. Journal of Politics, 63(2), 520–543.
26.
HasellA.WeeksB. E. (2016). Partisan provocation: The role of partisan news use and emotional responses in political information sharing in social media. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 641–661.
27.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
28.
HimelboimI.McCreeryS.SmithM. (2013). Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 40–60.
29.
HyunK. D.MoonS. J. (2016). Agenda setting in the partisan TV news context: Attribute agenda setting and polarized evaluation of presidential candidates among viewers of NBC, CNN, and Fox News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(3), 509–529.
30.
JeffresL. W.PerloffR. M. (1997). Mass media effects (2nd ed.). Waveland PressInc.
31.
KimY. M. (2009). Issue publics in the new information environment: Selectivity, domain specificity, and extremity. Communication Research, 36(2), 254–284.
32.
KiousisS. (2005). Compelling arguments and attitude strength: Exploring the impact of second-level agenda setting on public opinion of presidential candidate images. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(2), 3–27.
33.
KiousisS.McDevittM. (2008). Agenda setting in civic development: Effects of curricula and issue importance on youth voter turnout. Communication Research, 35(4), 481–502.
34.
LangA. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50, 46–71.
35.
LawrenceR. G.BirklandT. A. (2004). Guns, Hollywood, and school safety: Defining the school-shooting problem across public arenas. Social Science Quarterly, 85(5), 1193–1207.
36.
LevenduskyM. (2013). Partisan media exposure and attitudes toward the opposition. Political Communication, 30(4), 565–581.
37.
LiuS.GuoL.MaysK.BetkeM.WijayaD. T. (2019, January). Detecting frames in news headlines and its application to analyzing news framing trends surrounding US gun violence [Conference session]. The 23rd conference on computational natural language learning (CoNLL), Hong Kong, China.
38.
LuY.HeatherlyK. A.LeeJ. K. (2016). Cross-cutting exposure on social networking sites: The effects of SNS discussion disagreement on political participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 74–81.
39.
MatthesJ.KnollJ.ValenzuelaS.HopmannD. N.Von SikorskiC. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of cross-cutting exposure on political participation. Political Communication, 36(4), 523–542.
40.
McCombsM.LlamasJ. P.Lopez-EscobarE.ReyF. (1997). Candidate images in Spanish elections: Second-level agenda-setting effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 703–717.
41.
McCombsM.ValenzuelaS. (2021). Setting the agenda: Mass media and public opinion. Polity Press.
42.
McGintyE. E.WebsterD. W.BarryC. L. (2013). Effects of news media messages about mass shootings on attitudes toward persons with serious mental illness and public support for gun control policies. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(5), 494–501.
43.
McGintyE. E.WebsterD. W.JarlenskiM.BarryC. L. (2014). News media framing of serious mental illness and gun violence in the United States, 1997-2012. American Journal of Public Health, 104(3), 406–413.
MinS. J.WohnD. Y. (2018). All the news that you don’t like: Cross-cutting exposure and political participation in the age of social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 24–31.
46.
MoonS. J. (2013). Attention, attitude, and behavior second-level agenda-setting effects as a mediator of media use and political participation. Communication Research, 40(5), 698–719.
47.
MuddimanA.StroudN. J.McCombsM. (2014). Media fragmentation, attribute agenda setting, and political opinions about Iraq. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(2), 215–233.
48.
MutzD. C. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97–114.
49.
MutzD. C. (2002a). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.
50.
MutzD. C. (2002b). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126.
51.
NeumanR. W.GuggenheimL.JangS. M.BaeS. Y. (2014). The dynamics of public attention: Agneda-setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication, 64, 193–214.
52.
Noelle-NeumannE. (1974). The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of communication, 24(2), 43–51.
Roskos-EwoldsenD. R.Roskos-EwoldsenB. (2009). Media priming: An updated synthesis. In ByrantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 90–109). Routledge.
56.
RösslerP. (1999). The individual agenda-designing process: How interpersonal communication, egocentric networks, and mass media shape the perception of political issues by individuals. Communication Research, 26(6), 666–700.
57.
SchmittK. M.GuntherA. C.LiebhartJ. L. (2004). Why partisans see mass media as biased. Communication Research, 31(6), 623–641.
58.
SchneiderF. M.WeinmannC. (2021). In need of the devil’s advocate? The impact of cross-cutting exposure on political discussion. Political Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09706-w
59.
SchoenbachK.SemetkoH. A. (1992). Agenda-setting, agenda reinforcing or agenda-deflating? A study of the 1990 German national election. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 837–846.
60.
ShehataA.StrömbäckJ. (2013). Not (yet) a new era of minimal effects: A study of agenda setting at the aggregate and individual levels. International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 234–255.
StrömbäckJ.FalascaK.KruikemeierS. (2018). The mix of media use matters: Investigating the effects of individual news repertoires on offline and online political participation. Political Communication, 35(3), 413–432.
63.
StroudN. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576.
64.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University Press on Demand.
65.
TankardJ. W. (2001). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In ReeseS. D.GandyO. H.GrantA. E. (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 95–105). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
VargoC.GuoL.McCombsM.ShawD. L. (2014). Network issue agendas on Twitter during the 2012 US presidential election. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 296–316.
68.
WangM. Y.HmielowskiJ. D.HutchensM. J.BeamM. A. (2017). Extending the spiral of silence: Partisan media, perceived support, and sharing opinions online. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14(3), 248–262.
69.
WeaverD. (1991). Issue salience and public opinion: Are there consequences of agenda-setting?International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 3(1), 53–68.
70.
WeeksB. E.KsiazekT. B.HolbertR. L. (2016). Partisan enclaves or shared media experiences? A network approach to understanding citizens’ political news environments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(2), 248–267.
71.
WicksR. H.WicksJ. L.MorimotoS. A. (2014). Partisan media selective exposure during the 2012 presidential election. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(9), 1131–1143.
72.
YangJ.StoneG. (2003). The powerful role of interpersonal communication in agenda setting. Mass Communication and Society, 6(1), 57–74.
73.
ZhangY. (2021). “What I tweet is not what I think”: Towards a comprehensive multi-version two-way agenda-setting framework [Doctoral dissertation]. Boston University.
74.
ZhangY.ShahD.PevehouseJ.ValenzuelaS. (2022). Reactive and asymmetric communication flows: Social media discourse and partisan news framing in the wake of mass shootings. The International Journal of Press/Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161221107279
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
