Network Agenda Setting,or Networked Framing? (Non)correspondence Between User and Right-Wing Media Semantic Networks on YouTube

Abstract

How does media shape and reflect right-wing rhetoric in the U.S.? Theories of media effects have moved towards networked approaches to agenda setting and framing, but it remains uncertain how issue attributes or frames emerge in the U.S. media ecosystem in which users themselves can shape political rhetoric through discussion on social media. We provide the largest test to date of the different predictions of networked agenda setting (NAS) theory and networked framing, through a semantic network analysis of all 19,112 video transcripts and 661,958,464 user comments posted on the YouTube channels of four major U.S. conservative media outlets between January 2019 and March 2021. Both overall, and within key topics like COVID-19 or Black Lives Matter, we find that user comments diverge strongly from video transcripts, with users repeatedly introducing associations, emotionally charged rhetoric, and conspiracy theories not originally present. Our results challenge claims by network agenda setting scholars that “objects and attributes can be transferred simultaneously in bundles” from the media agenda to the public agenda, but are more consistent with scholarship on networked framing. We argue that future work should strive to synthesize both approaches.

Keywords

right-wing rhetoric social media media effects radicalization YouTube

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahmed

(2013). The cultural politics of emotion. Routledge.

Aliapoulios

Bevensee

Blackburn

Bradlyn

De Cristofaro

Stringhini

Zannettou

(2021). An early look at the parler online social network. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2101.03820.

Allcott

Gentzkow

(2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211

Amengay

Stockemer

(2019). The radical right in Western Europe: A meta-analysis of structural factors. Political Studies Review, 17(1), 30–40.

Anderson

J. R.

Bower

G. H.

(2013). Human associative memory. Psychology Press.

Bakir

McStay

(2018). Fake news and the economy of emotions: Problems, causes, solutions. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 154–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1345645

Baviera

(2018). Influence in the political Twitter sphere: Authority and retransmission in the 2015 and 2016 Spanish General Elections. European Journal of Communication, 33(3), 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118763910

Benkler

Faris

Roberts

(2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press.

Bennett

W. L.

Livingston

(2020). The disinformation age: Politics, technology, and disruptive communication in the United States. Cambridge University Press.

10.

Betz

H.-G.

(2018). The radical right and populism. In Betz

H.-G.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the radical right (pp. 86–104). Oxford University Press.

11.

Blee

(2017). Similarities/differences in gender and far-right politics in Europe and the USA. In Köttig

Bitzan

Petö

(Eds.), Gender and Far Right Politics in Europe (pp.191–204). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43533-6_13

12.

Bonacich

(1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1170–1882.

13.

Budak

Jomini Stroud

Muddiman

Murray

C. C.

Kim

(2023). The stability of cable and broadcast news intermedia agenda setting across the COVID-19 issue attention cycle. Political Communication, 40(6), 827–847. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2222382

14.

Carley

K. M.

Kaufer

D. S.

(1993). Semantic connectivity: An approach for analyzing symbols in semantic networks. Communication Theory, 3(3), 183–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1993.tb00070.x

15.

Carlson

(2016). Embedded links, embedded meanings: Social media commentary and news sharing as mundane media criticism. Journalism Studies, 17(7), 915–924.

16.

Chen

H.-T.

Guo

C. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz042

17.

Clayton

D. M.

(2018). Black lives matter and the civil rights movement: A comparative analysis of two social movements in the United States. Journal of Black Studies, 49(5), 448–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934718764099

18.

Conway

B. A.

Kenski

Wang

(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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12124

19.

Danowski

J. A.

(2008). Short-term and long-term effects of a public relations campaign on semantic networks of newspaper content: Priming or framing? Public Relations Review, 34(3), 288–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.03.036

20.

Davies

P. J.

(2022). The media and politics. In Peele

Cain

B. E.

Herbert

Wroe

(Eds.), Developments in American politics (Vol. 9, pp. 101–116). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89740-6_7

21.

Day

M. V.

Fiske

S. T.

Downing

E. L.

Trail

T. E.

(2014). Shifting liberal and conservative attitudes using moral foundations theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(12), 1559–1573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214551152

22.

Dubois

Gaffney

(2014). The multiple facets of influence: Identifying political influentials and opinion leaders on Twitter. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(10), 1260–1277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214527088

23.

Edwards

Arnon

(2021). Violence on many sides: Framing effects on protest and support for repression. British Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 488–506.

24.

Eilders

Porten-Cheé

(2023). Effects of online user comments on public opinion perception, personal opinion, and willingness to speak out: A cross-cultural comparison between Germany and South Korea. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 20(3), 323–337.

25.

Entman

R. M.

(1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory, 43(4), 390–397.

26.

Faris

Roberts

Etling

Bourassa

Zuckerman

Benkler

(2017). Partisanship, propaganda, and disinformation: Online media and the 2016 US presidential election. Berkman Klein Center Research Publication. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3019414

27.

Freelon

Marwick

Kreiss

(2020). False equivalencies: Online activism from left to right. Science, 369(6508), 1197–1201. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2428

28.

Gamson

W. A.

(1996). Talking politics. Cambridge University Press.

29.

Gibbs

B. G.

Shafer

Miles

(2017). Inferential statistics and the use of administrative data in US educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 40(2), 214–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2015.1113249

30.

Graeff

Stempeck

Zuckerman

(2014). The battle for “Trayvon Martin”: Mapping a media controversy online and off-line. First Monday, 19(2), 4947. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i2.4947

31.

Graham

Haidt

Nosek

B. A.

(2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029.

32.

Greven

(2016). The rise of right-wing populism in Europe and the United States. A comparative perspective. Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Washington DC Office, pp. 1–8.

33.

Guess

A. M.

(2021). (Almost) everything in moderation: New evidence on Americans’ online media diets. American Journal of Political Science, 65(4), 1007–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12589

34.

Guo

(2012). The application of social network analysis in agenda setting research: A methodological exploration. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 616–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.732148

35.

Guo

McCombs

(2011). Network agenda setting: A third level of media effects [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Boston, MA, United States.

36.

Guo

Vargo

(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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1045300

37.

Guo

H. T.

McCombs

(2012). An expanded perspective on agenda-setting effects. Exploring the third level of agenda setting. Revista de comunicación, 11(1), 51–68.

38.

Haidt

(2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Knopf Doubleday. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=ItuzJhbcpMIC

39.

Harder

R. A.

Sevenans

Van Aelst

(2017). Intermedia agenda setting in the social media age: How traditional players dominate the news agenda in election times. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22(3), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217704969

40.

Haynes

(2021). Right-wing nationalism, populism, and religion: What are the connections and why? Religion, State and Society, 49(3), 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2021.1949217

41.

Hellmueller

Lischka

J. A.

Humprecht

(2021). Shaping (non)-discursive social media spaces: Cross-national typologies of news organizations’ heavy commenters. New Media & Society, 23(11), 3249–3267.

42.

Hindman

(2009). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton University Press.

43.

Hochschild

A. R.

(2016). Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning on the American right. The New Press.

44.

HoSang

D. M.

Lowndes

J. E.

(2019). Producers, parasites, patriots: Race and the new right-wing politics of precarity. University of Minnesota Press.

45.

Iyengar

Kinder

D. R.

(1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. University of Chicago Press.

46.

Jiang

Barnett

G. A.

Taylor

L. D.

(2016). Dynamics of culture frames in international news coverage: A semantic network analysis. International Journal of Communication, 10, 27.

47.

Jeong

S. H.

Chyi

H. I.

(2014). Will social media save newspapers? Examining the effectiveness of Facebook and Twitter as news platforms. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.794022

48.

Knüpfer

Hoffmann

Voskresenskii

(2022). Hijacking MeToo: Transnational dynamics and networked frame contestation on the far right in the case of the “120 Decibels” campaign. Information, Communication & Society, 25(7), 1010–1028.

49.

Larsson

A. O.

(2018). The news user on social media: A comparative study of interacting with media organizations on Facebook and Instagram. Journalism Studies, 19(15), 2225–2242. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1332957

50.

Lecheler

De Vreese

C. H.

(2012). News framing and public opinion: A mediation analysis of framing effects on political attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(2), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699011430064

51.

Lee

(2021). Introduction to “right-wing activism in Asia: Cold war legacies, geopolitics, and democratic erosion.” Politics & Society, 49(3), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323292211033081

52.

Maetens

Deliens

Van den Block

Beernaert

Cohen

(2019). Are we evolving toward greater and earlier use of palliative home care support? Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 58(1), 19–28.

53.

Marcus

G. E.

(2000). Emotions in politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 221–250.

54.

McCombs

M. E.

(2004). Setting the agenda: Mass media and public opinion. Blackwell.

55.

McCombs

M. E.

Shaw

D. L.

(1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990

56.

McCombs

M. E.

Shaw

D. L.

(1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01262.x

57.

Meraz

Papacharissi

(2013). Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on #Egypt. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 138–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161212474472

58.

Müller

J. W.

(2017). What is populism? Penguin UK.

59.

Munger

Phillips

(2022). Right-wing YouTube: A supply and demand perspective. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(1), 186–219.

60.

Nelson

L. K.

(2020). Computational grounded theory: A methodological framework. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(1), 3–42.

61.

Nip

J. Y.

K. W.

(2016). Networked framing between source posts and their reposts: An analysis of public opinion on China’s microblogs. Information, Communication & Society, 19(8), 1127–1149.

62.

Payne

L. A.

de Souza Santos

A. A.

(2020). The right-wing backlash in Brazil and beyond. Politics & Gender, 16(1), E6.

63.

Pivodic

Pardon

Morin

Addington-Hall

Miccinesi

Cardenas-Turanzas

Onwuteaka-Philipsen

Naylor

Ramos

M. R.

Van den Block

Wilson

D. M.

Loucka

Csikos

Rhee

Y. J.

Teno

Deliens

Houttekier

Cohen

(2016). Place of death in the population dying from diseases indicative of palliative care need: A cross-national population-level study in 14 countries. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70(1), 17–24.

64.

Polletta

Callahan

(2017). Deep stories, nostalgia narratives, and fake news: Storytelling in the Trump era. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 5(3), 392–408.

65.

Radicioni

Squartini

Pavan

Saracco

(2021). Networked partisanship and framing: A socio-semantic network analysis of the Italian debate on migration. PLoS One, 16(8), e0256705. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256705

66.

Scheufele

D. A.

Tewksbury

(2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20.

67.

Shao

Ciampaglia

G. L.

Varol

Yang

K.-C.

Flammini

Menczer

(2018). The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1–9.

68.

Siapera

Boudourides

Lenis

Suiter

(2018). Refugees and network publics on twitter: Networked framing, affect, and capture. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 1–21.

69.

Straka

Straková

(2017). Tokenizing, POS tagging, lemmatizing and parsing UD 2.0 with UDPipe [Conference session]. Proceedings of the CoNLL 2017 Shared Task: Multilingual Parsing from Raw Text to Universal Dependencies (pp. 88–99).

70.

(2020). A territorial dispute or an agenda war? A cross-national investigation of the network agenda-setting (NAS) model. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(4), 357–375.

71.

Taber

C. S.

Lodge

(2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x

72.

Tarry

Vézina

Bailey

Lopes

(2022). Political orientation, moral foundations, and COVID-19 social distancing. PLoS One, 17(6), e0267136.

73.

Van Dijck

Poell

. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication, 1(1), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v1i1.70

74.

Vargo

C. J.

Guo

McCombs

Shaw

D. L.

(2014). Network issue agendas on Twitter during the 2012 US presidential election. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 296–316.

75.

H. T.

Guo

McCombs

M. E.

(2014). Exploring “the world outside and the pictures in our heads” A network agenda-setting study. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(4), 669–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699014550090

76.

H. T.

Lynn

(2020). When the news takes sides: Automated framing analysis of news coverage of the Rohingya crisis by the elite press from three countries. Journalism Studies, 21(9), 1284–1304.

77.

Wahlström

Törnberg

Ekbrand

(2020). Dynamics of violent and dehumanizing rhetoric in far-right social media. New Media & Society, 23(11), 3290–3311.

78.

Weaver

D. H.

(2007). Thoughts on agenda setting, framing, and priming. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 142–147.

79.

Yang

Davis

Hindman

(2023). Visual misinformation on Facebook. Journal of Communication, 73(4), 316–328.

80.

Zerback

Fawzi

(2017). Can online exemplars trigger a spiral of silence? Examining the effects of exemplar opinions on perceptions of public opinion and speaking out. New Media & Society, 19(7), 1034–1051.

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.

0.00 MB

12.51 MB