This article examines the news framing of the 2017 Hong Kong Chief Executive election using a big data analysis approach. Analyses of intermedia framing of over 370,000 articles and comments are conducted including news published in over 30 Chinese press media, four prominent Chinese online press media, and posts published on three candidates’ Facebook pages within the election period. The study contributes to the literature by examining the rarely discussed role of intermedia news framing, especially the relationship between legacy print media, online alternative news media, and audience comments on candidates’ social network sites. The data analysis provides evidence that audiences’ comments on candidates’ Facebook pages influenced legacy news coverage and online alternative news coverage. However, this study suggests that legacy news media and comments on Facebook do not necessarily have a reciprocal relationship. The implication of the findings and limitations are discussed.
AalbergT.StroümbaückJ.de VreeseC. (2012). The framing of politics as strategy and game: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13, 162–178.
2.
AllanS. (2006). Online news: Journalism and the Internet. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
3.
Ball-RokeachS.LogesW. (1996). Making choices: Media roles in the construction of value choices. In SeligmanC.OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 277–298). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
BaumertM.PortaA.CichockiA. (2016). Biomedical signal processing: From a conceptual framework to clinical applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, 104, 220–222.
5.
BennettW. L.IyengarS. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707–731.
6.
BillingsA. C.BurchL. M.ZimmermanM. H. (2015). Fragments of us, fragments of them: Social media, nationality, and U.S. perceptions of the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Soccer and Society, 16, 736–744.
7.
BimberB. A.DavisR. (2003). Campaigning online: The internet in U.S. elections. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
BorahP. (2013). Interactions of news frames and incivility in the political blogosphere: Examining perceptual outcomes. Political Communication, 30, 456–473.
10.
BoyleT. P. (2001). Intermedia agenda setting in the 1996 presidential primaries. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 26–44.
11.
BrandsB. J.GrahamT.BroersmaM. (2018). Social media sourcing practices: How Dutch newspapers use tweets in political news coverage. In SchwanholzJ.GrahamT.StollP. T. (Eds.), Managing democracy in the digital age (pp. 159–178). Springer: Cham.
12.
BreitingerC.GippB.LangerS. (2015). Research-paper recommender systems: A literature survey. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 17, 305–338.
13.
BrightJ.HaleS. A.GaneshB.BulovskyA.MargettsH.HowardP. (2017). Does Campaigning on Social Media Make a Difference? Evidence from candidate use of Twitter during the 2015 and 2017 UK Elections.
14.
BroersmaM.GrahamT. (2012). Social media as beat: Tweets a news source during the 2010 British and Dutch elections. Journalism Practice, 6, 403–419.
15.
BrunsA.BurgessJ. E. (2011, August). The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. Paper presented at the 6th European Consortium for Political Research General Conference. Reykjavik, Iceland.
16.
BrunsA.HighfieldT. (2013). Political networks on Twitter: Tweeting the Queensland state election. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 667–691.
17.
CacciatoreM. A.AndersonA. A.ChoiD-H.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.LiangX.…XenosM. (2012). Coverage of emerging technologies: A comparison between print and online media. New Media and Society, 0, 1–21.
18.
CappellaJ. N.JamiesonK. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
ChungJ. E. (2015). Antismoking campaign videos on YouTube and audience response: Application of social media assessment metrics. Computer in Human Behavior, 51, 114–121.
22.
ConwayB. A.KenskiK.WangD. (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, 363–380.
D’AngeloP.CalderoneM.TerritolaA. (2005). Strategy and issue framing: An exploratory analysis of topics and frames in campaign 2004 print news. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 13, 199–219.
25.
DekavallaM. (2016). Issue and game frames in the news: Frame-building factors in television coverage of the 2014. Scottish Independence Referendum, Journalism, 19, 1588–1607.
26.
de VreeseC. (2005). The spiral of cynicism reconsidered. European Journal of Communication, 20, 283–301.
27.
DiazF.GamonM.HofmanJ. M.KıcımanE.RothschildD. (2016). Online and social media data as an imperfect continuous panel survey. PLOS ONE, 11, 1–21. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0145406
28.
DimitrovaD. V.MatthesJ. (2018). Social media in political campaigning around the world: Theoretical and methodological challenges.
29.
DimitrovaD.StrömbäckJ. (2011). Election news in Sweden and the United States: A comparative study of sources and media frames. Journalism, 13, 604–619.
30.
EndersW. (2014). Applied econometric time series(Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics). India: Wiley.
31.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.
FungA. Y. (2007). Political economy of Hong Kong media: Producing a hegemonic voice. Asian Journal of Communication, 17, 159–171. doi:10.1080/01292980701306530
34.
GamsonW. A.ModiglianiA. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1–37. doi:10.1086/229213
35.
GillmorD. (2006). We the media: Grassroots journalism by the people, for the people. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
36.
GitlinT. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
37.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
GoodeL. (2009). Social news, citizen journalism and democracy. New Media & Society, 11, 1287–1305. doi:10. 117/1461444809341393
39.
GraberD. A. (1993). Mass media and American politics (4th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
40.
GrangerC. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37, 424–438.
41.
GrusellM.NordL. (2016). Setting the trend or changing the game? Professionalization and digitalization of election campaigns in Sweden. Journal of Political Marketing[online]. doi:10.1080/15377857.2016.1228555
HeimK. (2013). Framing the 2008 Iowa democratic caucuses political blogs and second-level intermedia agenda setting. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90, 500–519.
44.
HermidaA. (2010). Twittering the news. Journalism Practice, 4, 29–99.
HwangY. S.YangS. C. (2003). Exploring the concept of “interactivity” for the vitalization of discussion in the internet. Media & Society, 11, 111.
48.
IyengarS. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
49.
JacobsonS. (2013). Does audience participation on Facebook influence the news agenda? A case study of the Rachel Maddow show. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57, 338–355.
50.
JamesK. J.AlbrechtA. J.LitchfieldR. E.WeishaarC. A. (2013). A summative evaluation of a food safety social marketing campaign “4-day throw-away” using traditional and social media. Journal of Food Science Education, 12, 48–55.
51.
JamiesonK. H. (1992). Dirty politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
52.
JamiesonK. H.CappellaJ. N. (1993, September). The effect of a strategy-based political news schema: A Markle Foundation Project Report. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Convention, Washington, DC.
53.
JangS. M.HartP. S. (2015). Polarized frames on “climate change” and “global warming” across countries and states: Evidence from Twitter big data. Global Environmental Change, 32, 11–17.
54.
KimY.Ball-RokeachS. J. (2006). Community story telling network, neighbourhood context and civic engagement: A multilevel approach. Human Communication Research, 32, 431–439.
55.
KonishiS.KitagawaG. (2008). Information criteria and statistical modeling. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
56.
LariscyR.AveryE.SweetserK. D.HowesP. (2009). An examination of the role of online social media in journalists’ source mix. Public Relations Review, 35, 314–316.
57.
LawrenceR. G. (2000b). The politics of force: Media and the construction of police brutality. London, England: University of California Press.
58.
LeeB.LancendorferK. M.LeeK. J. (2005). Agenda-setting and the Internet: The intermedia influence of internet bulletin boards on newspaper coverage of the 2000 general election in South Korea. Asian Journal of Communication, 15, 57–71.
59.
LimJ. (2006). A cross-lagged analysis of agenda among online news media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 298–312.
60.
Lopez-EscobarE.LlamaJ. P.McCombsM.LennonF. R. (1998). Two levels of agenda setting among advertising and news in the 1995 Spanish general elections. Political Communication, 15, 225–238.
61.
MaginM.PodschuweitN.HaßlerJ.RussmannU. (2017). Campaigning in the fourth age of political communication. A multi-method study on the use of Facebook by German and Austrian parties in the 2013 national election campaigns. Information, Communication & Society, 20, 1698–1719.
62.
MarwickA.BoydD. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13, 114–133.
63.
McClureJ.MiddlebergD. (2009). Key findings from the 2009 Middleberg/SNCR survey of media in the wired world. Journal of New Communications Research, 4, 101–105.
64.
McCombsM.ShawD. L.WeaverD. (1997). Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
65.
MerazS. (2011). Using time series analysis to measure intermedia agenda-setting influence in traditional media and political blog networks. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 176–194.
66.
MoonS. J.HadleyP. (2014). Routinizing a new technology in the newsroom: Twitter as a news source in mainstream media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58, 289–305.
67.
NeumanW. R.GuggenheimL.JangS. M.BaeS. Y. (2014). The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication, 64, 193–214.
68.
NisbetM. C.HugeM. (2006). Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate—Managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11, 3–40.
69.
OhK.LimC.KimS. S.ChoiH. J. (2013). Research trend analysis using word similarities and clusters. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 8, 185–196.
70.
PattersonT. E. (1993). Out of order. New York, NY: Knopf.
71.
PedersenR. (2012). The game frame and political efficacy: Beyond the spiral of cynicism. European Journal of Communication, 27, 225–240. doi:10.1177/02673 23112454089
QuinlanS.GummerT.RoßmannJ.WolfC. (2017). ‘Show me the money and the party!’ – variation in Facebook and Twitter adoption by politicians. Information, Communication & Society[online]. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2017.1301521
74.
RahmanM.KarmakerA.HasanM. (2011). HCPR multiplied with TFIDF for effective search method: For effective web ranking. LAP Germany: LAMBERT Academic.
75.
ReeseS.DanielianL. (1989). Intermedia influence and the drug issue: Converging on cocaine. In ShoemakerP. (Ed.), Communication campaigns about drugs: Government, media and the public. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
RheeJ. W. (1997). Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: A social cognitive account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 47, 26–48.
78.
SachanD.KumarS. (2015). Class vectors: Embedding representation of document classes. Computation and Language. Retrieved fromhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1508.00189
79.
ScheufeleD. A.TewksburyD. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9–20. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00326.x
80.
SchoenH.Gayo-AvelloD.MetaxasP. T.MustafarajE.StrohmaierM.GloorP. (2013). The power of prediction with social media. Internet Research, 23, 528–543. doi:10.1108/IntR-06-2013-0115
ShehataA. (2014). Game frames, issue frames, and mobilization: Disentangling the effects of frame exposure and motivated news attention on political cynicism and engagement. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26, 157–177.
83.
SkogerbøE.BrunsA.QuodlingA.IngebretsenT. (2016). Agenda-setting revisited: Social media and sourcing in mainstream journalism. In: BrunsA.EnliG.SkogerbøE.LarssonA. O.ChristensenC. (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics (pp. 104–120). New York: Routledge.
84.
SkovsgaardM.DalenA. V. (2013). Dodging the gatekeepers? Social media in the campaign mix during the 2011 Danish elections. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 737–756.
StierS.BleierA.LietzH.StrohmaierM. (2018). Election campaigning on social media: Politicians, audiences, and the mediation of political communication on Facebook and Twitter. Political Communication, 35, 50–74.
89.
SweetserK. D.GolanG. J.WantaW. (2008). Intermedia agenda setting in television, advertising, and blogs during the 2004 election. Mass Communication & Society, 11, 197–216.
90.
TedescoJ. (2005). Issue and strategy agenda setting in the 2004 presidential election: Exploring the candidate-journalist relationship. Journalism Studies, 6, 187–201.
91.
ValentinoN.BeckmannM.BuhrT. (2001). A spiral of cynicism for some: The contingent effects of campaign news frames on participation and confidence in government. Political Communication, 18, 347–367.
92.
VasalouA.JoinsonA. N.8c CourvoisierD. (2010). Cultural differences, experience with social networks and the nature of ‘true commitment’ in Facebook. International Journal of Human and Computer Studies, 68, 719–728.
93.
VergeerM.HermansL. (2013). Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and online social networking as campaign tools in the 2010 general elections in the Netherlands. Retrieved fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12023/full
94.
WallstenK. (2015). Non-elite Twitter sources rarely cited in coverage. Newspaper Research Journal, 36, 24–41.
95.
WardS. (2008). Making a difference: A comparative view of the role of the Internet in election politics. Lanham: Lexington Books.
96.
WiedermannW.EyeA. (2016). Statistics and causality: Methods for applied empirical research(Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics). Canada: Wiley.
97.
YuanY. C. (2010). Multiple imputation for missing data: Concepts and new development (49, 1–11). Rockville, MD: SAS Institute.
98.
ZhangL.PengT. Q.ZhangY. P.WangX. H.ZhuJ. J. (2014). Content or context: Which matters more in information processing on microblogging sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 242–249.
99.
ZhouY.MoyP. (2007). Parsing framing processes: The interplay between online public opinion and media coverage. Journal of Communication, 57, 79–98.
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.
