This large-scale intermedia agenda–setting analysis examines U.S. online media sources for 2015. The network agenda–setting model showed that media agendas were highly homogeneous and reciprocal. Online partisan media played a leading role in the entire media agenda. Two elite newspapers—The New York Times and The Washington Post—were found to no longer be in control of the news agenda and were more likely to follow online partisan media. This article provides evidence for a nuanced view of the network agenda–setting model; intermedia agenda–setting effects varied by media type, issue type, and time periods.
AndersonJ. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
AndersonJ. R.BowerG. H. (1973). Human associative memory. Washington, DC: Winston.
3.
BanningS. A.SweetserK. D. (2007). How much do they think it affects them and whom do they believe? Comparing the third-person effect and credibility of blogs and traditional media. Communication Quarterly, 55, 451-466. doi:10.1080/01463370701665114
4.
BarabásiA. L.AlbertR. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509-512.
BreedW. (1955). Newspaper opinion leaders and processes of standardization. Journalism Quarterly, 32, 277-284.
7.
DearingJ. W.RogersE. M. (1996). Communication concepts 6: Agenda-setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8.
De WaalA.HazlettC.DavenportC.KennedyJ. (2014). The epidemiology of lethal violence in Darfur: Using micro-data to explore complex patterns of ongoing armed conflict. Social Science & Medicine, 120, 368-377.
9.
GilbergS.EyalC.McCombsM.NicholasD. (1980). The state of the union address and the press agenda. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 57, 584.
10.
GolanG. (2006). Inter-media agenda setting and global news coverage: Assessing the influence of the New York Times on three network television evening news programs. Journalism Studies, 7, 323-333.
GuoL.McCombsM. (2011, May). Network agenda setting: A third level of media effects. Presented at the ICA Annual Conference, Boston, MA.
13.
GuoL.McCombsM. (Eds.). (2016). The power of information networks: New directions for agenda setting. New York, NY: Routledge.
14.
GurakL. J.AntonijevicS. (2008). The psychology of blogging you, me, and everyone in between. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(1), 60-68.
15.
GurakL. J.KaysT. M. (2015). Blog and Wiki discourse. In TracyK. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 1-6). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
16.
HammondJ.WeidmannN. B. (2014). Using machine-coded event data for the micro-level study of political violence. Research & Politics, 1(2), 1-8. doi:10.1177/2053168014539924
17.
HeimK. (2013). Framing the 2008 Iowa democratic caucuses: Political blogs and second-level intermedia agenda setting. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90, 500-519. doi:10.1177/1077699013493785
18.
HindmanM. (2009). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
HollanderB. A. (2008). Tuning out or tuning elsewhere? Partisanship, polarization, and media migration from 1998 to 2006. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 23-40.
20.
JanisI. L.MannL. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York, NY: Free Press.
21.
JenkinsH. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.
22.
KiousisS.KimJ. Y.RagasM.WheatG.KochharS.SvenssonE.MilesM. (2015). Exploring new frontiers of agenda building during the 2012 US presidential election pre-convention period: Examining linkages across three levels. Journalism Studies, 16, 363-382.
23.
KiousisS.PopescuC.MitrookM. (2007). Understanding influence on corporate reputation: An examination of public relations efforts, media coverage, public opinion, and financial performance from an agenda-building and agenda-setting perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 147-165.
24.
LeeJ. K. (2007). The effect of the Internet on homogeneity of the media agenda: A test of the fragmentation thesis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 745-760.
25.
LeetaruK. H. (2012a). Data mining methods for the content analyst: An introduction to the computational analysis of content. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
26.
LeetaruK. H. (2012b). Fulltext geocoding versus spatial metadata for large text archives: Towards a geographically enriched Wikipedia. D-Lib Magazine, 18(9), 5.
27.
LeetaruK. H. (2015). Mining libraries: Lessons learned from 20 years of massive computing on the world’s information. Information Services & Use, 35(1-2), 31-50.
28.
LeetaruK. H.PerkinsT.RewertsC. (2014, September/October). Cultural Computing at Literature Scale: Encoding the cultural knowledge of tens of billions of words of academic literature. D-Lib Magazine, 20(9), p. 8.
29.
LeetaruK. H.SchrodtP. A. (2013, April). GDELT: Global data on events, location, and tone, 1979-2012. Paper presented at the ISA Annual Convention (Vol. 2, No. 4), San Fransico, CA.
30.
LevenduskyM. (2013). How partisan media polarize America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
LewisS. C. (2012). The tension between professional control and open participation: Journalism and its boundaries. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 836-866.
32.
MaurerM.HolbachT. (2016). Taking online search queries as an indicator of the public agenda: The role of public uncertainty. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93, 572-586. doi:10.1177/1077699015610072
33.
McCombsM. E. (2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future. Journalism Studies, 6, 543-557.
34.
McCombsM. E. (2013). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Cambridge, UK: John Wiley.
35.
McCombsM.LlamasJ. P.Lopez-EscobarE.ReyF. (1997). Candidate images in Spanish elections: Second-level agenda-setting effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 703-717.
36.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L. (1976). Structuring the “unseen environment.”Journal of Communication, 26(2), 18-22.
37.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
38.
MerazS. (2011). Using time series analysis to measure intermedia agenda-setting influence in traditional media and political blog networks. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 176-194.
39.
MutzD. C.MartinP. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95, 94-114.
40.
NapoliP. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
41.
NeilJ.SchweickartT.ZhangT.LukitoJ.KimJ. Y.GolanG.KiousisS. (2016). The Dash for Gas: Examining third-level agenda-building and fracking in the United Kingdom. Journalism Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1181528
ReeseS. D.DanielianL. H. (1989). Intermedia influence and the drug issue: Converging on cocaine. In ShoemakerP. J. (Eds.), Communication campaigns about drugs: Government, media, and the public (pp. 29-46). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
RiffeD.LacyS.FicoF. (2014). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Russell NeumanW.GuggenheimL.Mo JangS.BaeS. Y. (2014). The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 193-214.
47.
SchrodtP. A. (2010, September2-5). Automated production of high-volume, real-time political event data. APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper, Washington, DC.
48.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
49.
SweetserK. D.GolanG. J.WantaW. (2008). Intermedia agenda setting in television, advertising, and blogs during the 2004 election. Mass Communication & Society, 11, 197-216.
50.
TandocE. C.JenkinsJ. (2015). The Buzzfeedication of journalism? How traditional news organizations are talking about a new entrant to the journalistic field will surprise you!Journalism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1464884915620269
51.
VargoC. J.BasilaiaE.ShawD. L. (2015). Event versus issue: Twitter reflections of major news: A case study. In CottenS.RobinsonL. (Eds.), Studies in Media and Communications, Vol. 9: Communication and information technologies annual (pp. 215-239). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
52.
VargoC. J.GuoL.McCombsM.ShawD. L. (2014). Network issue agendas on Twitter during the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Communication, 64, 296-316.
53.
VuH.GuoL.McCombsM. (2014). Exploring “the world outside and the pictures in our heads”: A network agenda-setting study. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91, 669-686.
54.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
WhiteD. M. (1950). The gatekeeper: A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27, 383-390.
56.
WhitneyD. C.BeckerL. B. (1982). “Keeping the gates” for gatekeepers: The effects of wire news. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 59, 60-65.
