Networked framing focuses on how the public becomes gatekeepers on social media. To unpack the dynamics of networked framing, we conducted an automated frame analysis to identify the shift of frame structures of government media (N = 12,090) and the public (N = 1.49 million) on Weibo during the COVID-19 pandemic. We found a moderate level of frame alignment between government media and the public, with high divergence observed during the pandemic’s initial stage. The public challenged government media frames by deploying unique frame functions and creating new frames, but their frame network was fragmented relative to that of government media, which constructed a cohesive network of frames to enhance discursive control.
AnthonyK. E.SellnowT. L.MillnerA. G. (2013). Message convergence as a message-centered approach to analyzing and improving risk communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(4), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2013.844346
2.
BenfordR. D.SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
3.
BennettW. L.PfetschB. (2018). Rethinking political communication in a time of disrupted public spheres. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx017
4.
BennettW. L.SegerbergA.YangY. (2018). The strength of peripheral networks: Negotiating attention and meaning in complex media ecologies. Journal of Communication, 68(4), 659–684. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy032
5.
BleiD. M.LaffertyJ. D. (2009). Topic models. In SrivastavaA.SahamiM. (Eds.), Text mining: Classification, clustering, and applications (pp. 71–94). Taylor & Francis.
6.
BorahP. (2011). Conceptual issues in framing theory: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication, 61(2), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01539.x
7.
ChanM. (2018). Networked counterpublics and discursive contestation in the agonistic public sphere: Political jamming a police force Facebook Page. Asian Journal of Communication, 28(6), 561–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2018.1466343
GamsonW. A.ModiglianiA. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1086/229213
14.
GanC.LeeF. L.LiY. (2017). Social media use, political affect, and participation among university students in urban China. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 936–947.
15.
GerkenF.van der MeerT. G. (2019). Crises frame dynamics: Frame diversity in news media and the role of governmental actors. Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research, 2(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.30658/jicrcr.2.2.1
16.
GriesP. H.SteigerD.WangT. (2016). Popular nationalism and China’s Japan policy: The Diaoyu Islands protests, 2012–2013. Journal of Contemporary China, 25(98), 264–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2015.1075714
17.
HuangH. (2010). Frame-rich, frame-poor: An investigation of the contingent effects of media frame diversity and individual differences on audience frame diversity. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edp024
18.
JacksonS. J.WellesB. F. (2015). Hijacking #myNYPD: Social media dissent and networked counterpublics. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 932–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12185
19.
JiangM.LeemanR. W.FuK. (2015). Networked framing: Chinese microbloggers’ framing of the political discourse at the 2012 democratic national convention. Communication Reports, 29(2), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2015.1098715
20.
KingG.PanJ.RobertsM. E. (2013). How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review, 107, 326–343. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055413000014
21.
KnüpferC.HoffmannM.VoskresenskiiV. (2020). Hijacking MeToo: Transnational dynamics and networked frame contestation on the far right in the case of the “120 decibels” campaign. Information, Communication & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1822904
22.
KwonK. H.ChadhaM.PellizzaroK. (2017). Proximity and terrorism news in social media: A construal-level theoretical approach to networked framing of terrorism in Twitter. Mass Communication and Society, 20(6), 869–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1369545
23.
LeachM.ScoonesI.StirlingA. (2010). Governing pandemics in an age of complexity: Narratives, politics and pathways to sustainability. Global Environmental Change, 20(3), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.008
24.
LeydesdorffL.HellstenI. (2006). Measuring the meaning of words in contexts: An automated analysis of controversies about “Monarch butterflies,” “Frankenfoods,” and “stem cells..”Scientometrics, 67(2), 231–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0096-y
25.
LiJ.BrewerP. R.LeyB. L. (2017). Chinese news coverage of diseases with domestic versus foreign origins: An analysis of Xinhua framing of SARS and Ebola. China Media Research, 13(2), 75–89.
26.
LiX.LeeF. L.LiY. (2016). The dual impact of social media under networked authoritarianism: Social media use, civic attitudes, and system support in China. International Journal of Communication, 10, 5143–5163. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5298/1817
27.
LiuB. F.KimS. (2011). How organizations framed the 2009 H1N1 pandemic via social and traditional media: Implications for US health communicators. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.03.005
28.
LoecherbachF.MoellerJ.TrillingD.van AtteveldtW. (2020). The unified framework of media diversity: A systematic literature review. Digital Journalism, 8(5), 605–642.
29.
MaierD.WaldherrA.MiltnerP.WiedemannG.NieklerA.KeinertA.. . . AdamS. (2018). Applying LDA topic modeling in communication research: Toward a valid and reliable methodology. Communication Methods and Measures, 12, 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1430754
30.
MasipP.RuizC.SuauJ. (2019). Contesting professional procedures of journalists: Public conversation on Twitter after Germanwings accident. Digital Journalism, 7(6), 762–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1546551
31.
MerazS.PapacharissiZ. (2013). Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on# Egypt. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 138–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161212474472
32.
MerazS.PapacharissiZ. (2016). Networked framing and gatekeeping. In WitschgeT.AndersonC. W.DomingoD.HermidaA. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of digital journalism (pp. 95–112). SAGE.
33.
MolinaG. (2019). Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on Twitter protests in Mexico about the Ayotzinapa Case. International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.17583/rimcis.2019.4637
34.
NgaiC. S. B.SinghR. G.LuW.KoonA. C. (2020). Grappling with the COVID-19 health crisis: Content analysis of communication strategies and their effects on public engagement on social media. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(8), Article e21360.
35.
NipJ. Y.FuK. W. (2016a). Challenging official propaganda? Public opinion leaders on Sina Weibo. The China Quarterly, 225, 122–144. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741015001654
36.
NipJ. Y.FuK. W. (2016b). Networked framing between source posts and their reposts: An analysis of public opinion on China’s microblogs. Information, Communication & Society, 19(8), 1127–1149. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1104372
37.
NisbetE. C.HartP. S.MyersT.EllithorpeM. (2013). Attitude change in competitive framing environments? Open-/closed-mindedness, framing effects, and climate change. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 766–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12040
38.
PapacharissiZ. (2016). Affective publics and structures of storytelling: Sentiment, events and mediality. Information, Communication & Society, 19(3), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1109697
39.
PeterJ.De VreeseC. H. (2003). Agenda-rich, agenda-poor: A cross-national comparative investigation of nominal and thematic public agenda diversity. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15, 44–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/15.1.44
40.
PöyhtäriR.NelimarkkaM.NikunenK.OjalaM.PanttiM.PääkkönenJ. (2019). Refugee debate and networked framing in the hybrid media environment. International Communication Gazette, 83(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048519883520
41.
RauchfleischA.SchäferM. S. (2015). Multiple public spheres of Weibo: A typology of forms and potentials of online public spheres in China. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940364
42.
SchultzF.RauppJ. (2010). The social construction of crises in governmental and corporate communications: An inter-organizational and inter-systemic analysis. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 112–119.
43.
ShannonC. E.WeaverW. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press.
44.
ShihT. J.WijayaR.BrossardD. (2008). Media coverage of public health pandemics: Linking framing and issue attention cycle toward an integrated theory of print news coverage of pandemics. Mass Communication & Society, 11(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430701668121
45.
SiaperaE.BoudouridesM.LenisS.SuiterJ. (2018). Refugees and network publics on Twitter: Networked framing, affect, and capture. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 2056305118764437.
van der MeerT. G. (2018). Public frame building: The role of source usage in times of crisis. Communication Research, 45(6), 956–981. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216644027
48.
van der MeerT. G.VerhoevenP.BeentjesH.VliegenthartR. (2014). When frames align: The interplay between PR, news media, and the public in times of crisis. Public Relations Review, 40(5), 751–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.07.008
49.
WallachH. M. (2006, June 25-29). Topic modeling: Beyond bag-of-words [Paper presentation]. 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
50.
WalterD.OphirY. (2019). News frame analysis: An inductive mixed-method computational approach. Communication Methods and Measures, 13(4), 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2019.1639145
51.
WangX.SongY. (2020). Viral misinformation and echo chambers: The diffusion of rumors about genetically modified organisms on social media. Internet Research, 30, 1547–1564. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-11-2019-0491
52.
ZhaoX. (2016). Effects of perceived media diversity and media reliance on public opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 28(3), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edv015
53.
ZhaoX.OhH. J. (2021). What fosters interorganizational frame convergence: Examining a semantic network during the opioid crisis. Public Relations Review, 47(3), 102042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102042
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.
