The aim of this study is to investigate the association between the media and the public network agendas concerning Syrian refugees in Türkiye, as an exemplar of a polarized media system within the context of a competitive authoritarian regime to gain insight into the cognitive effects of media in such a context internationally. Large-scale media and nationally representative mind-mapping survey data analysis show that the media’s network agenda is only significantly transferred to the pro-government individuals, while no significant effect was found on pro-opposition individuals from any media outlet regardless of their political stances. Implications are discussed.
AkmanA. C.AkçalıP. (2017). Changing the system through instrumentalizing weak political institutions: The quest for a presidential system in Turkey in historical and comparative perspective. Turkish Studies, 18(4), 577–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2017.1347508
2.
AndıS.AytaçS. E.ÇarkoğluA. (2020). Internet and social media use and political knowledge: Evidence from Turkey. Mediterranean Politics, 25(5), 579–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2019.1635816
BerryM.Garcia-BlancoI.MooreK. (2016). Press coverage of the refugee and migrant crisis in the EU: Acontent analysis of five European countries [Project report]. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. http://www.unhcr.org/56bb369c9.html
5.
BogaardsM. (2009). How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism. Democratization, 16(2), 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340902777800
ÇalışkanK. (2018). Toward a new political regime in Turkey: From competitive toward full authoritarianism. New Perspectives on Turkey, 58, 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2018.10
8.
ÇarkoğluA.BaruhL.YıldırımK. (2014). Press-party parallelism and polarization of news media during an election campaign: The case of the 2011 Turkish elections. The International Journal of Press/politics, 19(3), 295–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161214528994
9.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz042
10.
DellaVignaS.KaplanE. (2007). The Fox News effect: Media bias and voting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1187–1234. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.3.1187
11.
DoğuB. (2020). Turkey’s news media landscape in Twitter: Mapping interconnections among diversity. Journalism, 21(5), 688–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917713791
12.
DoğuB.MatH. (2019). Who sets the agenda? Polarization and issue ownership in Turkey’s political Twittersphere. International Journal of Communication, 13, 229–250.
GünayD.İşeriE.ErsoyM. (2018). Alternative media and the securitization of climate change in Turkey. Alternatives, 43(2), 96–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375418820384
15.
GuoL. (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
16.
GuoL. (2013). Toward the third level of agenda setting theory: A network agenda setting model. In JohnsonT. (Ed.), Agenda setting in a 2.0 world: New agendas in communication (pp. 112–133). Routledge.
17.
GuoL.ChenY. K.VuH.WangQ.AksamitR.GuzekD.JachimowskiM.McCombsM. E. (2015). Coverage of the Iraq War in the United States, Mainland China, Taiwan and Poland. Journalism Studies, 16(3), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.885198
18.
GuoL.McCombsM. E. (2011a). Network agenda setting: A third level of media effects [Conference session]. Annual International Communication Association Conference, Boston, MA, United States.
19.
GuoL.McCombsM. E. (2011b). Toward the third level of agenda setting theory: A network agenda setting model [Conference session]. Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, St. Louis, MO, United States.
20.
GuoL.VargoC. (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
21.
GuzekD. (2019a). Religious motifs within reporting of the 7/7 London bombings in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Poland: A transnational agenda-setting network study. Journalism, 20(10), 1323–1342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884919830181
22.
GuzekD. (2019b). The Church–state relationship in polish media: Combining the grounded theory and inter-media agenda-setting at the network level. Polish Sociological Review, 208, 439–457. https://doi.org/10.26412/psr208.04
23.
HeidenreichT.LindF.EberlJ. M.BoomgaardenH. G. (2019). Media framing dynamics of the ‘European refugee crisis’: A comparative topic modelling approach. Journal of Refugee Studies, 32(1), 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fez025
24.
HesterJ. B.GibsonR. (2007). The agenda-setting function of national versus local media: A time-series analysis for the issue of same-sex marriage. Mass Communication and Society, 10(3), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430701407272
25.
HopkinsD. J.LaddJ. M. (2014). The consequences of broader media choice: Evidence from the expansion of Fox News. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 9, 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00012099
26.
JostJ. T. (2021). Left and right: The psychological significance of a political distinction. Oxford University Press.
27.
JostJ. T.BaldassarriD. S.DruckmanJ. N. (2022). Cognitive-motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(10), 560–576. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5
28.
LevenduskyM. (2013). How partisan media polarize America. University of Chicago Press.
29.
LevitskyS.WayL. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the cold war. Cambridge University Press.
30.
LippmannW. (1922). Public opinion. Macmillan.
31.
LiuK.GengX.LiuX. (2022). The application of network agenda setting model during the COVID-19 pandemic based on latent dirichlet allocation topic modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 954576. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.954576
32.
MartinG. J.YurukogluA. (2017). Bias in cable news: Persuasion and polarization. American Economic Review, 107(9), 2565–2599. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160812
33.
McCombsM. E. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Polity Press.
34.
McCombsM. E.LlamasJ. P.Lopez-EscobarE.ReyF. (1997). Candidate images in Spanish elections: Second-level agenda-setting effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 703–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909707400404
35.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.
36.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L.WeaverD. H. (2014). New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass Communication and Society, 17(6), 781–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.964871
37.
McGuireW. J. (1999). Constructing social psychology: Creative and critical processes. Cambridge University Press.
38.
MeijersM. J.van der VeerH. (2019). MEP responses to democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland: An analysis of agenda-setting and voting behaviour. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 57, 838–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12850
39.
MelekG. (2017). A study on Hürriyet and Twitter within the framework of intermedia agenda-setting. Journal of Communication Theory and Research, 44, 17–41.
40.
MelekG.İşeriE. (2021). When a polarized media system meets a pandemic: Framing the political discord over COVID-19 aid campaigns in Turkey. In Van AelstP.BlumlerJay G. (Eds.), Political communication in the time of coronavirus (pp.136–154). Routledge.
41.
MelekG.UluçayD. M. (2019). Media attributes and attitude change: Experiments on the impact of second-level agenda-setting on attitudes towards Syrian refugees. Estudios Sobre El Mensaje Periodístico, 25(1), 381–392. https://doi.org/10.5209/ESMP.63735
PandırM.Efeİ.PaksoyA. F. (2015). Türk Basınında Suriyeli Sığınmacı Temsili Üzerine Bir İçerik Analizi [A content analysis on the representation of Syrian asylum seekers in the Turkish press]. Marmara Journal of Communication, 24, 1–26.
46.
PettyR.OstromT.BrockT., (Eds). (2014). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Psychology Press.
47.
RamasubramanianS.MilesC. (2018). Framing the Syrian refugee crisis: A comparative analysis of Arabic and English news sources. International Journal of Communication, 12, 4488–4506.
VargoC. J.GuoL. (2017). Networks, big data, and intermedia agenda setting: An analysis of traditional, partisan, and emerging online U.S. News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(4), 1031–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016679976
51.
VuH. T.GuoL.McCombsM. 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
52.
WeeksB.SouthwellB. (2010). The symbiosis of new coverage and aggregate online search behavior: Obama, rumor, and presidential politics. Mass Communication and Society, 13(4), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430903470532
53.
WeimannG.BrosiusH. B. (2016). A new agenda for agenda-setting research in the digital era. In GerhardV.PhilippH. (Eds.), Political communication in the online world: Theoretical approaches and research designs (pp. 26–44). Routledge.
54.
WilsonA. E.ParkerV.FeinbergM. (2020). Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.005
55.
WinterJ. P.EyalC. H. (1981). Agenda setting for the civil rights issue. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(3), 376–383.
WuH. D.GuoL. (2020). Beyond salience transmission: Linking agenda networks between media and voters. Communication Research, 47(7), 1010–1033. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217697765
58.
YıldırımK.BaruhL.ÇarkoğluA. (2021). Dynamics of campaign reporting and press-party parallelism: Rise of competitive authoritarianism and the media system in Turkey. Political Communication, 38(3), 326–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1765913
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.
