Examining the Role of Political Party Predispositions and Polarized Media on Network Agenda Setting: The Case of Syrian Refugees in Türkiye

Abstract

Arabic

Spanish

French

Chinese

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.

Keywords

network agenda-setting third-level agenda-setting NAS public opinion Syrian refugees network analysis competitive authoritarian regime polarized media QAP Türkiye إعداد أجندة الشبكات،المستوى الثالث من وضع أجندة الشبكات،الرأي العام،اللاجئين السوريين،تحليل الشبكة،النظام الاستبدادي التنافسي،وسائل الإعلام المستقطبة،تركيا 网络议程设置、第三级议程设置、NAS、舆论、叙利亚难民、网络分析、竞争性威权政体、极化媒体、QAP、土耳其 Agenda-setting en réseau agenda-setting de troisième niveau opinion publique réfugiés syriens analyse de réseau régime autoritaire concurrentiel médias polarisés Turquie Сетевое формирование повестки дня формирование повестки дня третьего уровня общественное мнение сирийские беженцы сетевой анализ конкурентный авторитарный режим поляризованные СМИ Турция establecimiento de la agenda de las redes establecimiento de la agenda de tercer nivel opinión pública refugiados sirios análisis de redes régimen autoritario competitivo medios polarizados Turquía

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akman

A. C.

Akçalı

(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

Andı

Aytaç

S. E.

Çarkoğlu

(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

Arịsan

(2008). Kemalism. In Stearns

P. N

(Ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of the modern world. Oxford University Press. Retrieved November 9, 2023, from https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195176322.001.0001/acref-9780195176322-e-849

Berry

Garcia-Blanco

Moore

(2016). Press coverage of the refugee and migrant crisis in the EU: A content analysis of five European countries [Project report]. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. http://www.unhcr.org/56bb369c9.html

Bogaards

(2009). How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism. Democratization, 16(2), 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340902777800

Çakır

(2019, December 6). Araştırma: Suriyeliler Dönmek İstemiyor [Research: Syrians don’t want to return] Cumhuriyet Gazetesi. http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/turkiye/1706502/arastirma-suriyeliler-donmek-istemiyor.html

Çalışkan

(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

Çarkoğlu

Baruh

Yıldırım

(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

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

10.

DellaVigna

Kaplan

(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.

Doğu

(2020). Turkey’s news media landscape in Twitter: Mapping interconnections among diversity. Journalism, 21(5), 688–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917713791

12.

Doğu

Mat

(2019). Who sets the agenda? Polarization and issue ownership in Turkey’s political Twittersphere. International Journal of Communication, 13, 229–250.

13.

Freedom House. (2014). Freedom of the press 2014. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTP_2014.pdf

14.

Günay

İşeri

Ersoy

(2018). Alternative media and the securitization of climate change in Turkey. Alternatives, 43(2), 96–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375418820384

15.

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

16.

Guo

(2013). Toward the third level of agenda setting theory: A network agenda setting model. In Johnson

(Ed.), Agenda setting in a 2.0 world: New agendas in communication (pp. 112–133). Routledge.

17.

Guo

Chen

Y. K.

Wang

Aksamit

Guzek

Jachimowski

McCombs

M. 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.

Guo

McCombs

M. E.

(2011a). Network agenda setting: A third level of media effects [Conference session]. Annual International Communication Association Conference, Boston, MA, United States.

19.

Guo

McCombs

M. 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.

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

21.

Guzek

(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.

Guzek

(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.

Heidenreich

Lind

Eberl

J. M.

Boomgaarden

H. 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.

Hester

J. B.

Gibson

(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.

Hopkins

D. J.

Ladd

J. 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.

Jost

J. T.

(2021). Left and right: The psychological significance of a political distinction. Oxford University Press.

27.

Jost

J. T.

Baldassarri

D. S.

Druckman

J. 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.

Levendusky

(2013). How partisan media polarize America. University of Chicago Press.

29.

Levitsky

Way

L. A.

(2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the cold war. Cambridge University Press.

30.

Lippmann

(1922). Public opinion. Macmillan.

31.

Liu

Geng

Liu

(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.

Martin

G. J.

Yurukoglu

(2017). Bias in cable news: Persuasion and polarization. American Economic Review, 107(9), 2565–2599. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160812

33.

McCombs

M. E.

(2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Polity Press.

34.

McCombs

M. E.

Llamas

J. P.

Lopez-Escobar

Rey

(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.

McCombs

M. E.

Shaw

D. L.

(1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.

36.

McCombs

M. E.

Shaw

D. L.

Weaver

D. 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.

McGuire

W. J.

(1999). Constructing social psychology: Creative and critical processes. Cambridge University Press.

38.

Meijers

M. J.

van der Veer

(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.

Melek

(2017). A study on Hürriyet and Twitter within the framework of intermedia agenda-setting. Journal of Communication Theory and Research, 44, 17–41.

40.

Melek

İşeri

(2021). When a polarized media system meets a pandemic: Framing the political discord over COVID-19 aid campaigns in Turkey. In Van Aelst

Blumler

Jay G.

(Eds.), Political communication in the time of coronavirus (pp.136–154). Routledge.

41.

Melek

Uluçay

D. 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

42.

Mülteciler Derneği [Refugees Association]. (2023). Türkiye’deki Suriyeli Sayısı Mart 2023 [Number of Syrians in Türkiye March 2023]. https://multeciler.org.tr/turkiyedeki-suriyeli-sayisi/

43.

Newman

Fletcher

Schulz

Andı

Nielsen

R. K.

(2020). Digital news report 2020. Reuters Institute. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-06/DNR_2020_FINAL.pdf

44.

O’Donohue

Hoffman

Makovsky

(2020, June 10). Turkey’s changing media landscape. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2020/06/10/485976/turkeys-changing-media-landscape/

45.

Pandır

Efe

İ.

Paksoy

A. 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.

Petty

Ostrom

Brock

, (Eds). (2014). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Psychology Press.

47.

Ramasubramanian

Miles

(2018). Framing the Syrian refugee crisis: A comparative analysis of Arabic and English news sources. International Journal of Communication, 12, 4488–4506.

48.

Reporters without Borders. (2022). 2022 press freedom index. https://rsf.org/en/ranking

49.

Roberts

Wanta

Dzwo

T.-H. (Dustin)

. (2002). Agenda setting and issue salience online. Communication Research, 29(4), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202029004004

50.

Vargo

C. J.

Guo

(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.

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

52.

Weeks

Southwell

(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.

Weimann

Brosius

H. B.

(2016). A new agenda for agenda-setting research in the digital era. In Gerhard

Philipp

(Eds.), Political communication in the online world: Theoretical approaches and research designs (pp. 26–44). Routledge.

54.

Wilson

A. E.

Parker

Feinberg

(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.

Winter

J. P.

Eyal

C. H.

(1981). Agenda setting for the civil rights issue. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(3), 376–383.

56.

World Values Survey. (n.d). World values survey wave 7: 2017-2022. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp

57.

H. D.

Guo

(2020). Beyond salience transmission: Linking agenda networks between media and voters. Communication Research, 47(7), 1010–1033. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217697765

58.

Yıldırım

Baruh

Çarkoğlu

(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.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB

0.02 MB