Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-6
Intermedia Attribute Agenda Setting Between the U.S. Mainstream Newspapers and Twitter: A Two-Study Analysis of the Paradigm and Driving Forces of the Agenda Flow
Performing two studies, we explore the intermedia attribute agenda-setting effects between the U.S. mainstream newspapers and Twitter. Leveraging computational methodologies, Study 1 analyzes 3,541 newspaper articles and over 1.06 million tweets about the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement, illustrating asymmetrical reciprocity of substantive attributes and mutual independency of affective attributes between both outlets. Study 2 performs in-depth interviews with 16 American journalists, showing that journalists increasingly see Twitter as a news source hub, a self-promotion platform, and a prism of distorted public sentiments. The juxtaposition of both studies revealed the paradigm and driving forces of the intermedia agenda flow.
BartschA.MaresM. L.ScherrS.KloßA.KeppelerJ.PosthumusL. (2016). More than shoot-em-up and torture porn: Reflective appropriation and meaning-making of violent media content. Journal of Communication, 66(5), 741–765.
2.
BenklerY. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press.
3.
BillardT. J. (2019). Setting the transgender agenda: Intermedia agenda-setting in the digital news environment. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(1), 165–176.
CeronA.CuriniL.IacusS. M. (2016). First- and second-level agenda setting in the Twittersphere: An application to the Italian political debate. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(2), 159–174.
6.
ColemanR.WuH. D. (2010). Proposing emotion as a dimension of affective agenda setting: Separating affect into two components and comparing their second-level effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(2), 315–327.
7.
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(4), 363–380.
8.
ConwayB. A.TsetsiE.KenskiK.ShmargadY. (2022). Tipping the Twitter vs. news media scale? Conducting a third assessment of intermedia agenda-setting effects during the presidential nomination season. Journal of Political Marketing, 21(3-4), 247–258.
9.
Conway-SilvaB. A.FilerC. R.KenskiK.TsetsiE. (2018). Reassessing Twitter’s agenda-building power: An analysis of intermedia agenda-setting effects during the 2016 presidential primary season. Social Science Computer Review, 36(4), 469–483.
10.
CooperC. A.NownesA. J.JohnsonM. (2007). Interest groups and journalists in the States. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7(1), 39–53.
11.
CorbinJ. M.StraussA. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
12.
GhanemS. (1997). Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda setting. In McCombsM.ShawD.WeaverD. (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 3–14). Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
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(2), 323–333.
14.
GrangerC. W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 37, 424–438.
15.
GroshekJ.GroshekM. C. (2013). Agenda trending: Reciprocity and the predictive capacity of social networking sites in intermedia agenda setting across topics over time. Media and Communication, 1(1), 15–27.
16.
GuestG.NameyE.ChenM. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLOS ONE, 15(5), Article e0232076.
17.
GuoL. (2020). China’s “fake news” problem: Exploring the spread of online rumors in the government-controlled news media. Digital Journalism, 8(8), 992–1010.
18.
GuoL.MaysK.WangJ. (2019). Whose story wins on Twitter? Visualizing the South China Sea dispute. Journalism Studies, 20(4), 563–584.
19.
GuoL.VargoC. J. (2017). Global intermedia agenda setting: A big data analysis of international news flow. Journal of Communication, 67(4), 499–520.
20.
GuoL.VargoC. J. (2020). “Fake news” and emerging online media ecosystem: An integrated intermedia agenda-setting analysis of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Communication Research, 47(2), 178–200.
21.
HanuschF.BrunsA. (2017). Journalistic branding on Twitter: A representative study of Australian journalists’ profile descriptions. Digital Journalism, 5(1), 26–43.
22.
HarderR. A.SevenansJ.Van AelstP. (2017). Intermedia agenda setting in the social media age: How traditional players dominate the news agenda in election times. The International Journal of Press/politics, 22(3), 275–293.
23.
HeraviB. R.HarrowerN. (2016). Twitter journalism in Ireland: Sourcing and trust in the age of social media. Information, Communication & Society, 19(9), 1194–1213.
24.
JohnsonM.PaulussenS.Van AelstP. (2018). MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING? The low importance of Twitter as a sourcing tool for economic journalists. Digital Journalism, 6(7), 869–888.
25.
KayeB. (2007). Blog use motivations. In TremayneM. (Ed.), Blogging, citizenship, and the future of the media (pp. 127–148). Routledge.
26.
KimY.GonzenbachW. J.VargoC. J.KimY. (2016). First and second levels of intermedia agenda setting: Political advertising, newspapers, and Twitter during the 2012 US presidential election. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4550–4569.
27.
KiousisS.BantimaroudisP.BanH. (1999). Candidate image attributes: Experiments on the substantive dimension of second level agenda setting. Communication Research, 26(4), 414–428.
28.
KrippendorffK. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30, 411–433.
29.
LeeA. M. (2015). Social media and speed-driven journalism: Expectations and practices. International Journal on Media Management, 17(4), 217–239.
30.
LiuX. (2019). A big data approach to examining social bots on Twitter. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(4), 369–379.
31.
Lopez-EscobarE.LlamasJ. P.McCombsM.LennonF. R. (1998). Two levels of agenda setting among advertising and news in the 1995 Spanish elections. Political Communication, 15(2), 225–238.
32.
McCombsM.LlamasJ. P.Lopez-EscobarE.ReyF. (1997). Candidate images in Spanish elections: Second-level agenda-setting effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 703–717.
33.
McCombsM.Lopez-EscobarE.LlamasJ. P. (2000). Setting the agenda of attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 77–92.
34.
McCombsM. E.EstradaG. (1997). The news media and the pictures in our heads. In IyengarS.ReevesR. (Eds.), Do the media govern? (pp. 237–247). SAGE.
35.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.
36.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 58–67.
37.
McCrackenG. (1988). The long interview. SAGE.
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(1), 176–194.
39.
MerazS.PapacharissiZ. (2013). Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on #Egypt. International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 138–166.
40.
OschatzC.StierS.MaierJ. (2022). Twitter in the news: An analysis of embedded tweets in political news coverage. Digital Journalism, 10(9), 1526–1545.
41.
ParmeleeJ. H. (2013). Political journalists and Twitter: Influences on norms and practices. Journal of Media Practice, 14(4), 291–305.
42.
ParmeleeJ. H. (2014). The agenda-building function of political tweets. New Media & Society, 16(3), 434–450.
RauchfleischA.ArthoX.MetagJ.PostS.SchäferM. S. (2017). How journalists verify user-generated content during terrorist crises: Analyzing Twitter communication during the Brussels attacks. Social Media+ Society, 3(3), 1–13.
46.
ReeseS. D.DanielianL. H. (1989). Intermedia influence and the drug issue: Converging on cocaine. In ShoemakerP. J. (Ed.), Communication campaigns about drugs: Government, media, and the public (pp. 29–46). Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
RogstadI. (2016). Is Twitter just rehashing? Intermedia agenda setting between Twitter and mainstream media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(2), 142–158.
48.
ScharkowM. (2013). Thematic content analysis using supervised machine learning: An empirical evaluation using German online news. Quality & Quantity, 47(2), 761–773.
49.
SchoolerC.Shyam SundarS.FloraJ. (1996). Effects of the Stanford five-city project media advocacy program. Health Education Quarterly, 23(3), 346–364.
50.
SuY. (2022). Networked agenda flow between elite U.S. newspapers and Twitter: A case study of the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement. Journalism, 24, 2021–2041.
51.
SuY.XiaoX. (2021). Mapping the intermedia agenda setting (IAS) literature: Current trajectories and future directions. The Agenda Setting Journal, 5(1), 56–83.
52.
SweetserK. D.GolanG. J.WantaW. (2008). Intermedia agenda setting in television, advertising, and blogs during the 2004 election. Mass Communication & Society, 11(2), 197–216.
53.
TandocE. C.Jr.FooC. Y. W. (2018). Here’s what BuzzFeed journalists think of their journalism. Digital Journalism, 6(1), 41–57.
54.
TownerT.MuñozC. L. (2020). Instagramming issues: Agenda setting during the 2016 presidential campaign. Social Media+ Society, 6(3), 1–13.
55.
ValenzuelaS.PuenteS.FloresP. M. (2017). Comparing disaster news on Twitter and television: An intermedia agenda setting perspective. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(4), 615–637.
56.
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.
57.
VargoC. J.GuoL.AmazeenM. A. (2018). The agenda-setting power of fake news: A big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. New Media & Society, 20(5), 2028–2049.
58.
VerweijP.Van NoortE. (2014). Journalists’ Twitter networks, public debates and relationships in South Africa. Digital Journalism, 2(1), 98–114.
59.
VliegenthartR.WalgraveS. (2008). The contingency of intermedia agenda setting: A longitudinal study in Belgium. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(4), 860–877.
60.
Vonbun-FeldbauerR.MatthesJ. (2018). Do Channels Matter? Investigating media characteristics in the agenda-building process of an election campaign. Journalism Studies, 19(16), 2359–2378.
61.
WillemsE. (2022). No escape from the media gates? How public support and issue salience shape interest groups’ media prominence. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Advance online publication, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221124942
62.
WonnebergerA.VliegenthartR. (2021). Agenda-setting effects of climate change litigation: Interrelations across issue levels, media, and politics in the case of Urgenda against the Dutch government. Environmental Communication, 15(5), 699–714.
63.
YilmazK. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 311–325.
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.
