This study examined the network agenda setting (NAS) influence of mainstream and partisan media on the public during the 2018 #NeverAgain social movement on X. Using a unique theoretical and methodological approach, it also investigated the NAS impact of social movement leaders. Results showed that the news media as a whole and the mainstream, liberal, and conservative media, respectively, had varying NAS effects at the micro-attribute level. Findings also indicated that social movement leaders were able to influence public opinion independently.
AlbishriO.TarasevichS.ProverbsP.KiousisS. K.AlahmariA. (2019). Mediated public diplomacy in the digital age: Exploring the Saudi and the US governments’ agenda-building during Trump’s visit to the Middle East. Public Relations Review, 45(4), 101820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101820
AndersonJ. A. (1983). Cognitive and psychological computation with neural models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 13(5), 799–815. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmc.1983.6313074
AtwaterT.SalwenM. B.AndersonR. B. (1985). Media agenda-setting with environmental issues. Journalism Quarterly, 62(2), 393–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908506200227
7.
BeckerL. B.McLeodJ. M. (1976). Political consequences of agenda-setting. Mass Communication Review, 3(2), 8–15.
8.
BlumerH. (1951). Collective behavior. In ParkR. E. (Ed.), New outline of the principles of sociology (pp. 166–222). Barnes & Noble.
9.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies.
10.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.JohnsonJ. C. (2018). Analyzing social networks. Sage.
11.
BoyntonG. R.RichardsonG. W.Jr. (2016). Agenda setting in the twenty-first century. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1916–1934. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815616226
CamajL. (2014). Need for orientation, selective exposure, and attribute agenda-setting effects. Mass Communication and Society, 17(5), 689–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2013.835424
15.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2016.1160266
16.
ChaC. Y.WangY. H.LeeJ. H. (2022). News coverage on COVID-19 and partisan agenda-setting: An analysis of topic modeling results and survey data. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 22(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2022.22.01.086
ChanM.LeeF. L. F. (2014). Selective exposure and agenda setting: Exploring the impact of partisan media exposure on agenda diversity and political participation. Asian Journal of Communication, 24(4), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2014.903424
19.
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
20.
ChengZ.GolanG. J.KiousisS. (2016). The second-level agenda-building function of the Xinhua news agency: Examining the role of government-sponsored news in mediated public diplomacy. Journalism Practice, 10(6), 744–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12311
21.
ChristiansenJ. (2011). Four stages of social movements. In The Editors of Salem Press (Eds.), Theories of social movements (pp. 14–25). Salem Press.
22.
ChyiH. I.McCombsM. (2004). Media salience and the process of framing: Coverage of the Columbine school shootings. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900408100103
CohenB. C. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton University Press.
25.
CraftS.WantaW. (2004). US public concerns in the aftermath of 9–11: A test of second level agenda-setting. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16(4), 456–463. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh039
26.
DavisG.McAdamD.ScottR. W.ZaldM. (Eds.). (2005). Social movements and organization theory. Cambridge University Press.
DekkerD.KrackhardtD.SnijdersT. A. (2007). Sensitivity of MRQAP tests to collinearity and autocorrelation conditions. Psychometrika, 72(4), 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-007-9016-1
29.
Della PortaD.DianiM. (2009). Social movements: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
30.
DomínguezJ. C. (2015). Social movement discourses and conditions of possibility in Bolivia and Mexico. Convergencia, 22(69), 151–179.
31.
FeezellJ. T. (2017). Agenda setting through social media: The importance of incidental news exposure and social filtering in the digital era. Political Research Quarterly, 71(2), 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917744895
32.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
33.
GarrettR. K.WeeksB. E.NeoR. L. (2016). Driving a wedge between evidence and beliefs: How online ideological news exposure promotes political misperceptions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(5), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12164
34.
GhanemS. (1997). Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda setting. In McCombsM. E.ShawD. L.WeaverD. H. (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 3–14). Routledge.
35.
GolanG.WantaW. (2001). Second-level agenda setting in the New Hampshire primary: A comparison of coverage in three newspapers and public perceptions of candidates. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(2), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900107800203
36.
GrzywińskaI.BatorskiD. B. (2016). How the emergence of social networking sites challenges agenda-setting theory. Konteksty Społeczne, 4(1), 19–32.
37.
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
38.
GuoL.MaysK.ZhangY.WijayaD.BetkeM. (2021). What makes gun violence a (less) prominent issue? A computational analysis of compelling arguments and selective agenda setting. Mass Communication and Society, 24(5), 651–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2021.1898644
39.
GuoL.McCombsM. (Eds.). (2015). The power of information networks: New directions for agenda setting. Routledge.
40.
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
41.
GuoL.ZhangY.MaysK.AkyürekA. F.WijayaD.BetkeM. (2024). Agenda setting, cross-cutting effects, and political expression on social media: The gun violence case. Communication Research, 51(8), 1033–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231151555
42.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217704969
43.
HermidaA.LewisS. C.ZamithR. (2014). Sourcing the Arab Spring: A case study of Andy Carvin’s sources on Twitter during the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 479–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12074
44.
HuntK.GruszczynskiM. (2021). The influence of new and traditional media coverage on public attention to social movements: The case of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Information, Communication & Society, 24(7), 1024–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2019.1670228
45.
HyunK. D.MoonS. J. (2016). Agenda setting in the partisan TV news context: Attribute agenda setting and polarized evaluation of presidential candidates among viewers of NBC, CNN, and Fox News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(3), 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016628820
46.
IsaD.HimelboimI. (2018). A social networks approach to online social movement: Social mediators and mediated content in #FreeAJStaff Twitter network. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118760807
47.
JiangK.BarnettG. A.TaylorL. D. (2016). Dynamics of culture frames in international news coverage: A semantic network analysis. International Journal of Communication, 10, 27.
48.
JohnsonT. J. (2013). Introduction. In JohnsonT. J. (Ed.), Agenda setting in a 2.0 world (pp. xv–xxv). Routledge.
49.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (1983). Mental models. Toward a cognitive science of language, inference and language. Harvard University Press.
KaplanS. (1973). Cognitive maps in perception and thought. In DownsR. M.SteaD. (Eds.), Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior (pp. 63–78). Aldine.
52.
KimJ. (2012). A hyperlink and semantic network analysis of the triple helix (University-Government-Industry): The interorganizational communication structure of nanotechnology. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(2), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01564.x
53.
KimY.KimY.ZhouS. (2017). Theoretical and methodological trends of agenda-setting theory: A thematic analysis of the last four decades of research. The Agenda Setting Journal, 1(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1075/asj.1.1.03kim
54.
KiousisS.RagasM. (2016). Implications of third-level agenda building for public relations and strategic communication. In GuoL.McCombsM. (Eds.), The power of information networks: New directions for agenda setting (pp. 161–174). Routledge.
55.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ. (2009). Looking the other way selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36, 426–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333030
56.
LazarsfeldP. F.BerelsonB.GaudetH. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. Columbia University Press.
57.
LeFebvreR. K.ArmstrongC. (2018). Grievance-based social movement mobilization in the #Ferguson Twitter storm. New Media & Society, 20(1), 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816644697
58.
LimJ. (2011). Intermedia agenda-setting and news discourse: A strategic responses model for a competitor’s breaking stories. Journalism Practice, 5(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2010.509184
MartinJ. A. (2014). Agenda setting, elections, and the impact of information technology. In JohnsonT. J. (Ed.), Agenda setting in a 2.0. world (pp. 28–52). Routledge.
62.
McAdamD.PaulsenR. (1993). Specifying the relationship between social ties and activism. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 640–667. https://doi.org/10.1086/230319
63.
McCarthyJ. D.ZaldM. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241. https://doi.org/10.1086/226464
64.
McCombsM. E. (1997). Building consensus: The news media’s agenda-setting roles. Political Communication, 14(4), 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846097199236
McCombsM. E.GhanemS. I. (2001). The convergence of agenda setting and framing. In ReeseS. D.GandyO. H.Jr.GrantA. E. (Eds.), Framing public life (pp. 83–98). Routledge.
67.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990
68.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L.WeaverD. H. (2014). New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass Communication & Society, 17, 781–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.964871
MelucciA. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. Cambridge University Press.
71.
MohammedS. H. A.McCombsM. (2021). Intermedia agenda setting or international news flow? Cross-lagged comparison of elite international newspapers. International Journal of Communication, 15, 22.
72.
MongeP. R.EisenbergE. M. (1987). Emergent communication networks. In JablinF.PutnamL. L.RobertsK.PorterL. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 304–342). Sage.
73.
OlorunnisolaA. A.MartinB. L. (2013). Influences of media on social movements: Problematizing hyperbolic inferences about impacts. Telematics and Informatics, 30(3), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2012.02.005
RozelleR. M.CampbellD. T. (1969). More plausible rival hypotheses in the cross lagged panel correlation technique. Psychological Bulletin, 71(1), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026863
76.
RuchtD. (2004). Movement allies, adversaries, and third parties. In SnowD. A.SouleS. A.KriesiH. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 197–216). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470999103.ch9
77.
SantanenE. L.BriggsR. O.De VreedeG. J. (2000). The cognitive network model of creativity: A new causal model of creativity and a new brainstorming technique. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii international conference on social sciences. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2000.926895
78.
SchoenbachK.SemetkoH. A. (1992). Agenda-setting, agenda-reinforcing or agenda-deflating? A study of the 1990 German national election. Journalism Quarterly, 69(4), 837–846. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909206900404
79.
SearsD. O.FreedmanJ. L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 31, 194–213. https://doi.org/10.1086/267513
80.
ShahD. V.McLeodD. M.GotliebM. R.LeeN. J. (2009). Framing and agenda setting. In NabiR. L.OliverM. B. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 83–98). Sage.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University Press.
84.
SuY.BorahP. (2019). Who is the agenda setter? Examining the intermedia agenda-setting effect between Twitter and newspapers. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 16(3), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2019.1641451
85.
SuY.HuJ. (2020). A territorial dispute or an agenda war? A cross-national investigation of the network agenda-setting (NAS) model. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(4), 357–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2020.1756553
86.
TakeshitaT. (2006). Current critical problems in agenda-setting research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(3), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh104
87.
TakeshitaT.MikamiS. (1995). How did mass media influence the voters’ choice in the 1993 general election in Japan? A study of agenda setting. Keio Communication Review, 17(3), 27–41.
88.
TillyC. (1999). From interactions to outcomes in social movements. In GiugniM.McAdamD.TillyC. (Eds.), How social movements matter (pp. 253–270). University of Minnesota Press.
89.
TremayneM. (2013). Anatomy of protest in the Digital Era: A network analysis of Twitter and occupy wall street. Social Movement Studies, 13(1), 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2013.830969
90.
TufekciZ. (2013). “Not this one”: Social movements, the attention economy, and microcelebrity networked activism. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(7), 848–870. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479369
91.
WallstenK. (2007). Agenda setting and the blogosphere: An analysis of the relationship between mainstream media and political blogs. Review of Policy Research, 24(6), 567–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2007.00300.x
92.
WangR.LiuW.GaoS. (2016). Hashtags and information virality in networked social movement: Examining hashtag co-occurrence patterns. Online Information Review, 40(7), 850–866. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-12-2015-0378
93.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
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
98.
YangA.SafferA. (2018). NGOs’ advocacy in the 2015 refugee crisis: A study of agenda building in the digital age. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(4), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218759578
99.
ZhangY.ChenF.LukitoJ. (2022). Network amplification of politicized information and misinformation about COVID-19 by conservative media and partisan influencers on Twitter. Political Communication, 40(1), 24–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2022.2113844
100.
ZhangY.ShahD.PevehouseJ.ValenzuelaS. (2022). Reactive and asymmetric communication flows: Social media discourse and partisan news framing in the wake of mass shootings. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 28(4), 837–861. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211072793