We seek to understand the role of the Internet in policy monopolies characterized by a dominant coalition in traditional political venues. In these settings, we identify coalitions and counter-coalitions on the Web and ask how these coalitions differ resource-wise and where these differences come from. To do so, we combine link tracing and quantitative content analysis in the field of climate change in Germany and the United Kingdom. Our results show that online contestation is indeed structured by competing coalitions of climate advocates and skeptics. Moreover, the counter-coalitions of climate skeptics turn out to be the true winners of online communication: they have not only incorporated conservative media as their allies, but also managed to make themselves more visible than climate advocates. This visibility stems from their own link setting activity, which makes climate advocates’ passive online strategy of just ignoring the skeptical camp ineffective.
AcklandR (2013) Web Social Science: Concepts, Data and Tools for Social Scientists in the Digital Age. London: SAGE.
2.
AcklandRO’NeilM (2011) Online collective identity: the case of the environmental movement. Social Networks33(3): 177–190.
3.
AdamS (2007) Domestic adaptations of Europe: a comparative study of the debates on EU enlargement and a common constitution in the German and French quality press. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19(4): 409–433. doi:10.1093/Ijpor/Edm024
4.
AdamSHäusslerTSchmid-PetriH, et al. (2016) Identifying and analyzing hyperlink issue networks. In VoweGHennP (eds) Political Communication in the Online World: Theoretical Approaches and Research Designs. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 233–247.
5.
AdamicLGlanceN (2005) The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog. Paper presented at the LinkKDD 05 proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on link discovery, Chicago, IL. DOI: 10.1145/1134271.1134277. Available at: http://www.ramb.ethz.ch/CDstore/www2005-ws/workshop/wf10/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf
6.
AlbertazziDMcDonnellD (eds) (2008) Twenty-First Century Populism. the Spectre of Western European Democracy. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
7.
AtwanAB (2015) Islamic State: The Digital Caliphate. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
8.
BarabásiA (2003) Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life. Cambridge: Plume Books.
9.
BarabásiAAlbertR (1999) Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science286(5439): 509–512.
10.
BaschCHZybertPReevesR, et al. (2017) What do popular YouTubeTM videos say about vaccines?Child: Care, Health and Development43(4): 499–503.
11.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12.
BenklerY (2006) The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT; London: Yale University Press.
BennettLW (1990) Toward a theory of press-state relations in the U.S. Journal of Communication40(2): 103–125.
16.
BennettLWSegerbergA (2013) The Logic of Connective Action. Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
BennettLWSegerbergA (2014) Three patterns of power in technology-enabled contention. Mobilization: An International Quarterly19(4): 421–439.
18.
BentivegnaS (2002) Politics and new media. In: LievrouwLALivingstoneS (eds) Handbook of New Media. London: SAGE, pp. 50–61.
19.
BonacichP (1972) Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology2(1): 113–120.
20.
BrinSPageL (1998) The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems30(1–7): 107–117.
BurtRS (1976) Positions in networks. Social Forces55(1): 93–122.
23.
CarterNClementsB (2015) From “greenest government ever” to “get rid of all the green crap”: David Cameron, the Conservatives and the environment. British Politics10(2): 204–225.
24.
CentolaDBeckerJBrackbillD, et al. (2018) Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention. Science360: 1116–1119.
25.
ChadwickA (2013) The Hybrid Media System. Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
ChambersSKopsteinJ (2001) Bad civil society. Political Theory29(6): 838–865.
27.
CurrariniSJacksonMOPinP (2009) An economic model of friendship: homophily, minorities, and segregation. Econometrica77(4): 1003–1045.
28.
De MaeyerJ (2012) Towards a hyperlinked society: a critical review of link studies. New Media & Society15(5): 1–15.
29.
DianiM (2001) Social movement networks virtual and real. Information, Communication and Society3(4): 386–401.
30.
DimitrovaDVConnolly-AhernCWilliamsAP, et al. (2003) Hyperlinking as gatekeeping: online newspaper coverage of the execution of an American terrorist. Journalism Studies4(3): 401–414.
31.
ElgesemD (2017) Polarization in blogging about the Paris meeting on climate change. In: CiampagliaGMashhadiAYasseriT (eds) Social Informatics. SocInfo 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10539. Cham: Springer, pp. 178–200.
32.
ElgesemDSteskalLDiakopoulosN (2015) Structure and content of the discourse on climate change in the blogosphere: the big picture. Environmental Communication9(2): 169–188.
33.
ElginDJ (2015) Utilizing hyperlink network analysis to examine climate change supporters and opponents. Review of Policy Research32(9): 226–245.
34.
EllinasAA (2010) The Media and the Far Right in Western Europe: Playing the Nationalist Card. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
FayMPShawPA (2010) Exact and asymptotic weighted logrank tests for interval censored data: the interval R package. Journal of Statistical Software36(2): 1–34.
37.
FisherDRLeifeldPIwakiY (2013) Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics. Climatic Change116(3–4): 523–545.
38.
FuJSShumateM (2016) Hyperlinks as institutionalized connective public goods for collective action online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication21(4): 298–311.
39.
GerhardsJSchäferMS (2009) Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society12(1): 143–160.
40.
GerlitzCHelmondA (2013) The like economy: social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media & Society15(8): 1348–1365.
Gonzalez-BailónS (2009) Opening the black box of link formation: social factors underlying the structure of the web. Social Networks31(4): 271–280.
43.
GuidryJPCarlyleKMessnerM, et al. (2015) On pins and needles: how vaccines are portrayed on Pinterest. Vaccine33(39): 5051–5056.
44.
HäusslerTAdamSSchmid-PetriH, et al. (2017) How political conflict shapes online spaces: a comparison of climate change hyperlink networks in the US and Germany. International Journal of Communication11: 3096–3117.
45.
HäusslerTSchmid-PetriHAdamS, et al. (2016) The climate of debate: how institutional factors shape legislative discourses on climate change. Studies in Communication Science16(1): 94–102. doi: 10.1016/j.scoms.2016.04.002
46.
HimelboimIMcCreerySSmithM (2013) Birds of feather tweet together: integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18(2): 154–174.
47.
HindmanMS (2009) The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
JacksonSJFoucault WellesB (2015) Hijacking# myNYPD: social media dissent and networked counterpublics. Journal of Communication65(6): 932–952.
51.
KaiserJ (2017) Public spheres of skepticism: climate skeptics’ online comments in the German networked public sphere. International Journal of Communication11: 1661–1682.
52.
KaiserJRauschleischABourassaN (2017) Building bridges with Breitbart: a topic model analysis of online media coverage during the US Presidential Election 2016. In: Proceedings of IAMCR 2017. Cartagena,Colombia,16-20 July 2017.
53.
KellnerDPierceC (2008) Media and globalization. In: RitzerG (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 383–395.
54.
KimJHBarnettGAParkHW (2010) A hyperlink and issue network analysis of the United States Senate: a rediscovery of the web as a relational and topical medium. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology61(8): 1598–1611.
55.
KriesiH (2004) Strategic political communication. Mobilizing public opinion in “audience democracies.” In: EsserFPfetschB (eds) Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 184–212.
56.
MairP (2013) Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy. London: Verso Book.
57.
MongePRContractorNS (2003) Theories of Communication Networks. New York: Oxford University Press.
58.
PainterJGavinNT (2016) Climate skepticism in British newspapers, 2007-2011. Environmental Communication10(4): 432–452.
59.
ParkHWThelwallM (2003) Hyperlink analyses of the World Wide Web: a review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication8(4): JCMC843.
60.
ParkHWKimCSBarnettGA (2004) Socio-communicational structure among political actors on the web in South Korea. New Media & Society6(3): 403–423.
61.
PengL (2005) The First Years of Internet Media in China. Beijing, China: Tsinghua U Press.
62.
PilnyAShumateM (2012) Hyperlinks as extensions of offline instrumental collective action. Information, Communication & Society15(2): 260–286.
63.
RogersR (2010) Mapping public web space with the IssueCrawler. In: ReberWBrossardC (eds) Digital Cognitive Technologies: Epistemology and the Knowledge Economy. London; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 115–126.
64.
RogersRMarresN (2000) Landscaping climate change: a mapping technique for understanding science and technology debates on the World Wide Web. Public Understanding of Science9(2): 141–163.
65.
SabatierP (1988) An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences21(2–3): 129–168.
66.
SabatierPWeibleC (eds) (2007) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. 2nd ed.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
67.
SchäferMS (2012) Online communication on climate change and climate politics: a literature review. WIREs Climate Change3(6): 527–543.
68.
ShumateM (2012) The evolution of the HIV/AIDS NGO hyperlink network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17(2): 120–134.
69.
SilberMDBhattA (2007) Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat. New York: The New York City Police Department.
70.
SimpsonCR (2015) Multiplexity and strategic alliances: the relational embeddedness of coalitions in social movement organizational fields. Social Networks42: 42–59.
71.
Schmid-PetriH (2017). Do conservative media provide a forum for skeptical voices?The Link Between Ideology and the Coverage of Climate Change in British, German, and Swiss Newspapers, Environmental Communication11(4): 554–567. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2017.1280518
72.
TremayneMZhengNKookLJ, et al. (2006) Issue publics on the web: applying network theory to the war blogosphere. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(1): 290–310.
73.
WarrenM (2000) Democracy and the Terrain of Association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
WolfsfeldG (1997) Media and Political Conflict. News from the Middle East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76.
WolfsfeldGSegevESheaverT (2013) Social media and the Arab Spring: politics comes first. The International Journal of Press / Politics18(2): 115–137.
77.
YoungLELeonardiPM (2012) Social issue emergence on the Web: a dual structurational model. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17(2): 231–246.
78.
ZhouYMoyP (2007) Parsing framing processes: the interplay between online public opinion and media coverage. Journal of Communication57(1): 79–98.
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.
