Despite the social media’s agenda-setting power, the literature provides little understanding of how social media agendas survive and last long enough to trigger substantial public discussions. This study investigates this issue by tracking the ice bucket challenge campaign over an 18-week period. This article claims that the pattern of the intermedia process evolves over time along with the issue-attention cycle. We observed a round-trip intermedia agenda setting where the direction is reversed as the agenda waxes and wanes. Both social and mainstream media continued to generate a heightened level of issue attention after the buzz was cooled down.
AusserhoferJMairederA (2013) National politics on Twitter: Structures and topics of a networked public sphere. Information, Communication & Society16(3): 291–314.
2.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (1991) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BeckettiS (2013) Introduction to Time Series Using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
4.
BerkowitzD (1992) Routine newswork and the what-a-story: A case study of organizational adaptation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media36(1): 45–60.
5.
BoxGEJenkinsGMReinselGCet al. (2015) Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
6.
ConversePE (1964) The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In: ApterD (ed.) Ideology and Discontent. New York, NY: Free Press, pp. 206–261.
7.
ConwayBAKenskiKWangD (2015) The rise of twitter in the political campaign: Searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects in the presidential primary. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20(4): 363–380.
8.
DenhamBE (2010) Toward conceptual consistency in studies of agenda-building processes: A scholarly review. Review of Communication10(4): 306–323.
9.
DownsA (1972) The issue–attention cycle. Public Interest28: 38–50.
10.
EntmanRM (1989) Democracy without Citizens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
FiskeSTTaylorSE (1991) Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
FreemanJR (1983) Granger causality and the times series analysis of political relationships. American Journal of Political Science27(2): 327–358.
13.
GeipS (2011) Patterns of relationships between issues: An analysis of German prestige newspapers. International Journal of Public Opinion Research23(3): 265–286.
14.
GilbergSEyalCMcCombsMet al. (1980) The State of the Union address and the press agenda. Journalism Quarterly57: 584–588.
15.
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 Studies7(2): 323–333.
16.
GoodeL (2009) Social news, citizen journalism and democracy. New Media & Society11(8): 1287–1305.
17.
GouldSJEldredgeN (1977) Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology3: 115–151.
18.
GrangerCWJ (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric methods and cross spectral methods. Econometrica34: 424–438.
19.
GroshekJGroshekMC (2013) Agenda trending: Reciprocity and the predictive capacity of social networking sites in intermedia agenda setting across topics over time. Media and Communication1: 15–27.
20.
GuggenheimLPasekJ (2015) Binders full of tweets: Considering the implications of stimulus-response curves in Twitter reactions to news events (unpublished manuscript).
21.
HesterJBDougallE (2007) The efficiency of constructed week sampling for content analysis of online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly84(4): 811–824.
22.
HilbertM (2012) Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychological Bulletin138(2): 211–237.
23.
HilbertMLopezP (2011) The world’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science332(6025): 60–65.
HuckfeldtRJohnsonPESpragueJ (2004) Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
JacobsonS (2013) Does audience participation on Facebook influence the news agenda? A case study of the Rachel Maddow show. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media57(3): 338–355.
27.
JangSMPasekJ (2015) Assessing the carrying capacity of twitter and online news. Mass Communication and Society18(5): 577–598.
28.
JangSMLeeHParkYJ (2014) The more friends, the less political talk? Predictors of Facebook discussion among college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking17(5): 271–275.
29.
KatzELazarsfeldPF (1955) Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. New York, NY: Free Press.
30.
LarssonAOMoeH (2012) Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign.New Media & Society14(5): 729–747.
31.
LewisSC (2012) The tension between professional control and open participation: Journalism and its boundaries. Information, Communication & Society15(6): 836–866.
32.
McCombsME (2014) Setting the Agenda, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Polity Press.
33.
McCombsMEShawDL (1976) Structuring the ‘unseen environment’. Journal of Communication26(2): 18–22.
34.
McCombsMEZhuJH (1995) Capacity, diversity, and volatility of the public agenda: Trends from 1954 to 1994. Public Opinion Quarterly59(4): 495–525.
35.
MahoneyJ (2015) The Ice Bucket Challenge and Its Name Calling Strategy through Social Media: A Descriptive Statistical Analysis. Lafayette, LA: University of Louisiana at Lafayette.
36.
MerazS (2009) Is there an elite hold? Traditional media to social media agenda setting influence in blog networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(3): 682–707.
37.
MerazS (2011) Using time series analysis to measure intermedia agenda-setting influence in traditional media and political blog networks. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly88(1): 176–194.
38.
NeumanWR (1990) The threshold of public attention. Public Opinion Quarterly54(2): 159–176.
39.
NeumanWRGuggenheimLJangSMet al. (2014) Theorizing the dynamics of public attention: Agenda setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication64(2): 193–214.
40.
PetersBGHogwoodBW (1985) In search of the issue-attention cycle. The Journal of Politics47(1): 238–253.
41.
RagasMWTranHL (2015) The financial news ecosystem: Journalists’ perceptions of group hierarchy. Journalism16(6): 711–729.
42.
RagasMWTranHLMartinJA (2014) Media-induced or search-driven? A study of online agenda-setting effects during the BP oil disaster. Journalism Studies15(1): 48–63.
43.
RiffeDAustCFLacySR (1993) The effectiveness of random, consecutive day and constructed week sampling in newspaper content analysis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly70(1): 133–139.
44.
RobertsMWantaWDzwoTHD (2002) Agenda setting and issue salience online. Communication Research29(4): 452–465.
45.
SayreBBodeLShahDVet al. (2010) Agenda setting in a digital age: Tracking attention to California Proposition 8 in social media, online news, and conventional news. Policy & Internet2: 7–32.
46.
ShirkyC (2011) The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign Affairs90: 28–41.
47.
ShoemakerPJVosT (2009) Gatekeeping Theory. New York: Routledge.
StrykerJEWrayRJHornikRCet al. (2006) Validation of database search terms for content analysis: The case of cancer news coverage. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly83(2): 413–430.
50.
SweetserKDGolanGJWantaW (2008) Intermedia agenda setting in television, advertising, and blogs during the 2004 election. Mass Communication & Society11(2): 197–216.
51.
ValenzuelaSKimYde ZúñigaHG (2012) Social networks that matter: Exploring the role of political discussion for online political participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research24(2): 163–184.
52.
VonbunRKleinen-von KönigslöwKSchoenbachK (2015) Intermedia agenda-setting in a multimedia news environment. Journalism. Epub ahead of print 24July. DOI: 10.1177/1464884915595475.
53.
WaldherrA (2014) Emergence of news waves: A social simulation approach. Journal of Communication64(5): 852–873.
54.
WeeksBSouthwellB (2010) The symbiosis of news coverage and aggregate online search behavior: Obama, rumors, and presidential politics. Mass Communication and Society13: 341–360.
55.
ZhuJH (1992) Issue competition and attention distraction: A zero-sum theory of agenda-setting. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly69(4): 825–836.
