The rise of social media has engendered several debates over traditional media’s agenda-setting power. This study analyzes 4189 newspaper articles and over 1.23 million tweets about the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement from the perspective of network intermedia agenda-setting (IAS). The findings show that both platforms attach significance to the substantive attributes of policing, violence, and systemic racism. Notably, while the newspapers’ overall agenda had a supportive tone, Twitter used a condemning tone. Moreover, the newspapers were more influential in terms of IAS, particularly in setting political and cultural attribute agendas. No IAS effects were found on the affective attributes. Furthermore, the IAS effects on the combined substantive and affective attributes have shrunk significantly. The newspapers were more influential in terms of the bundled substantive attribute agendas as well. This study advances agenda-setting research by examining multiple network agenda dimensions and introducing an affective attribute scale. These are intended to help understand which media could exert a stronger influence on what attribute agendas and how.
BrunsAStieglitzS (2013) Towards more systematic Twitter analysis: metrics for tweeting activities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology16(2): 91–108.
3.
CastellsM (2009) Communication Power. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
4.
CastellsM (2011) Network theory| a network theory of power. International Journal of Communication5(15): 773–787.
5.
CeronACuriniLIacusSM (2016) First-and second-level agenda setting in the Twittersphere: an application to the Italian political debate. Journal of Information Technology & Politics13(2): 159–174.
6.
ChenZSuCCChenA (2019) Top-down or bottom-up? A network agenda-setting study of Chinese nationalism on social media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media63(3): 512–533.
7.
ColemanRWuHD (2010) Proposing emotion as a dimension of affective agenda setting: separating affect into two components and comparing their second-level effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly87(2): 315–327.
8.
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.
9.
CooperCANownesAJJohnsonM (2007) Interest groups and journalists in the States. State Politics & Policy Quarterly7(1): 39–53.
10.
DixsonAD (2018) What’s going on?”: a critical race theory perspective on Black Lives Matter and activism in education. Urban Education53(2): 231–247.
11.
FeeleyTHVincentDIII (2007) How organ donation is represented in newspaper articles in the United States. Health Communication21(2): 125–131.
12.
FlewTIosifidisP (2020) Populism, globalisation and social media. International Communication Gazette82(1): 7–25.
13.
FuchsC (2009) Social networking sites and the surveillance society. A critical case study of the usage of studiVz, Facebook, and MySpace by students in Salzburg in the context of electronic surveillance. Salzburg, Austria: Forschungsgruppe Unified Theory of Information (Research Group Unified Theory of Information).
14.
GrangerCW (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society37: 424–438.
15.
GroshekJGroshekMC (2013) Agenda trending: reciprocity and the predictive capacity of social networking sites in intermedia agenda setting across topics over time. Media and Communication1(1): 15–27.
16.
GuoL (2019) Media agenda diversity and intermedia agenda setting in a controlled media environment: a computational analysis of China’s online news. Journalism Studies20(16): 2460–2477.
17.
GuoLMaysKWangJ (2019) Whose story wins on Twitter? Visualizing the South China Sea dispute. Journalism Studies20(4): 563–584.
18.
GuoLMcCombsME (2011) Network Agenda Setting: A Third Level of Media Effects. Paper presented in ICA. Boston, MA: Institute of Contemporary Art.
19.
GuoLVargoC (2015) The power of message networks: a big-data analysis of the network agenda setting model and issue ownership. Mass Communication & Society18(5): 557–576.
20.
GuoLVargoC J (2017) Global intermedia agenda setting: a big data analysis of international news flow. Journal of Communication67(4): 499–520.
21.
GuoLVargoC (2020) Fake news” and emerging online media ecosystem: An integrated intermedia agenda-setting analysis of the 2016 US presidential election. Communication Research47(2): 178–200.
22.
HaimMWeimannGBrosiusHB (2018) Who sets the cyber agenda? Intermedia agenda-setting online: the case of Edward Snowden’s NSA revelations. Journal of Computational Social Science1(2): 277–294.
23.
HaleSGaffneyDGrahamM (2012) Where in the world are you? Geolocation and language identification in Twitter. Proceedings of ICWSM12: 518–521.
24.
HarderRASevenansJVan 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/Politics22(3): 275–293.
25.
JostJTBarberáPBonneauR, . (2018) How social media facilitates political protest: Information, motivation, and social networks. Political Psychology39: 85–118.
26.
KeibKHimelboimIHanJY (2018) Important tweets matter: predicting retweets in the# BlackLivesMatter talk on twitter. Computers in Human Behavior85: 106–115.
27.
KilgoDMourãoRR (2019) Media effects and marginalized Ideas: relationships among media consumption and support for Black Lives Matter. International Journal of Communication13: 4287–4305.
28.
KimYGonzenbachWJVargoCJ, . (2016) First and second levels of intermedia agenda setting: political advertising, newspapers, and Twitter during the 2012 US presidential election. International Journal of Communication10: 4550.
29.
KiousisSBantimaroudisPBanH (1999) Candidate image attributes: experiments on the substantive dimension of second level agenda setting. Communication Research26(4): 414–428.
30.
LewandowskySEckerUKSeifertCM, . (2012) Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest13(3): 106–131.
31.
LippmannW (1922) Public Opinion. New York, NY: Macmillan.
32.
LiuX (2019) A big data approach to examining social bots on twitter. Journal of Services Marketing33(4): 369–379.
33.
Lopez-EscobarELlamasJPMcCombsM, . (1998) Two levels of agenda setting among advertising and news in the 1995 Spanish elections. Political Communication15(2): 225–238.
34.
McCombsMEEstradaG (1997) The news media and the pictures in our heads. In: IyengarSReevesR (eds) Do the Media Govern?London, UK: Sage, 237–247.
35.
McCombsMGhanemSI (2001) The convergence of agenda setting and framing. In: Framing Public Life. London, UK: Routledge, 83–98.
36.
McCombsMLopez-EscobarELlamasJP (2000) Setting the agenda of attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election. Journal of Communication50(2): 77–92.
37.
McCombsMEShawDL (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly36(2): 176–187.
38.
McCombsMEShawDLWeaverDH (2014) New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass Communication & Society17(6): 781–802.
39.
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.
40.
Noelle-NeumannE (1974) The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication24(2): 43–51.
41.
ParmeleeJH (2013) Political journalists and Twitter: influences on norms and practices. Journal of Media Practice14(4): 291–305.
ScharkowMVogelgesangJ (2011) Measuring the public agenda using search engine queries. International Journal of Public Opinion Research23(1): 104–113.
49.
SuYBorahP (2019) Who is the agenda setter? Examining the intermedia agenda-setting effect between Twitter and newspapers. Journal of Information Technology & Politics16(3): 236–249.
50.
SuYHuJ (2020) A territorial dispute or an agenda war? A cross-national investigation of the network agenda-setting (NAS) model. Journal of Information Technology & Politics17(4): 357–375.
51.
SuYHuJLeeDKL (2020) Delineating the transnational network agenda-setting model of mainstream newspapers and Twitter: a machine-learning approach. Journalism Studies21(15): 2113–2134.
52.
TownerTMuñozCL (2020) Instagramming issues: agenda setting during the 2016 presidential campaign. Social Media+ Society6(3): 2056305120940803.
53.
Van LeuvenSDeprezA (2017) ‘To follow or not to follow?’: how Belgian health journalists use Twitter to monitor potential sources. Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies6(3): 545–566.
54.
VargoCJ (2021) Public “agendamelding” in the United States: assessing the relative influence of different types of online news on partisan agendas from 2015 to 2020. Journal of Information Technology & Politics: 1–18. DOI: 10.1080/19331681.2021.1972893.
55.
VargoCJGuoL (2017) Networks, big data, and intermedia agenda setting: an analysis of traditional, partisan, and emerging online US news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly94(4): 1031–1055.
56.
VargoCJGuoLAmazeenMA (2018) The agenda-setting power of fake news: a big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. New Media & Society20(5): 2028–2049.
57.
VargoCJGuoLMcCombsM, . (2014) Network issue agendas on Twitter during the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Communication64(2): 296–316.
58.
VliegenthartRWalgraveS (2008) The contingency of intermedia agenda setting: a longitudinal study in Belgium. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly85(4): 860–877.
59.
VuHTGuoLMcCombsME (2014) Exploring “the world outside and the pictures in our heads” a network agenda-setting study. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly91(4): 669–686.
ZhengHMitaA (2007) Two-stage damage diagnosis based on the distance between ARMA models and pre-whitening filters. Smart Materials and Structures16(5): 1829–1836.
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.
