Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-12
How Twitter drives the global news agenda: Tweets from Brazil,Russia,India,China,the UK and US and online discourse about the 2016 US presidential election
A manual content analysis compares 6019 Twitter comments from six countries during the 2016 US presidential election. Twitter comments were positive about Trump and negative about Clinton in Russia, the US and also in India and China. In the UK and Brazil, Twitter comments were largely negative about both candidates. Twitter sources for Clinton comments were more frequently from journalists and news companies, and still more negative than positive in tone. Topics on Twitter varied from those in mainstream news media. This foundational study expands communications research on social media, as well as political communications and international distinctions.
AalbergTStrömbäckJde VreeseCH (2012) The framing of politics as strategy and game: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism13(2): 162–178.
2.
AlbrightJ (2016) The #Election2016 macro-propaganda machine? Available at: https://medium.com
3.
AndersonKV (2017) Every woman is the wrong woman: The female presidentiality paradox. Women's Studies in Communication40(2): 132–135.
4.
ArmstrongCLGaoF (2011) Gender, Twitter and news content: An examination across platforms and coverage areas. Journalism Studies12(4): 490–505.
5.
BenklerYFarisRRobertsH, et al. (2017) Study: Breitbart-led right-wing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda. Columbia Journalism Review, 3March. Available at: https://www.cjr.org/
6.
BennettWL (1990) Toward a theory of press state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication40(2): 103–125.
7.
BenoitWLSteinKAHansenGJ (2005) New York Times coverage of presidential campaigns. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly82(2): 356–376.
8.
BrunoN (2011) Tweet first, verify later? How real-time information is changing the coverage of worldwide crisis events. Reuters Institute Fellowship Paper, University of Oxford. Available at: http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk
9.
ChangT-K (1998) All countries not created equal to be news: World system and international communication. Communication Research25(5): 528–563.
10.
ChinJAbkowitzA (2016) Twitter goes on defensive about China Head’s background. The Wall Street Journal, 20April. Available at: http://www.wsj.com
11.
ChouS (2016) The Most Widely Shared Election News? Nasty, Brutish and Short. . .and About Donald Trump. MIT Media Lab. Available at: https://medium.com/mit-media-lab/
12.
CobbRWElderCD (1972) Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
DwoskinEEntousADemirjianK (2017) Twitter finds hundreds of accounts tied To Russian operatives. The Washington Post, 28September. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com
15.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
16.
EntmanRM (2008) Theorizing mediated public diplomacy. The International Journal of Press/Politics13: 87–102.
FandosNShaneS (2017) Senator berates Twitter over ‘inadequate’ inquiry into Russian meddling. The New York Times, 28September, A1.
19.
Fox-BrewsterT (2016) Donald Trump’s Instagram following is full of bots and Russians. Forbes, 7November. Available at: https://www.forbes.com
20.
GansHJ (1979) Deciding What’s News: A Study of the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time. New York: Vintage.
21.
GitlinT (1980) The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
22.
GleasonS (2010) Harnessing social media: News outlets are assigning staffers to focus on networking. American Journalism Review11(3): 49–67.
23.
GolanGWantaW (2001) Second-level agenda-setting in the New Hampshire primary: A comparison of coverage in three newspaper and public perceptions of candidates. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly78: 247–259.
24.
GolanGJHimelboimI (2016) Can world system theory predict news flow on twitter? The case of government-sponsored broadcasting. Information Communication & Society19(8): 1150–1170.
25.
GolanGJViatchaninovaE (2016) The advertorial as a tool of mediated public diplomacy. Journal of International Communication8: 21–37.
26.
GreerCFFergusonDA (2011) Using Twitter for promotion and branding: A content analysis of local television Twitter sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media55(2): 198–214.
27.
GruszczynskiMWagnerMW (2016) Information flow in the 21st century: The dynamics of agenda-uptake. Mass Communication and Society20(3): 378–402.
28.
GuoLVargoCJ (2017) Global Intermedia agenda setting: A big data analysis of international news flow. Journal of Communication67: 499–520.
29.
GurmanTAEllenbergerN (2015) Reaching the global community during disasters: Findings from a content analysis of the organizational use of twitter after the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Journal of Health Communication20(6): 687–696.
30.
HallE (1976) Beyond Culture. New York, NY: Doubleday.
31.
HermidaA (2010) Twittering the news: The emergence of ambient journalism. Journalism Practice4(3): 297–308.
32.
HermidaA (2013) #JOURNALISM: Reconfiguring journalism research about T, one tweet at a time. Digital Journalism1(3): 295–313.
33.
HermidaALewisSCZamithR (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 Communication19(3): 479–499.
34.
HofstedeG (1993) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Administrative Science Quarterly38((1)): 132–134.
35.
HoltonALewisS (2011) Journalists, social media, and the use of humor on Twitter. Electronic Journal of Communication21: 1–22.
36.
HowardPNKollanyiBBradshawS, et al. (2017) Social Media, News & Political Information During the US Election: Was Polarizing Content Concentrated in Swing States? The Project on Computational Propaganda. Oxford Internet Institute. Available at: http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk
37.
IsaacMEmberS (2016) For election day influence, Twitter ruled social media. The New York Times, 8November, B3.
38.
JangMParkYJ (2017) Redirecting the focus of the agenda: Testing the zero-sum dynamics of media attention in news and user-generated media. Journal of International Communication11: 3998–4017.
39.
KimJYXiangZKiousisS (2011) Agenda-building effects by 2008 presidential candidates on global media coverage and public opinion. Public Relations Review37(1): 109–111.
40.
KiousisSKimJYRagasM, et al. (2015) Exploring new frontiers of agenda building during the 2012 US presidential election pre-convention period. Journalism Studies16(3): 363–382.
41.
KiousisSKimSYMcDevittM, et al. (2009) Competing for attention: Information subsidy influence in agenda building during election campaigns. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly86(3): 545–562.
42.
KiousisSMitrookMWuX, et al. (2006) First- and second-level agenda-building and agenda-setting effects: Exploring the linkages among candidate news releases, media coverage and public opinion during the 2002 Florida gubernatorial election. Journal of Public Relations Research18(3): 265–285.
43.
KottasovaI (2016) A third of pro-Trump tweets are generated by bots. CNN.com, 18October. Available at: money.cnn.com
44.
LamsL (2016) China: Economic magnet or rival? Framing of China in the Dutch- and French-language elite press in Belgium and the Netherlands. International Communication Gazette78(1–2): 137–156.
45.
LasorsaDLLewisSCHoltonAE (2012) Normalizing Twitter: Journalism practice in an emerging communication space. Journalism Studies13(1): 19–36.
46.
LawrenceRGMolyneuxLCoddingtonM, et al. (2014) Tweeting conventions: Political journalists' use of Twitter to cover the 2012 presidential campaign. Journalism Studies15(6): 789–806.
47.
LeeNYKimYKimJ (2016) Tweeting public affairs or personal affairs? Journalists’ tweets, interactivity, and ideology. Journalism17(7): 845–864.
48.
LewisSCZamithRHermidaA (2013) Content analysis in an era of big data: A hybrid approach to computational and manual methods. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media57(1): 34–52.
49.
LewisSCZamithR (2015) On the worlds of journalism. In: BoczknowskiPJAndersonCW (eds) Remaking the news: Essays on the future of journalism scholarship in the digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.111–128.
50.
LiuYKliman-SilverCMisloveA (2014) The tweets they are a-changin’: Evolution of twitter users and behavior. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 16May. Available at: https://www.aaai.org
51.
LotanGGraeffEAnannyM, et al. (2011) The revolutions were tweeted: Information flows during the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. Journal of International Communication5: 1375–1405.
52.
LoweryC (2009) An explosion prompts rethinking of Twitter and Facebook. In:Nieman reports. Nieman foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Fall.
53.
LynchM (2016) Fake news and the internet shell game. The New York Times, 28November, A29.
McCombesMLopez-EscobarELlamasJP (2000) Setting the agenda of attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election. Journal of Communication50: 77–92.
57.
McIntireM (2016) How a Putin fan overseas pushed pro-Trump propaganda to Americans. The New York Times, 17December. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com
58.
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.
59.
MolyneuxL (2015) What journalists retweet: Opinion, humor, and brand development on Twitter. Journalism16(7): 920–935.
60.
MoodyMCohenLFournonC (2013) Negativity in a twitter age: How politicians are adapting to social media. Journal of Mass Communication and Journalism3(3): 151–158.
61.
NakashimaEDemirjianKBarrettD (2017) FBI director Comey confirms probe of possible coordination between Kremlin and Trump campaign. The Washington Post, 20March. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/
62.
OnoKAYang JiaoJ (2008) China in the US imaginary: Tibet, the Olympics and the 2008 earthquake. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies5: 406–410.
63.
PanZKosickiGM (2003) Framing as a strategic action in publication deliberation. In: ReeseSDGandyOHGrantAE (eds) Framing public life. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.35–66.
64.
ParmeleeJH (2014) The agenda-building function of political tweets. New Media & Society16(3): 434–450.
65.
PattersonTE (1993) Out of Order. New York, NY: Vintage.
Pérez CurielCLimón NaharroP (2019) Political influencers. A study of Donald Trump’s personal brand on Twitter and its impact on the media and online readers. Communication & Society32(1): 57–75.
SalwenMBMateraFR (1992) Public salience of foreign nations. Journalism Quarterly69(3): 623–632.
70.
SegestenADBossettaM (2017) A typology of political participation online: How citizens used Twitter to mobilize during the 2015 British general elections. Information Communication & Society20(11): 1625–1643.
71.
SheaferTGabayI (2009) Mediated public diplomacy: A strategic contest over international agenda building and frame building. Political Communication26(4): 447–467.
72.
ShoemakerPJReeseSD (1996) Mediating the Message: Theories of Influence on Mass Media Content. New York, NY: Longman.
73.
SilvermanC (2016) This analysis shows how viral fake election news stories outperformed real news on Facebook. Buzzfeed, 16November. Available at: https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman
StonePGordonG (2017) FBI’s Russian-Influence Probe Includes a Look at Far-Right News Sites. McClatchy Washington Bureau. Available at: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news
TimbergC (2017) As conservative Twitter use sleeps, his account is hard at work. The Washington Post, 5February. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com
78.
TuchmanG (1978) Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York, NY: Free Press.
79.
VargoCJGuoL (2017) Networks, big data, and Intermedia agenda setting: An analysis of traditional, partisan, and emerging online U.S. News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly94: 1031–1055.
80.
VargoCJGuoLAmazeenMA (2017) The agenda-setting power of fake news: A big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. New Media & Society, 15June. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444817712086
81.
WagnerATrimbleLSampertS, et al. (2017) Gender, competitiveness, and candidate visibility in newspaper coverage of Canadian party leadership contests. International Journal of Press/Politics22(4): 471–489.
WantaWGolanGLeeC (2004) Agenda setting and international news: Media influence on public perceptions of foreign nations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly81(2): 364–377.
84.
WantaWHuYW (1993) The agenda-setting effects of international news coverage: An examination of differing news frames. International Journal of Public Opinion Research5(3): 250–264.
85.
XiangD (2013) China’s image on international English language social media. Journal of International Communication19(2): 252–271.
