Political candidates, media organizations, and citizens increasingly use the social media site Twitter. Given this trend, as well as the tendency of television news programs to present “meta-coverage” of candidates’ publicity efforts, one might expect television news coverage of election campaigns to include coverage of Twitter. Such coverage, in turn, may shape public opinion. The present study draws on two content analyses to show that television news programs covered Twitter in the context of recent election campaign cycles (2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014) and that much of this coverage focused on candidates’ publicity efforts through Twitter. Building on these results, the study then uses data from an experiment to show that exposure to television news coverage of Hillary Clinton’s publicity efforts through Twitter influenced participants’ opinions about how likable and funny she was but not overall opinions about her. The findings carry potential implications for both candidates and news organizations.
AnsolabehereS.IyengarS. (1996). Can the press monitor campaign advertising? An experimental study. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 1, 72–86.
2.
ArceneauxN.WeissA. S. (2010). Seems stupid until you try it: Press coverage of Twitter, 2006–9. New Media & Society, 12, 1262–1279.
3.
ArmstrongC. L.GaoF. (2010). Now tweet this: How news organizations use Twitter. Electronic News, 4, 218–235.
4.
BaumM. A. (2005). Talking the vote: Why presidential candidates hit the talk show circuit. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 213–234.
5.
BaumgartnerJ.MorrisJ. S. (2006). The Daily Show effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34, 341–367.
6.
BaumgartnerJ. C.MorrisJ. S. (2008). One “nation,” under Stephen? The effects of The Colbert Report on American youth. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 622–643.
7.
CogburnD. L.Espinoza-VasquezF. K. (2011). From networked nominee to networked nation: Examining the impact of Web 2.0 and social media on political participation and civic engagement in the 2008 Obama campaign. Journal of Political Marketing, 10, 189–213.
8.
de VreeseC. H.ElenbaasM. (2008). Media in the game of politics: Effects of strategic metacoverage on political cynicism. International Journal of Press/Politics, 13, 285–309.
9.
de VreeseC. H.ElenbaasM. (2009). Spin doctors in the spotlight: Effects of strategic press and publicity coverage on perceptions of political PR. Public Relations Review, 35, 294–296.
10.
EsserF.D’AngeloP. (2003). Framing the press and the publicity process: A content analysis of meta-coverage in Camapign 2000 network news. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 617–641.
11.
EsserF.d’AngeloP. (2006). Framing the press and publicity process in U.S., British, and German general election campaigns: A comparative study of metacoverage. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11, 44–66.
12.
EvansH. K.CordovaV.SipoleS. (2014). Twitter style: An analysis of how House candidates used Twitter in their 2012 campaigns. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47, 454–462.
13.
FarnsworthS. J.LichterS. R. (2011). The nightly news nightmare: Media coverage of U.S. presidential elections, 1988-2008. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
14.
FleissJ. L.LevinB.PaikM. C. (2003). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
15.
FridkinK. L.KenneyP. J.GershonS. A.ShaferK.WoodallG. S. (2007). Capturing the power of a campaign event: The 2004 presidential debate in Tempe. Journal of Politics, 69, 770–785.
16.
GainousJ.WagnerK. M. (2014). Tweeting to power: The social media revolution in American politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
GreerC. F.FergusonD. A. (2011). Following local television news personalities on Twitter: A uses and gratifications approach to social networking. Electronic News, 5, 145–157.
IyengarS.KinderD. R. (2010). News that matters: Television and American opinion. University of Chicago Press.
20.
JamiesonK. H.CappellaJ. N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21.
KerbelM. R. (1998). Edited for television: CNN, ABC, and American presidential politics. Boulder, CO: Westview.
22.
KerbelM. R.ApeeS.RossM. H. (2000). PBS ain’t so different: Public broadcasting, election frames, and democratic empowerment. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 5, 8–32.
LeeE. J. (2013). Effectiveness of politicians’ soft campaign on Twitter versus TV: Cognitive and experiential routes. Journal of Communication, 63, 953–974.
25.
LeeE. J.JangJ. W. (2011). Not so imaginary interpersonal contact with public figures on social network sites: How affiliative tendency moderates its effects. Communication Research, 40, 27–51.
26.
LeeE. J.OhS. Y. (2012). To personalize or depersonalize? When and how politicians’ personalized tweets affect the public’s reactions. Journal of Communication, 62, 932–949.
27.
LeeE. J.ShinS. Y. (2012). Are they talking to me? Cognitive and affective effects of interactivity in politicians’ Twitter communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 515–520.
28.
LeeE. J.ShinS. Y. (2014). When the medium is the message: How transportability moderates the effects of politicians’ Twitter communication. Communication Research, 41, 1088–1110. doi:10.1177/0093650212466407
29.
LysakS.CremedasM.WolfJ. (2012). Facebook and Twitter in the newsroom: How and why local television news is getting social with viewers?Electronic News, 6, 187–207.
30.
MendelbergT. (2001). The race card: Campaign strategy, implicit messages, and the norm of equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
TaniguchiM. (2011). The electoral consequences of candidate appearances on soft news programs. Political Communication, 28, 67–86.
33.
TsfatiY. (2003). Debating the debate: The impact of exposure to debate news coverage and its interaction with exposure to the actual debate. International Journal of Press/Politics, 8, 70–86.
34.
WestD. M. (2013). Air wars: Television advertising and social media in election campaigns, 1952-2012. Washington, DC: Sage.
