Previous research has identified a strong consumer demand for sensationalized and conflict-oriented news coverage. With the rise of social network services as central spaces for encountering news, there is a need to move beyond the notion of consumer demand (measured by attention to news stories) to a broader conception of user engagement (encompassing attention as well as social interactions online). This article seeks to remedy this by analyzing which parts of election coverage tend to become popular and go viral. It develops a concept of user agendas that include popularity (news stories that receive most clicks on news Web sites) and virality (stories that users share most intensively on social network sites). The article then applies the concepts in a case study of online news coverage during the 2015 Danish parliamentary election. Through an analysis of frames, sentiments, and actors, it is shown that game-strategic and personalized coverage tend to attract large-scale attention on news Web sites, whereas issue-oriented coverage fares better on social network sites. This suggests that what users demand depend on where they encounter news. Users tend to engage with one kind of news in private settings and another in the public settings on the social Internet.
AalbergT.StrömbäckJ.de VreeseC. H. 2012. “The Framing of Politics as Strategy and Game: A Review of Concepts, Operationalizations and Key Findings.” Journalism13:162–78. doi:10.1177/1464884911427799.
2.
AdamS.MaierM. 2010. “Personalization of Politics: A Critical Review and Agenda for Research.” Annals of the International Communication Association34 (1): 213–57. doi:10.1080/23808985.2010.11679101.
3.
BastosM. T.2015. “Shares, Pins, and Tweets.” Journalism Studies16:305–25. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2014.891857.
4.
BenjaminD. J.BergerJ. O.JohannessonM.NosekB. A.WagenmakersE.-J.BerkR.Johnson. . . V. E. 2018. “Redefine Statistical Significance.” Nature Human Behaviour2 (1): 6–10. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z.
5.
BennettW. L.2012. “The Personalization of Politics: Political Identity, Social Media, and Changing Patterns of Participation.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science644 (1): 20–39. doi:10.1177/0002716212451428.
6.
BerelsonB.1949. “What ‘Missing the Newspaper’ Means.” In Communications Research 1948–1949, ed. LazarsfeldP. F.StantonF. N. 111–29. New York: Harper & Brothers.
7.
BergerJ.MilkmanK. L. 2012. “What Makes Online Content Viral?” Journal of Marketing Research49 (2): 192–205. doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0353.
8.
BoczkowskiP. J.MitchelsteinE. 2013. The News Gap: When the Information Preferences of the Media and the Public Diverge. Cambridge: MIT Press.
9.
boydd.2014. It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.
10.
BrightJ.2016. “The Social News Gap: How News Reading and News Sharing Diverge.” Journal of Communication66:343–65. doi:10.1111/jcom.12232.
11.
CrawfordK.2009. “Following You: Disciplines of Listening in Social Media.” Continuum23:525–35. doi:10.1080/10304310903003270.
de VreeseC. H.ElenbaasM. 2008. “Media in the Game of Politics: Effects of Strategic Metacoverage on Political Cynicism.” The International Journal of Press/Politics13 (3): 285–309. doi:10.1177/1940161208319650.
14.
EderD.1985. “The Cycle of Popularity: Interpersonal Relations among Female Adolescents.” Sociology of Education58 (3): 154–65. doi:10.2307/2112416.
15.
EnevoldsenK. C.HansenL. 2017. “Analysing Political Biases in Danish Newspapers Using Sentiment Analysis.” Journal of Language Works-Sprogvidenskabeligt Studentertidsskrift2 (2): 87–98.
16.
EnliG. S.SkogerbøE. 2013. “Personalized Campaigns in Party-Centred Politics: Twitter and Facebook as Arenas for Political Communication.” Information, Communication & Society16 (5): 757–74. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.782330.
17.
FlyvbjergB.2006. “Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry12:219–45.
18.
García-PerdomoV.SalaverríaR.KilgoD. K.HarlowS. 2018. “To Share or Not to Share: The Influence of News Values and Topics on Popular Social Media Content in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina.” Journalism Studies19:1180–1201. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1265896.
19.
GoelS.AndersonA.HofmanJ.WattsD. J. 2015. “The Structural Virality of Online Diffusion.” Management Science62:180–196.
20.
GoffmanE.1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
21.
GrimmerJ.StewartB. M. 2013. “Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts.” Political Analysis21 (3): 267–97. doi:10.1093/pan/mps028.
IyengarS.NorpothH.HahnK. S. 2004. “Consumer Demand for Election News: The Horserace Sells.” The Journal of Politics66 (1): 157–75. doi:10.1046/j.1468-2508.2004.00146.x.
24.
JenkinsH.FordS.GreenJ. 2013. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York: New York University Press.
25.
KalsnesB.LarssonA. O. 2018. “Understanding News Sharing across Social Media: Detailing Distribution on Facebook and Twitter.” Journalism Studies19:1669–88. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2017.1297686.
26.
KimH. S.2015. “Attracting Views and Going Viral: How Message Features and News-Sharing Channels Affect Health News Diffusion: Attracting Views and Going Viral.” Journal of Communication65 (3): 512–34. doi:10.1111/jcom.12160.
27.
KormelinkT. G.MeijerI. C. 2018. “What Clicks Actually Mean: Exploring Digital News User Practices.” Journalism19 (5): 668–83. doi:10.1177/1464884916688290.
28.
KriesiH.2012. “Personalization of National Election Campaigns.” Party Politics18 (6): 825–44. doi:10.1177/1354068810389643.
29.
KrippendorffK. H.2013. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 3rd Edition.Thousand Oaks: Sage.
30.
KsiazekT. B.PeerL.LessardK. 2016. “User Engagement with Online News: Conceptualizing Interactivity and Exploring the Relationship between Online News Videos and User Comments.” New Media & Society18 (3): 502–20. doi:10.1177/1461444814545073.
31.
LarssonA. O.2017. “Skiing All the Way to the Polls: Exploring the Popularity of Personalized Posts on Political Instagram Accounts.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies. Published electronically November 21. doi:10.1177/1354856517741132.
32.
LarssonA. O.2018. “‘I Shared the News Today, oh Boy’: News Provision and Interaction on Facebook.” Journalism Studies19 (1): 43–61. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1154797.
33.
LeeA. M.ChyiH. I. 2013. “When Newsworthy Is Not Noteworthy.” Journalism Studies15:807–20. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2013.841369.
MaierD.WaldherrA.MiltnerP.WiedemannG.NieklerA.KeinertA.AdamS. 2018. “Applying LDA Topic Modeling in Communication Research: Toward a Valid and Reliable Methodology.” Communication Methods and Measures12:93–118. doi:10.1080/19312458.2018.1430754.
36.
MeijerI. C.KormelinkT. G. 2015. “Checking, Sharing, Clicking and Linking: Changing Patterns of News Use between 2004 and 2014.” Digital Journalism3:664–79. doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.937149.
37.
MitchelsteinE.BoczkowskiP. J. 2017. “Incidental News: How Young People Consume News on Social Media.” In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences and 2017, IEEE, Hilton Waikoloa Village, Hawaii, 1785–92.
38.
NewmanN.FletcherR.KalogeropoulosA.LevyD. A. L.NielsenR. K. 2017. Digital News Report 2017. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford.
39.
NielsenF. Å. 2011. “A New ANEW: Evaluation of a Word List for Sentiment Analysis in Microblogs.” In Proceedings of the ESWC2011 Workshop on “Making Sense of Microposts”: Big Things Come in Small Packages, ed. RoweM.StankovicM.DadzieA.HardeyM. 93–98. Heraklion, Greece: CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
ØrmenJ.2016. “Are You Paying Attention? Keeping Up with News in Daily Life.” News across Media: Production, Distribution and Consumption, ed. JensenJ. L.MortensenM.ØrmenJ. 162–80. New York: Routledge.
42.
PapacharissiZ.2015. “Toward New Journalism(s): Affective News, Hybridity, and Liminal Spaces.” Journalism Studies16 (1): 27–40. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2014.890328.
43.
PedersenR. T.2012. “The Game Frame and Political Efficacy: Beyond the Spiral of Cynicism.” European Journal of Communication27:225–40. doi:10.1177/0267323112454089.
44.
ReinemannC.StanyerJ.ScherrS.LegnanteG. 2012. “Hard and Soft News: A Review of Concepts, Operationalizations and Key Findings.” Journalism13:221–39.
45.
SchuckA. R. T.VliegenthartR.BoomgaardenH. G.ElenbaasM.AzroutR.van SpanjeJ.de VreeseC. H. 2013. “Explaining Campaign News Coverage: How Medium, Time, and Context Explain Variation in the Media Framing of the 2009 European Parliamentary Elections.” Journal of Political Marketing12:8–28. doi:10.1080/15377857.2013.752192.
46.
SheetsP.BosL.BoomgaardenH. G. 2016. “Media Cues and Citizen Support for Right-Wing Populist Parties.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research28 (3): 307–30. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edv014.
47.
SorokaS.YoungL.BalmasM. 2015. “Bad News or Mad News? Sentiment Scoring of Negativity, Fear, and Anger in News Content.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science659 (1): 108–21. doi:10.1177/0002716215569217.
48.
StrömbäckJ.DimitrovaD. V. 2006. “Political and Media Systems Matter.” The International Journal of Press/Politics11:131–47. doi:10.1177/1081180X06293549.
49.
TrillingD.TolochkoP.BurscherB. 2017. “From Newsworthiness to Shareworthiness: How to Predict News Sharing Based on Article Characteristics.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly94 (1): 38–60. doi:10.1177/1077699016654682.
50.
TrusslerM.SorokaS. 2014. “Consumer Demand for Cynical and Negative News Frames.” The International Journal of Press/Politics19:360–79. doi:10.1177/1940161214524832.
51.
Van AelstP.SheaferT.StanyerJ. 2011. “The Personalization of Mediated Political Communication: A Review of Concepts, Operationalizations and Key Findings.” Journalism13 (2): 203–20. doi:10.1177/1464884911427802.
52.
Van DijckJ.PoellT. 2013. “Understanding Social Media Logic.” Media and Communication1 (1): 2–14. doi:10.17645/mac.v1i1.70.
53.
WebsterJ. G.2014. The Marketplace of Attention: How Audiences Take Shape in a Digital Age. Cambridge: MIT Press.
54.
WilliamsR.1974. Television: Technology and Cultural Form. London: Fontana.
55.
YoungL.SorokaS. 2012. “Affective News: The Automated Coding of Sentiment in Political Texts.” Political Communication29 (2): 205–31. doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.671234.
56.
ZamithR.2017. “A Computational Approach for Examining the Comparability of ‘Most-Viewed Lists’ on Online News Sites.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly95(1):122–141. July 12. doi:10.1177/1077699017714223.
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.
