The Russian-sponsored Internet Research Agency’s (IRA) use of social media to influence U.S. political discourse is undoubtedly troubling. However, scholarly attention has focused on social media, overlooking the role that news media within the country played in amplifying false, foreign messages. In this article, we examine articles in the U.S. news media system that quoted IRA tweets through the lens of changing journalism practices in the hybrid media system, focusing specifically on news gatekeepers’ use of tweets as vox populi. We find that a majority of the IRA tweets embedded in the news were vox populi. That is, IRA tweets were quoted (1) for their opinion, (2) as coming from everyday Twitter users, and (3) with a collection of other tweets holistically representing public sentiment. These findings raise concerns about how modern gatekeeping practices, transformed due to the hybrid media system, may also unintentionally let in unwanted disinformation from malicious actors.
AbramsSteve. 2016. “Beyond Propaganda: Soviet Active Measures in Putin’s Russia.” Connections: The Quarterly Journal15 (1): 5–31.
2.
Al-ZamanMd S. 2019. “Digital Disinformation and Communalism in Bangladesh.” China Media Research15 (2): 68–76.
3.
BadawyAdamAddawoodAseelLermanKristinaFerraraEmilio. 2019. “Characterizing the 2016 Russian IRA Influence Campaign.” Social Network Analysis and Mining9:31–43.
4.
BarnardStephen R.2016. “‘Tweet or be Sacked’: Twitter and the New Elements of Journalistic Practice.” Journalism17 (2):190–207.
5.
BeckersKathleen. 2017. “How Ordinary is the Ordinary (Wo)man on the Street? An Analysis of Vox Pop Characteristics in Television News.” Journalism Practice11 (8): 1026–41.
6.
BeckersKathleenHarderRaymond A. 2016. “Twitter Just Exploded” Social Media as Alternative Vox Pop.” Digital Journalism4 (7): 910–20..”
7.
BeckersKathleenWalgraveStefaanVan den BulckHilde. 2018. “Opinion Balance in Vox Pop Television News.” Journalism Studies19 (2): 284–96..”
8.
BoschTanja. 2014. “Social Media and Community Radio Journalism in South Africa. Digital Journalism2 (1): 29–43.
9.
BroersmaMarcelGrahamTodd. 2013. “Twitter as a News Source: How Dutch and British Newspapers Used Tweets in Their News Coverage, 2007–2011.” Journalism Practice7 (4): 446–64.
10.
BrunsAxel. 2005. Gatewatching: Collaborative Online News Production. New York: Peter Lang.
11.
BrunsAxelHighfieldTimLindRebecca Ann. 2012. “Blogs, Twitter, and breaking news: The produsage of citizen journalism.” In Produsing theory in a digital world: The intersection of audiences and production in contemporary theory, edited by LindRebecca Ann, pp. 15–32. New York. Peter Lang.
12.
ChadwickAndrew. 2017. The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
CoddingtonMarkMolyneuxLoganLawrenceRegina G. 2014. “Fact checking the campaign: How Political Reporters Use Twitter to Set the Record Straight (or not).” The International Journal of Press/Politics19(4): 391–409.
14.
DaschmannGregor. 2000. “Vox Pop & Polls: The Impact of Poll Results and Voter Statements in the Media on the Perception of a Climate of Opinion.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research12 (2): 160–81.
15.
DimitrovaDaniela V.Connolly-AhernColleenWilliamsAndrew P.KaidLynda L.ReidAmanda. 2003. “Hyperlinking as Gatekeeping: Online Newspaper Coverage of the Execution of an American Terrorist.” Journalism Studies4 (3): 401–14.
16.
DuhAndrejRupnikMarjan SlakKorošakDean. 2008. “Collective Behavior of Social Bots is Encoded in Their Temporal Twitter Activity.” Big Data6 (2), 113–23.
17.
DylkoIvanBeamMichaelLandrevilleKristenGeidnerNicholas. 2012. “Filtering 2008 US Presidential Election News on YouTube by Elites and Nonelites: An Examination of the Democratizing Potential of the Internet.” New Media & Society14 (5): 832–49.
18.
EntmanRobert M.2003. “Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame after 9/11.” Political Communication20(4): 415–32.
19.
EntmanRobert M.UsherNikki. 2018. “Framing in a Fractured Democracy: Impacts of Digital Technology on Ideology, Power and Cascading Network Activation.” Journal of Communication68 (2): 298–308.
20.
FleissJoseph L.1971. “Measuring Nominal Scale Agreement among Many Raters.” Psychological Bulletin76:378–82.
21.
GoodeLuke. 2009. “Social News, Citizen Journalism and Democracy.” New Media & Society11 (8): 1287–1305.
22.
HasellArielWeeksBrian E. 2016. “Partisan Provocation: The Role of Partisan News Use and Emotional Responses in Political Information Sharing in Social Media.” Human Communication Research42 (4): 641–661.
23.
HermidaAlfred. (2013) “#Journalism: Reconfiguring Journalism Research about Twitter, One Tweet at a Time.” Digital Journalism1 (3): 295–313.
24.
HladíkRadimŠtětkaVáclav. 2017. “The Powers That Tweet: Social Media as News Sources in the Czech Republic.” Journalism Studies18(2): 154–74.
25.
HowardN. PhilipKollanyiBence. 2016. “Bots,# StrongerIn, and# Brexit: Computational Propaganda during the UK-EU Referendum.” https://ssrn.com/abstract=2798311 (accessed December 3, 2019).
26.
JensenMichael. 2018. “Russian Trolls and Fake News: Information or Identity Logics?” Journal of International Affairs71 (15): 115–24.
27.
KaridiMaria. 2018. “News Media Logic on the Move? In Search of Commercial Media Logic in German News.” Journalism Studies19 (9): 1237–56.
28.
KilgoDanielleHarlowSummerGarcía-PerdomoVictorSalaverríaRamón. 2018. “A New Sensation? An International Exploration of Sensationalism and Social Media Recommendations in Online News Publications.” Journalism19 (11): 1497–1516.
29.
KreissDaniel. 2019. “From Epistemic to Identity Crisis: Perspectives on the 2016 US Presidential Election.” International Journal of Press/Politics24 (3):383–88. doi:10.1177/1940161219843256.
30.
LewisJustinWahl-JorgensenKarinInthornSanna. 2004. “Images of Citizenship on Television News: Constructing a Passive Public.” Journalism Studies5(2): 153–64.
31.
MarwickAliceLewisRebecca. 2017. Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online. New York: Data & Society Research Institute.
32.
McGregorShannon. 2019. “Social Media as Public Opinion: How Journalists Use Social Media to Represent Public Opinion.” Journalism20 (1): 1–17.
33.
McGregorShannonMolyneuxLogan. 2018. “Twitter’s Influence on News Judgment: An Experiment among Journalists.” Journalism. Published electronically October 5. doi: 10.1177/1464884918802975.
34.
MejiasUlisesVokuevNikolai. 2017. “Disinformation and the Media: The Case of Russia and Ukraine.” Media, Culture & Society39 (7): 1027–1042.
35.
MerazSharonPapacharissiZizi. 2016. “Networked Framing and Gatekeeping” In The SAGE Handbook of Digital Journalism, edited by WitschgeTamaraAndersonChris W.DomingoDavidHermidaAlfred, 95–112. London: Sage.
36.
PaulussenSteveHarderRaymond. 2014. “Social Media References in Newspapers: Facebook, Twitter and YouTube as Sources in Newspaper Journalism.” Journalism Practice8 (5): 542–551.
37.
PhillipsWhitney. 2018. The Oxygen of Amplification: Better Practices for Reporting on Extremists, Antagonists, and Manipulators.” Data & Society, May22. https://datasociety.net/output/oxygen-of-amplification/ (accessed December 3, 2019).
38.
ReeseStephen. 2016. “The New Geography of Journalism Research: Levels and Spaces.” Digital Journalism4 (7): 816–26.
39.
RossAndrewDumitrescuDelia. 2019. “‘Vox Twitterati’: Investigating the Effects of Social Media Exemplars in Online News Articles.” New Media & Society21 (4): 962–83.
40.
ShoemakerPamelaReeseStephen. 2013. Mediating the Message in the 21st Century: A Media Sociology Perspective. New York: Routledge.
41.
ShoemakerPamelaVosTimReeseStephen. 2009. “Journalists as Gatekeepers.” In The Handbook of Journalism Studies, eds. Wahl-JorgensenKarinHanitzschThomas. New York: Routledge.
42.
StrömbäckJesperKarlssonMichael. 2011. “Who’s Got the Power? Journalists’ Perceptions of Changing Influences over the News.” Journalism Practice5 (6): 643–56.
43.
TandocEdson C.Jr.2014. “Journalism Is Twerking? How Web Analytics Is Changing the Process of Gatekeeping.” New Media & Society16 (4): 559–75.
44.
TandocEdson C.Jr.VosTim P. 2016. “The Journalist Is Marketing the News: Social Media in the Gatekeeping Process.” Journalism Practice10 (8): 950–66.
45.
ThomasKurtGrierChrisPaxson.Vern2012. “Adapting Social Spam Infrastructure for Political Censorship.” Presented as part of the 5th {USENIX} Workshop on Large-Scale Exploits and Emergent Threats.
46.
VergeerMaurice. 2015. “Peers and sources as social capital in the production of news: Online social networks as communities of journalists.” Social Science Computer Review33(3): 277–97.
47.
VliegenthartRensBoukesMark. 2018. “On the Street and/or on Twitter? The Use of “Every Day” Sources in Economic News Coverage by Online and Offline Outlets.” Digital Journalism6 (7): 829–46.
48.
Von NordheimGerretBoczekKarinKoppersLars. 2018. “Sourcing the Sources: An analysis of the use of Twitter and Facebook as a journalistic source over 10 years in The New York Times, The Guardian, and Süddeutsche Zeitung.” Digital Journalism6(7): 807–828.
49.
VuHong Tien. 2014. “The Online Audience as Gatekeeper: The Influence of Reader Metrics on News Editorial Selection.” Journalism15 (8): 1094–1110.
50.
WaisbordS.2018. “Truth Is What Happens to News: On Journalism, Fake News, and Post-Truth. Journalism Studies19 (13): 1866–78.
51.
WangTai-Li. 2012. “Presentation and Impact of Market-Driven Journalism on Sensationalism in Global TV News.” International Communication Gazette74:711–27.
52.
WebsterFrank. 2014. Theories of the Information Society. New York: Routledge.
53.
WhiteDavid. 1950. “The “Gate Keeper”: A Case Study in the Selection of News. Journalism Bulletin27 (4): 383–90.
54.
ZannettouSavvasBradlynBarryDe CristofaroEmilianoKwakHaewoonSirivianosMichaelStringiniGianlucaBlackburnJeremy. 2018. “What Is Gab: A Bastion of Free Speech or an Alt-Right Echo Chamber.” In Companion of the Web Conference 2018 on The Web Conference 2018, 1007–1014.
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.
