Marked by both deep interconnectedness and polarization, the contemporary media system in the United States features news outlets and social media that are bound together, yet deeply divided along partisan lines. This article formally analyzes communication flows surrounding mass shootings in the hybrid and polarized U.S. media system. We begin by integrating media system literature with agenda setting and news framing theories and then conduct automated text analysis and time series modeling. After accounting for exogenous event characteristics, results show that (a) sympathy and gun control discourses on Twitter preceded news framing of gun policy more than the other way around, and (b) conservatives on Twitter and conservative media reacted to progressive discourse on Twitter, without their progressive counterparts exhibiting a similar reactiveness. Such results shed light on the influence of social media on political communication flows and confirm an asymmetry in the ways partisan media ecosystems respond to social events.
Harder, Raymond A., Julie Sevenans, and Peter Van Aelst. 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.
2.
Brady, William J., Julian A. Wills, Dominic Burkart, John T. Jost, and Jay J. Van Bavel. 2019. “An ideological asymmetry in the diffusion of moralized content on social media among political leaders.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General148 (10): 1802.
3.
BarberáPabloCasasAndreuNaglerJonathanEganPatrick J.BonneauRichardJostJohn T.TuckerJoshua A.. 2019. “Who leads? Who follows? Measuring issue attention and agenda setting by legislators and the mass public using social media data.” American Political Science Review113 (4): 883–901.
4.
BaumMatthew A.GroelingTim. 2008. “New media and the polarization of American political discourse.” Political Communication25 (4): 345–365.
5.
BeckersKathleenHarderRaymond A.. 2016. “Twitter Just Exploded” Social media as alternative vox pop. Digital Journalism4(7): 910–920.
6.
BenklerYochaiFarisRobertRobertsHal. 2018. Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press.
7.
BennettW. LanceManheimJarol B.. 2006. “The one-step flow of communication.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science608 (1): 213–232.
8.
Bennett, W. Lance. 2016. News: The politics of illusion. University of Chicago Press.
9.
BerryJeffrey M.SobierajSarah. 2013. The outrage industry: Political opinion media and the new incivility. Oxford University Press.
10.
BlumlerJay G.KavanaghDennis. 1999. “The third age of political communication: Influences and features.” Political communication16 (3): 209–230.
11.
BovetAlexandreMakseHernán A.. “Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election.” Nature communications, 10 (1): 1–14.
12.
BroersmaMarcelGrahamTodd. 2015. “Tipping the balance of power: Social media and the transformation of political journalism.” In The Routledge companion to social media and politics, pp. 89-103. Routledge.
13.
BrüggemannMichael. 2014. “Between frame setting and frame sending: How journalists contribute to news frames.” Communication Theory24 (1): 61–82.
14.
ChadwickAndrew. 2017. The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford University Press.
15.
ColleoniElanorRozzaAlessandroArvidssonAdam. 2014. “Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data.” Journal of communication64 (2): 317–332.
16.
ConleyMark A. 2019. “Asymmetric issue evolution in the American gun rights debate.” Social science research84: 102317.
17.
ConwayBethany A.KenskiKateWangDi. 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.
18.
DixonTravis L.AzocarCristina L.CasasMichael. 2003. “The portrayal of race and crime on television network news.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media47 (4): 498–523.
19.
EdelmanMurray. 1993. “Contestable categories and public opinion.” Political communication10 (3): 231–242.
20.
EntmanRobert M.1993. “Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm.” McQuail’s reader in mass communication theory390-397.
21.
FarisRobertRobertsHalEtlingBruceBourassaNikkiZuckermanEthanBenklerYochai. 2017. “Partisanship, propaganda, and disinformation: Online media and the 2016 US presidential election.” Berkman Klein Center Research Publication6.
22.
FreelonDeenKarpfDavid. 2015. “Of big birds and bayonets: Hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 presidential debates.” Information,Communication & Society18 (4): 390–406.
23.
FreelonDeenMarwickAliceKreissDaniel. 2020. “False equivalencies: Online activism from left to right.” Science369 (6508): 1197–1201.
24.
FreelonDeenMcIlwainCharltonClarkMeredith. 2018. “Quantifying the power and consequences of social media protest.” New Media & Society20 (3): 990–1011.
25.
GhoshShreenitaSuMin-HsinAbhishekAmanSukJiyounTongChauKamathKruthikaHillsOrnella, lls, Teresa Correa, Christine Garlough, Porismita Borah, Dhavan Shah. 2020. “Covering&hash; MeToo across the News Spectrum: Political Accusation and Public Events as Drivers of Press Attention.” The International Journal of Press/Politics: 1940161220968081.
26.
GossKristin. 2010. Disarmed: The missing movement for gun control in America. Vol. 103. Princeton University Press.
27.
GroshekJacob. 2011. “Media, instability, and democracy: Examining the Granger-causal relationships of 122 countries from 1946 to 2003.” Journal of Communication61 (6): 1161–1182.
28.
GrossmannMattHopkinsDavid A.. 2016. Asymmetric politics: Ideological Republicans and group interest Democrats. Oxford University Press.
29.
GruszczynskiMikeWagnerMichael W.. 2017. “Information flow in the 21st century: The dynamics of agenda-uptake.” Mass communication and society20 (3): 378–402.
30.
GuggenheimLaurenMo JangS.BaeSoo YoungRussell NeumanW.. 2015. “The dynamics of issue frame competition in traditional and social media.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science659 (1): 207–224.
31.
GuoLeiMaysKateZhangYiyanWijayaDerryBetkeMargrit. 2021. “What makes gun violence a (less) prominent issue? A computational analysis of compelling arguments and selective agenda setting.” Mass communication and society1–25.
32.
GuoLeiMcCombsMaxwell, eds. 2015. The power of information networks: New directions for agenda setting. Routledge.
33.
GuoLeiVargoChris. 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.
34.
HeissRaffaelMatthesJörg. 2020. “Stuck in a nativist spiral: Content, selection, and effects of right-wing populists’ communication on Facebook.” Political Communication37 (3): 303–328.
35.
HilbertMartinVásquezJavierHalpernDanielValenzuelaSebastiánArriagadaEduardo. 2017. “One step, two step, network step? Complementary perspectives on communication flows in Twittered citizen protests.” Social science computer review35 (4): 444–461.
36.
HmielowskiJay D.StaggsSarahHutchensMyiah J.BeamMichael A.. 2020. “Talking politics: The relationship between supportive and opposing discussion with partisan media credibility and use.” Communication Research: 0093650220915041.
37.
IyengarShantoHahnKyu S.. 2009. “Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use.” Journal of communication59 (1): 19–39.
38.
JostJohn T. 2017. “Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology.” Political psychology38 (2): 167–208.
39.
JungherrAndreasPoseggaOliverAnJisun. 2019. “Discursive power in contemporary media systems: A comparative framework.” The International Journal of Press/Politics (24) 4: 404-425.
40.
KatzElihuLazarsfeldPaul F.. 1966. Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Routledge.
41.
KlingerUlrikeSvenssonJakob. 2015. “The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach.” New media & society17 (8): 1241–1257.
42.
KosickiGerald M. 1993. “Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research.” Journal of communication43 (2): 100–127.
43.
LangerAna InesGruberJohannes B.. 2021. “Political agenda setting in the hybrid media system: Why legacy media still matter a great deal.” The International Journal of Press/Politics26 (2): 313–340.
44.
LasorsaDominic L.LewisSeth C.HoltonAvery E.. 2012. “Normalizing Twitter: Journalism practice in an emerging communication space.” Journalism studies13 (1): 19–36.
45.
LawrenceRegina G.BirklandThomas A.. 2014. “Guns, Hollywood, and school safety: Defining the school-shooting problem across public arenas.” Social Science Quarterly85 (5): 1193–1207.
46.
LeeNam-JinMcLeodDouglas M.ShahDhavan V.. 2008. “Framing policy debates: Issue dualism, journalistic frames, and opinions on controversial policy issues.” Communication Research35 (5): 695–718.
47.
LelkesYphtachSnidermanPaul M.. 2016. “The ideological asymmetry of the American party system.” British Journal of Political Science46 (4): 825–844.
48.
LewandowskyStephanJetterMichaelEckerUllrich KH. 2020. “Using the president’s tweets to understand political diversion in the age of social media.” Nature communications11 (1): 1–12.
49.
LoWai HanYan LamBenson ShuFung CheungMeily Mei. 2021. “The Dynamics of Political Elections: A Big Data Analysis of Intermedia Framing Between Social Media and News Media.”Social Science Computer Review39 (4): 627–647.
50.
McCombsMaxwellGhanemSalma I.. 2001. “The convergence of agenda setting and framing.” In Framing public life, pp. 83-98. Routledge.
51.
McGregorShannon C. 2019. “Social media as public opinion: How journalists use social media to represent public opinion.” Journalism20 (8): 1070–1086.
52.
MitchellAmyGottfriedJeffreyKileyJocelynMatsaKaterina E.. 2014. “Section 1: Media sources: Distinct favorites emerge on the left and right.” Pew Research Center.
53.
MolyneuxLoganMcGregorShannon C.. 2021. “Legitimating a platform: evidence of journalists’ role in transferring authority to Twitter.” Information,Communication & Society1 (19).
54.
MolyneuxLoganMourãoRachel R.. 2019. “Political journalists’ normalization of Twitter: Interaction and new affordances.” Journalism Studies20 (2): 248–266.
55.
MorisiDavideJostJohn T.SinghVishal. 2019. “An asymmetrical “president-in-power” effect.” American Political Science Review113 (2): 614–620.
56.
MourãoRachel R.HarlowSummer. 2020. “Awareness, Reporting, and Branding: Exploring Influences on Brazilian Journalists’ Social Media Use across Platforms.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media64 (2): 215–235.
57.
MungerKevin. 2020. “All the news that’s fit to click: The economics of clickbait media.” Political Communication37 (3): 376–397.
58.
MutzDiana C. 2015. In-your-face politics. Princeton University Press.
59.
NeumanRussellLauren GuggenheimW.Mo JangS.BaeSoo Young. 2014. “The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets big data.” Journal of Communication64 (2): 193–214.
60.
PelledAyelletLukitoJosephineFoleyJordanZhangYiniSunZhongkaiPevehouseJon CWShahDhavan V.. 2021. “Death Across the News Spectrum: A Time Series Analysis of Partisan Coverage Following Mass Shootings in the United States Between 2012 and 2014.” International Journal of Communication15: 20.
61.
PriceVincentTewksburyDavid. 1996. “Measuring the third-person effect of news: The impact of question order, contrast and knowledge.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research8 (2): 120–141.
62.
SchildkrautJaclynJaymi ElsassH.. 2016. Mass shootings: Media, myths, and realities: Media, myths, and realities. ABC-CLIO.
63.
SchwartzH. AndrewUngarLyle H.. 2015. “Data-driven content analysis of social media: a systematic overview of automated methods.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science659 (1): 78–94.
64.
ShahDhavan V.CappellaJoseph N.Russell NeumanW.. 2015. “Big data, digital media, and computational social science: Possibilities and perils.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science659 (1): 6–13.
65.
ShahDhavan V.DomkeDavidWackmanDaniel B.. 1996. “'To thine own self be true’ values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies.” Communication Research23 (5): 509–560.
66.
SilvaJason R.CapellanJoel A.. 2019. “The media’s coverage of mass public shootings in America: Fifty years of newsworthiness.” International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice43 (1): 77–97.
67.
SongHyunjinBoomgaardenHajo G.. 2017. “Dynamic spirals put to test: An agent-based model of reinforcing spirals between selective exposure, interpersonal networks, and attitude polarization.” Journal of Communication67 (2): 256–281.
68.
StroudNatalie Jomini. 2011. Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University Press on Demand.
69.
SunsteinCass. 2018. &hash; Republic. Princeton university press.
70.
SwansonNorman R.GrangerClive WJ. 1997. “Impulse response functions based on a causal approach to residual orthogonalization in vector autoregressions.” Journal of the American Statistical Association92 (437): 357–367.
71.
ThorsonKjerstinWellsChris. 2016. “Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age.” Communication Theory26 (3): 309–328.
72.
TufekciZeynep. 2013. ““Not this one” social movements, the attention economy, and microcelebrity networked activism.” American behavioral scientist57 (7): 848–870.
73.
ValenzuelaSebastiánPuenteSoledadFloresPablo M.. 2017. “Comparing disaster news on Twitter and television: An intermedia agenda setting perspective.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media61 (4): 615–637.
74.
VargoChris J.GuoLei. 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.
75.
WalterDrorOphirYotam. 2019. “News frame analysis: An inductive mixed-method computational approach.” Communication Methods and Measures13 (4): 248–266.
76.
WangWeiruiGuoLei. 2018. “Framing genetically modified mosquitoes in the online news and Twitter: Intermedia frame setting in the issue-attention cycle.” Public Understanding of Science27 (8): 937–951.
77.
WebsterJames G. 2014. The marketplace of attention: How audiences take shape in a digital age. Mit Press.
78.
WellsChrisShahDhavanLukitoJosephinePelledAyelletPevehouseJon CWYangJungHwan. 2020. “Trump, Twitter, and news media responsiveness: A media systems approach.” New Media & Society22 (4): 659–682.
79.
WellsChrisShahDhavan V.PevehouseJon C.FoleyJordanLukitoJosephinePelledAyelletYangJungHwan. 2019. “The Temporal Turn in Communication Research: Time Series Analyses Using Computational Approaches.” International Journal of Communication13: 19328036.
80.
WellsChrisShahDhavan V.PevehouseJon C.YangJungHwanPelledAyelletBoehmFrederickLukitoJosephineGhoshShreenitaSchmidtJessica L.. 2016. “How Trump drove coverage to the nomination: Hybrid media campaigning.” Political communication33 (4): 669–676.
81.
YangTianPengYilang. 2020. “The importance of trending topics in the gatekeeping of social media news engagement: A natural experiment on Weibo.” Communication Research: 0093650220933729.
82.
YarchiMoranBadenChristianKligler-VilenchikNeta. 2021. “Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media.” Political Communication38 (1-2): 98–139.
83.
YoungDannagal Goldthwaite. 2019. Irony and outrage: The polarized landscape of rage, fear, and laughter in the United States. Oxford University Press.
84.
ZhangYiniShahDhavanFoleyJordanAbhishekAmanLukitoJosephineSukJiyounKimSang JungSunZhongkaiPevehouseJonGarloughChristine. 2019. “Whose lives matter? Mass shootings and social media discourses of sympathy and policy, 2012–2014.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication24 (4): 182–202.
85.
ZhangYiniWellsChrisWangSongRoheKarl. 2018. “Attention and amplification in the hybrid media system: The composition and activity of Donald Trump’s Twitter following during the 2016 presidential election.” New Media & Society20 (9): 3161–3182.
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.
