Network Agenda Setting, or Networked Framing? (Non)correspondence Between User and Right-Wing Media Semantic Networks on YouTube

IF 4.9 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Communication Research Pub Date : 2024-12-11 DOI:10.1177/00936502241300803
Yuan Hsiao, Matthew Hindman
{"title":"Network Agenda Setting, or Networked Framing? (Non)correspondence Between User and Right-Wing Media Semantic Networks on YouTube","authors":"Yuan Hsiao, Matthew Hindman","doi":"10.1177/00936502241300803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How does media shape and reflect right-wing rhetoric in the U.S.? Theories of media effects have moved towards networked approaches to agenda setting and framing, but it remains uncertain how issue attributes or frames emerge in the U.S. media ecosystem in which users themselves can shape political rhetoric through discussion on social media. We provide the largest test to date of the different predictions of networked agenda setting (NAS) theory and networked framing, through a semantic network analysis of all 19,112 video transcripts and 661,958,464 user comments posted on the YouTube channels of four major U.S. conservative media outlets between January 2019 and March 2021. Both overall, and within key topics like COVID-19 or Black Lives Matter, we find that user comments diverge strongly from video transcripts, with users repeatedly introducing associations, emotionally charged rhetoric, and conspiracy theories not originally present. Our results challenge claims by network agenda setting scholars that “objects and attributes can be transferred simultaneously in bundles” from the media agenda to the public agenda, but are more consistent with scholarship on networked framing. We argue that future work should strive to synthesize both approaches.","PeriodicalId":48323,"journal":{"name":"Communication Research","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241300803","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How does media shape and reflect right-wing rhetoric in the U.S.? Theories of media effects have moved towards networked approaches to agenda setting and framing, but it remains uncertain how issue attributes or frames emerge in the U.S. media ecosystem in which users themselves can shape political rhetoric through discussion on social media. We provide the largest test to date of the different predictions of networked agenda setting (NAS) theory and networked framing, through a semantic network analysis of all 19,112 video transcripts and 661,958,464 user comments posted on the YouTube channels of four major U.S. conservative media outlets between January 2019 and March 2021. Both overall, and within key topics like COVID-19 or Black Lives Matter, we find that user comments diverge strongly from video transcripts, with users repeatedly introducing associations, emotionally charged rhetoric, and conspiracy theories not originally present. Our results challenge claims by network agenda setting scholars that “objects and attributes can be transferred simultaneously in bundles” from the media agenda to the public agenda, but are more consistent with scholarship on networked framing. We argue that future work should strive to synthesize both approaches.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Communication Research
Communication Research COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
17.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Empirical research in communication began in the 20th century, and there are more researchers pursuing answers to communication questions today than at any other time. The editorial goal of Communication Research is to offer a special opportunity for reflection and change in the new millennium. To qualify for publication, research should, first, be explicitly tied to some form of communication; second, be theoretically driven with results that inform theory; third, use the most rigorous empirical methods; and fourth, be directly linked to the most important problems and issues facing humankind. Critieria do not privilege any particular context; indeed, we believe that the key problems facing humankind occur in close relationships, groups, organiations, and cultures.
期刊最新文献
Beyond Mere Algorithm Aversion: Are Judgments About Computer Agents More Variable? Network Agenda Setting, or Networked Framing? (Non)correspondence Between User and Right-Wing Media Semantic Networks on YouTube Inferring human vision in a human-like way: Key factors influencing the cognitive processing of level-1 visual perspective-taking How Political Overconfidence Fuels Affective Polarization in Cross-cutting Discussions Personality, Attachment, and Pornography: A Meta-Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1