Conditional Congressional communication: how elite speech varies across medium

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Science Research and Methods Pub Date : 2022-09-12 DOI:10.1017/psrm.2022.28
Rachel M. Blum, Lindsey Cormack, Kelsey Shoub
{"title":"Conditional Congressional communication: how elite speech varies across medium","authors":"Rachel M. Blum, Lindsey Cormack, Kelsey Shoub","doi":"10.1017/psrm.2022.28","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Elected representatives have more means of public-facing communication at their disposal than ever before. Several studies examine how representatives use individual mediums, but we lack a baseline understanding of legislators’ relative use patterns across platforms. Using a novel data set of the four most widely used forms of written, constituent-facing communication (press releases, e-newsletters, Facebook posts, and Twitter tweets) by members of the US House of Representatives in the 114th (2015–2017), 115th (2017–2019), and 116th (2019–2021) Congresses, we generate a baseline understanding of how representatives communicate across mediums. Our analyses show that institutional, legislator, and district characteristics correspond with differential use of mediums. These findings underscore why medium choice matters, clarifying how a researcher's choice of mediums might amplify the voices of certain legislators and dampen those of others. In addition, they provide guidance to other researchers on how to select the medium(s) that best correspond with different research aims.","PeriodicalId":47311,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Research and Methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science Research and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2022.28","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Elected representatives have more means of public-facing communication at their disposal than ever before. Several studies examine how representatives use individual mediums, but we lack a baseline understanding of legislators’ relative use patterns across platforms. Using a novel data set of the four most widely used forms of written, constituent-facing communication (press releases, e-newsletters, Facebook posts, and Twitter tweets) by members of the US House of Representatives in the 114th (2015–2017), 115th (2017–2019), and 116th (2019–2021) Congresses, we generate a baseline understanding of how representatives communicate across mediums. Our analyses show that institutional, legislator, and district characteristics correspond with differential use of mediums. These findings underscore why medium choice matters, clarifying how a researcher's choice of mediums might amplify the voices of certain legislators and dampen those of others. In addition, they provide guidance to other researchers on how to select the medium(s) that best correspond with different research aims.
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
有条件的国会沟通:精英言论如何在不同媒介中变化
民选代表比以往任何时候都有更多面向公众的沟通方式。有几项研究考察了代表如何使用个别媒介,但我们对立法者跨平台的相对使用模式缺乏基线了解。使用美国众议院议员在第114届(2015-2017)、第115届(2017-2019)和第116届(2019-2021)国会中最广泛使用的四种面向选民的书面交流形式(新闻稿、电子通讯、脸书帖子和推特推文)的新数据集,我们对代表如何跨媒体交流产生了基线理解。我们的分析表明,机构、立法者和地区特征与媒介的不同使用相对应。这些发现强调了为什么媒介选择很重要,澄清了研究人员对媒介的选择可能会放大某些立法者的声音,抑制其他立法者的呼声。此外,他们还为其他研究人员提供如何选择最符合不同研究目标的媒介的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊最新文献
Partisan communication in two-stage elections: the effect of primaries on intra-campaign positional shifts in congressional elections Election symbols and vote choice: evidence from India Local elections do not increase local news demand The (in)effectiveness of populist rhetoric: a conjoint experiment of campaign messaging Evaluating methods for examining the relative persuasiveness of policy arguments
×
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