不平等的推特:黑人劣势比白人特权推得更多,但讨论得更少

IF 4.6 1区 社会学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Political Communication Pub Date : 2023-09-12 DOI:10.1080/10584609.2023.2257624
Annette Malapally, Andreas Blombach, Philipp Heinrich, Julia Schnepf, Susanne Bruckmüller
{"title":"不平等的推特:黑人劣势比白人特权推得更多,但讨论得更少","authors":"Annette Malapally, Andreas Blombach, Philipp Heinrich, Julia Schnepf, Susanne Bruckmüller","doi":"10.1080/10584609.2023.2257624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Disadvantage and privilege work together to uphold systems of inequality. Nevertheless, racial inequality is often described as Black disadvantage, while White privilege remains less visible. This one-sided framing in public discourse may result in equally one-sided understandings of and policies aimed at reducing inequality. In the present research, we examined the use of and the reactions to Black disadvantage and White privilege frames in tweets. Twitter stands out as a public sphere inspiring both online and offline political discussions and protests around racial inequality (e.g. #BlackLivesMatter). We analyzed the framing of tweets using a combination of a rule-based and a machine-learning approach, resulting in two corpora of 11,292 (Study 1) and 31,984 tweets (Study 2, a direct replication of Study 1) using comparative frames of racial inequality. Users overall more often framed inequality as Black disadvantage than as White privilege. Moreover, tweets with a disadvantage frame were more often retweeted, but less often quoted and replied to than tweets with a privilege frame. These results show that racial inequality is often one-sidedly framed in real online conversations and that this pattern may be reinforced by other users because they preferably pass on disadvantage frames. However, focusing on White privilege may provoke more discussion about racial inequality. Although effect sizes were small, these effects can impact content and perspectives in mainstream media, public opinion, and political agendas by guiding attention to certain aspects of racial inequality, but not others.","PeriodicalId":20264,"journal":{"name":"Political Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unequal Tweets: Black Disadvantage is (Re)tweeted More but Discussed Less Than White Privilege\",\"authors\":\"Annette Malapally, Andreas Blombach, Philipp Heinrich, Julia Schnepf, Susanne Bruckmüller\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10584609.2023.2257624\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Disadvantage and privilege work together to uphold systems of inequality. Nevertheless, racial inequality is often described as Black disadvantage, while White privilege remains less visible. This one-sided framing in public discourse may result in equally one-sided understandings of and policies aimed at reducing inequality. In the present research, we examined the use of and the reactions to Black disadvantage and White privilege frames in tweets. Twitter stands out as a public sphere inspiring both online and offline political discussions and protests around racial inequality (e.g. #BlackLivesMatter). We analyzed the framing of tweets using a combination of a rule-based and a machine-learning approach, resulting in two corpora of 11,292 (Study 1) and 31,984 tweets (Study 2, a direct replication of Study 1) using comparative frames of racial inequality. Users overall more often framed inequality as Black disadvantage than as White privilege. Moreover, tweets with a disadvantage frame were more often retweeted, but less often quoted and replied to than tweets with a privilege frame. These results show that racial inequality is often one-sidedly framed in real online conversations and that this pattern may be reinforced by other users because they preferably pass on disadvantage frames. However, focusing on White privilege may provoke more discussion about racial inequality. Although effect sizes were small, these effects can impact content and perspectives in mainstream media, public opinion, and political agendas by guiding attention to certain aspects of racial inequality, but not others.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20264,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Communication\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2257624\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2257624","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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
Unequal Tweets: Black Disadvantage is (Re)tweeted More but Discussed Less Than White Privilege
ABSTRACT Disadvantage and privilege work together to uphold systems of inequality. Nevertheless, racial inequality is often described as Black disadvantage, while White privilege remains less visible. This one-sided framing in public discourse may result in equally one-sided understandings of and policies aimed at reducing inequality. In the present research, we examined the use of and the reactions to Black disadvantage and White privilege frames in tweets. Twitter stands out as a public sphere inspiring both online and offline political discussions and protests around racial inequality (e.g. #BlackLivesMatter). We analyzed the framing of tweets using a combination of a rule-based and a machine-learning approach, resulting in two corpora of 11,292 (Study 1) and 31,984 tweets (Study 2, a direct replication of Study 1) using comparative frames of racial inequality. Users overall more often framed inequality as Black disadvantage than as White privilege. Moreover, tweets with a disadvantage frame were more often retweeted, but less often quoted and replied to than tweets with a privilege frame. These results show that racial inequality is often one-sidedly framed in real online conversations and that this pattern may be reinforced by other users because they preferably pass on disadvantage frames. However, focusing on White privilege may provoke more discussion about racial inequality. Although effect sizes were small, these effects can impact content and perspectives in mainstream media, public opinion, and political agendas by guiding attention to certain aspects of racial inequality, but not others.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.90
自引率
2.70%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Political Communication is a quarterly international journal showcasing state-of-the-art, theory-driven empirical research at the nexus of politics and communication. Its broad scope addresses swiftly evolving dynamics and urgent policy considerations globally. The journal embraces diverse research methodologies and analytical perspectives aimed at advancing comprehension of political communication practices, processes, content, effects, and policy implications. Regular symposium issues delve deeply into key thematic areas.
期刊最新文献
What’s on and who’s Watching? Combining People-Meter Data and Subtitle Data to Explore Television Exposure to Political News Political Communication in Challenging Times Increasing Demand for Fact-Checking Does the Losing Side Lose the Democratic Faith? Partisan Media Flow and Democratic Values During the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Political Effects of Exposure to Evidence about Racial Discrimination
×
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