追求改变还是追求信用?社交媒体上的诉讼和信用索赔

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW Journal of Law and Courts Pub Date : 2021-09-28 DOI:10.33774/apsa-2021-d5fsz
Anna Gunderson, Kirsten Widner, M. Macdonald
{"title":"追求改变还是追求信用?社交媒体上的诉讼和信用索赔","authors":"Anna Gunderson, Kirsten Widner, M. Macdonald","doi":"10.33774/apsa-2021-d5fsz","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social media provides an inexpensive way for interest groups to inform and mobilize large audiences, but it is puzzling why organizations would spend time posting about activities like litigation that do not depend on public opinion or mobilization. We argue there are two reasons interest groups post about judicial advocacy on social media. First, organizations provide information about the courts on social media to build credibility and recognition as a trusted source of information. We hypothesize that membership groups will be less likely to use social media in this way than non-membership public interest organizations. Second, organizations use social media to claim credit for activity in the courts in order to increase their public and financial support. We expect that this strategy will be used most frequently by legal organizations. Using an original dataset of millions of tweets and Facebook posts by interest groups, we find support for these expectations.","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pursuing Change or Pursuing Credit? Litigation and Credit Claiming on Social Media\",\"authors\":\"Anna Gunderson, Kirsten Widner, M. Macdonald\",\"doi\":\"10.33774/apsa-2021-d5fsz\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social media provides an inexpensive way for interest groups to inform and mobilize large audiences, but it is puzzling why organizations would spend time posting about activities like litigation that do not depend on public opinion or mobilization. We argue there are two reasons interest groups post about judicial advocacy on social media. First, organizations provide information about the courts on social media to build credibility and recognition as a trusted source of information. We hypothesize that membership groups will be less likely to use social media in this way than non-membership public interest organizations. Second, organizations use social media to claim credit for activity in the courts in order to increase their public and financial support. We expect that this strategy will be used most frequently by legal organizations. Using an original dataset of millions of tweets and Facebook posts by interest groups, we find support for these expectations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44478,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and Courts\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and Courts\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-2021-d5fsz\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Courts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-2021-d5fsz","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

社交媒体为利益集团提供了一种廉价的方式来告知和动员大量受众,但令人困惑的是,为什么组织会花时间发布诉讼等不依赖公众舆论或动员的活动。我们认为,利益集团在社交媒体上发布司法宣传有两个原因。首先,各组织在社交媒体上提供有关法院的信息,以建立可信度,并被公认为值得信赖的信息来源。我们假设,与非会员制公共利益组织相比,会员制团体不太可能以这种方式使用社交媒体。其次,各组织利用社交媒体向法院申请活动的信用,以增加其公共和财政支持。我们预计,法律组织将最频繁地使用这一策略。使用兴趣团体数百万条推文和Facebook帖子的原始数据集,我们发现这些期望得到了支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Pursuing Change or Pursuing Credit? Litigation and Credit Claiming on Social Media
Social media provides an inexpensive way for interest groups to inform and mobilize large audiences, but it is puzzling why organizations would spend time posting about activities like litigation that do not depend on public opinion or mobilization. We argue there are two reasons interest groups post about judicial advocacy on social media. First, organizations provide information about the courts on social media to build credibility and recognition as a trusted source of information. We hypothesize that membership groups will be less likely to use social media in this way than non-membership public interest organizations. Second, organizations use social media to claim credit for activity in the courts in order to increase their public and financial support. We expect that this strategy will be used most frequently by legal organizations. Using an original dataset of millions of tweets and Facebook posts by interest groups, we find support for these expectations.
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
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Quality in Measurement Matters: Adjusted American Bar Association Ratings and Circuit Court Confirmation Hearing Word Choice Lower Court Influence on High Courts: Evidence from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Political Competition and Judicial Independence: How Courts Fill the Void When Legislatures Are Ineffective The Impact of Oral Argument Attendance Is the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Vulnerable to Intense Appointment Politics? Democrats’ Changed Views Around Justice Ginsburg’s Death – CORRIGENDUM
×
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