#Tarifazo. Traditional media and agenda melding in social networks sites
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18861/ic.2018.13.1.2831Keywords:
agenda melding, social networks sites, #Tarifazo, cognitive dissonance, traditional mediaAbstract
In this article, we analyze the relationship between traditional media, social networks and agenda setting. The agenda-melding model is consistent with the creation of information bubbles, although it fails to explain how an agenda takes form when users can actively publish and disseminate content that is of interests to them. Our model investigates the decision of users to promote and propagate content that is cognitively congruent with their preferences. We measure the propensity of virtual users to propagate content consistent with their political beliefs, the propensity to propagate links to traditional and non-traditional media, and the time to retweet a message (latency) based on links to traditional media included in those posts. The findings indicate that the messages spread with different speed in the network, depending on the congruence or cognitive dissonance between users and of these for the messages published. Results show that communities of users that meld a collective agenda can limit the capacity of the traditional media to set the public agenda.
Downloads
References
Althaus, S. L., Cizmar, A. M., & Gimpel, J. G. (2009). Media supply, audience demand, and the geography of news consumption in the United States. Political Communication, 26(3), 249-277.
Artwick, C. (2012). Body found on Twitter: The role of alternative sources in social media agenda setting. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference.
Aruguete, N. (2016). The agenda setting hypothesis in the new media environment. Comunicación y Sociedad, 28, 35-58.
Aruguete, N. & Calvo, E. (2017). #TarifazoEnArgentina. Agenda melding y difusion de mensajes en medios sociales. En Labate, C. y Arrueta, C (Comps), La comunicación digital. Redes sociales, nuevas audiencias y convergencia: desafíos y oportunidades para la industria, el Estado y los usuarios (pp. 165-174). Juyuy, Argentina: Ediunju/ Fadeccos.
Aruguete, N. & Calvo, E. (2018). Time to #Protest: Selective Exposure, Cascading Activation, and Framing in Social Media. Journal of Communication, 68(3), 1-23.
Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A. & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological science, 26(10), 1531-1542.
Bennett, W. L. & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707-731.
Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F. & MacPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bharucha, J. J. & Stoeckig, K. (1986). Reaction time and musical expectancy: priming of chords. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12(4), 403.
Bizer, G. Y., Tormala, Z. L., Rucker, D. D. & Petty, R. E. (2006). Memory-based versus on-line processing: Implications for attitude strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 646-653.
Boczkowski, P. & Mitchelstein, E. (2013). The news gap: When the information preferences of the media and the public diverge. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Boczkowski, P., Mitchelstein, E. & Matassi, M. (2017). Incidental News: How Young People Consume News on Social Media. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Baum, M. A. & Groeling, T. (2008). New media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication, 25(4), 345-365.
Calvo, E. (2015). Anatomía política de twitter en Argentina: Tuiteando #Nisman. Buenos Aires: Capital Intelectual.
Calvo, E., Dunford, E. & Lund, N. (2016). Hashtags that Matter: Measuring the propagation of Tweets in the Dilma Crisis. En línea: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Calvo- Dunford-Lund-HashtagsthatMatter.pdf
Chaffee, S. H. & Metzger, M. J. (2001). The end of mass communication? Mass communication & Society, 4(4), 365-379.
CIPPEC. (2017). La experiencia de votar en 2017: percepciones y actitudes sobre las elecciones nacionales. Qualtrics, Qual1442-0608SouthAmerica - LOI: 15, PPR: 5.5.
Csardi, G. & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal Complex Systems, 1695.
Del Vicario, M. et al. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 554-559.
Earl, J. & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the internet age. Mit Press.
Encuesta Nacional Permanente Electoral Argentina (2015), Universidad Nacional de San Martín (ENPEA-UNSAM).
Fazio, R. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. Research methods in personality and social psychology, 11, 74-97.
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford University Press.
Fruchterman, T. M. & Reingold, E. M. (1991). Graph drawing by force‐directed placement. Software: Practice and Experience, 21(11), 1129-1164.
Gainous, J. & Wagner, K. M. (2014). Tweeting to power: The social media revolution in American politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Iyengar, S. & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Klapper, J. (1986). La efectividad de la comunicación masiva (1960). En Graber, D. (Ed.), El poder de los medios en la política (pp. 37-50). Buenos Aires: GEL.
Key, V. O. & Cummings, M. (1966). The responsible electorate. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Kushin, M. J. (2010). Tweeting the issues in the age of social media? Intermedia agenda setting between the “New York Times” and Twitter. Washington State University.
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2005). The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 26(3), 455-482.
McCombs, M. E. & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.
Parisier, E. (2017). El filtro burbuja. Cómo la red decide lo que leemos y lo que pensamos. Buenos Aires: Taurus.
Shaw, D. L., McCombs, M., Weaver, D. H., & Hamm, B. J. (1999). Individuals, groups, and agenda melding: A theory of social dissonance. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 11(1), 2-24.
Summers, E. (2016). A command line tool (and Python library) for archiving Twitter JSON. Retrieved: 22/12/2016. En línea: https://github.com/DocNow/twarc.
Weaver, D., McCombs, M. & Shaw, D. L. (2004). Agenda-setting research: Issues, attributes, and influences. Handbook of Political Communication Research, 257.
Webster, J. G. & Ksiazek, T. B. (2012). The dynamics of audience fragmentation: Public attention in an age of digital media. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 39-56.
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.
