Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2452-0063
  • E-ISSN: 2452-0071
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study explicates the concept of news media agendamelding. While only one-quarter of U.S. adults are on Twitter, it remains a popular platform among news media and political elites who often still set the public agenda for political discourse. Twitter provides insights into the issues that are at the top of the media and policy agendas, as well as how social media might influence the way journalists approach political issues. At the same time, there is concern about the influence of social media on political polarization. This study uses a specific set of influential Twitter users to examine one main question: Were there differences between right, left, and center political media reactions during the 2016 presidential debates? This study provides further evidence that there is, in fact, a conservative political Twitter media agenda that exists separately from liberal or nonpartisan media outlets.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Behr, R. L., & Iyengar, S.
    (1985) Television news, real-world cues, and changes in the public agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(1), 38–57. 10.1086/268900
    https://doi.org/10.1086/268900 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bode, L.
    (2016) Political news in the news feed: Learning politics from social media. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 24–48. 10.1080/15205436.2015.1045149
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1045149 [Google Scholar]
  3. Byers, D.
    (2015, April14). Twitter’s most influential political journalists. Politico. Retrieved fromhttps://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/04/twitters-most-influential-political-journalists-205510
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Camaj, L.
    (2018) Motivational theories of agenda-setting effects: An information selection and processing model of attribute agenda-setting. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 10.1093/ijpor/edy016
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edy016 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chadwick, A.
    (2013) The hybrid media system: Politics and power. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759477.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759477.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chadwick, A., O’Loughlin, B., & Vaccari, C.
    (2017) Why people dual screen political debates and why it matters for democratic engagement. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(2), 220–239. 10.1080/08838151.2017.1309415
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2017.1309415 [Google Scholar]
  7. Coddington, M., Molyneux, L., & Lawrence, R. G.
    (2014) Fact checking the campaign: How political reporters use Twitter to set the record straight (or not). The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(4), 391–409. 10.1177/1940161214540942
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161214540942 [Google Scholar]
  8. Conway, B. A., Kenski, K., & Wang, D.
    (2015) The rise of Twitter in the political campaign: Searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects in the presidential primary. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(4), 363–380. 10.1111/jcc4.12124
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12124 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dubois, E., & Blank, G.
    (2018) The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 729–745. 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656 [Google Scholar]
  10. Emba, C.
    (2016, July14). Confirmed: Echo chambers exist on social media. So what do we do about them?The Washington Post. Retrieved fromhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/07/14/confirmed-echo-chambers-exist-on-social-media-but-what-can-we-do-about-them/?utm_term=.9b1291e010ce
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Erbring, L., Goldenberg, E. N., & Miller, A. H.
    (1980) Front-page news and real-world cues: A new look at agenda-setting by the media. American Journal of Political Science, 16–49. 10.2307/2110923
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2110923 [Google Scholar]
  12. Freelon, D., & Karpf, D.
    (2015) Of big birds and bayonets: Hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 presidential debates. Information, Communication & Society, 18(4), 390–406. 10.1080/1369118X.2014.952659
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.952659 [Google Scholar]
  13. Glader, P.
    (2017, February1). Ten journalism brands where you find real facts rather that alternative facts. Forbes. Retrieved fromhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/berlinschoolofcreativeleadership/2017/02/01/10-journalism-brands-where-you-will-find-real-facts-rather-than-alternative-facts/#2a334468e9b5
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gottfried, J. A., Hardy, B. W., Holbert, R. L., Winneg, K. M., & Jamieson, K. H.
    (2017) The changing nature of political debate consumption: Social media, multitasking, and knowledge acquisition. Political Communication, 34(2), 172–199. 10.1080/10584609.2016.1154120
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1154120 [Google Scholar]
  15. Graham, D. A.
    (2016, September26). Clinton keeps her cool: The Democrat’s command and poise left her rival looking frustrated, peevish, and out of sorts. The Atlantic. Retrieved fromhttps://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs/2016/09/first-presidential-debate-clinton-trump-2016/501647/
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Guo, L., & Vargo, C.
    (2015) The power of message networks: A big-data analysis of the network agenda setting model and issue ownership. Mass Communication and Society, 18(5), 557–576. 10.1080/15205436.2015.1045300
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1045300 [Google Scholar]
  17. Guo, L., Rohde, J. A., & Wu, H. D.
    (2018) Who is responsible for Twitter’s echo chamber problem? Evidence from 2016 US election networks. Information, Communication & Society, 1–18. 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1499793
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1499793 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hess, A.
    (2017, March3). How to escape your political bubble for a clearer view. The New York Times. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/arts/the-battle-over-your-political-bubble.html
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kiley, J.
    (2017, October23). In polarized era, fewer Americans hold a mix of conservative and liberal views. Pew Research Center Fact Tank: News in the Numbers. Retrieved fromwww.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/23/in-polarized-era-fewer-americans-hold-a-mix-of-conservative-and-liberal-views/
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kreiss, D.
    (2016) Seizing the moment: The presidential campaigns’ use of Twitter during the 2012 electoral cycle. New Media & Society, 18(8), 1473–1490. 10.1177/1461444814562445
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814562445 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kreiss, D., Meadows, L., & Remensperger, J.
    (2015) Political performance, boundary spaces, and active spectatorship: Media production at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. Journalism, 16(5), 577–595. 10.1177/1464884914525562
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884914525562 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kohut, A., Doherty, C., Dimock, M., & Keeter, S.
    (2012) One-in-ten ‘dual-screened’ the presidential debate. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Retrieved fromwww.people-press.org/2012/10/11/one-in-ten-dual-screened-the-presidential-debate/
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lasorsa, D. L., Lewis, S. C., & Holton, A. E.
    (2012) Normalizing Twitter: Journalism practice in an emerging communication space. Journalism studies, 13(1), 19–36. 10.1080/1461670X.2011.571825
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2011.571825 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lawrence, R. G., Molyneux, L., Coddington, M., & Holton, A.
    (2014) Tweeting conventions: Political journalists’ use of Twitter to cover the 2012 presidential campaign. Journalism Studies, 15(6), 789–906. 10.1080/1461670X.2013.836378
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2013.836378 [Google Scholar]
  25. Leonardi, P. M., & Meyer, S. R.
    (2015) Social media as social lubricant: How ambient awareness eases knowledge transfer. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(1), 10–34. 10.1177/0002764214540509
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214540509 [Google Scholar]
  26. McCombs, M. E., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. H.
    (2014) New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass communication and Society, 17(6), 781–802. 10.1080/15205436.2014.964871
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.964871 [Google Scholar]
  27. McGregor, S. C., & Mourão, R. R.
    (2016) Talking politics on Twitter: Gender, elections, and social networks. Social Media + Society, 2(3), 2056305116664218. 10.1177/2056305116664218
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116664218 [Google Scholar]
  28. McGregor, S. C., & Vargo, C. J.
    (2017) Election-related talk and agenda-setting effects on Twitter. The Agenda Setting Journal, 1(1), 44–62. 10.1075/asj.1.1.05mcg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/asj.1.1.05mcg [Google Scholar]
  29. Molyneux, L., & Mourão, R. R.
    (2017) Political journalists’ normalization of Twitter: Interaction and new affordances. Journalism Studies, 1–19. 10.1080/1461670X.2017.1370978
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1370978 [Google Scholar]
  30. Neuman, R. W., Guggenheim, L., Mo Jang, S., & Bae, S. Y.
    (2014) The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 193–214. 10.1111/jcom.12088
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12088 [Google Scholar]
  31. Parmelee, J. H.
    (2013) Political journalists and Twitter: Influences on norms and practices. Journal of Media Practice, 14(4), 291–305. 10.1386/jmpr.14.4.291_1
    https://doi.org/10.1386/jmpr.14.4.291_1 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2014) The agenda-building function of political tweets. New Media & Society, 16(3), 434–450. 10.1177/1461444813487955
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487955 [Google Scholar]
  33. Parmelee, J. H., & Bichard, S. L.
    (2011) Politics and the Twitter revolution: How tweets influence the relationship between political leaders and the public. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pew Research Center
    Pew Research Center (2016, July7). Top voting issues in the 2016 election. 2016 Campaign: Strong interest, widespread Dissatisfaction. Retrieved fromwww.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Rogstad, I.
    (2016) Is Twitter just rehashing? Intermedia agenda setting between Twitter and mainstream media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(2), 142–158. 10.1080/19331681.2016.1160263
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2016.1160263 [Google Scholar]
  36. Russell, F. M., Hendricks, M. A., Choi, H., & Stephens, E. C.
    (2015) Who sets the news agenda on Twitter? Journalists’ posts during the 2013 US government shutdown. Digital Journalism, 3(6), 925–943. 10.1080/21670811.2014.995918
    https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.995918 [Google Scholar]
  37. Saldaña, M., McGregor, S. C., & Gil De Zúñiga,, H.
    (2015) Social media as a public space for politics: Cross-national comparison of news consumption and participatory behaviors in the United States and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Communication, 9, 3304–3326.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Skogerbø, E., & Krumsvik, A. H.
    (2015) Newspapers, Facebook and Twitter: Intermedia agenda setting in local election campaigns. Journalism Practice, 9(3), 350–366. 10.1080/17512786.2014.950471
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2014.950471 [Google Scholar]
  39. StatSocial
  40. Stroud, N. J.
    (2017) Selective exposure theories. InK. Kenski & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political communication (pp.531–547). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Thompson, A.
    (2016, December8). Parallel narratives: Clinton and Trump supporters really don’t listen to each other on Twitter. Vice News. Retrieved fromhttps://news.vice.com/story/journalists-and-trump-voters-live-in-separate-online-bubbles-mit-analysis-shows
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Usher, N., Holcomb, J., & Littman, J.
    (2018) Twitter makes it worse: Political journalists, gendered echo chambers, and the amplification of gender bias. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(3), 324–344. 10.1177/1940161218781254
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161218781254 [Google Scholar]
  43. Vaccari, C., Chadwick, A., & O’Loughlin, B.
    (2015) Dual screening the political: Media events, social media, and citizen engagement. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 1041–1061. 10.1111/jcom.12187
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12187 [Google Scholar]
  44. Vargo, C. J., Guo, L., McCombs, M. & Shaw, D. L.
    (2014) Network issue agendas on Twitter during the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Communication64(2014), 296–316. 10.1111/jcom.12089
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12089 [Google Scholar]
  45. Wang, S.
    (2017, February27). Getting to the root of the “fake news” problem means fixing what’s broken about journalism itself. Niemen Lab. Retrieved fromwww.niemanlab.org/2017/02/getting-to-the-root-of-the-fake-news-problem-means-fixing-whats-broken-about-journalism-itself/
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Wells, C., Van Thomme, J., Maurer, P., Hanna, A., Pevehouse, J., Shah, D. V., & Bucy, E.
    (2016) Coproduction or cooption? Real-time spin and social media response during the 2012 French and US presidential debates. French Politics14(2), 206–233. 10.1057/fp.2016.4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/fp.2016.4 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): agendamelding; media agendas; political communication; political polarization; Twitter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error