The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Squawking, tweeting, cooing, and hooting: analyzing the communication patterns of government agencies on Twitter
Abstract
Twitter is rapidly gaining attention from strategic communicators for its ability to enhance communication campaigns. Whether using the site to augment word‐of‐mouth marketing campaigns or engage in conversations with stakeholders, Twitter has become the leading online social media outlet for marketing and public relations efforts. However, despite the service's ability to provide a forum for interacting with stakeholders, the site primarily began as a way for its users to provide one‐way updates and disseminate information. By using the models of public relations as its framework, this study examines how government agencies are using Twitter to communicate with their audiences through content analysis of 1800 updates from 60 government agencies. Contrary to public affairs practitioners' claims of interactivity on Twitter, government agencies primarily relied on one‐way communication that sought to inform and educate rather than two‐way symmetrical conversations. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Why e-government projects fail? An analysis of the Healthcare.gov website
Anthopoulos, L., Reddick, C. G., Giannakidou, I., & Mavridis, N. (2016) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.003 · Cited by 325
Social media dialogues in a crisis: A mixed-methods approach to identifying publics on social media
Smith, B. G., Smith, S. B., & Knighton, D. (2018) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.07.005 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Waters, R. D., & Williams, J. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Affairs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-03-17
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 353-363
- ISSN
- 1472-3891 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-1854
- OpenAlex
- W1963015513
- Cited by
- 252
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 61.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.