Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 249

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Network Issue Agendas on Twitter During the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Open access
Vargo, Chris J., Guo, Lei, McCombs, Maxwell, Shaw, Donald L.·2014·Journal of Communication

Abstract

This study finds support for agenda melding and further validates the Network Agenda Setting (NAS) model through a series of computer science methods with large datasets on Twitter. The results demonstrate that during the 2012 U.S. presidential election, distinctive audiences “melded” agendas of various media differently. “Vertical” media best predicted Obama supporters’ agendas on Twitter whereas Romney supporters were best explained by Republican “horizontal” media. Moreover, Obama and Romney supporters relied on their politically affiliated horizontal media more than their opposing party’s media. Evidence for findings are provided through the NAS model, which measures the agenda-setting effect not in terms of issue frequency alone, but also in terms of the interconnections and relationships issues inside of an agenda. doi:10.1111/jcom.12089 Big Data and computer science methods can further the findings of agenda-setting theory. Using Twitter, ap opular microblogging service, we show how supporters of Barack Obama and supporters of Mitt Romney reacted to different media agendas during the 2012 U.S. presidential election. We do so using a network analysis perspective, which shows how issues from the election were talked about in relationship to each other. The results give us a clear, large-scale picture of how the media influenced different audiences. We also offer updates to the emerging theory of agenda melding and the Network Agenda Setting (NAS) model. We have arrived at these conclusions by utilizing several computer science methods, including automated data mining and aggregation, sentiment analysis, network analysis, machine learning, and computer-assisted content analysis. Why Twitter data? In a world of social media, Twitter differentiates itself in two ways: Its messages are public and short. The majority of this data is open for all to examine (Vieweg, 2010).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcom.12089

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 249

Metadata

Authors
Vargo, C. J., Guo, L., McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L.
Venue
Journal of Communication
Published
2014-03-24
Volume
64
Issue
2
Pages
296-316
ISSN
0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2150359950
Cited by
249
References
6
FWCI
61.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Network Issue Agendas on Twitter During the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jcom.12089
The paper
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 Communication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12089

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.