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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Cites
Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815478 · Cited by 17,557 · cited 2×
“…is reported in the news media or mentioned by survey respondents, the measurement of centrality investigates the degree to which an issue is involved in relationships with other issues (Wasserman & Faust, 1994), thus providing more contextual information about the entire picture of an issue agenda.”
BackgroundMethodA spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.82.6.407 · Cited by 8,141
What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010) · Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1772690.1772751 · Cited by 6,652
The limited capacity model of mediated message processing
Lang, A. (2000) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x · Cited by 2,153 · cited 1×
“Arguably, the news media play an important role in how we connect different items (Lang, 2000).”
BackgroundSentiment strength detection in short informal text
Thelwall, M., Buckley, K., Paltoglou, G., Cai, D., & Kappas, A. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21416 · Cited by 1,449
Sentiment strength detection for the social web
Thelwall, M., Buckley, K., & Paltoglou, G. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21662 · Cited by 1,062
Cited by
Vargo, C. J., Guo, L., & Amazeen, M. A. (2018) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444817712086 · Cited by 624
Self-citationShin, J., & Thorson, K. (2017) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12284 · Cited by 481
van Atteveldt, W., van der Velden, M. A. C. G., & Boukes, M. (2021) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312458.2020.1869198 · Cited by 409
Attracting Comments: Digital Engagement Metrics on Facebook and Financial Performance
Yoon, G., Li, C., Ji, Y. (., North, M., Hong, C., & Liu, J. (2018) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/00913367.2017.1405753 · Cited by 149
Who is responsible for Twitter’s echo chamber problem? Evidence from 2016 U.S. election networks
Guo, L., A. Rohde, J., & Wu, H. D. (2020) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2018.1499793 · Cited by 104
Metadata
- Authors
- Vargo, C. J., Guo, L., McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.