The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social media as public opinion: How journalists use social media to represent public opinion
Abstract
Public opinion, as necessary a concept it is to the underpinnings of democracy, is a socially constructed representation of the public that is forged by the methods and data from which it is derived, as well as how it is understood by those tasked with evaluating and utilizing it. I examine how social media manifests as public opinion in the news and how these practices shape journalistic routines. I draw from a content analysis of news stories about the 2016 US election, as well as interviews with journalists, to shed light on evolving practices that inform the use of social media to represent public opinion. I find that despite social media users not reflecting the electorate, the press reported online sentiments and trends as a form of public opinion that services the horserace narrative and complements survey polling and vox populi quotes. These practices are woven into professional routines – journalists looked to social media to reflect public opinion, especially in the wake of media events like debates. Journalists worried about an overreliance on social media to inform coverage, especially Dataminr alerts and journalists’ own highly curated Twitter feeds. Hybrid flows of information between journalists, campaigns, and social media companies inform conceptions of public opinion.
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
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785
Kreiss, D., & MCGREGOR, S. C. (2018) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2017.1364814 · Cited by 398
Self-citation
Cited by
(Mis)estimating Affective Polarization
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2022) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/715603 · Cited by 243
Krupnikov, Y., & Ryan, J. B. (2022) · doi:10.1017/9781108923323 · Cited by 175
A review and provocation: On polarization and platforms
Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448231161880 · Cited by 151
Self-citationSustained online amplification of COVID-19 elites in the United States
Gallagher, R. J., Doroshenko, L., Shugars, S., Lazer, D., & Foucault Welles, B. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051211024957 · Cited by 80
Negative online news articles are shared more to social media
Watson, J., van der Linden, S., Watson, M., & Stillwell, D. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-71263-z · Cited by 70
Salaudeen, M. A. (2022) · Journalism Practice · doi:10.1080/17512786.2021.1892517 · Cited by 20
Blanco-Herrero, D., Sánchez-Holgado, P., J. Amores, J., Frías-Vázquez, M., & Arcila-Calderón, C. (2020) · Eighth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality · doi:10.1145/3434780.3436674 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- McGregor, S. C.
- Venue
- Journalism
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-05-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1070-1086
- ISSN
- 1464-8849 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3001
- OpenAlex
- W2944605189
- Cited by
- 401
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 97.89
- 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.