CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Media Studies and CommunicationSocial Media and PoliticsMedia Influence and Politics

The agenda setting hypothesis in the new media environment

Open access
Aruguete, Natalia·2016·Comunicación y Sociedad
DOI 10.32870/cys.v0i28.2929
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to review the literature that discusses the basic premises of theoretical and empirical studies on Agenda Setting theory, and to propose a “new frontier” in the relationship between traditional elite media and new media. The objective is to explore the extent to which the dynamics of the flow of information created in new media –particularly in blogs and Twitter– is distorting the boundaries of the traditional postulates of this theoretical perspective.

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 · 10.32870/cys.v0i28.2929

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • El efecto perturbador de las redes sociales sobre el establecimiento de la agenda varía según los usuarios que procesan determinada información atrayendo la atención de sus amigos virtuales.

    “El efecto perturbador de las redes sociales sobre el establecimiento de la agenda, por lo tanto, varía según los usuarios que procesan determinada información atrayendo la atención de sus amigos virtuales (Aruguete, 2016; Zaller, 1992).”

    From #Tarifazo. Medios tradicionales y fusión de agenda en redes sociales (2018) · cites this paper as Aruguete, 2016

    La copia indexada muestra la ficha del artículo y su bibliografía, pero no un pasaje del cuerpo que permita comprobar esta afirmación. Las búsquedas de «usuarios que procesan determinada información», «amigos virtuales» y «efecto perturbador» no encontraron un pasaje sobre cómo varía el establecimiento de la agenda según esos usuarios. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Aruguete, N.
Venue
Comunicación y Sociedad
Publisher
Universidad de Guadalajara
Published
2016-12-14
Issue
28
Pages
35-58
ISSN
  • 0188-252X (ISSN-L)
  • 2448-9042
DOI
10.32870/cys.v0i28.2929
OpenAlex
W2587845702
Cited by
72
References
33
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 2
FWCI
18.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Comunicación y Sociedad (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Redalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
agenda-setting theory, new media, blogs, Twitter, elite media, information flow, media influence, social media

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