CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial Media and PoliticsMedia Influence and Politics

Polarisation and Disinformation Content from Spanish Political Actors on Twitter/X

Open access
Said-Hung, Elias, Merino-Arribas, Adoración, Martínez-Torres, Javier·2023·Communication Today
DOI 10.34135/communicationtoday.2023.vol.14.no.2.8
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study analyses the role of the main Spanish political groups in the polarisation of public opinion and the promotion of the culture of disinformation through Twitter (now Platform X). The study carries out an analysis of issues associated with tweets and retweets in Spanish of the total published (n = 33,506 messages out of a total of 49,288 messages), which are contrasted with 2,730 disinformation publications identified by the two most relevant fact-checking projects in Spain (Maldita.es and Newtral.es). Based on the applied methodology, a political-communicative context is observed on Platform X characterised by a high level of self-promotion and polarisation, facilitated by the communication strategy of specific topics, applied by the actors analysed. The results show how these political actors can play an active and differentiated role in the promotion of disinformation content identified by the Maldita.es and Newtral.es data verification projects. This may contribute to the polarisation of Spanish public opinion on Platform X by delegitimising the opinions of their opponents on issues of interest to the public.

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 · 10.34135/communicationtoday.2023.vol.14.no.2.8

Cites

6 of 6 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. ALLCOTT, H., GENTZKOW, M.: Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. In Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2017, Vol. 31, No. 2, p. 211-236. ISSN 1944-7965.
  2. ÁLVAREZ-NOREÑA, E.: La Creatividad del Lenguaje Como Arma Social. In Diversité et Identité Culturelle en Europe, 2013, Vol. 3, p. 83-94. ISSN 2067-0931.
  3. AMAZEEN, M. A.: Journalistic Interventions: The Structural Factors Affecting the Global Emergence of Fact-Checking. In Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 2020, Vol. 21, No. 1, p. 95-111. ISSN 1464-8849.
  4. In KARLAPALEM, K. (ed.): Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. United States : Springer, 2010, p. 391-402.
  5. BERNAL-TRIVIÑO, A., CLARES-GAVILÁN, J.: Uso del móvil y las redes sociales como canales de verificación de fake news. El caso de Maldita.es. In El Profesional de la Información, 2019, Vol. 28, No. 3, p. 1-8. ISSN 1386-6710.
  6. BLEI, D. M., NG, A., JORDAN, M.: Latent Dirichlet Allocation. In Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2003, Vol. 3, p. 993-1022. ISSN 1532-4435.
  7. BRUNDIDGE, J.: Encountering "Difference" in the Contemporary Public Sphere: The Contribution of the Internet to the Heterogeneity of Political Discussion Networks. In Journal of Communication, 2010, Vol. 60, No. 4, p. 680-700. ISSN 1564-1454.
  8. CAMPOS-DOMÍNGUEZ, E.: Twitter y la comunicación política. In El Profesional de la Información, 2017, Vol. 26, No. 5, p. 785. ISSN 1386-6710.
  9. CAO, J. et al: A Density-Based Method for Adaptive LDA Model Selection. In Neurocomputing, 2009, Vol. 72, No. 7-9, p. 1775-1781. ISSN 1872-8286.
  10. COLEMAN, S., BLUMLER, J. G.: The Internet and Democratic Citizenship. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  11. CRABTREE, CH. et al.: It's Not Only What You Say, It's Also How You Say It: The Strategic Use of Campaign Sentiment. In The Journal of Politics, 2018, Vol. 82, No. 3, p. 1044-1060. ISSN 1693-1146.
  12. DEBNATH, R., BARDHAN, R.: India Nudges to Contain COVID-19 Pandemic: A Reactive Public Policy Analysis Using Machine-Learning Based Topic Modelling. In PLOS ONE, 2020, Vol. 15, No. 9, Article No. e0238972. ISSN 1932-6203.
  13. DEVEAUD, R., SANJUAN, E., BELLOT, P.: Accurate and Effective Latent Concept Modeling for Ad Hoc Information Retrieval. In Document numérique, 2014, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 61-84. ISSN 1279-5127.
  14. ENLI, G., NAPER, A. A.: Social Media Incumbent Advantage: Barack Obama's and Mitt Romney's Tweets in the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign. In BRUNS, A. (ed.): The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics. New York : Routledge, 2015, p. 364-378.
  15. FLORES, J. M.: Inteligencia Artificial y Periodismo: Diluyendo el Impacto de la Desinformación y Las Noticias Falsas a Través de Los Bots. In Doxa Comunicación, 2019, Vol. 29, p. 197-212. ISSN 1696-019X.
  16. GARCÍA-VIVERO, G., LÓPEZ, X.: La Verificación de Datos en Europa. Análisis de 5 Iniciativas Europeas: Maldita.es, Newtral, Pagella Politica, Les Décodeurs y BBC Reality Check. In adComunica, 2020, Vol. 21, p. 235-264. ISSN 2254- 2728.
  17. GRAVES, L.: Anatomy of a Fact Check: Objective Practice and the Contested Epistemology of Fact Checking. In Communication, Culture & Critique, 2016, Vol. 10, No. 3, p. 518-537. ISSN 1753-9129.
  18. GRIFFITHS, T. L., STEYVERS, M.: Finding Scientific Topics. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2004, Vol. 101, No. 1, p. 5228-5235. ISSN 0027-8424.
  19. GUARINO, S. et al.: Characterizing Networks of Propaganda on Twitter: A Case Study. In Applied Network Science, 2020, Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 1-22. ISSN 2364-8228.
  20. GUERRERO-PICO, M., SCOLARI, C. A.: Narrativas transmedia y contenidos generados por los usuarios: El caso de los crossovers. In Cuadernos.info, 2016, Vol. 38, p. 183-200. ISSN 0719-367X.
  21. HAQ, E. U. et al.: Enemy at the Gate: Evolution of Twitter User's Polarization During National Crisis. In IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining. Hague : Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2020, p. 212-216.
  22. LARSSON, A. O.: The EU Parliament on Twitter -Assessing the Permanent Online Practices of Parliamentarians. In Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 2015, Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 149-166. ISSN 1933-169X.
  23. MAYO-CUBERO, M.: Use of Social Media in News Media Coverage of the Crisis, Disaster, and Emergencies in Spain. In Revista Española de Comunicación en Salud, 2019, Vol. 43, p. 43-54. ISSN 1989-9882.
  24. MAZZOLENI, G., BRACCIALE, R.: Socially Mediated Populism: The Communicative Strategies of Political Leaders on Facebook. In Palgrave Communications, 2018, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 50-50. ISSN 2662-9992.
  25. MEHROTRA, R. et al.: Improving LDA Topic Models for Microblogs via Tweet Pooling and Automatic Labeling. In Proceedings of the 36 th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. United States : Association for Computing Machinery, 2013, p. 889-892.
  26. MIMNO, D. et al.: Optimizing Semantic Coherence in Topic Models. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Edinburgh : Association for Computational Linguistics, 2011, p. 262-272. [online]. [2023-01-15]. Available at: <http://dirichlet.net/pdf/mimno11optimizing.pdf>.
  27. MORSELLI, D., PASSINI, S., MCGARTY, C.: Sos Venezuela: An Analysis of the Anti-Maduro Protest Movements Using Twitter. In Social Movement Studies, 2021, Vol. 20, No. 5, p. 509-530. ISSN 1338-1203.
  28. NAHON, K.: Where There Is Social Media There Is Politics. In BRUNS, A. (ed.): The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics. New York : Routledge, 2015, p. 39-55.
  29. OSMUNDSEN, M. et al.: Partisan Polarization Is the Primary Psychological Motivation behind Political Fake News Sharing on Twitter. In American Political Science Review, 2021, Vol. 115, No. 3, p. 999-1015. ISSN 1537-5943.
  30. QAISER, S., ALI, R.: Text Mining: Use of TF-IDF to Examine the Relevance of Words to Documents. In International Journal of Computer Applications, 2018, Vol. 181, No. 1, p. 25-29. ISSN 0972-9038.
  31. SAID-HUNG, E. M., MERINO-ARRIBAS, M. A., MARTÍNEZ-TORRES, J.: Evolución del debate académico en la Web of Science y Scopus sobre unfaking news (2014-2019). In Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico, 2021, Vol. 27, No. 3, p. 961-971. ISSN 1698-0972.
  32. SALAVERRÍA, R., GARCÍA-AVILÉS, J., MASIP, P.: Concepto de Convergencia Periodística. In LÓPEZ, X., PEREIRA, X. (eds.): Convergencia Digital. Reconfiguración de los Medios de Comunicación en España, Santiago de Compostela : Servicio Editorial de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 2010, p. 41-64.
  33. SONG, M., KIM, M. C., JEONG, Y. K.: Analyzing the Political Landscape of 2012 Korean Presidential Election in Twitter. In IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2014, Vol. 29, No. 2, p. 18-26. ISSN 1541-1672.
  34. TORCAL, M. et al.: Political and Affective Polarisation in a Democracy in Crisis: The E-Dem Panel Survey Dataset (Spain, 2018-2019). In Data in Brief, 2020, Vol. 32, Article No. 06059. ISSN 2352-3409.
  35. USCINSKI, J. E.: The Epistemology of Fact Checking (Is Still Naìve): Rejoinder to Amazeen. In Critical Review, 2015, Vol. 27, No. 2, p. 243-252. ISSN 0070-1548.
  36. WALKER, R. M. et al.: Topic Modeling the Research Practice Gap in Public Administration. In Public Administration Review, 2019, Vol. 79, No. 6, p. 931-937. ISSN 1540-6210.
  37. WELBERS, K., VAN ATTEVELDT, W., BENOIT, K.: Text Analysis in R. In Communication Methods and Measures, 2017, Vol. 11, No. 4, p. 245-265. ISSN 1931-2466.
  38. ZAZO, L.: Implantación de Twitter en los entornos políticos españoles. In International Visual Culture Review, 2022, Vol. 9, p. 1-11. ISSN 2695-9631.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Said-Hung, E., Merino-Arribas, A., & Martínez-Torres, J.
Affiliations
  • Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (ES)
  • Business and Communication Faculty, Universidad Intrnacional de La Rioja, Av. de la Paz, 137, 26006, Logroño, La Rioja, Spain
  • Vigo University, Circunvalación ao Campus Universitario, 36310, Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain
Corresponding author
Said-Hung, Elias
ORCID
Said-Hung, Elias
Venue
Communication Today
Publisher
University of Saints Cyril and Methodius
Published
2023-11-23
Pages
104-120
ISSN
  • 1338-130X (ISSN-L)
  • 2730-051X
DOI
10.34135/communicationtoday.2023.vol.14.no.2.8
OpenAlex
W4389030450
Cited by
3
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Communication Today (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
political disinformation, Spanish political parties, Twitter, political communication, self-promotion, fact-checking, retweets, Spanish politics

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