Mediatisation in Twitter: an exploratory analysis of the 2015 Spanish general election

dc.contributor.affiliationFacultad de Administración y Dirección de Empresas
dc.contributor.affiliationDepartamento de Economía y Ciencias Sociales
dc.contributor.authorBaviera, Tomás
dc.contributor.authorCalvo, Dafnees_ES
dc.contributor.authorLlorca-Abad, Germánes_ES
dc.contributor.funderMinisterio de Economía y Competitividades_ES
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-12T21:02:52Z
dc.date.available2021-01-12T21:02:52Z
dc.date.issued2019-07-01es_ES
dc.description.abstract[EN] The mediatisation model in politics assumes that media conveys political messages between parties and citizenship, with the risk of promoting issues that frame the electoral content in terms of competition. These dynamics could distract from the debate of ideas and political policies. However, digital media like Twitter provide direct communication channels between parties, candidates and users. The present research explores Twitter content during an electoral campaign focused on the four issues proposed by Patterson (1980) to assess mediatisation: political, policy, campaign and personal (regarding the candidate). The goal of this research study is to evaluate the degree of mediatisation on Twitter using this typology. The research also evaluates the influence of the issue on retweet volume. The study¿s basis was a 15.8 million-tweet corpus obtained during the 2015 Spanish General Election pre-campaign and campaign. This dataset was analysed using an automatic classification system. The results highlighted a predominance of policy issues during both the pre- campaign and campaign, except for the two televised debates, during which campaign issues were the most prevalent. On the election night, users commented much more on political issues. Finally, the kind of issue most likely to be retweeted was policy issues.en_EN
dc.description.accrualMethodSes_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitationBaviera, T.; Calvo, D.; Llorca-Abad, G. (2019). Mediatisation in Twitter: an exploratory analysis of the 2015 Spanish general election. Journal of International Communication. 25(2):275-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13216597.2019.1634619es_ES
dc.description.issue2es_ES
dc.description.referencesAntonakaki, D., Spiliotopoulos, D., V. Samaras, C., Pratikakis, P., Ioannidis, S., & Fragopoulou, P. (2017). Social media analysis during political turbulence. PLOS ONE, 12(10), e0186836. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186836es_ES
dc.description.referencesBarberá, P. (2015). Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data. Political Analysis, 23(1), 76-91. doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011es_ES
dc.description.referencesBartholomé, G., Lecheler, S., & de Vreese, C. (2017). Towards A Typology of Conflict Frames. Journalism Studies, 19(12), 1689-1711. doi:10.1080/1461670x.2017.1299033es_ES
dc.description.referencesBatrinca, B., & Treleaven, P. C. (2014). Social media analytics: a survey of techniques, tools and platforms. AI & SOCIETY, 30(1), 89-116. doi:10.1007/s00146-014-0549-4es_ES
dc.description.referencesBaviera, T., Peris, À., & Cano-Orón, L. (2017). Political candidates in infotainment programmes and their emotional effects on Twitter: an analysis of the 2015 Spanish general elections pre-campaign season. Contemporary Social Science, 14(1), 144-156. doi:10.1080/21582041.2017.1367833es_ES
dc.description.referencesBLUMLER, J. G., & KAVANAGH, D. (1999). The Third Age of Political Communication: Influences and Features. Political Communication, 16(3), 209-230. doi:10.1080/105846099198596es_ES
dc.description.referencesBor, S. E. (2013). Using Social Network Sites to Improve Communication Between Political Campaigns and Citizens in the 2012 Election. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(9), 1195-1213. doi:10.1177/0002764213490698es_ES
dc.description.referencesBrants, K., & Neijens, P. (1998). The Infotainment of Politics. Political Communication, 15(2), 149-164. doi:10.1080/10584609809342363es_ES
dc.description.referencesBurnap, P., Gibson, R., Sloan, L., Southern, R., & Williams, M. (2016). 140 characters to victory?: Using Twitter to predict the UK 2015 General Election. Electoral Studies, 41, 230-233. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.017es_ES
dc.description.referencesCampos-Domínguez, E. (2017). Twitter y la comunicación política. El Profesional de la Información, 26(5), 785. doi:10.3145/epi.2017.sep.01es_ES
dc.description.referencesCampos-Domínguez, E., & Calvo, D. (2017). Electoral campaign on the Internet: Planning, impact and viralization on Twitter during the Spanish general election, 2015. Comunicación y Sociedad, 0(29), 93-116. doi:10.32870/cys.v0i29.6423es_ES
dc.description.referencesCeron, A., & Splendore, S. (2016). From contents to comments: Social TV and perceived pluralism in political talk shows. New Media & Society, 20(2), 659-675. doi:10.1177/1461444816668187es_ES
dc.description.referencesChadwick, A. (2013). The Hybrid Media System. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759477.001.0001es_ES
dc.description.referencesConway, B. A., Kenski, K., & Wang, D. (2015). The Rise of Twitter in the Political Campaign: Searching for Intermedia Agenda-Setting Effects in the Presidential Primary. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(4), 363-380. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12124es_ES
dc.description.referencesCouldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2013). Conceptualizing Mediatization: Contexts, Traditions, Arguments. Communication Theory, 23(3), 191-202. doi:10.1111/comt.12019es_ES
dc.description.referencesDang-Xuan, L., Stieglitz, S., Wladarsch, J., & Neuberger, C. (2013). AN INVESTIGATION OF INFLUENTIALS AND THE ROLE OF SENTIMENT IN POLITICAL COMMUNICATION ON TWITTER DURING ELECTION PERIODS. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 795-825. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2013.783608es_ES
dc.description.referencesD’heer, E., & Verdegem, P. (2014). Conversations about the elections on Twitter: Towards a structural understanding of Twitter’s relation with the political and the media field. European Journal of Communication, 29(6), 720-734. doi:10.1177/0267323114544866es_ES
dc.description.referencesDíaz-Parra, I., & Jover-Báez, J. (2016). Social movements in crisis? From the 15-M movement to the electoral shift in Spain. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 36(9/10), 680-694. doi:10.1108/ijssp-09-2015-0101es_ES
dc.description.referencesDiGrazia, J., McKelvey, K., Bollen, J., & Rojas, F. (2013). More Tweets, More Votes: Social Media as a Quantitative Indicator of Political Behavior. PLoS ONE, 8(11), e79449. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079449es_ES
dc.description.referencesFelt, M. (2016). Social media and the social sciences: How researchers employ Big Data analytics. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 205395171664582. doi:10.1177/2053951716645828es_ES
dc.description.referencesFiler, T., & Fredheim, R. (2016). Popular with the Robots: Accusation and Automation in the Argentine Presidential Elections, 2015. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 30(3), 259-274. doi:10.1007/s10767-016-9233-7es_ES
dc.description.referencesFreelon, D., & Karpf, D. (2014). Of big birds and bayonets: hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 Presidential debates. Information, Communication & Society, 18(4), 390-406. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2014.952659es_ES
dc.description.referencesGiglietto, F., & Selva, D. (2014). Second Screen and Participation: A Content Analysis on a Full Season Dataset of Tweets. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 260-277. doi:10.1111/jcom.12085es_ES
dc.description.referencesGil de Zúñiga, H., Garcia-Perdomo, V., & McGregor, S. C. (2015). What Is Second Screening? Exploring Motivations of Second Screen Use and Its Effect on Online Political Participation. Journal of Communication, 65(5), 793-815. doi:10.1111/jcom.12174es_ES
dc.description.referencesGrover, P., Kar, A. K., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Janssen, M. (2019). Polarization and acculturation in US Election 2016 outcomes – Can twitter analytics predict changes in voting preferences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 438-460. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.009es_ES
dc.description.referencesJensen, K. B. (2013). Definitive and Sensitizing Conceptualizations of Mediatization. Communication Theory, 23(3), 203-222. doi:10.1111/comt.12014es_ES
dc.description.referencesJungherr, A. (2014). The Logic of Political Coverage on Twitter: Temporal Dynamics and Content. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 239-259. doi:10.1111/jcom.12087es_ES
dc.description.referencesKalsnes, B., Krumsvik, A. H., & Storsul, T. (2014). Social media as a political backchannel. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(3), 313-328. doi:10.1108/ajim-09-2013-0093es_ES
dc.description.referencesLee, K., Palsetia, D., Narayanan, R., Patwary, M. M. A., Agrawal, A., & Choudhary, A. (2011). Twitter Trending Topic Classification. 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops. doi:10.1109/icdmw.2011.171es_ES
dc.description.referencesLópez García, G., Llorca Abad, G., Valera Ordaz, L., & Peris Blanes, A. (2018). Los debates electorales, ¿el último reducto frente la mediatización? Un estudio de caso de las elecciones generales españolas de 2015. Palabra Clave - Revista de Comunicación, 21(3), 772-797. doi:10.5294/pacla.2018.21.3.6es_ES
dc.description.referencesLópez-Rico, C.-M., & Peris-Blanes, À. (2017). Agenda e imagen de los candidatos de las elecciones generales de 2015 en España en programas televisivos de infoentretenimiento. El Profesional de la Información, 26(4), 611. doi:10.3145/epi.2017.jul.05es_ES
dc.description.referencesMAZZOLENI, G., & SCHULZ, W. (1999). «Mediatization» of Politics: A Challenge for Democracy? Political Communication, 16(3), 247-261. doi:10.1080/105846099198613es_ES
dc.description.referencesMurthy, D. (2015). Twitter and elections: are tweets, predictive, reactive, or a form of buzz? Information, Communication & Society, 18(7), 816-831. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2015.1006659es_ES
dc.description.referencesRussell Neuman, W., Guggenheim, L., Mo Jang, S., & Bae, S. Y. (2014). The Dynamics of Public Attention: Agenda-Setting Theory Meets Big Data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 193-214. doi:10.1111/jcom.12088es_ES
dc.description.referencesOrriols, L., & Cordero, G. (2016). The Breakdown of the Spanish Two-Party System: The Upsurge of Podemos and Ciudadanos in the 2015 General Election. South European Society and Politics, 21(4), 469-492. doi:10.1080/13608746.2016.1198454es_ES
dc.description.referencesReferences to the IBEREVAL Workshop Proceedingses_ES
dc.description.referencesRill, S., Reinel, D., Scheidt, J., & Zicari, R. V. (2014). PoliTwi: Early detection of emerging political topics on twitter and the impact on concept-level sentiment analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 69, 24-33. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2014.05.008es_ES
dc.description.referencesRogstad, I. (2016). Is Twitter just rehashing? Intermedia agenda setting between Twitter and mainstream media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(2), 142-158. doi:10.1080/19331681.2016.1160263es_ES
dc.description.referencesSampedro, V., & Lobera, J. (2014). The Spanish 15-M Movement: a consensual dissent? Journal of Spanish Cultural Studies, 15(1-2), 61-80. doi:10.1080/14636204.2014.938466es_ES
dc.description.referencesShah, D. V., Hanna, A., Bucy, E. P., Lassen, D. S., Van Thomme, J., Bialik, K., … Pevehouse, J. C. W. (2016). Dual Screening During Presidential Debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(14), 1816-1843. doi:10.1177/0002764216676245es_ES
dc.description.referencesShao, C., Ciampaglia, G. L., Varol, O., Yang, K.-C., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2018). The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nature Communications, 9(1). doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06930-7es_ES
dc.description.referencesStella, M., Ferrara, E., & De Domenico, M. (2018). Bots increase exposure to negative and inflammatory content in online social systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12435-12440. doi:10.1073/pnas.1803470115es_ES
dc.description.referencesStier, S., Bleier, A., Lietz, H., & Strohmaier, M. (2018). Election Campaigning on Social Media: Politicians, Audiences, and the Mediation of Political Communication on Facebook and Twitter. Political Communication, 35(1), 50-74. doi:10.1080/10584609.2017.1334728es_ES
dc.description.referencesVaccari, C., Chadwick, A., & O’Loughlin, B. (2015). Dual Screening the Political: Media Events, Social Media, and Citizen Engagement. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 1041-1061. doi:10.1111/jcom.12187es_ES
dc.description.referencesVaccari, C., & Nielsen, R. K. (2013). What Drives Politicians’ Online Popularity? An Analysis of the 2010 U.S. Midterm Elections. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(2), 208-222. doi:10.1080/19331681.2012.758072es_ES
dc.description.referencesVargo, 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, 64(2), 296-316. doi:10.1111/jcom.12089es_ES
dc.description.referencesVergeer, M., & Franses, P. H. (2015). Live audience responses to live televised election debates: time series analysis of issue salience and party salience on audience behavior. Information, Communication & Society, 19(10), 1390-1410. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2015.1093526es_ES
dc.description.referencesXu, W. W., Sang, Y., Blasiola, S., & Park, H. W. (2014). Predicting Opinion Leaders in Twitter Activism Networks. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(10), 1278-1293. doi:10.1177/0002764214527091es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, with Grants CSO2013-43960-R (Los flujos de comunicación en los procesos de movilización política: medios, blogs y líderes de opinión) and CSO2016-77331-C2-1-R (Estrategias, agendas y discursos en las cibercampañas electorales: medios de comunicación y ciudadanos).es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin300es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio275es_ES
dc.description.volume25es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/13216597.2019.1634619es_ES
dc.identifier.issn1321-6597es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttps://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/158843
dc.languageIngléses_ES
dc.publisherTaylor & Francises_ES
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of International Communicationes_ES
dc.relation.pasarelaS\390791es_ES
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/MINECO//CSO2013-43960-R/ES/LOS FLUJOS DE COMUNICACION EN LOS PROCESOS DE MOVILIZACION POLITICA: MEDIOS, BLOGS Y LIDERES DE OPINION/es_ES
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/MINECO//CSO2016-77331-C2-1-R/ES/ESTRATEGIAS, AGENDAS Y DISCURSOS EN LAS CIBERCAMPAÑAS ELECTORALES: MEDIOS DE COMUNICACION Y CIUDADANOS/es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1080/13216597.2019.1634619es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1371/journal.pone.0186836es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1093/pan/mpu011es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/1461670X.2017.1299033es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s00146-014-0549-4es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/21582041.2017.1367833es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/105846099198596es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/0002764213490698es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/10584609809342363es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.017es_ES
dc.relation.references10.3145/epi.2017.sep.01es_ES
dc.relation.references10.32870/cys.v0i29.6423es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/1461444816668187es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759477.001.0001es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1111/jcc4.12124es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1111/comt.12019es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/1369118X.2013.783608es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/0267323114544866es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1108/IJSSP-09-2015-0101es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1371/journal.pone.0079449es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/2053951716645828es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s10767-016-9233-7es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/1369118X.2014.952659es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1111/jcom.12085es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1111/jcom.12174es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.009es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/1369118X.2014.920040es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/15205436.2015.1045300es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/0894439313490643es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/978-1-4614-3223-4_12es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/19331681.2015.1131652es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1111/comt.12014es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1111/jcom.12087es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/978-3-319-20319-5es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/19331681.2015.1132401es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/0894439316631043es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1108/AJIM-09-2013-0093es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/1461444814522952es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199782536.001.0001es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.025es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1109/ICDMW.2011.171es_ES
dc.relation.references10.15581/003.29.3.149-168es_ES
dc.relation.references10.5294/pacla.2018.21.3.6es_ES
dc.relation.references10.3145/epi.2017.jul.05es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/105846099198613es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/1461670X.2014.889459es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/1369118X.2015.1006659es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1111/jcom.12088es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/13608746.2016.1198454es_ES
dc.relation.references10.3145/epi.2017.jul.04es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.knosys.2014.05.008es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/19331681.2016.1160263es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/14636204.2014.938466es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/0002764216676245es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1038/s41467-018-06930-7es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1073/pnas.1803470115es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/10584609.2017.1334728es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/1940161208319097es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/1931243115593321es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1111/jcom.12187es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/19331681.2012.758072es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1111/jcom.12089es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/1369118X.2015.1093526es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1126/science.aap9559es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1017/CBO9780511846366es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/1461444811410679es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/0002764214527091es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/19331681.2017.1338174es_ES
dc.rightsReserva de todos los derechoses_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsAbiertoes_ES
dc.subjectPolitical communicationes_ES
dc.subjectMediatisationes_ES
dc.subjectTwitteres_ES
dc.subjectElectoral campaignes_ES
dc.subjectComputer-assisted content detectiones_ES
dc.subject.classificationCOMERCIALIZACION E INVESTIGACION DE MERCADOSes_ES
dc.titleMediatisation in Twitter: an exploratory analysis of the 2015 Spanish general electiones_ES
dc.typeArtículoes_ES
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones_ES
dspace.entity.typePublication
person.identifier30136
person.identifier.orcid0000-0002-2331-6628
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationc6f84dae-4b9a-40f8-90bb-0e25a96f7bc0
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryc6f84dae-4b9a-40f8-90bb-0e25a96f7bc0
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication67c03db1-c7ed-41d2-8506-f61e5b5de340
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication1562846a-1e62-49bb-a253-92b3901edd08
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery67c03db1-c7ed-41d2-8506-f61e5b5de340
upv.uuide55017ef-e73e-4975-b188-810451bbecd7es_ES

Archivos

Bloque original

Mostrando 1 - 2 de 2
Cargando...
Miniatura
Nombre:
Mediatisation in Twitter - Author Version.pdf
Tamaño:
1.04 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Versión del Autor.
Cargando...
Miniatura
Nombre:
Mediatisation in Twitter an exploratory analysis of the 2015 Spanish general election.pdf
Tamaño:
2.37 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Versión editorial