skip to main content
10.1145/2527031.2527034acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebsciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Small worlds with a difference: new gatekeepers and the filtering of political information on Twitter

Published:15 June 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

Political discussions on social network platforms represent an increasingly relevant source of political information, an opportunity for the exchange of opinions and a popular source of quotes for media outlets. We analyzed political communication on Twitter during the run-up to the German general election of 2009 by extracting a directed network of user interactions based on the exchange of political information and opinions. In consonance with expectations from previous research, the resulting network exhibits small-world properties, lending itself to fast and efficient information diffusion. We go on to demonstrate that precisely the highly connected nodes, characteristic for small-world networks, are in a position to exert strong, selective influence on the information passed within the network. We use a metric based on entropy to identify these New Gatekeepers and their impact on the information flow. Finally, we perform an analysis of their input and output of political messages. It is shown that both the New Gatekeepers and ordinary users tend to filter political content on Twitter based on their personal preferences. Thus, we show that political communication on Twitter is at the same time highly dependent on a small number of users, critically positioned in the structure of the network, as well as biased by their own political perspectives.

References

  1. Jungherr, A. 2009. Twitternde Politiker: Zwischen buntem Rauschen und Bürgernähe 2.0. In Bieber, C., Eifert, M., Groß, T., and Lamla, J. (eds.). Soziale Netze in der digitalen Welt: Das Internet zwischen egalitärer Beteiligung und ökonomischer Macht. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main. 99--127.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. heise online. 2009. Schäfer-Gümbel schlägt Koch -- aber nur im Netz. Available online: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Schaefer-Guembel-schlaegt-Koch-aber-nur-im-Netz-197987.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Watts, D. J., and Strogatz, S. H. 1998. Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks. Nature 393, 440--442. DOI- http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/30918.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Jürgens, P., and Jungherr, A. 2011. Wahlkampf vom Sofa aus: Twitter im Bundestagswahlkampf 2009. In: Schweitzer, E. J., and Albrecht, S. (eds.). Das Internet im Wahlkampf: Analysen zur Bundestagswahl 2009. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden, 201--225. DOI- http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92853-1_8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Marwick, A., and boyd, d. 2011. I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience. New Media and Society 13, 96--113. DOI- http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Jungherr, A., Jürgens, P., and Schoen, H., 2012. Why the Pirate Party Won the German Election of 2009 or The Trouble With Predictions: A Response to Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T. O., Sander, P. G., & Welpe, I. M. 'Predicting Elections With Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal About Political Sentiment'. Social Science Computer Review. Forthcoming. DOI- http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439311404119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Borgatti, S. P. 2006. Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory 12 (1), 21-34. DOI- http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10588-006-7084-x. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., and Gummadi, K. P. 2010. Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy. In Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (Washington, DC, May 23--26, 2010). ICWSM. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 10--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Bakshy, E, Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., and Watts, D. J. 2011. Everyone's an Influencer: Quantifying Influence on Twitter. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (Hong Kong, China, February 09--12, 2011). WSDM 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Steenbergen, M. R., and Lodge, M. 2003. Process Matters: Cognitive Models of Candidate Evaluation. In: MacKuen, M. B., and Rabinowitz, G. (eds.). Electoral Democracy. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 125--171.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Taber, C. S. 2003. Information Processing and Public Opinion. In: Sears, D. O., Huddy, L., and Jervis, R. (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 433--476.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Shoemaker, P. J., Vos, T. P., and Reese, S. D. 2009. Journalists as Gatekeepers. In: Wahl-Jorgensen, K., and Hanitzsch, T. (eds.). The Handbook of Journalism Studies. Routledge, New York et al., 73--87.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Borgatti, S. P., 2005. Centrality and network flow. Social Networks 27, 55--71. DOI - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Ortiz-Arroyo, D. 2010. Discovering Sets of Key Players in Social Networks. In: Abraham, A., Hassanien, A.-E., and Snásel, V. (eds.). Computational Social Network Analysis. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht et al., 27--46. DOI- http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-229-0_2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Shannon, C. E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379--423, 623--656.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Csárdi, G, and Nepusz, T., 2006. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal Complex Systems, 1695.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Shoemaker, P. J., Eichholz, M., Kim, E., and Wrigley, B. 2001. Individual and Routine Forces in Gatekeeping. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 78(2), 233--246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Small worlds with a difference: new gatekeepers and the filtering of political information on Twitter

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      WebSci '11: Proceedings of the 3rd International Web Science Conference
      June 2011
      483 pages
      ISBN:9781450308557
      DOI:10.1145/2527031

      Copyright © 2011 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 15 June 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      WebSci '11 Paper Acceptance Rate34of203submissions,17%Overall Acceptance Rate218of875submissions,25%

      Upcoming Conference

      Websci '24
      16th ACM Web Science Conference
      May 21 - 24, 2024
      Stuttgart , Germany

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader