No Cover Image

Journal article 683 views 146 downloads

Understanding “Good” and “Bad” Twitter Practices in Alternative Media: An Analysis of Online Political Media in the UK (2015–2018)

Richard Thomas Orcid Logo, Declan McDowell-Naylor, Stephen Cushion

Journalism Practice, Volume: 18, Issue: 3, Pages: 683 - 702

Swansea University Author: Richard Thomas Orcid Logo

  • 59567.pdf

    PDF | Version of Record

    © 2022 The Author(s). Distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY 4.0).

    Download (3.02MB)

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1080/17512786.2022.2050469

Abstract

Alternative Online Political Media (AOPM) have become increasingly important within international news landscapes, but their social media practices have received limited academic attention. Our large-scale content analysis (N = 14807) offers the first comprehensive study of how APOM in the UK use Tw...

Full description

Published in: Journalism Practice
ISSN: 1751-2786 1751-2794
Published: Informa UK Limited 2024
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa59567
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2022-03-09T16:24:51Z
last_indexed 2023-03-15T04:18:23Z
id cronfa59567
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rfc1807 xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>59567</id><entry>2022-03-09</entry><title>Understanding “Good” and “Bad” Twitter Practices in Alternative Media: An Analysis of Online Political Media in the UK (2015–2018)</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>6458b4d9c68a8d6431e86961e74dccb5</sid><ORCID>0000-0003-3511-5628</ORCID><firstname>Richard</firstname><surname>Thomas</surname><name>Richard Thomas</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2022-03-09</date><deptcode>AMED</deptcode><abstract>Alternative Online Political Media (AOPM) have become increasingly important within international news landscapes, but their social media practices have received limited academic attention. Our large-scale content analysis (N = 14807) offers the first comprehensive study of how APOM in the UK use Twitter. Drawing on a pertinent model of social media use that enhances notions of “good” and “bad” journalism, and through our own sentiment analysis, we find Twitter norms closely aligned with those of legacy media, including a relatively limited online interaction with audiences. We conclude that while AOPM follow many social media logics consistent with mainstream news sites and add to the wider realm of political analysis, their highly partisan content means that their Twitter use cannot be considered balanced, neutral or objective.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Journalism Practice</journal><volume>18</volume><journalNumber>3</journalNumber><paginationStart>683</paginationStart><paginationEnd>702</paginationEnd><publisher>Informa UK Limited</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint>1751-2786</issnPrint><issnElectronic>1751-2794</issnElectronic><keywords>Twitter; content analysis; alternative media; “good” journalism; social media strategy; alternative online political media</keywords><publishedDay>25</publishedDay><publishedMonth>3</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2024</publishedYear><publishedDate>2024-03-25</publishedDate><doi>10.1080/17512786.2022.2050469</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Media</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>AMED</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm>SU Library paid the OA fee (TA Institutional Deal)</apcterm><funders>This work was supported by Economic and Social Research Council.</funders><projectreference/><lastEdited>2024-05-07T11:18:45.4406154</lastEdited><Created>2022-03-09T16:23:44.8858473</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">School of Culture and Communication - Media, Communications, Journalism and PR</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Richard</firstname><surname>Thomas</surname><orcid>0000-0003-3511-5628</orcid><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Declan</firstname><surname>McDowell-Naylor</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Stephen</firstname><surname>Cushion</surname><order>3</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>59567__23739__a92542a772bc48e2b92bcd6dfedbe01f.pdf</filename><originalFilename>59567.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2022-03-30T11:07:58.5712615</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>3164088</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>© 2022 The Author(s). Distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY 4.0).</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling v2 59567 2022-03-09 Understanding “Good” and “Bad” Twitter Practices in Alternative Media: An Analysis of Online Political Media in the UK (2015–2018) 6458b4d9c68a8d6431e86961e74dccb5 0000-0003-3511-5628 Richard Thomas Richard Thomas true false 2022-03-09 AMED Alternative Online Political Media (AOPM) have become increasingly important within international news landscapes, but their social media practices have received limited academic attention. Our large-scale content analysis (N = 14807) offers the first comprehensive study of how APOM in the UK use Twitter. Drawing on a pertinent model of social media use that enhances notions of “good” and “bad” journalism, and through our own sentiment analysis, we find Twitter norms closely aligned with those of legacy media, including a relatively limited online interaction with audiences. We conclude that while AOPM follow many social media logics consistent with mainstream news sites and add to the wider realm of political analysis, their highly partisan content means that their Twitter use cannot be considered balanced, neutral or objective. Journal Article Journalism Practice 18 3 683 702 Informa UK Limited 1751-2786 1751-2794 Twitter; content analysis; alternative media; “good” journalism; social media strategy; alternative online political media 25 3 2024 2024-03-25 10.1080/17512786.2022.2050469 COLLEGE NANME Media COLLEGE CODE AMED Swansea University SU Library paid the OA fee (TA Institutional Deal) This work was supported by Economic and Social Research Council. 2024-05-07T11:18:45.4406154 2022-03-09T16:23:44.8858473 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences School of Culture and Communication - Media, Communications, Journalism and PR Richard Thomas 0000-0003-3511-5628 1 Declan McDowell-Naylor 2 Stephen Cushion 3 59567__23739__a92542a772bc48e2b92bcd6dfedbe01f.pdf 59567.pdf 2022-03-30T11:07:58.5712615 Output 3164088 application/pdf Version of Record true © 2022 The Author(s). Distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY 4.0). true eng http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title Understanding “Good” and “Bad” Twitter Practices in Alternative Media: An Analysis of Online Political Media in the UK (2015–2018)
spellingShingle Understanding “Good” and “Bad” Twitter Practices in Alternative Media: An Analysis of Online Political Media in the UK (2015–2018)
Richard Thomas
title_short Understanding “Good” and “Bad” Twitter Practices in Alternative Media: An Analysis of Online Political Media in the UK (2015–2018)
title_full Understanding “Good” and “Bad” Twitter Practices in Alternative Media: An Analysis of Online Political Media in the UK (2015–2018)
title_fullStr Understanding “Good” and “Bad” Twitter Practices in Alternative Media: An Analysis of Online Political Media in the UK (2015–2018)
title_full_unstemmed Understanding “Good” and “Bad” Twitter Practices in Alternative Media: An Analysis of Online Political Media in the UK (2015–2018)
title_sort Understanding “Good” and “Bad” Twitter Practices in Alternative Media: An Analysis of Online Political Media in the UK (2015–2018)
author_id_str_mv 6458b4d9c68a8d6431e86961e74dccb5
author_id_fullname_str_mv 6458b4d9c68a8d6431e86961e74dccb5_***_Richard Thomas
author Richard Thomas
author2 Richard Thomas
Declan McDowell-Naylor
Stephen Cushion
format Journal article
container_title Journalism Practice
container_volume 18
container_issue 3
container_start_page 683
publishDate 2024
institution Swansea University
issn 1751-2786
1751-2794
doi_str_mv 10.1080/17512786.2022.2050469
publisher Informa UK Limited
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str School of Culture and Communication - Media, Communications, Journalism and PR{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}School of Culture and Communication - Media, Communications, Journalism and PR
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description Alternative Online Political Media (AOPM) have become increasingly important within international news landscapes, but their social media practices have received limited academic attention. Our large-scale content analysis (N = 14807) offers the first comprehensive study of how APOM in the UK use Twitter. Drawing on a pertinent model of social media use that enhances notions of “good” and “bad” journalism, and through our own sentiment analysis, we find Twitter norms closely aligned with those of legacy media, including a relatively limited online interaction with audiences. We conclude that while AOPM follow many social media logics consistent with mainstream news sites and add to the wider realm of political analysis, their highly partisan content means that their Twitter use cannot be considered balanced, neutral or objective.
published_date 2024-03-25T11:18:45Z
_version_ 1798388711516274688
score 11.037056

Similar Items