Political discourses, ideologies, and online coalitions in the Brazilian Congress on Twitter during 2019

被引：8
作者：
Garcia-Sanchez, Efrain [1 ]
Benetti, Pedro Rolo [1 ]
Higa, Gustavo Lucas [1 ,2 ]
Alvarez, Marcos Cesar [3 ]
Gomez-Nieto, Erick [4 ,5 ]
机构：
[1] Univ Sao Paulo, Ctr Study Violence, Av Prof Almeida Prado 520,Cidade Univ, BR-05508070 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
[2] Univ Sao Paulo, Sociol, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
[3] Univ Sao Paulo, Dept Sociol, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
[4] Univ Catolica San Pablo, Dept Comp Sci, Arequipa, Peru
[5] Univ Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
来源：
NEW MEDIA & SOCIETY | 2023年 / 25卷 / 05期
基金：
巴西圣保罗研究基金会;
关键词：
Brazil; polarization; political discourse; political ideology; social network analysis; Twitter; SOCIAL MEDIA; FEATHER TWEET; ECHO CHAMBER; COMMUNICATION; CONSEQUENCES; POPULISM; NETWORKS; LEADERS; SPREAD; BIRDS;
D O I：
10.1177/14614448211017920
中图分类号：
G2 [信息与知识传播];
学科分类号：
05 ; 0503 ;
摘要：
The aim of this research is to describe the pattern of interactions of Brazilian legislators on Twitter during 2019 in the construction of political discourses. Based on 20,076 replies during 2019, posted on Twitter by 514 Brazilian legislators, we conducted descriptive analysis of legislators' Twitter profiles, social network analyses from their interactions, and content analysis of the messages. We found that (1) there are large disparities between legislators in the use of Twitter; (2) the pattern of interactions depicted five clusters defined by political affinities; (3) each cluster had different features regarding their composition and impact; (4) the centrality of the legislators within the network was positively associated with public endorsement on Twitter; and (5) the topics of messages within the clusters reinforce discourses aligned to political ideologies. We argue that the pattern of interactions on Twitter allows to identify online coalitions that reinforce particular discourses within the Brazilian parliament.
引用
收藏
页码：1130 / 1152
页数：23
相关论文
共 62 条
[31]   New platform, old habits? Candidates' use of Twitter during the 2010 British and Dutch general election campaigns [J].
Graham, Todd ;
Jackson, Dan ;
Broersma, Marcel .
NEW MEDIA & SOCIETY, 2016, 18 (05) :765-783
[32]   Who is responsible for Twitter's echo chamber problem? Evidence from 2016 US election networks [J].
Guo, Lei ;
Rohde, Jacob A. ;
Wu, H. Denis .
INFORMATION COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY, 2020, 23 (02) :234-251
[33]  
Hemphill Libby., 2013, Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, P877, DOI DOI 10.1145/2441776.2441876
[34]   Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-Ideology Exposure on Twitter [J].
Himelboim, Itai ;
McCreery, Stephen ;
Smith, Marc .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION, 2013, 18 (02) :40-60
[35]   Rhetoric, Political Ideology and the Peace Process in Colombia: A Twitter® Analysis [J].
Idaly Barreto-Galeano, Maria ;
Felipe Medina-Arboleda, Ivan ;
Zambrano-Hernandez, Sonia ;
Sabucedo-Cameselle, Jose-Manuel ;
Blanco-Abarca, Amalio ;
Maurice Lair, Eric .
STUDIES IN CONFLICT & TERRORISM, 2021, 44 (11) :920-937
[36]   Supporting digital discourse? The deliberative function of links on Twitter [J].
Jakob, Julia .
NEW MEDIA & SOCIETY, 2022, 24 (05) :1196-1215
[37]   The end of the end of ideology [J].
Jost, John T. .
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 2006, 61 (07) :651-670
[38]   How Social Media Facilitates Political Protest: Information, Motivation, and Social Networks [J].
Jost, John T. ;
Barbera, Pablo ;
Bonneau, Richard ;
Langer, Melanie ;
Metzger, Megan ;
Nagler, Jonathan ;
Sterling, Joanna ;
Tucker, Joshua A. .
POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2018, 39 :85-118
[39]   Ideological asymmetries in conformity, desire for shared reality, and the spread of misinformation [J].
Jost, John T. ;
van der Linden, Sander ;
Panagopoulos, Costas ;
Hardin, Curtis D. .
CURRENT OPINION IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2018, 23 :77-83
[40]   Discursive Power in Contemporary Media Systems: A Comparative Framework [J].
Jungherr, Andreas ;
Posegga, Oliver ;
An, Jisun .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRESS-POLITICS, 2019, 24 (04) :404-425
1234567