Social Media and Policy Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Switzerland.

Fabrizio Gilardi, Theresa Gessler, Maël Kubli, Stefan Müller
{"title":"Social Media and Policy Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Switzerland.","authors":"Fabrizio Gilardi, Theresa Gessler, Maël Kubli, Stefan Müller","doi":"10.1111/spsr.12458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We study the role of social media in debates regarding two policy responses to COVID-19 in Switzerland: face-mask rules and contact-tracing apps. We use a dictionary classifier to categorize 612'177 tweets by parties, politicians, and the public as well as 441'458 articles published in 76 newspapers between February and August 2020. We distinguish between \"problem\" (COVID-19) and \"solutions\" (face masks and contact-tracing apps) and, using a vector autoregression approach, we analyze the relationship between their salience on social and traditional media, as well as among different groups on social media. We find that overall attention to COVID-19 was not driven by endogenous dynamics between the different actors. By contrast, the debate on face masks was led by the attentive public and by politicians, whereas parties and newspapers followed. The results illustrate how social media challenge the capacity of party and media elites to craft a consensus regarding the appropriateness of different measures as responses to a major crisis.</p>","PeriodicalId":93813,"journal":{"name":"Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Politikwissenschaft = Revue suisse de science politique = Swiss political science review","volume":"27 2","pages":"243-256"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8242806/pdf/SPSR-27-243.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Politikwissenschaft = Revue suisse de science politique = Swiss political science review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12458","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/5/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We study the role of social media in debates regarding two policy responses to COVID-19 in Switzerland: face-mask rules and contact-tracing apps. We use a dictionary classifier to categorize 612'177 tweets by parties, politicians, and the public as well as 441'458 articles published in 76 newspapers between February and August 2020. We distinguish between "problem" (COVID-19) and "solutions" (face masks and contact-tracing apps) and, using a vector autoregression approach, we analyze the relationship between their salience on social and traditional media, as well as among different groups on social media. We find that overall attention to COVID-19 was not driven by endogenous dynamics between the different actors. By contrast, the debate on face masks was led by the attentive public and by politicians, whereas parties and newspapers followed. The results illustrate how social media challenge the capacity of party and media elites to craft a consensus regarding the appropriateness of different measures as responses to a major crisis.

社交媒体与瑞士应对 COVID-19 大流行的政策。
我们研究了社交媒体在瑞士针对 COVID-19 的两种政策应对措施的辩论中所扮演的角色:面罩规则和接触追踪应用程序。我们使用词典分类器对政党、政治家和公众发布的 612'177 条推文以及 2020 年 2 月至 8 月间在 76 家报纸上发表的 441'458 篇文章进行了分类。我们区分了 "问题"(COVID-19)和 "解决方案"(人脸面具和联系人追踪应用程序),并使用向量自回归方法分析了它们在社交媒体和传统媒体上的显著性之间的关系,以及社交媒体上不同群体之间的关系。我们发现,COVID-19 的整体关注度并不是由不同参与者之间的内生动力驱动的。相比之下,关于口罩的讨论是由公众和政治家主导的,而政党和报纸则紧随其后。这些结果说明了社交媒体是如何挑战政党和媒体精英就不同措施是否适合作为重大危机应对措施达成共识的能力的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信