Resonant Moments in Media Events:

Josephine Lukito, P. Sarma, Jordan M. Foley, Aman Abhishek, E. Bucy, Larissa Doroshenko, Zhongkai Sun, Jon C. W. Pevehouse, W. Sethares, Dhavan V. Shah
{"title":"Resonant Moments in Media Events:","authors":"Josephine Lukito, P. Sarma, Jordan M. Foley, Aman Abhishek, E. Bucy, Larissa Doroshenko, Zhongkai Sun, Jon C. W. Pevehouse, W. Sethares, Dhavan V. Shah","doi":"10.51685/jqd.2021.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Live-tweeting has emerged as a popular hybrid media activity during broadcasted media events. Through second screens, users are able to engage with one another and react in real time to the broadcasted content. These reactions are dynamic: they ebb and flow throughout the media event as users respond to and converse about different memorable moments. Using the first 2016 U.S. presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as a case, this paper employs a temporal method for identifying resonant moments on social media during televised events by combining time series analysis, qualitative (human-in-the-loop) evaluation, and a novel natural language processing tool to identify discursive shifts before and after resonant moments. This analysis finds key differences in social media discourse about the two candidates. Notably, Trump received substantially more coverage than Clinton throughout the debate. However, a more in-depth analysis of these candidates’ resonant moments reveals that discourse about Trump tended to be more critical compared to discourse associated with Clinton’s resonant moments.","PeriodicalId":93587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of quantitative description: digital media","volume":"67 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of quantitative description: digital media","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2021.019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Live-tweeting has emerged as a popular hybrid media activity during broadcasted media events. Through second screens, users are able to engage with one another and react in real time to the broadcasted content. These reactions are dynamic: they ebb and flow throughout the media event as users respond to and converse about different memorable moments. Using the first 2016 U.S. presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as a case, this paper employs a temporal method for identifying resonant moments on social media during televised events by combining time series analysis, qualitative (human-in-the-loop) evaluation, and a novel natural language processing tool to identify discursive shifts before and after resonant moments. This analysis finds key differences in social media discourse about the two candidates. Notably, Trump received substantially more coverage than Clinton throughout the debate. However, a more in-depth analysis of these candidates’ resonant moments reveals that discourse about Trump tended to be more critical compared to discourse associated with Clinton’s resonant moments.
媒体事件中的共鸣时刻:
在广播媒体活动期间,实时推特已经成为一种流行的混合媒体活动。通过第二个屏幕,用户可以相互交流,并对广播内容做出实时反应。这些反应是动态的:随着用户对不同难忘时刻的回应和交谈,它们在整个媒体事件中起起落落。本文以2016年希拉里·克林顿和唐纳德·特朗普之间的第一次美国总统辩论为例,采用一种时间方法,结合时间序列分析、定性(人在循环)评估和一种新的自然语言处理工具,识别电视事件期间社交媒体上的共振时刻,以识别共振时刻前后的话语变化。这一分析发现了关于两位候选人的社交媒体话语的关键差异。值得注意的是,在整个辩论过程中,特朗普获得的报道比克林顿多得多。然而,对这些候选人的共鸣时刻进行更深入的分析表明,与克林顿的共鸣时刻相关的话语相比,关于特朗普的话语往往更具批判性。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信