探索新西兰大麻合法化公投期间 "支持 "和 "反对 "大麻合法化的数字新闻、宣传网络和社交媒体活动

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q3 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
M. Rychert, Chris Wilkins, Robin van der Sanden, Jitesh Prasad
{"title":"探索新西兰大麻合法化公投期间 \"支持 \"和 \"反对 \"大麻合法化的数字新闻、宣传网络和社交媒体活动","authors":"M. Rychert, Chris Wilkins, Robin van der Sanden, Jitesh Prasad","doi":"10.1080/09687637.2022.2090897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract New Zealand’s 2020 cannabis legalisation referendum was narrowly defeated. Some post-referendum commentary claimed that the anti-reform campaign dominated the information space. Digital media represented a new forum for referendum advocacy. We analysed reporting on the cannabis referendum by six leading New Zealand digital news providers and Facebook advocacy campaigns ‘for’ and ‘against’ legalisation during 3 months pre-referendum. The mean sentiment score of media articles was marginally supportive of reform (+0.4 on a scale of −2 to +2). On average, pro-legalisation articles were re-published more often (2.3 vs 1.5 times for anti-reform), received better website placement (52% of articles published in the prime website section) and had more Facebook interactions (mean 1129 vs 771 for anti-reform). Ninety six per cent of articles were shared on Facebook, including via paid advertising. The principal pro-legalisation campaigner spent four times as much on Facebook advertising as the principal anti-legalisation campaigner. The networked map of Facebook posts illuminated links between digital media and cannabis advocacy. We find that pro-legalisation campaign dominated the digital information space, while the anti-legalisation campaign relied on traditional media, such as billboards. Combining media sentiment analysis with network analysis of social media posts provided new insights into the cannabis referenda debate.","PeriodicalId":11367,"journal":{"name":"Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy","volume":"29 1","pages":"505 - 515"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring digital news, advocacy networks and social media campaigns ‘for’ and ‘against’ cannabis legalisation during New Zealand’s cannabis legalisation referendum\",\"authors\":\"M. Rychert, Chris Wilkins, Robin van der Sanden, Jitesh Prasad\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09687637.2022.2090897\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract New Zealand’s 2020 cannabis legalisation referendum was narrowly defeated. Some post-referendum commentary claimed that the anti-reform campaign dominated the information space. Digital media represented a new forum for referendum advocacy. We analysed reporting on the cannabis referendum by six leading New Zealand digital news providers and Facebook advocacy campaigns ‘for’ and ‘against’ legalisation during 3 months pre-referendum. The mean sentiment score of media articles was marginally supportive of reform (+0.4 on a scale of −2 to +2). On average, pro-legalisation articles were re-published more often (2.3 vs 1.5 times for anti-reform), received better website placement (52% of articles published in the prime website section) and had more Facebook interactions (mean 1129 vs 771 for anti-reform). Ninety six per cent of articles were shared on Facebook, including via paid advertising. The principal pro-legalisation campaigner spent four times as much on Facebook advertising as the principal anti-legalisation campaigner. The networked map of Facebook posts illuminated links between digital media and cannabis advocacy. We find that pro-legalisation campaign dominated the digital information space, while the anti-legalisation campaign relied on traditional media, such as billboards. Combining media sentiment analysis with network analysis of social media posts provided new insights into the cannabis referenda debate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11367,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"505 - 515\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2022.2090897\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2022.2090897","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 新西兰 2020 年大麻合法化公投以微弱劣势落败。公投后的一些评论称,反改革运动主导了信息空间。数字媒体成为公投宣传的新阵地。我们分析了公投前三个月内新西兰六家主要数字新闻提供商以及 Facebook 上 "支持 "和 "反对 "大麻合法化的宣传活动对大麻公投的报道。媒体文章的平均情感得分略微支持改革(在-2 到 +2 的范围内 +0.4)。平均而言,支持合法化的文章被再次发表的次数更多(2.3 次,而反对合法化的文章为 1.5 次),在网站上的位置更好(52% 的文章发表在网站的黄金位置),在 Facebook 上的互动次数更多(平均为 1129 次,而反对合法化的文章为 771 次)。96%的文章在 Facebook 上被分享,包括通过付费广告分享。支持合法化的主要宣传者在 Facebook 上的广告投入是反对合法化的主要宣传者的四倍。Facebook 帖子网络图揭示了数字媒体与大麻宣传之间的联系。我们发现,支持大麻合法化的活动主导了数字信息空间,而反对大麻合法化的活动则依赖于广告牌等传统媒体。将媒体情感分析与社交媒体帖子网络分析相结合,为大麻公投辩论提供了新的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring digital news, advocacy networks and social media campaigns ‘for’ and ‘against’ cannabis legalisation during New Zealand’s cannabis legalisation referendum
Abstract New Zealand’s 2020 cannabis legalisation referendum was narrowly defeated. Some post-referendum commentary claimed that the anti-reform campaign dominated the information space. Digital media represented a new forum for referendum advocacy. We analysed reporting on the cannabis referendum by six leading New Zealand digital news providers and Facebook advocacy campaigns ‘for’ and ‘against’ legalisation during 3 months pre-referendum. The mean sentiment score of media articles was marginally supportive of reform (+0.4 on a scale of −2 to +2). On average, pro-legalisation articles were re-published more often (2.3 vs 1.5 times for anti-reform), received better website placement (52% of articles published in the prime website section) and had more Facebook interactions (mean 1129 vs 771 for anti-reform). Ninety six per cent of articles were shared on Facebook, including via paid advertising. The principal pro-legalisation campaigner spent four times as much on Facebook advertising as the principal anti-legalisation campaigner. The networked map of Facebook posts illuminated links between digital media and cannabis advocacy. We find that pro-legalisation campaign dominated the digital information space, while the anti-legalisation campaign relied on traditional media, such as billboards. Combining media sentiment analysis with network analysis of social media posts provided new insights into the cannabis referenda debate.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.50%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Drugs: education, prevention & policy is a refereed journal which aims to provide a forum for communication and debate between policy makers, practitioners and researchers concerned with social and health policy responses to legal and illicit drug use and drug-related harm. The journal publishes multi-disciplinary research papers, commentaries and reviews on policy, prevention and harm reduction issues regarding the use and misuse of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. It is journal policy to encourage submissions which reflect different cultural, historical and theoretical approaches to the development of policy and practice.
×
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