Profile
Journalism and Mass Communication Volume 3 (2016), Article ID 3:IJJMC-121, 6 pages
https://doi.org/10.15344/2349-2635/2016/121
Original Article
A New Sphere for Political Discourse-Understanding Twitter as a Sphere for Political Discussion

Soo Young Bae

Department of Communication, University of Massachusetts Amherst, N366 Integrative Learning Center, 650 N. Pleasant St., Amherst, MA 01003-1100, USA
Soo Young Bae, Department of Communication, University of Massachusetts Amherst, N366 Integrative Learning Center, 650 N. Pleasant St., Amherst, MA 01003-1100, USA; E-mail: sooyoungbae@umass.edu
25 August 2016; 05 December 2016; 07 December 2016
Bae SY (2016) A New Sphere for Political Discourse-Understanding Twitter as a Sphere for Political Discussion. Int J Journalism Mass Comm 3: 121. doi: https://doi.org/10.15344/2349-2635/2016/121

References

  1. Alexa (2013) Global top sites. View
  2. Ufekci, Z, Wilson C (2012) Social Media and the Decision to Participate in Political Protest: Observations From Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication 62: 363-379. View
  3. Habermas J (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MIT Press. View
  4. Huckfeldt RR, Sprague JD (1995) Citizens, politics, and social communication: information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge - England; New York: Cambridge University Press. View
  5. Lazarsfeld PF, Berelson B, Gaudet H (1944) The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press. View
  6. Noelle-Neumann E (1974) The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication 24: 43-51. View
  7. Weimann G (1991) The influentials-Back to the concept of opinion leaders. Public Opinion Quarterly 55: 267-279. View
  8. Weimann G (1994) The influentials: People who influence people. Albany: State University of New York Press. View
  9. Katz E, Lazarsfeld PF (1955) Personal influence: the part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New York: Free Press. View
  10. Brosius H, Weimann G (1996) Who sets the agenda? Agenda-setting as a two-step flow. Communication Research 23: 561-580. View
  11. Weimann G, Brosius H (1994) Is there a two-step flow of agenda-setting? International Journal of Public Opinion Research 6: 323-341. View
  12. Levy MR (1978) Opinion leadership and television news uses. Public Opinion Quarterly 42: 402-406. View
  13. Scheufele DA, Shah DV (2000) Personality strength and social capital: The role of dispositional and informational variables in the production of civic participation. Communication Research 27: 107-131. View
  14. Shah DV, Scheufele DA (2006) Explicating opinion leadership: Nonpolitical dispositions, information consumption, and civic participation. Political Communication 23: 1-22. View
  15. Bargh JA, McKenna KYA, Fitzsimons GM (2002) Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the ‘‘true self’’ on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues 58: 33-48. View
  16. Stromer-Galley J (2003) Diversity of political conversation on the Internet. Users’perspectives. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 8: 0. View
  17. McKenna KYA, Bargh JA (2000) Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4: 57-75. View
  18. Schneider SM (1996) Creating a Democratic Public Sphere Through Political Discussion: A Case Study of Abortion Conversation on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review 14: 373-393. View
  19. Ratkiewicz J, Conover M Meiss M, Gonçalves B, Flammini A, Menczer F (2011) Detecting and Tracking Political Abuse in Social Media. Proceedings from ICWSM’11: the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. View
  20. Hindman MS (2009) The myth of digital democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. View
  21. boyd d (2010) Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi, (Ed.), Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Cultureon Social Network Sites, (39-58). New York: Routledge. View
  22. boyd D, Golder S, Lotan G (2010) Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society. View
  23. Honeycutt C, Herring SC (2009) Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. Proceedings of the Forty-Second Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press. View
  24. Huckfeldt R, Mendez JM, Osborn T (2004) Disagreement, Ambivalence, and Engagement: The Political Consequences of Heterogeneous Networks. Political Psychology 25: 65-95. View
  25. Lazarsfeld PF, Merton RK (1954) Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger (Ed.) Freedom and control in modern society, (pp.18-66). New York: Van Nostrand. View