IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/meanco/v7y2019i1p213-224.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Political Journalism Homophily on Twitter: A Comparative Analysis of US and UK Elections in 2016 and 2017

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly Fincham

    (Department of Journalism, Public Relations and Media Studies, Hofstra University, USA)

Abstract

The tendency of political journalists to form insular groups or packs, chasing the same angles and quoting the same sources, is a well-documented issue in journalism studies and has long been criticized for its role in groupthink and homogenous news coverage. This groupthink attracted renewed criticism after the unexpected victory of Republican candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election as the campaign coverage had indicated a likely win by the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. This pattern was repeated in the 2017 UK election when the Conservative party lost their majority after a campaign in which the news coverage had pointed to an overall Tory victory. Such groupthink is often attributed to homophily, the tendency of individuals to interact with those most like them, and while homophily in the legacy media system is well-studied, there is little research around homophily in the hybrid media system, even as social media platforms like Twitter facilitate the development—and analysis—of virtual political journalism packs. This study, which compares Twitter interactions among US and UK political reporters in the 2016 and 2017 national elections, shows that political journalists are overwhelmingly more likely to use Twitter to interact with other journalists, particularly political journalists, and that their offline tendencies to form homogenous networks have transferred online. There are some exceptions around factors such as gender, news organizations and types of news organization—and important distinctions between types of interactions—but overall the study provides evidence of sustained homophily as journalists continue to normalize Twitter.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly Fincham, 2019. "Exploring Political Journalism Homophily on Twitter: A Comparative Analysis of US and UK Elections in 2016 and 2017," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(1), pages 213-224.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:7:y:2019:i:1:p:213-224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/1765
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brown JF & Hamilton-Mason J & Maramaldi P & Barnhill LJ, 2017. "Communication Crossroads," Global Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 4(1), pages 1-2, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marcel Broersma & Scott A. Eldridge II, 2019. "Journalism and Social Media: Redistribution of Power?," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(1), pages 193-197.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruba Bataineh & Ali Eid Reshidi, 2017. "The cultural gap in EFL secondary stage curricula and instructional practices as perceived by Saudi students?, teachers? and supervisors," International Journal of Teaching and Education, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences, vol. 5(2), pages 1-21, October.
    2. Elena Llorca-Asensi & Alexander Sánchez Díaz & Maria-Elena Fabregat-Cabrera & Raúl Ruiz-Callado, 2021. "“Why Can’t We?” Disinformation and Right to Self-Determination. The Catalan Conflict on Twitter," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-23, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:7:y:2019:i:1:p:213-224. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.