IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/meanco/v8y2020i4p96-106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Digital Public Sphere and Geography: The Influence of Physical Location on Twitter’s Political Conversation

Author

Listed:
  • Andreu Casero-Ripollés

    (Department of Communication Sciences, Universitat Jaume I, Spain)

  • Josep-Lluís Micó-Sanz

    (Blanquerna School of Communication and International Relations, Universitat Ramon Llull, Spain)

  • Míriam Díez-Bosch

    (Blanquerna School of Communication and International Relations, Universitat Ramon Llull, Spain)

Abstract

Social media has instituted new parameters for the political conversation in the digital public sphere. Previous research had identified several of these new phenomena: political polarisation, hate speech discourses, and fake news, among others. However, little attention has been paid to the users’ geographical location, specifically to the role location plays in political discussion on social media, and to its further implications in the digital public sphere. A priori, we might think that on the digital landscape geographical restrictions no longer condition political debate, allowing increasingly diverse users to participate in, and influence, the discussion. To analyse this, machine learning techniques were used to study Twitter’s political conversation about the negotiation process for the formation of the government in Spain that took place between 2015 and 2016. A big data sample of 127,3 million tweets associated with three Spanish cities (Madrid, Barcelona, and Valencia) was used. The results show that the geographical location of the users directly affects the political conversation on Twitter, despite the dissolution of the physical restrictions that the online environment favours. Demographics, cultural factors, and proximity to the centres of political power are factors conditioning the structure of digital political debate. These findings are a novel contribution to the design of more effective political campaigns and strategies, and provide a better understanding of the dynamics of the digital public sphere provided by Twitter.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreu Casero-Ripollés & Josep-Lluís Micó-Sanz & Míriam Díez-Bosch, 2020. "Digital Public Sphere and Geography: The Influence of Physical Location on Twitter’s Political Conversation," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 96-106.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:8:y:2020:i:4:p:96-106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/3145
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward E Leamer & Michael Storper, 2001. "The Economic Geography of the Internet Age," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 32(4), pages 641-665, December.
    2. Matthew Barnidge & Cynthia Peacock, 2019. "A Third Wave of Selective Exposure Research? The Challenges Posed by Hyperpartisan News on Social Media," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 4-7.
    3. Chrysi Dagoula, 2019. "Mapping Political Discussions on Twitter: Where the Elites Remain Elites," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(1), pages 225-234.
    4. Marco Bastos & Dan Mercea & Andrea Baronchelli, 2018. "The geographic embedding of online echo chambers: Evidence from the Brexit campaign," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Rudy Arthur & Hywel T P Williams, 2019. "The human geography of Twitter: Quantifying regional identity and inter-region communication in England and Wales," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-14, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Pengyu Zhu, 2013. "Telecommuting, Household Commute and Location Choice," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 50(12), pages 2441-2459, September.
    2. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Riccardo Crescenzi, 2008. "Mountains in a flat world: why proximity still matters for the location of economic activity," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 1(3), pages 371-388.
    3. Miren Lafourcade & Jacques-François Thisse, 2011. "New Economic Geography: The Role of Transport Costs," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Gene M. Grossman & Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, 2008. "Trading Tasks: A Simple Theory of Offshoring," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1978-1997, December.
    5. Luigi Benfratello & Tiziano Razzolini & Alessandro Sembenelli, 2009. "Does ICT Investment Spur or Hamper Offshoring? Empirical Evidence from Microdata," Working papers 05, Former Department of Economics and Public Finance "G. Prato", University of Torino.
    6. Del Bosco, Barbara & Cristina Bettinelli, 2020. "How Do Family SMEs Control Their Investments Abroad? The Role of Distance and Family Control," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 1-35, February.
    7. Hendrik P. van Dalen & Aico P. van Vuuren, 2003. "Greasing the Wheels of Trade," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-066/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    8. Sèna K. Gnangnon, 2021. "Aid for Trade and services export diversification in recipient countries," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 189-225, June.
    9. Michael Storper, 2010. "Agglomeration, Trade, And Spatial Development: Bringing Dynamics Back In," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 313-342, February.
    10. Michael Storper & Anthony J. Venables, 2004. "Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 351-370, August.
    11. Richard Florida & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Michael Storper, 2023. "Critical Commentary: Cities in a post-COVID world," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(8), pages 1509-1531, June.
    12. Simona Stojanova & Nina Cvar & Jurij Verhovnik & Nataša Božić & Jure Trilar & Andrej Kos & Emilija Stojmenova Duh, 2022. "Rural Digital Innovation Hubs as a Paradigm for Sustainable Business Models in Europe’s Rural Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Masahisa Fujita & Jacques-François Thisse, 2006. "Globalization And The Evolution Of The Supply Chain: Who Gains And Who Loses?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 47(3), pages 811-836, August.
    14. Nathalie Schieb-Bienfait & Anne-Laure Saives & Brigitte Charles-Pauvers & Sandrine Emin & Hélène Morteau, 2018. "Grouping and/or grounding : a closer look at cultural quarters and creative cluster management in Nantes (France)," Post-Print hal-02502524, HAL.
    15. Wolfgang Keller & Stephen Ross Yeaple, 2013. "The Gravity of Knowledge," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(4), pages 1414-1444, June.
    16. Thomas Bolli & Jörg Schläpfer, 2015. "Job mobility, peer effects, and research productivity in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 629-650, September.
    17. Dachs, Bernhard & Kinkel, Steffen & Jäger, Angela, 2019. "Bringing it all back home? Backshoring of manufacturing activities and the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 1-1.
    18. Céline Carrère & Maurice Schiff, 2005. "On the Geography of Trade. Distance is Alive and Well," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 56(6), pages 1249-1274.
    19. Harrigan, James & Venables, Tony, 2004. "Timeliness, trade and agglomeration," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 2300, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Duranton, Gilles & Puga, Diego, 2005. "From sectoral to functional urban specialisation," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 343-370, March.

    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:8:y:2020:i:4:p:96-106. 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.