IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rfa/smcjnl/v12y2024i3p263-276.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Netizens’ Discussions on Twitter Concerning Floods and Presidential Candidates

Author

Listed:
  • Nurhayani Saragih
  • Sriwahyuning Astuti
  • Novi Erlita
  • Suraya Mansur
  • Santa Lorita Simamora
  • Endri Endri

Abstract

This qualitative study dives into social media debates about flood disasters in Jakarta, using Twitteras the significant inquiry medium. The primary goal is to discover new patterns of online social interactions, shed light on the concept of selective exposure, and rigorously chronicle the activities of critical actors in this digital network. We conducted the data gathering process on May 25, 2023, specifically focusing on the selected phrase "Banjir Jakarta." For a thorough study, NVivo 12 Plus compiled a significant dataset of 3,427 tweets. We divide the research findings into three distinct sections- the volume of conversations, the various categories of influencers involved, the prevailing sentiment and conversational tone of these influencers, and an exploration of the most frequently employed words in these discussions. This study highlights the significant impact of nanoinfluencers in these talks, accounting for the vast majority (93.70%) of participants. Furthermore, it emphasizes the active debate around the most likely presidential candidates for 2024. This speech had two prominent figures, Anies Baswedan and Ganjar Pranowo, who both elicited different tones and sentiments. Within this complex communication landscape, influencers emerge as crucial entities actively shaping public attitude and discourse, spanning news portals and individual social media profiles. Finally, this study highlights the enormous importance of social media, particularly Twitter, in shaping public awareness and driving political conversations, notably in crisis management and future presidential candidates.

Suggested Citation

  • Nurhayani Saragih & Sriwahyuning Astuti & Novi Erlita & Suraya Mansur & Santa Lorita Simamora & Endri Endri, 2024. "Netizens’ Discussions on Twitter Concerning Floods and Presidential Candidates," Studies in Media and Communication, Redfame publishing, vol. 12(3), pages 263-276, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:rfa:smcjnl:v:12:y:2024:i:3:p:263-276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://redfame.com/journal/index.php/smc/article/download/6859/6618
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://redfame.com/journal/index.php/smc/article/view/6859
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:apsrev:v:113:y:2019:i:04:p:883-901_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Barberá, Pablo & Casas, Andreu & Nagler, Jonathan & Egan, Patrick J. & Bonneau, Richard & Jost, John T. & Tucker, Joshua A., 2019. "Who Leads? Who Follows? Measuring Issue Attention and Agenda Setting by Legislators and the Mass Public Using Social Media Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(4), pages 883-901, November.
    3. Björn Ross & Laura Pilz & Benjamin Cabrera & Florian Brachten & German Neubaum & Stefan Stieglitz, 2019. "Are social bots a real threat? An agent-based model of the spiral of silence to analyse the impact of manipulative actors in social networks," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 394-412, July.
    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. Oscar Calvo-Gonz'alez & Axel Eizmendi & Germ'an Reyes, 2022. "The Shifting Attention of Political Leaders: Evidence from Two Centuries of Presidential Speeches," Papers 2209.00540, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    2. Zhang, Han, 2021. "How Using Machine Learning Classification as a Variable in Regression Leads to Attenuation Bias and What to Do About It," SocArXiv 453jk, Center for Open Science.
    3. Ismail Adelopo & Ibrahim Rufai & Moshood Bello, 2023. "Financial Accountability and Religious Sentiments: The Case of Sukuk Bond," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(2), pages 397-420, January.
    4. Enriqueta Aragonès & Clara Ponsatí, 2022. "Shocks to issue salience and electoral competition," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 33-63, March.
    5. Malik, Nishtha & Kar, Arpan Kumar & Tripathi, Shalini Nath & Gupta, Shivam, 2023. "Exploring the impact of fairness of social bots on user experience," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    6. Michael Kowal, 2023. "The Value of a Like: Facebook, Viral Posts, and Campaign Finance in US Congressional Elections," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(3), pages 153-163.
    7. Alexander Shevtsov & Maria Oikonomidou & Despoina Antonakaki & Polyvios Pratikakis & Sotiris Ioannidis, 2023. "What Tweets and YouTube comments have in common? Sentiment and graph analysis on data related to US elections 2020," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(1), pages 1-31, January.
    8. Stefan Lehrner, 2022. "Agenda setting in social media election campaigns," Eximia Journal, Plus Communication Consulting SRL, vol. 5(1), pages 158-169, July.
    9. Magalhães de Oliveira, Gustavo & Sellare, Jorge & Cisneros, Elias & Börner, Jan, 2024. "Mind your language: Political signaling and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon," Discussion Papers 333334, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    10. Morales, Juan S., 2021. "Legislating during war: Conflict and politics in Colombia," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    11. Schürmann, Lennart & Schwalbach, Jan & Himmelrath, Noam, 2025. "Location matters! Geospatial dynamics of MP responses to Covid‐19 protests in multilevel systems," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 64, pages 513-524.
    12. Jetter, Michael & Molina, Teresa, 2022. "Persuasive agenda-setting: Rodrigo Duterte’s inauguration speech and drugs in the Philippines," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    13. Clara Ponsatí & Enriqueta Aragonès, 2019. "Preference Shocks that Destroy Party Systems," Working Papers 1118, Barcelona School of Economics.
    14. Costas Milas & Theodore Panagiotidis & Theologos Dergiades, 2021. "Does It Matter Where You Search? Twitter versus Traditional News Media," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 53(7), pages 1757-1795, October.
    15. Benoit Aubert & Jane Li & Markus Luczak-Roesch & Thierry Warin, 2021. "La détermination des agendas de discussion par les médias sociaux," CIRANO Project Reports 2021rp-12, CIRANO.
    16. Singh, Renu, 2023. "Priming COVID-19's consequences can increase support for investments in public health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    17. Joanna Vince & Estelle Praet & John Schofield & Kathy Townsend, 2022. "‘Windows of opportunity’: exploring the relationship between social media and plastic policies during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(4), pages 737-753, December.
    18. Barbara Gomez‐Aguinaga, 2021. "One Group, Two Worlds? Latino Perceptions of Policy Salience Among Mainstream and Spanish‐Language News Consumers," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 238-258, January.
    19. Lukas Breide & Oliver Budzinski & Thomas Grebel & Juliane Mendelsohn, 2025. "Forerunners vs. latecomers—institutional competition in the German federalism during the COVID crisis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 101-132, February.
    20. Zhang, Yaozeng & Ma, Jing & Fang, Fanshu, 2024. "How social bots can influence public opinion more effectively: Right connection strategy," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 633(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rfa:smcjnl:v:12:y:2024:i:3:p:263-276. 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: Redfame publishing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.