Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36254165›Full record

ArticleHumanities & social sciences communications2022

Attention and counter-framing in the Black Lives Matter movement on Twitter.

Colin Klein, Ritsaart Reimann, Ignacio Ojea Quintana, Marc Cheong, Marinus Ferreira, Mark Alfano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Humanities & social sciences communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Attention and counter-framing in the Black Lives Matter movement on Twitter.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Colin KleinThe Australian National University, Canberra, ACT Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7406-4010
Ritsaart ReimannMacquarie University, Sydney, NSW Australia.
Ignacio Ojea QuintanaThe Australian National University, Canberra, ACT Australia.
Marc CheongUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC Australia.
Marinus FerreiraMacquarie University, Sydney, NSW Australia.
Mark AlfanoMacquarie University, Sydney, NSW Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The social media platform Twitter platform has played a crucial role in the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The immediate, flexible nature of tweets plays a crucial role both in spreading information about the movement's aims and in organizing individual protests. Twitter has also played an important role in the right-wing reaction to BLM, providing a means to reframe and recontextualize activists' claims in a more sinister light. The ability to bring about social change depends on the balance of these two forces, and in particular which side can capture and maintain sustained attention. The present study examines 2 years worth of tweets about BLM (about 118 million in total). Timeseries analysis reveals that activists are better at mobilizing rapid attention, whereas right-wing accounts show a pattern of moderate but more sustained activity driven by reaction to political opponents. Topic modeling reveals differences in how different political groups talk about BLM. Most notably, the murder of George Floyd appears to have solidified a right-wing counter-framing of protests as arising from dangerous "terrorist" actors. The study thus sheds light on the complex network and rhetorical effects that drive the struggle for online attention to the BLM movement.

Indexed as

Complex networksCultural and media studiesPhilosophy

Identifiers

PMID36254165
PMCPMC9555697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.