IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v9y2022i1d10.1057_s41599-022-01384-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Colin Klein

    (The Australian National University)

  • Ritsaart Reimann

    (Macquarie University)

  • Ignacio Ojea Quintana

    (The Australian National University)

  • Marc Cheong

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Marinus Ferreira

    (Macquarie University)

  • Mark Alfano

    (Macquarie University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Colin Klein & Ritsaart Reimann & Ignacio Ojea Quintana & Marc Cheong & Marinus Ferreira & Mark Alfano, 2022. "Attention and counter-framing in the Black Lives Matter movement on Twitter," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01384-1
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01384-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-022-01384-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-022-01384-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edwards, Pearce & Arnon, Daniel, 2021. "Violence on Many Sides: Framing Effects on Protest and Support for Repression," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 488-506, April.
    2. Marlon Mooijman & Joe Hoover & Ying Lin & Heng Ji & Morteza Dehghani, 2018. "Moralization in social networks and the emergence of violence during protests," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(6), pages 389-396, June.
    3. Ryan J Gallagher & Andrew J Reagan & Christopher M Danforth & Peter Sheridan Dodds, 2018. "Divergent discourse between protests and counter-protests: #BlackLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-23, April.
    4. Zackary Okun Dunivin & Harry Yaojun Yan & Jelani Ince & Fabio Rojas, 2022. "Black Lives Matter protests shift public discourse," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119(10), pages 2117320119-, March.
    5. Jose Cadena & Gizem Korkmaz & Chris J Kuhlman & Achla Marathe & Naren Ramakrishnan & Anil Vullikanti, 2015. "Forecasting Social Unrest Using Activity Cascades," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-27, June.
    6. Laura H Gunn & Enrique ter Horst & Talar W Markossian & German Molina, 2018. "Online interest regarding violent attacks, gun control, and gun purchase: A causal analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-15, November.
    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. Meng-Jie Wang & Kumar Yogeeswaran & Kyle Nash & Sivanand Sivaram, 2024. "Morality and partisan social media engagement: a natural language examination of moral political messaging and engagement during the 2018 US midterm elections," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 1699-1726, October.
    2. Janjira Sombatpoonsiri, 2023. "‘A lot of people still love and worship the monarchy’: How polarizing frames trigger countermobilization in Thailand," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(1), pages 88-106, January.
    3. CARR, Joel, 2022. "BLM protests and racial hate crime in the United States," Working Papers 2022008, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    4. Kelly Morrison, 2024. "Named and Shamed: International Advocacy and Public Support for Repressive Leaders," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 68(2-3), pages 294-321, March.
    5. Campbell, Travis, 2024. "Black Lives Matter’s effect on police lethal use of force," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    6. Thomas Zeitzoff & Grace Gold, 2024. "Cyber and contentious politics: Evidence from the US radical environmental movement," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(1), pages 134-149, January.
    7. Jake Lever & Rossella Arcucci, 2022. "Sentimental wildfire: a social-physics machine learning model for wildfire nowcasting," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1427-1465, November.
    8. Peter Grajzl & Peter Murrell, 2021. "Characterizing a legal–intellectual culture: Bacon, Coke, and seventeenth-century England," Cliometrica, Journal of Historical Economics and Econometric History, Association Française de Cliométrie (AFC), vol. 15(1), pages 43-88, January.
    9. Niklas Potrafke & Felix Roesel, 2022. "Online Versus Offline: Which Networks Spur Protests?," CESifo Working Paper Series 9969, CESifo.
    10. Kelly Kirkland & Paul a M van Lange & Drew Gorenz & Khandis Blake & Catherine E Amiot & Liisi Ausmees & Peter Baguma & Oumar Barry & Maja Becker & Michal Bilewicz & Watcharaporn Boonyasiriwat & Robert, 2024. "High economic inequality is linked to greater moralization," Post-Print hal-04670509, HAL.
    11. Brannon, Tiffany N. & Marshall, Riley A., 2023. "Twin pandemics, intertwined (intergroup) solutions: Support for mitigating racism benefits vaccine hesitancy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 321(C).
    12. Marc Keuschnigg & Niclas Lovsjö & Peter Hedström, 2018. "Analytical sociology and computational social science," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 3-14, January.
    13. Masías, Víctor Hugo & Crespo R., Fernando A. & Navarro R., Pilar & Masood, Razan & Krämer, Nicole C. & Hoppe, H. Ulrich, 2021. "On spatial variation in the detectability and density of social media user protest supporters," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 65, pages 1-1.
    14. Pedro Ramaciotti Morales & Jean-Philippe Cointet & Caterina Froio, 2022. "Posters and protesters," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1129-1157, November.
    15. Kyriaki Kalimeri & Mariano G. Beiró & Andrea Bonanomi & Alessandro Rosina & Ciro Cattuto, 2020. "Traditional versus Facebook-based surveys: Evaluation of biases in self-reported demographic and psychometric information," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 42(5), pages 133-148.

    More about this item

    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:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01384-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.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.