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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. repec:cup:apsrev:v:113:y:2019:i:04:p:883-901_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. 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).
    2. Müller-Hansen, Finn & Lee, Yuan Ting & Callaghan, Max & Jankin, Slava & Minx, Jan C., 2022. "The German coal debate on Twitter: Reactions to a corporate policy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Qi Wang & Mengdi Liu & Jintao Xu & Bing Zhang, 2023. "Blow the Lid Off: Public Complaints, Bargaining Power, and Government Responsiveness on Social Media," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(1), pages 133-166, May.
    5. Pierluigi Conzo & Andrea Gallice & Juan S. Morales & Margaret Samahita & Laura K. Taylor, 2021. "Can Hearts Change Minds? Social media Endorsements and Policy Preferences," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 641, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    6. Claire L Adida & Adeline Lo & Melina R Platas, 2019. "Americans preferred Syrian refugees who are female, English-speaking, and Christian on the eve of Donald Trump’s election," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Avishai, Aya & Ribisl, Kurt M. & Sheeran, Paschal, 2023. "Realizing the Tobacco Endgame: Understanding and mobilizing public support for banning combustible cigarette sales in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 327(C).
    9. Andranik Tumasjan, 2024. "The many faces of social media in business and economics research: Taking stock of the literature and looking into the future," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 389-426, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Francesco Giavazzi & Felix Iglhaut & Giacomo Lemoli & Gaia Rubera, 2020. "Terrorist Attacks, Cultural Incidents and the Vote for Radical Parties: Analyzing Text from Twitter," NBER Working Papers 26825, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Morales, Juan S., 2021. "Legislating during war: Conflict and politics in Colombia," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    13. Singh, Renu, 2023. "Priming COVID-19's consequences can increase support for investments in public health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    14. Timothy Wilson & Ilan Noy, 2023. "Fifty years of peril: A comprehensive comparison of the impact of terrorism and disasters linked to natural hazards (1970–2019)," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(5), pages 647-662, November.
    15. Enriqueta Aragonès & Clara Ponsatí, 2022. "Shocks to issue salience and electoral competition," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 33-63, March.
    16. Clara Ponsatí & Enriqueta Aragonès, 2019. "Preference Shocks that Destroy Party Systems," Working Papers 1118, Barcelona School of Economics.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Joshua Alley, 2023. "Elite Cues and Public Attitudes Towards Military Alliances," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(7-8), pages 1537-1563, August.
    20. Ho Ting Hung, 2025. "Exploring China’s cyber sovereignty concept and artificial intelligence governance model: a machine learning approach," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-31, February.

    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.