Understanding Divergent Framing of the Supreme Court Controversies: Social Media vs. News Outlets
This research addresses a gap in political communication by comparing framing across media types, with implications for public opinion and policy, though it is incremental as it builds on prior work on framing in separate media.
The study tackled the problem of understanding differences in how social media and traditional news outlets frame Supreme Court controversies, finding substantial disparities with social media showing more polarized stances across topics like affirmative action, student loans, and abortion rights.
Understanding the framing of political issues is of paramount importance as it significantly shapes how individuals perceive, interpret, and engage with these matters. While prior research has independently explored framing within news media and by social media users, there remains a notable gap in our comprehension of the disparities in framing political issues between these two distinct groups. To address this gap, we conduct a comprehensive investigation, focusing on the nuanced distinctions both qualitatively and quantitatively in the framing of social media and traditional media outlets concerning a series of American Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action, student loans, and abortion rights. Our findings reveal that, while some overlap in framing exists between social media and traditional media outlets, substantial differences emerge both across various topics and within specific framing categories. Compared to traditional news media, social media platforms tend to present more polarized stances across all framing categories. Further, we observe significant polarization in the news media's treatment (i.e., Left vs. Right leaning media) of affirmative action and abortion rights, whereas the topic of student loans tends to exhibit a greater degree of consensus. The disparities in framing between traditional and social media platforms carry significant implications for the formation of public opinion, policy decision-making, and the broader political landscape.