Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Frames and sentiments of the Twitter communication by German Chancellor Scholz during the Russian invasion of Ukraine Cover

Frames and sentiments of the Twitter communication by German Chancellor Scholz during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

By: Stefan Nisch  
Open Access
|Sep 2023

References

  1. Barsade, S. (2020): The contagion we can control, 17 August 2020, retrieved from Harward Business Review: https://hbr.org/2020/03/the-contagion-we-can-control
  2. Benford, R. D. – Snow, D. A. (2000): Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639.
  3. Bertot, J. C. – Jaeger, P. T. – Hansen, D. L. (2012): The impact of polices on government social media usage: issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly 29(1): 30–40. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.04.004
  4. Biersack, J. – O’Lear, S. (2014): The geopolitics of Russia’s annexation of Crimea: narratives, identity, silences, and energy. Eurasian Geography and Economics 55(3): 247–269. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2014.985241
  5. Bird, S. – Klein, E. – Loper, E. (2009): Natural Language Processing with Python: Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit. Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media.
  6. Blei, D. M. – Ng, A. Y. – Jordan, M. I. (2003): Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning, 3: 993–1022.
  7. Boin, A. – Hart, P. – Stern, E. – Stundelius, B. (2017): The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership Under Pressure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Bolsen, T. – Palm, R. – Kingsland, J. T. (2020): Framing the Origins of COVID-19. Science Communication 42(5): 562–585.
  9. Bonsón, E. – Royo, S. – Ratkai, M. (2014): Facebook Practices in Western European Municipalities. Administration & Society 49(3): 320–347. doi:10.1177/0095399714544945
  10. Borah, P. (2011): Conceptual issues in framing theory: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication 61(2): 246–263.
  11. Borah, P. (2016): Political Facebook Use: Campaign Strategies Used in 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 13(4): 326–338.
  12. Borucki, I. (2016): Regierungen auf Facebook – distributiv, dialogisch oder reaktiv? Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Digital Communication Research 3: 49–75. doi:https://doi.org/10.17174/dcr.v3.3
  13. Bossetta, M. (2018): The digital architectures of social media: Comparing political campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 US election. Journalism & mass communication quarterly 95(2): 471–496.
  14. Bratic, V. (2008): Examining peace-oriented media in areas of violent conflict. International Communication Gazette 70(6): 487–503.
  15. Brundidge, J. (2010): Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication 60(4): 680–700.
  16. Bucy, E. – Bradley, S. (2004): Presidential Expressions and Viewer Emotion: Counterempathic Responses to Televised Leader Displays. Social Science Information 43(1): 59–94.
  17. Bukkvoll, T. (1997): Ukraine and European security. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
  18. Bundesregierung. (2022). The Federal Government. Retrieved from Structure and tasks: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/chancellor/structure-and-tasks-470508
  19. Casero-Ripollés, A. (2018): Research on political information and social media: Key points and challenges for the future. El profesional de la información 27(5): 964–974.
  20. Castells, M. (2013): Communication power. Oxford University.
  21. Chong, D. – Druckman, J. N. (2007a): A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication 57: 99–118.
  22. Chong, D. – Druckman, J. N. (2007b): Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103–126.
  23. Criado, J. I. – Sandoval-Almazan, R. – Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2013): Government innovation through social media. Government Information Quarterly 30(4): 319–326.
  24. Daehnhardt, P. (2018): German foreign policy, the Ukraine crisis and the Euro-Atlantic order: Assessing the dynamics of change. German Politics 27(4): 516–538.
  25. de Vreese, C. H. (2005): News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal + Document Design 13(1): 51–62.
  26. Deutscher Bundestag (2015): Drucksache 18/6609, 5 November 2015, retrieved from Dokumentationsund Informationssystem (DIP): http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/18/066/1806609.pdf
  27. Ekman, M. (2019): Anti-immigration and racist discourse in social. European Journal of Communication 34(6): 606–618.
  28. Entman, R. M. (1993): Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43: 51–58.
  29. Entman, R. M. (2004): Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and US foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  30. Farazmand, A. (2012): The future of public administration: Challenges and opportunities – A critical perspective. Administration & Society 44(4): 487–517.
  31. Flaxman, S. – Goel, S. – Rao, J. M. (2016): Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly 80: 298–320.
  32. Fuchs, C. (2013): Social media: A critical introduction. SAGE.
  33. Gamson, W. A. – Modigliani, A. (1987): The changing culture of affirmative action. In R. G. Braun-gart (ed.), Research in political sociology 3. Greenwich: CT: JAI Press., 137–177).
  34. Gamson, W. A. – Modigliani, A. (1989): Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology 95(1): 1–37.
  35. Gaufman, E. (2015): Memory, media, and securitization: Russian media framing of the Ukrainian crisis. Journal of Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society 1(1): 141–175.
  36. Gebauer, K.-E. (1998): Regierungskommunikation. In O. Jarren – U. Sarcinelli –U. Saxer (eds.), Politische Kommunikation in der demokratischen Gesellschaft. Opladen: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 464–472.
  37. Ghosh, S. – Gunning, D. (2019): Natural Language Processing Fundamentals: Build intelligent applications that can interpret the human language to deliver impactful results. Birmingham: Packt Publishing.
  38. Google LLC. (2023): Googletrans web version for documents. Retrieved from https://translate.google.com/?sl=de&tl=en&op=docs
  39. Graber, D. A. – Dunaway, J. (2017): Mass media and American politics. California: CQ Press.
  40. Hamelink, C. (2008). Media between warmongers and peacemakers. Media, War & Conflict 1(1): 77–83.
  41. Hänggli, R. (2012): Key factors in frame building: How strategic political actors shape news media coverage. American Behavioral Scientist 56(3): 300–317.
  42. Helms, L. (2008): Governing in the Media Age: The Impact of the Mass Media on Executive Leadership in Contemporary Democracies. Government and Opposition 43(1): 26–54.
  43. Hill, H. (1993): Staatskommunikation. Juristenzeitung 48(7): 330–336.
  44. Houston, J. B. – Pfefferbaum, B. – Rosenholtz, C. E. (2012): Disaster news: Framing and frame changing in coverage of major US natural disasters, 2000–2010. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 89(4): 606–623.
  45. Hutto, C. – Gilbert, E. (2014). VADER: A Parsimonious Rule-Based Model for Sentiment Analysis of Social Media Text. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 8(1): 216–225). Michigan, USA.
  46. Jain, N. –Prasad, S. – Bordeniuc, A. –Tanasov, A. – Shirinskaya, A. V. – Béla, B. – Reinis, A. (2022). European Countries Step-up Humanitarian and Medical Assistance to Ukraine as the Conflict Continues. Journal of Primary Care & Community Health 2022; 13.
  47. Jungherr, A. (2016): Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 13(1): 72–91.
  48. Kaur, M. – Verma, R. –Otoo, F. N. (2021): Emotions in leader’s crisis communication: Twitter sentiment analysis during COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 31(1–4): 362–372.
  49. Kearney, M. W. –Sancho, L. R. –Wickham, H. –Heiss, A. – Briatte, F. – Sidi, J. (2023: Cran. Retrieved from Package ‘rtweet’: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rtweet/rtweet.pdf
  50. Kwok, S. W. – Vadde, S. K. – Wang, G. (2021): Tweet topics and sentiments relating to COVID-19 vaccination among Australian Twitter users: Machine learning analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research 23(5): e26953.
  51. Lee, J. – Kang, J.-H. – Jun, S. – Lim, H. – Jang, D. – Park, S. (2018): Ensemble modeling for sustainable technology transfer. Sustainability 10(7): 2278.
  52. Lev-On, A. (2018): The Anti-Social Network? Framing Social Media in Wartime. Social Media + Society, 4(3).
  53. Lewis, K. M. (2000): When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Bevavior 21(2): 221–234. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2%3C221:AID-JOB36%3E3.0.CO;2-0
  54. Makhortykh, M. – Lyebyedyev, Y. (2015): #SaveDonbassPeople: Twitter, Propaganda, and Conflict in Eastern Ukraine. The Communication Review 18(4): 239–270. doi:10.1080/10714421.2015.1085776
  55. Makhortykh, M. – Sydorova, M. (2017): Social media and visual framing of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Media, war & conflict 10(3): 359–381.
  56. Marples, D. R. (2022): Russia’s war goals in Ukraine. Canadian Slavonic Papers 64(2–3): 207–219.
  57. Matthes, J. (2008): Media frames and public opinion: Exploring the boundaries of framing effects in a two-wave panel study. Studies in Communication Sciences 8(2): 101–128.
  58. Matthes, J. (2011): Framing Politics: An Integrative Approach. American Behavioral Scientist 56(3): 247–259.
  59. McNair, B. (2016): Communication and Political Crisis: Media, Politics and Governance in a Globalized Public Sphere. New York: Peter Lang.
  60. Monselise, M. – Chang, C. – Ferreira, G. – Yang, R. – Yang, C. (2021): Topics and Sentiments of Public Concerns Regarding COVID-19 Vaccines: Social Media Trend Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research 23(10): e30765.
  61. Moussa, M. E. – Mohamed, E. H. – Haggag, M. H. (2020): A generic lexicon-based framework for sentiment analysis. International Journal of Computers and Applications 42(5): 463–473.
  62. Nahon, K. (2016): Where there is social media there is politics. In A. Bruns et al, Routledge companion to social media and politics. New York: Routledge, 39–55.
  63. Nelson, T. E. – Kinder, D. R. (1996): Issue frames and group centrism in American public opinion. Journal of Politics 58: 1055–1078.
  64. Nelson, T. E. – Clawson, R. A. – Oxley, Z. M. (1997): Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review 91: 567–583.
  65. Nikolayenko, O. (2019): Framing and counter-framing a Peace March in Russia: the use of Twitter during a hybrid war. Social Movement Studies 18(5): 602–621.
  66. Nisch, S. (2023): Invasion of Ukraine: Frames and Sentiments in Zelensky’s Twitter Communication. Journal of Contemporary European Studies. doi:10.1080/14782804.2023.2198691
  67. Nygren, G. – Glowacki, M. – Hök, J. – Kiria, I. – Orlova, D. – Taradai, D. (2018). Journalism in the crossfire: Media coverage of the war in Ukraine in 2014. Journalism Studies 19(7): 1059–1078.
  68. Ojala, M. M. – Pantti, M. K. – Kangas, J. (2017): Whose War, Whose Fault?: Visual Framing of the Ukraine Conflict in Western European Newspapers. International Journal of Communication 11: 474–498.
  69. Pantti, M. (2019): The Personalisation of Conflict Reporting. Digital Journalism 7(1): 124–145. doi:10.1080/21670811.2017.1399807
  70. Papacharissi, Z. (2016): Affective publics and structures of storytelling: sentiment, events and mediality. Information, Communication & Society 19(3): 307–324.
  71. Pasitselska, O. (2017): Ukrainian crisis through the lens of Russian media: Construction of ideological discourse. Discourse & Communication 11(6): 591–609.
  72. Paul, N. – Sui, M. (2019): I Can Feel What You Feel: Emotion Exchanges in Twitter Conversations between Candidates and the Public. Journal of Political Marketing 21(2): 175–195.
  73. Rehurek, R. – Sojka, P. (n.d.): Software Framework for Topic Modelling with Large Corpora.
  74. Röder, M. – Both, A. – & Hinneburg, A. (2015): Exploring the space of topic coherence measures. New York: ACM Press.
  75. Roman, N. – Wanta, W. – Buniak, I. (2017): Information wars: Eastern Ukraine military conflict coverage in the Russian, Ukrainian and U.S. newscasts. International Communication Gazette 79(4): 357–378.
  76. Ross, A. S. – Rivers, D. J. (2018): Discursive Deflection: Accusation of “Fake News” and the Spread of Mis- and Disinformation in the Tweets of President Trump. Social Media + Society 4(2), doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118776010
  77. Rustam, F. – Khalid, M. – Aslam, W. – Rupapara, V. – Mehmood, A. – Choi, G. S. (2021): A performance comparison of supervised machine learning models for Covid-19 tweets sentiment analysis. PLOS ONE 16(2): e0245909.
  78. Scheufele, D. A. (2000): Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society 3(2–3): 297–316.
  79. Scholz, O. (2022a): Twitter. Retrieved from Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz: https://twitter.com/Bundeskanzler/status/1504507509356339204
  80. Scholz, O. (2022b): Twitter. Retrieved from Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz: https://twitter.com/Bundeskanzler/status/1604133707157323777
  81. Schwarz, A. – Seeger, M. W. – Auer, C. (2017): Significance and structure of international risk and crisis communication research: Toward an integrative approach. In A. Schwarz– M. W. Seeger – C. Auer (eds.), The Handbook of International Crisis Communication Research. Malden: Wiley & Sons, 1–10.
  82. Shrivastava, K. – Kumar, S. – Jain, D. K. (2019): An effective approach for emotion detection in multimedia text data using sequence based convolutional neural network. Multimedia Tools and Applications 78: 29607–29639.
  83. Sievert, C. – Shirley, K. (2014: LDAvis: A method for visualizing and interpreting topics. Proceedings of the Workshop on Interactive Language Learning, Visualization, and Interfaces. Baltimore: Association for Computational Linguistics, 63–70.
  84. Sniderman, P. M. – Theriault, S. M. (2004): The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. E. Saris – P. M. Sniderman (eds.), Studies in public opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 133–166.
  85. STATISTA (2021): Distribution of Twitter users worldwide as of April 2021, by age group. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/283119/age-distribution-of-global-twitter-users/
  86. Stewart, P. A. – Waller, B. M. – Schubert, J. N. (2009): Presidential speechmaking style: Emotional response to micro-expressions of facial affect. Motivation and Emotion 33(2): 125–135.
  87. Stier, S. –Bleier, A. – Lietz, H. – Strohmaier, M. (2018): Election campaigning on social media: Politicians, audiences, and the mediation of political communication on Facebook and Twitter. Political communication 35(1): 50–74.
  88. Stracqualursi, L. – Agati, P. (2022) Covid-19 vaccines in Italian public opinion: Identifying key issues using Twitter and Natural Language Processing. PLoS ONE 17(11): e0277394.
  89. Stromer-Galley, J. (2000): On-Line Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid It. Journal of Communication 50(4): 111–132.
  90. Suslov, M. D. (2014): “Crimea Is Ours!” Russian popular geopolitics in the new media age. Eurasian Geography and Economics 55(6): 588–609.
  91. Syed, S. – Spruit, M. (2017): Full-text or abstract? Examining topic coherence scores using latent Dirichlet allocation. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA). Tokyo: IEEE, 165–174.
  92. Warnick, B. – Heineman, D. (2012): Rhetoric online: the politics of new Media. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
  93. Wiggins, B. E. (2016) Crimea River: Directionality in Memes from the Russia-Ukraine Conflict. International Journal of Communication 10: 451–485.
  94. Wright, N. (2018): No longer the elephant outside the room: Why the Ukraine crisis reflects a deeper shift towards German leadership of European foreign policy. German Politics 27(4): 479–497.
  95. Xu, J. (2020): Does the medium matter? A Meta-Analysis on Using Social Media vs. Traditional Media in Crisis Communication. Public Relations Review 46(4): 1–7.
  96. Yang, X. – Chen, B. C. – Maity, M. – Ferrara, E. (2016): Social politics: agenda setting and political communication on social media. International conference on social informatics. Bellevue: Springer, 330–344.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/pce-2023-0028 | Journal eISSN: 2787-9038 | Journal ISSN: 1801-3422
Language: English
Page range: 593 - 620
Published on: Sep 28, 2023
Published by: Metropolitan University Prague
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2023 Stefan Nisch, published by Metropolitan University Prague
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.