Media and power in times of hegemonic crisis: exploring contentious climate politics on Twitter

References

• Alexander, J., 2011. Performance and power. London: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Andi, S., 2020. How people access news about climate change [online]. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. University of Oxford. https://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2020/how-people-access-news-about-climate-change/
   Google Scholar
• Arrighi, G., 1994. The long twentieth century. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Bail, C., 2021. Breaking the social media prism. Princeton: Princeton UP.
   Google Scholar
• Ball-Rokeach, S.J. and DeFleur, M., 1989. Theories of mass communication. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Barabási, A. and Bonabeau, E., 2003. Scale-free networks. Scientific American, 288 (5), 60–69. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0503-60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baran, Z. and Stoltenberg, D., 2023. Tracing the emergent field of digital environmental and climate activism research. Environmental Communication, 17(5), 453–468. doi:10.1080/17524032.2023.2212137
   Google Scholar
• Barberá, P., 2020. Social media, echo chambers, and political polarization. In: N. Persily and J. Tucker, eds. Social media and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 34–55.
   Google Scholar
• Barberá, P., Jost, J.T., and Nagler, J., 2015. Tweeting from left to right: is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science, 26 (10), 1531–1542. doi:10.1177/0956797615594620
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benkler, Y., 2006. The wealth of networks. New Haven: Yale UP.
   Google Scholar
• Benkler, Y., Faris, R., and Roberts, H., 2018. Network propaganda: manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Bernays, E., 1928. Propaganda. New York: Horace Liveright.
   Google Scholar
• Bloch, M., 1920/2013. Reflections of a historian on the false news of the war [online]. Michigan war studies review. https://www.miwsr.com/2013-051.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Brevini, B., 2022. Is AI good for the planet? London: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brüggemann, M., Elgesem, D., and Bienzeisler, N., 2020. Mutual group polarization in the blogosphere: tracking the hoax discourse on climate change. International Journal of Communication, 14, 1025–1048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brüggemann, M. and Meyer, H., 2023. When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication. Communication Theory, 33 (2–3), 132–142. doi:10.1093/ct/qtad012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruns, A., 2021. Echo chambers? Filter bubbles? The misleading metaphors that obscure the real problem. In: M. Pérez-Escolar and M. Noguera-Vivo, eds. Hate speech and polarization in participatory society. London: Routledge, 33–47.
   Google Scholar
• Calhoun, C., Gaonkar, D.P., and Taylor, C., 2022. Degenerations of democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
   Google Scholar
• Castells, M., 2009. Communication power. Oxford: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Chadwick, A., 2017. The hybrid media system: politics and power. Oxford: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Chandrasekhar, A., et al., 2022. COP27: key outcomes agreed at the UN climate talks in Sharm el-Sheikh [online]. Carbon Brief. https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop27-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-sharm-el-sheikh/
   Google Scholar
• Chavalarias, D., et al., 2023. The new fronts of denialism and climate skepticism [online]. HAL open science. https://hal.science/hal-04103183
   Google Scholar
• Chen, K., Molder, A.L., and Duan, Z., Boulianne, S., Eckart, C., Mallari, P. and Yang, D., 2022. How climate movement actors and news media frame climate change and strike: evidence from analyzing twitter and news media discourse from 2018 to 2021. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 28 (2), 384–413. doi:10.1177/19401612221106405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, T., Salloum, A., and Gronow, A., Ylä-Anttila, T. and Kivelä, M., 2021. Polarization of climate politics results from partisan sorting: evidence from Finnish twittersphere [online]. Global Environmental Change, 71, 102348. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cmiel, K. and Peters, J.D., 2020. Promiscuous knowledge: information, image, and other truth games in history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Couldry, N. and Meijas, U., 2019. The costs of connection: how data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford: Stanford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, K., 2021. Atlas of AI: power, politics and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. New Haven: Yale UP.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, L., 2023. The language of late fossil capital. Nordic Journal of Media Studies, 5 (1), 172–193. doi:10.2478/njms-2023-0010
   Google Scholar
• de Meo, P., et al., 2011. Generalized louvain method for community detection in large networks. 11th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications, 22–24 November 2011, Cordoba, Spain, 88–93.
   Google Scholar
• DeSmog, 2020. Paul Joseph Watson [online]. DeSmog.com. https://www.desmog.com/paul-joseph-watson/#s1
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J., Norgaard, R.B., and Schlosberg, D., 2013. Climate-challenged society. Oxford: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Falkenberg, M., Galeazzi, A., and Torricelli, M., 2022. Growing polarization around climate change on social media. Nature Climate Change, 12 (12), 1114–1121. doi:10.1038/s41558-022-01527-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedland, L. and Kunelius, R., 2023. The public sphere and contemporary lifeworld: reconstruction in the context of systemic crises. Communication Theory, 33 (2–3), 153–163. doi:10.1093/ct/qtad010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosh, A., 2021. The nutmeg’s curse: parables for a planet in crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilardi, F., et al., 2022. Social media and political agenda setting. Political Communication, 39 (1), 39–60. doi:10.1080/10584609.2021.1910390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gitlin, T., 1978. Media sociology: the dominant paradigm. Theory & Society, 6 (2), 205–253. doi:10.1007/BF01681751
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J., 2022. Reflections and hypotheses on a further structural transformation of the political public sphere. Theory, Culture & Society, 39 (4), 145–171. doi:10.1177/02632764221112341
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, S., Critcher, C., and Jefferson, T., 1978. Policing the crisis: mugging, the state, and law and order. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hallin, D., Mellado, C., and Mancini, P., 2021. The concept of hybridity in journalism studies. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 28 (1), 219–237. doi:10.1177/19401612211039704
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey, D., 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Heiskala, R., 2021. Semiotic sociology. Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T., 1944/1997. Dialectics of enlightenment. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Hulme, M., 2021. Climate change. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, S. and Kreiss, D., 2023. Recentering power: conceptualizing counterpublics and defensive publics. Communication Theory, 33 (2–3), 102–111. doi:10.1093/ct/qtad004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacomy, M., et al., 2014. ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the gephi software. PLOS ONE, 9 (6), e98679. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098679
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S., 2012. Science and public reason. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser, J. and Puschmann, C., 2017. Alliance of antagonism: counterpublics and polarization in online climate change communication. Communication and the Public, 2 (4), 371–387. doi:10.1177/2057047317732350
   Google Scholar
• Kang, J., Gilloch, G., and Abromeit, J., eds., 2022. Siegfried Kracauer: selected writings on media, propaganda and political communication. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, E., 2006. Rediscovering Gabriel Tarde. Political Communication, 23 (3), 263–270. doi:10.1080/10584600600808711
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, E., Lazarsfeld, P., and Roper, E., 1955/2006. Personal influence: the part played by people in the flow of mass communications. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Keane, J., 2020. The new despotism. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
   Google Scholar
• King, J., Janulewicz, L., and Arcostanzo, F., 2022. Deny, deceive, delay: documenting and responding to climate disinformation at COP26 and beyond. London: Institute for Strategic Dialogue.
   Google Scholar
• Klapper, J., 1960. The effects of mass communication. Glencoe: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kunelius, R., Tegelberg, M., and Pohjonen, M., 2022. A Social Climate Sphere: Analysing the 2021 Glasgow Climate Summit (COP26) on TwitterA Social Climate Sphere: Analysing the 2021 Glasgow Climate Summit (COP26) on Twitter. In: Progress Report. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Lasswell, H., 1927. Propaganda technique in the world war. New York: Peter Smith.
   Google Scholar
• Levin, K., Cashore, B., and Bernstein, S., 2012. Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45 (2), 123–152. doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilla, M., 2017. Once and future liberal: after identity politics. New York: Harper Collins.
   Google Scholar
• Lippmann, W., 1922. Public opinion. New York: Harcourt.
   Google Scholar
• Mahl, D., Zeng, J., and Schäfer, M.S., 2021. From “Nasa lies” to “Reptilian Eyes”: mapping communication about 10 conspiracy theories, their communities, and main propagators on Twitter [online]. Social Media + Society, 7 (2), 205630512110174. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20563051211017482
   Google Scholar
• Malm, A., 2016. Fossil capital: the rise of steam power and the roots of global warming. New York: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Mann, M., 2013. The sources of social power. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
   Google Scholar
• McQuail, D. and Deuze, M., 2020. McQuail’s media and mass communication theory. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, H., Peach, A.K., and Guenther, L., 2023. Between calls for action and narratives of denial: climate change attention structures on Twitter. Media and Communication, 11 (1), 278–292. doi:10.17645/mac.v11i1.6111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, T., 2011. Carbon democracy: political power in the age of oil. New York: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Moffitt, B., 2016. The global rise of populism: performance, political style, and representation. Stanford: Stanford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, N., 2023. Reuters Institute Digital News report 2023. Oxford: Reuters Institute. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-06/Digital_News_Report_2023.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, R. and Ganter, S., 2022. The power of platforms: shaping media and society. Oxford: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, P. and Inglehart, R., 2018. Cultural backlash: trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pariser, E., 2012. The filter bubble: how the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. New York: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, W., et al., 2018. The social media life of climate change: platforms, publics, and future imaginaries [online]. WIREs Climate Change, 10 (2), https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.569
   Google Scholar
• Peters, J.D., 1999. Speaking into the Air: a history of the idea of communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, J.D., 2015. The marvelous clouds: toward a philosophy of elemental media. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pietilä, V., 2008. How does a discipline become institutionalized? In: D. Park and J. Pooley, eds. The history of media and communication research. London: Peter Lang, 295–224.
   Google Scholar
• Piketty, T., 2022. A brief history of equality. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
   Google Scholar
• Polanyi, K., 1944. The great transformation: the political and economic origins of our time. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.
   Google Scholar
• Pooley, J., 2006. Fifteen pages that shook the field: personal influence, Edward Shils, and the remembered history of mass communication research. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 608 (1), 130–156. doi:10.1177/0002716206292460
   Google Scholar
• Savage, M., 2021. The return of inequality: social change and the weight of the past. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
   Google Scholar
• Schäfer, M.S., 2012. Online communication on climate change and climate politics: a literature review. WIREs Climate Change, 3 (6), 527–543. doi:10.1002/wcc.191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schäfer, M. and Hase, V., 2022. Computational methods for the analysis of climate change communication: towards an integrative and reflexive approach. WIREs Climate Change, 14 (2), e806. doi:10.1002/wcc.806
   Google Scholar
• Splichal, S., 2022. Datafication of public opinion and the public sphere. New York: Anthem Press.
   Google Scholar
• Starr, P., 2021. The relational public. Sociological Theory, 39 (2), 57–80. doi:10.1177/07352751211004660
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C.R., 2018. #Republic: divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton: Princeton UP.
   Google Scholar
• Tarde, G., 1898/1989. L’opinion et la foule. Paris: Presses Universitaires.
   Google Scholar
• Tegelberg, M., Yagodin, D., and Russell, A., 2014. #Cimatenews: summit journalism and digital networks. In: D. Crow and M. Boykoff, eds. Culture, politics and climate change: how information shapes our common future. London: Routledge, 64–82.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson, J., 1995. The media and modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tönnies, F., 1887/2001. Community and civil society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tyagi, A., Uyheng, J., and Carley, K.M., 2020. Affective polarization in online climate change discourse on Twitter. 2020 EEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). The Hague, Netherlands: IEEE, 443–447.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijck, J. and Poell, T., 2015. Social media and the transformation of public space. Social Media + Society, 1 (2), 1–5. doi:10.1177/2056305115622482
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vince, G., 2022. Nomad century: how climate migration will reshape our world. New York: Flatiron Books.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, H., et al., 2015. Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 32, 126–138. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wozniak, A., et al., 2021. The event-centered nature of global public spheres: the UN Climate Change Conferences, Fridays for future, and the (limited) transnationalization of media debates. International Journal of Communication, 15, 688–714.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, T., 2017. The attention merchants: the epic struggle to get inside our heads. London: Atlantic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Yagodin, D., et al., 2017. Following the tweets: what happened to the IPCC AR5 synthesis report on Twitter? In: R. Kunelius, E. Eide, M. Tegelberg, and D. Yagodin, eds. Media and global climate knowledge: journalism and the IPCC. New York: Palgrave, 193–212.
   Google Scholar
• Zuboff, S., 2019. The age of surveillance capitalism. London: Profile Books.
   Google Scholar