An Exploration into Spectrum Policy Debates on Social Media

How food companies use social media to influence policy debates: a framework of Australian ultra-processed food industry Twitter data

Public Health Nutrition ◽

10.1017/s1368980020003353 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-12

Author(s):

Daniel Hunt

Keyword(s):

Social Media ◽

Health Policy ◽

Food Industry ◽

Self Regulation ◽

Public Perceptions ◽

Processed Food ◽

Policy Debates ◽

Twitter Data ◽

Brand Marketing ◽

Value Judgements

Abstract Objective: To understand if, and how, Australian ultra-processed food industry actors use Twitter to influence food and health policy debates and produce a conceptual framework to describe such influence. Design: Twitter data of prominent industry actors were defined through purposive sampling and inductively coded to investigate possible influence on food and health policy debates. These are described using descriptive statistics and coded extracts. Setting: Australia. Participants: Twitter accounts of nine prominent ultra-processed food industry actors, including major trade associations. Results: Ultra-processed food industry actors actively used Twitter to influence food and health policy debates. Seven overarching strategies were identified: co-opting public health narratives; opposing regulation; supporting voluntary, co- or self-regulation; engaging policy processes and decision-makers; linking regulatory environments to the need for ongoing profitability; affecting public perceptions and value judgements; and using ignorance claims to distort policy narratives. Each lobbying strategy is underpinned with tactics described throughout and captured in a framework. Conclusions: The current study creates a framework to monitor how food industry actors can use social media to influence food and health policy debates. As such, social media appears to be not only an important commercial determinant of health for brand marketing, but also an extension of lobbying practices to reshape public perceptions of corporate conduct and policy-making.

Download Full-text

Media Portrayals of Hashtag Activism: A Framing Analysis of Canada’s #Idlenomore Movement

Media and Communication ◽

10.17645/mac.v4i2.416 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 4 (2) ◽

pp. 3-12 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Derek Moscato

Keyword(s):

Social Media ◽

Social Movement ◽

First Nations ◽

Framing Analysis ◽

Mainstream Media ◽

Policy Debates ◽

The Social ◽

Challenges And Opportunities ◽

Future Challenges ◽

The Arab Spring

The confluence of activism and social media—legitimized by efforts such as the Arab Spring and Occupy Movements—represents a growing area of mainstream media focus. Using Canada’s #IdleNoMore movement as a case, this study uses framing theory to better understand how traditional media are representing activism borne of social media such as Twitter, and how such activism can ultimately have an impact in political and public policy debates. A qualitative framing analysis is used to identify frames present in media reporting of #IdleNoMore during its first two months by two prominent Canadian publications. Emergent frames show that hashtag activism as a catalyst for a social movement was embraced as a theme by one of the publications, therefore helping to legitimize the role of social media tools such as Twitter. In other frames, both positive and negative depictions of the social movement helped to identify for mainstream audiences both historical grievances and future challenges and opportunities for Canada’s First Nations communities.

Download Full-text

#IamMetiria: A qualitative case study of agonistic welfare policy debates on Twitter

New Media & Society ◽

10.1177/1461444821989690 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 146144482198969

Author(s):

Leon A. Salter

Keyword(s):

Social Media ◽

New Zealand ◽

Future Study ◽

Qualitative Case Study ◽

Welfare Policy ◽

Right Wing ◽

Left Wing ◽

Green Party ◽

Policy Debates

#IAmMetiria began on Twitter in July 2017, after a speech by New Zealand Green Party co-leader, Metiria Turei, challenging political consensus on welfare policy. Turei confessed she lied to authorities in the 1990s, prompting a flood of supportive posts. Soon after, right-wing oppositional tweets were posted ( n = 288) contesting the arguments of Turei and her supporters, and left-wing responses to those arguments ( n = 214). Drawing on Mouffe’s dissensual model, this article undertakes a close, qualitative analysis of those 502 tweets, in order to move towards a method for empirically distinguishing between antagonistic and agonistic tweets, identifying the latter as putting forward arguments which can be identified by the researcher and potentially engaged with by ideologically opposed adversaries. The results show a majority of the tweets were agonistic, with implications for the future study of social media policy debates and for the online practices of scholars.

Download Full-text