Political speeches and debates play an important role in shaping the images of politicians, and the public often relies on media outlets to select bits of political communication from a large pool of utterances. It is an important research question to understand what factors impact this selection process. To quantitatively explore the selection process, we build a three-decade dataset of presidential debate transcripts and post-debate coverage. We first examine the effect of wording and propose a binary classification framework that controls for both the speaker and the debate situations. We find that crowdworkers can only achieve an accuracy of 60 in this task, indicating that media choices are not entirely obvious. Our classifiers outperform crowdworkers on average, mainly in primary debates. We also compare important factors from crowdworkers’ free responses with those from data-driven methods and find interesting differences. Few crowdworkers mentioned that “context matters”, whereas our data show that well-quoted sentences are more distinct from the previous utterance by the same speaker than less-quoted sentences. Finally, we examine the aggregate effect of media preferences towards different wordings to understand the extent of fragmentation among media outlets. By analyzing a bipartite graph built from quoting behavior in our data, we observe a decreasing trend in bipartisan coverage.
Power dynamics in debates and other types of coverage. Studies have shown that language use and topic control in debates can reflect influence between candidates and indicate power dynamics @cite_30 @cite_23 @cite_25 . More recently, social media have also become an important channel to monitor public opinion on debates in real time @cite_0 @cite_8 and potentially change news media coverage.
@cite_30 @cite_8 @cite_0 @cite_23 @cite_25
2788268216 2250299432 2396708059 2017712094 2615257384 1927374806 2250222000 105055686 2109816866 2555891875 153654188 2538660910 1992716803 1601788506 2095655043 2129229917 2962854160 2550819555 2540795244 2251314334
Political speeches and debates play an important role in shaping the images of politicians, and the public often relies on media outlets to select bits of political communication from a large pool of utterances. It is an important research question to understand what factors impact this selection process. To quantitatively explore the selection process, we build a three-decade dataset of presidential debate transcripts and post-debate coverage. We first examine the effect of wording and propose a binary classification framework that controls for both the speaker and the debate situations. We find that crowdworkers can only achieve an accuracy of 60 in this task, indicating that media choices are not entirely obvious. Our classifiers outperform crowdworkers on average, mainly in primary debates. We also compare important factors from crowdworkers’ free responses with those from data-driven methods and find interesting differences. Few crowdworkers mentioned that “context matters”, whereas our data show that well-quoted sentences are more distinct from the previous utterance by the same speaker than less-quoted sentences. Finally, we examine the aggregate effect of media preferences towards different wordings to understand the extent of fragmentation among media outlets. By analyzing a bipartite graph built from quoting behavior in our data, we observe a decreasing trend in bipartisan coverage. In this paper, we present an automatic system to rank participants of an interaction in terms of their relative power. We find several linguistic and structural features to be effective in predicting these rankings. We conduct our study in the domain of political debates, specifically the 2012 Republican presidential primary debates. Our dataset includes textual transcripts of 20 debates with 4-9 candidates as participants per debate. We model the power index of each candidate in terms of their relative poll standings in the state and national polls. We find that the candidates’ power indices affect the way they interact with others and the way others interact with them. We obtained encouraging results in our experiments and we expect these findings to carry across to other genres of multi-party conversations. Social media play an increasingly important part in the communication strategies of political campaigns by reflecting information about the policy preferences and opinions of political actors and their public followers. In addition, the content of the messages provides rich information about the political issues and the framing of those issues during elections, such as whether contested issues concern Europe or rather extend pre-existing national debates. In this study, we survey the European landscape of social media using tweets originating from and referring to political actors during the 2014 European Parliament election campaign. We describe the language and national distribution of the messages, the relative volume of different types of communications, and the factors that determine the adoption and use of social media by the candidates. We also analyze the dynamics of the volume and content of the communications over the duration of the campaign with reference to both the EU integration dimension of the debate and the prominence of the most visible list-leading candidates. Our findings indicate that the lead candidates and their televised debate had a prominent influence on the volume and content of communications, and that the content and emotional tone of communications more reflects preferences along the EU dimension of political contestation rather than classic national issues relating to left-right differences. Rather than studying the effects of a programmed debate per se, this article examines the “total information environment” that surrounds the debate. A model explaining how people make judgments about the “winner” of a debate is suggested and tested on survey data (N = 748) collected in the days following the second 1996 presidential debate. Results demonstrate that consumption of debate-related news coverage, interpersonal discussion about the debate, and prior candidate attitudes are associated with perceptions of the winner of the debate. In addition, exposure to news coverage of the debate significantly interacted with exposure to the actual debate, so that the impact of news coverage was stronger for those watching little of the actual debate. Debate and deliberation play essential roles in politics and government, but most models presume that debates are won mainly via superior style or agenda control. Ideally, however, debates would be won on the merits, as a function of which side has the stronger arguments. We propose a predictive model of debate that estimates the effects of linguistic features and the latent persuasive strengths of different topics, as well as the interactions between the two. Using a dataset of 118 Oxford-style debates, our model's combination of content (as latent topics) and style (as linguistic features) allows us to predict audience-adjudicated winners with 74 accuracy, significantly outperforming linguistic features alone (66 ). Our model finds that winning sides employ stronger arguments, and allows us to identify the linguistic features associated with strong or weak arguments. The current research used the contexts of U.S. presidential debates and negotiations to examine whether matching the linguistic style of an opponent in a two-party exchange affects the reactions of third-party observers. Building off communication accommodation theory (CAT), interaction alignment theory (IAT), and processing fluency, we propose that language style matching (LSM) will improve subsequent third-party evaluations because matching an opponent’s linguistic style reflects greater perspective taking and will make one’s arguments easier to process. In contrast, research on status inferences predicts that LSM will negatively impact third-party evaluations because LSM implies followership. We conduct two studies to test these competing hypotheses. Study 1 analyzed transcripts of U.S. presidential debates between 1976 and 2012 and found that candidates who matched their opponent’s linguistic style increased their standing in the polls. Study 2 demonstrated a causal relationship between LSM and third-... We study the topic dynamics of interactions in political debates using the 2012 Republican presidential primary debates as data. We show that the tendency of candidates to shift topics changes over the course of the election campaign, and that it is correlated with their relative power. We also show that our topic shift features help predict candidates’ relative rankings. In this work, we study the use of Twitter by House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates during the midterm (2010) elections in the U.S. Our data includes almost 700 candidates and over 690k documents that they produced and cited in the 3.5 years leading to the elections. We utilize graph and text mining techniques to analyze differences between Democrats, Republicans and Tea Party candidates, and suggest a novel use of language modeling for estimating content cohesiveness. Our findings show significant differences in the usage patterns of social media, and suggest conservative candidates used this medium more effectively, conveying a coherent message and maintaining a dense graph of connections. Despite the lack of party leadership, we find Tea Party members display both structural and language-based cohesiveness. Finally, we investigate the relation between network structure, content and election results by creating a proof-of-concept model that predicts candidate victory with an accuracy of 88.0 . Word usage is influenced by diverse factors, including topic, genre and various speaker author characteristics. To characterize these aspects of language, we introduce the “Multi-Factor Sparse Plus Low Rank” exponential language model, which allows supervised joint training of arbitrary overlapping factor-specific model components. This flexible architecture has the advantage of being highly interpretable. The elements of sparse parameter matrices can be viewed as factor-dependent corrections (e.g. topic- or speaker-dependent phenomena). In topic modeling experiments on conversational telephone speech, we obtain modest perplexity reductions over an n-gram baseline and demonstrate topic-dependent keyword extraction that leads to a 13 (absolute) improvement in precision over TFIDF. We also show how keywords can be jointly learned for speakers, roles and topics in a study of Supreme Court oral arguments. The utilization of social media material in journalistic workflows is increasing, demanding automated methods for the identification of mis- and disinformation. Since textual contradiction across social media posts can be a signal of rumorousness, we seek to model how claims in Twitter posts are being textually contradicted. We identify two different contexts in which contradiction emerges: its broader form can be observed across independently posted tweets and its more specific form in threaded conversations. We define how the two scenarios differ in terms of central elements of argumentation: claims and conversation structure. We design and evaluate models for the two scenarios uniformly as 3-way Recognizing Textual Entailment tasks in order to represent claims and conversation structure implicitly in a generic inference model, while previous studies used explicit or no representation of these properties. To address noisy text, our classifiers use simple similarity features derived from the string and part-of-speech level. Corpus statistics reveal distribution differences for these features in contradictory as opposed to non-contradictory tweet relations, and the classifiers yield state of the art performance. Using social media for political discourse is becoming common practice, especially around election time. One interesting aspect of this trend is the possibility of pulsing the public’s opinion about the elections, and that has attracted the interest of many researchers and the press. Allegedly, predicting electoral outcomes from social media data can be feasible and even simple. Positive results have been reported, but without an analysis on what principle enables them. Our work puts to test the purported predictive power of socialmedia metrics against the 2010 US congressional elections. Here, we applied techniques that had reportedly led to positive election predictions in the past, on the Twitter data collected from the 2010 US congressional elections. Unfortunately, we find no correlation between the analysis results and the electoral outcomes, contradicting previous reports. Observing that 80 years of polling research would support our findings, we argue that one should not be accepting predictions about events using social media data as a black box. Instead, scholarly research should be accompanied by a model explaining the predictive power of social media, when there is one. The widespread adoption of social media for political communication creates unprecedented opportunities to monitor the opinions of large numbers of politically active individuals in real time. However, without a way to distinguish between users of opposing political alignments, conflicting signals at the individual level may, in the aggregate, obscure partisan differences in opinion that are important to political strategy. In this article we describe several methods for predicting the political alignment of Twitter users based on the content and structure of their political communication in the run-up to the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. Using a data set of 1,000 manually-annotated individuals, we find that a support vector machine (SVM) trained on hash tag metadata outperforms an SVM trained on the full text of users' tweets, yielding predictions of political affiliations with 91 accuracy. Applying latent semantic analysis to the content of users' tweets we identify hidden structure in the data strongly associated with political affiliation, but do not find that topic detection improves prediction performance. All of these content-based methods are outperformed by a classifier based on the segregated community structure of political information diffusion networks (95 accuracy). We conclude with a practical application of this machinery to web-based political advertising, and outline several approaches to public opinion monitoring based on the techniques developed herein. Television news coverage following a presidential debate often presents the debate as a contest between winners and losers by employing a horse race paradigm. The use of this paradigm can help viewers form their assessments of the candidates’ performances, but its overuse can limit serious campaign discourse on the issues. This study examines the effect of postdebate analysis by two cable news networks on the perceived outcome of a 2004 presidential debate and the perceptions of the candidates, finding perceptions of the outcome differing between viewers of the two networks. This finding contributes to our understanding of viewer interaction with postdebate television coverage by focusing on the importance of the sources of information. We explore Debatepedia, a communityauthored encyclopedia of sociopolitical debates, as evidence for inferring a lowdimensional, human-interpretable representation in the domain of issues and positions. We introduce a generative model positing latent topics and cross-cutting positions that gives special treatment to person mentions and opinion words. We evaluate the resulting representation’s usefulness in attaching opinionated documents to arguments and its consistency with human judgments about positions. Politics and political conflict often occur in the written and spoken word. Scholars have long recognized this, but the massive costs of analyzing even moderately sized collections of texts have hindered their use in political science research. Here lies the promise of automated text analysis: it substantially reduces the costs of analyzing large collections of text. We provide a guide to this exciting new area of research and show how, in many instances, the methods have already obtained part of their promise. But there are pitfalls to using automated methods—they are no substitute for careful thought and close reading and require extensive and problem-specific validation. We survey a wide range of new methods, provide guidance on how to validate the output of the models, and clarify misconceptions and errors in the literature. To conclude, we argue that for automated text methods to become a standard tool for political scientists, methodologists must contribute new methods and new methods of validation. Language is the medium for politics and political conflict. Candidates debate and state policy positions during a campaign. Once elected, representatives write and debate legislation. After laws are passed, bureaucrats solicit comments before they issue regulations. Nations regularly negotiate and then sign peace treaties, with language that signals the motivations and relative power of the countries involved. News reports document the day-to-day affairs of international relations that provide a detailed picture of conflict and cooperation. Individual candidates and political parties articulate their views through party platforms and manifestos. Terrorist groups even reveal their preferences and goals through recruiting materials, magazines, and public statements. These examples, and many others throughout political science, show that to understand what politics is about we need to know what political actors are saying and writing. Recognizing that language is central to the study of politics is not new. To the contrary, scholars of politics have long recognized that much of politics is expressed in words. But scholars have struggled when using texts to make inferences about politics. The primary problem is volume: there are simply too many political texts. Rarely are scholars able to manually read all the texts in even moderately sized corpora. And hiring coders to manually read all documents is still very expensive. The result is that In this paper we investigate the effect of the context of interaction on the extent to which a contributor's perspective bias is displayed through their lexical choice. We present a series of experiments on political discussion data. Our experiments indicate that (i) when people quote contributors with an opposing view, they tend to quote the words that are less strongly associated with the opposing view. (ii) Nevertheless, in quoting their opponents, the displayed bias of their word distributions shifts towards that of their opponents. (iii) The personal bias of the speaker is displayed most clearly through the words that are not quoted, (iv) although characteristics of the quoted message do have a measurable effect on the words that are included in the contribution. And, finally, (v) posts are influenced by the displayed bias of previous posts in a thread. Online users tend to select claims that adhere to their system of beliefs and to ignore dissenting information. Confirmation bias, indeed, plays a pivotal role in viral phenomena. Furthermore, the wide availability of content on the web fosters the aggregation of likeminded people where debates tend to enforce group polarization. Such a configuration might alter the public debate and thus the formation of the public opinion. In this paper we provide a mathematical model to study online social debates and the related polarization dynamics. We assume the basic updating rule of the Bounded Confidence Model (BCM) and we develop two variations a) the Rewire with Bounded Confidence Model (RBCM), in which discordant links are broken until convergence is reached; and b) the Unbounded Confidence Model, under which the interaction among discordant pairs of users is allowed even with a negative feedback, either with the rewiring step (RUCM) or without it (UCM). From numerical simulations we find that the new models (UCM and RUCM), unlike the BCM, are able to explain the coexistence of two stable final opinions, often observed in reality. Lastly, we present a mean field approximation of the newly introduced models. Social media have been extensively praised for increasing democratic discussion on social issues related to policy and politics. However, what happens when this powerful communication tools are exploited to manipulate online discussion, to change the public perception of political entities, or even to try affecting the outcome of political elections? In this study we investigated how the presence of social media bots, algorithmically driven entities that on the surface appear as legitimate users, affect political discussion around the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. By leveraging state-of-the-art social bot detection algorithms, we uncovered a large fraction of user population that may not be human, accounting for a significant portion of generated content (about one-fifth of the entire conversation). We inferred political partisanships from hashtag adoption, for both humans and bots, and studied spatio-temporal communication, political support dynamics, and influence mechanisms by discovering the level of network embeddedness of the bots. Our findings suggest that the presence of social media bots can indeed negatively affect democratic political discussion rather than improving it, which in turn can potentially alter public opinion and endanger the integrity of the Presidential election. Using social media for political discourse is increasingly becoming common practice, especially around election time. Arguably, one of the most interesting aspects of this trend is the possibility of ''pulsing'' the public's opinion in near real-time and, thus, it has attracted the interest of many researchers as well as news organizations. Recently, it has been reported that predicting electoral outcomes from social media data is feasible, in fact it is quite simple to compute. Positive results have been reported in a few occasions, but without an analysis on what principle enables them. This, however, should be surprising given the significant differences in the demographics between likely voters and users of online social networks. This work aims to test the predictive power of social media metrics against several Senate races of the two recent US Congressional elections. We review the findings of other researchers and we try to duplicate their findings both in terms of data volume and sentiment analysis. Our research aim is to shed light on why predictions of electoral (or other social events) using social media might or might not be feasible. In this paper, we offer two conclusions and a proposal: First, we find that electoral predictions using the published research methods on Twitter data are not better than chance. Second, we reveal some major challenges that limit the predictability of election results through data from social media. We propose a set of standards that any theory aiming to predict elections (or other social events) using social media should follow. In this paper we describe an application of language technology to policy formulation, where it can support policy makers assess the acceptance of a yet-unpublished policy before the policy enters public consultation. One of the key concepts is that instead of relying on thematic similarity, we extract arguments expressed in support or opposition of positions that are general statements that are, themselves, consistent with the policy or not. The focus of this paper in this overall pipeline, is identifying arguments in text: we present and empirically evaluate the hypothesis that verbal tense and mood are good indicators of arguments that have not been explored in the relevant literature.