Understanding the dynamics of international politics is important yet challenging for civilians. In this work, we explore unsupervised neural models to infer relations between nations from news articles. We extend existing models by incorporating shallow linguistics information and propose a new automatic evaluation metric that aligns relationship dynamics with manually annotated key events. As understanding international relations requires carefully analyzing complex relationships, we conduct in-person human evaluations with three groups of participants. Overall, humans prefer the outputs of our model and give insightful feedback that suggests future directions for human-centered models. Furthermore, our model reveals interesting regional differences in news coverage. For instance, with respect to US-China relations, Singaporean media focus more on "strengthening" and "purchasing", while US media focus more on "criticizing" and "denouncing".
Last but not least, researchers have studied the dynamics of media coverage from a wide range of perspectives, ranging from framing @cite_25 @cite_6 , to relationship between ideas @cite_24 , to quotes of politicians @cite_4 @cite_15 @cite_28 . There is also significant effort for building event databases in political science @cite_12 , and assisting journalists with tools @cite_35 , and dating historical text @cite_23 .
@cite_35 @cite_4 @cite_28 @cite_6 @cite_24 @cite_23 @cite_15 @cite_25 @cite_12
1128822470 2755457990 2166273866 2798594587
For over a generation, social scientists have tried to categorize the relationship between journalists and politicians. Which side holds power and influence over the other? Some scholars propose “active” theories: journalists have preferences and the power to impose them on anyone seeking media attention. Other scholars argue journalists are essentially “reactive,” dutifully writing down what politicians say with little ability to add alternate perspectives. In this dissertation, I propose both camps are extremes based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how journalists can apply their preferences on news content. Politicians and other sources provide information to reporters, bloggers and other new media writers. Each writer then chooses how to respond to this information. Journalistic power – whether we are discussing traditional media outlets or newer partisan media organizations – is best understood as a set of if : then propositions.The empirical sections of the dissertation consist of three separate studies, each of which focuses on one set of inputs and the output from a particular set of news organizations. The first study focuses on how presidents schedule press conferences at particular times and places. I find scheduling influences how much attention journalists give a conference, which in turn influences the balance of opinion found in stories. The second study shows how journalists resist but may ultimately give in to evasive responses, by examining quotations on a statement-by-statement basis. The third study examines some of the most popular phrases from the 2008 election, comparing how a wide range of media organizations responded to the same set of political and non-political ideas. Put together, these studies offer a common theoretical framework for comparing traditional and new media organizations, allowing for commonalities as well as differences. Media data has been the subject of large scale analysis with applications of text mining being used to provide overviews of media themes and information flows. Such information extracted from media articles has also shown its contextual value of being integrated with other data, such as criminal records and stock market pricing. In this work, we explore linking textual media data with curated secondary textual data sources through user-guided semantic lexical matching for identifying relationships and data links. In this manner, critical information can be identified and used to annotate media timelines in order to provide a more detailed overview of events that may be driving media topics and frames. These linked events are further analyzed through an application of causality modeling to model temporal drivers between the data series. Such causal links are then annotated through automatic entity extraction which enables the analyst to explore persons, locations, and organizations that may be pertinent to the media topic of interest. To demonstrate the proposed framework, two media datasets and an armed conflict event dataset are explored. Given the extremely large pool of events and stories available, media outlets need to focus on a subset of issues and aspects to convey to their audience. Outlets are often accused of exhibiting a systematic bias in this selection process, with different outlets portraying different versions of reality. However, in the absence of objective measures and empirical evidence, the direction and extent of systematicity remains widely disputed. In this paper we propose a framework based on quoting patterns for quantifying and characterizing the degree to which media outlets exhibit systematic bias. We apply this framework to a massive dataset of news articles spanning the six years of Obama's presidency and all of his speeches, and reveal that a systematic pattern does indeed emerge from the outlet's quoting behavior. Moreover, we show that this pattern can be successfully exploited in an unsupervised prediction setting, to determine which new quotes an outlet will select to broadcast. By encoding bias patterns in a low-rank space we provide an analysis of the structure of political media coverage. This reveals a latent media bias space that aligns surprisingly well with political ideology and outlet type. A linguistic analysis exposes striking differences across these latent dimensions, showing how the different types of media outlets portray different realities even when reporting on the same events. For example, outlets mapped to the mainstream conservative side of the latent space focus on quotes that portray a presidential persona disproportionately characterized by negativity. News entities must select and filter the coverage they broadcast through their respective channels since the set of world events is too large to be treated exhaustively. The subjective nature of this filtering induces biases due to, among other things, resource constraints, editorial guidelines, ideological affinities, or even the fragmented nature of the information at a journalist's disposal. The magnitude and direction of these biases are, however, widely unknown. The absence of ground truth, the sheer size of the event space, or the lack of an exhaustive set of absolute features to measure make it difficult to observe the bias directly, to characterize the leaning's nature and to factor it out to ensure a neutral coverage of the news. In this work, we introduce a methodology to capture the latent structure of media's decision process on a large scale. Our contribution is multi-fold. First, we show media coverage to be predictable using personalization techniques, and evaluate our approach on a large set of events collected from the GDELT database. We then show that a personalized and parametrized approach not only exhibits higher accuracy in coverage prediction, but also provides an interpretable representation of the selection bias. Last, we propose a method able to select a set of sources by leveraging the latent representation. These selected sources provide a more diverse and egalitarian coverage, all while retaining the most actively covered events.