eu cohesion policy in the public sphere: how do the … · 1.8 2.5 4.0 4.2 6.3 7.8 7.8 8.7 9.3 9.9...
TRANSCRIPT
1
EU COHESION POLICY IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE: HOW DO THE MEDIA FRAME EU COHESION POLICY?
Results from the COHESIFY media analysis
Vasiliki TrigaCyprus University of Technology
COHESIFY Final Conference, Brussels 26 April, 2018
TheCOHESIFYproject(February2016-April2018)hasreceivedfundingfromtheEuropeanUnion’sHorizon2020researchandinnovationprogrammeundergrantagreementNo.693127
2
Footnotes1 Reactions: number of comments, retweets, likes, shares...etc.
Overview of Cohesify dataset
Cohesify Universe Volume Reactions1 Unique Users
Web media articles (11 lang) 33,842 N/A N/A
Framing Analysis
Stratified sample (11 lang) 2,714 N/A N/A
Computational Analysis (ENG/ES)
Web media articles 4,092 33,183 N/AUser Comments 33,183 N/A 7,945Social Media (Facebook) 3,601 60,132 2,321Social Media (Twitter) 19,653 37,886 13,298
Table: Dataset Overview
1
Reactions: number of comments, retweets, likes, shares...etc.,.
Carlos MendezUniversity of Strathclyde Add title of presentation here
Cohesify meeting:Brussels, March 23 4 /
22
MEDIA DATASET: Overview
3
1 FRAMING ANALYSIS
How is Cohesion Policy FRAMED in the news?
Job creation Development Research & InnovationFinancial Burden
FRAMES
Environment Social justice Public services Infrastructure
Cultural heritage Cultural development
Mismanagement of fundsBureaucracy Fail to inform public/applicantsRestore order
1 2ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES
QUALITY OF LIFE CULTURE
3INCOMPETENCE OF LOCAL GOVERNANCE
4
SUBFRAMES
Political Leverage Political CapitalEmpowerment
FRAMES
External relations Tackling brain drain Sovereignty
Civic participation/CollaborationSocial Awareness Solidarity
Corruption Fraud
5 6
POWER NATIONAL INTERESTS
COHESION
7
MISUSE OF FUNDS
8
SUBFRAMES
Are the dominant frames POSITIVE or NEGATIVE?
Cohesion policy mainly framed in terms of economic gains (34%),
and impact on citizens’ everyday lives (27%)
13.4%
34.2%
27.3%
4.1%
9.0%
4.1%1.0%
2.9%3.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
NoframeEconomicconsequences(Frame1)
Quality oflife(Frame2)
Culture (Frame3)Incompetence oflocal/ nationalauthorities(Frame4)
Power(Frame5)NationalInterests(Frame
6)
Cohesion (Frame7)
Fundabuse(Frame8)
(Allcases, n=2714)
The negative frames are less frequent: ‘Incompetence’ (9%),
‘Power’ (5%) and ‘Fund Misuse’ (4%)
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:THE DOMINANT FRAMES
9
12.5 17.9 18.3 20.2 21.5 21.7 21.8 24.3 27.9 31.142.2 43.2 46.9 49.2
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.0
Qualityoflife(Frame2)
22.3 22.8 25.7 27.6 29.7 30.3 31.1 31.5 32.1 33.342.3 47.2 47.6
54.7
0102030405060
EconomicConsequences(Frame1)
The key positive and dominant frames are especially prevalent in Sl, CY, IE & UK, NL, IT
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:THE NEGATIVE FRAMES
11
1.8
2.5
4.0
4.2
6.3
7.8
7.8
8.7
9.3
9.9
10.6
11.5
12.4
21.7
0 5 10 15 20
Hungary
Ireland
UK
Netherlands
Greece
Slovenia
Cyprus
Italy
Total
European/…
Spain
Germany
Poland
Romania
Incompetenceoflocal/nationalauthorities(Frame4)
.6%
1.3%
2.3%
2.5%
2.5%
3.2%
3.6%
4.0%
4.7%
5.4%
5.5%
6.7%
7.2%
12.9%
0% 5% 10% 15%
Cyprus
Hungary
Poland
Ireland
Greece
Italy
UK
Total
Slovenia
Netherlands
Romania
Germany
Spain
European/…
Power(Frame5)
‘Incompetence’ frame is twice higher than average in Romania
‘Power’ frame by EU media is3 times higher than average -
Emphasis on political bargaining
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:THE LEAST SALIENT FRAMES
13
0%
0%
0%
.4%
.4%
.5%
.8%
.8%
.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.3%
2.9%
3.1%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4%
Ireland
Cyprus
European/…
Romania
Hungary
Italy
Poland
UK
Greece
Total
Netherlands
Spain
Germany
Slovenia
NationalInterests(Frame6)
0%
0%
.3%
.5%
.8%
.9%
1.6%
2.2%
2.5%
2.7%
2.8%
5%
6%
20.2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Spain
Cyprus
Poland
Italy
Greece
Romania
Slovenia
Hungary
Ireland
Total
UK
European/…
Netherlands
Germany
Cohesion(Frame7)
0%
0%
.4%
.5%
1%
1.9%
2.3%
2.4%
3.4%
5.1%
8.9%
8.9%
10.2%
10.7%
0% 5% 10% 15%
Ireland
Cyprus
Greece
Slovenia
Poland
Germany
Italy
UK
Total
Spain
European/…
Romania
Hungary
Netherlands
Fundabuse(Frame8)
TOWARS EU IDENTITY THROUGH POSITIVE NEWS?
15
89%
79% 78%75%
69%62%
56% 55%48%
37%
25%
16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
PositiveNewsValence
Positive EU news promotes a sense belonging in a community
Majority of news is positive in most cases….
… less than 50% in some cases (EU media, DE, IT, RO) – but large neutral (factual) component, not negative
TOWARS EU IDENTITY THROUGH EUROPEANISED NEWS?
17
58%
20%19%
12% 12% 11%8% 8%
4% 3% 3% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
EuropeanisationofNews
The EU dimension of news contributes to a European public sphere
But only European media presents news from a European perspective
FRAMING: Conclusions
19
The media does frame Cohesion Policy - shaping the way EU is understood, interpreted & evaluated 1
FRAMING: Conclusions
20
Cohesion Policy frames are rich & diverse2
FRAMING: Conclusions
21
The framing of Cohesion Policy is positiveoverall (Economic consequences, Quality of life)3
FRAMING: Conclusions
22
But Europeanised discourse is low (nationalised discourses)4
FRAMING: Conclusions
23
Regional media frame positively (effects on daily lives), national media focus more on criticism against the national government5
24
2 COMPUTATIONAL TEXT ANALYSIS
25
COMPUTATIONAL TEXT ANALYSIS:Online news and social media
TopicmodellingDiscoverstopicsfromtextdocuments(e.g.newsarticles,tweets,posts,etc.)andcanhandle‘bigdata’
SentimentanalysisOpinionminingapproachtodeterminepolarityoftext(positive,negativeorneutral)usingadictionaryofwords
NEWS MEDIA: Topics & proportions
26
Figure: Estimates of topic proportions based on structural topic model (n=4.092) Topics have been assigned short labels for facilitating interpretability.
THE TERRITORIAL DIMENSION: National vs regional news focus
27
Figure: Logit estimates of effect size of changing from one category to another. Note: Error bars that do not overlap with the zero line are statistically significant. Positive coefficients mean that the topic receives more emphasis at the “national” level, while negative coefficients imply that the regional level emphasises the topic more.
Estimated e↵ects: From Regional to National
(a) Spain (b) UK
Figure: Add further explanation of e↵ects estimates
Carlos MendezUniversity of Strathclyde Add title of presentation here
Cohesify meeting:Brussels, March 23 8 /
22
NEWS MEDIA: Sentiment analysis
28
News media: Comparison of sentiment across levels
Figure: Comparison of sentiment per territorial level. The sentiment analysis wasperformed on the English language sources, which means that the “Regional” and“National” levels refer to those in the UK.
Carlos MendezUniversity of Strathclyde Add title of presentation here
Cohesify meeting:Brussels, March 23 10
/ 22
Figure: Comparison of sentiment per territorial level. The sentiment analysis was performed on the English language sources, which means that "Regional" and "National" refer to UK
USER COMMENTS: International
29
Figure:SentimentanalysisofUserCommentsfrominternational-focusedmedia.
User Generated Content (USG): International
Figure: Sentiment analysis of UGC from international-focused media. Note: Mostof the facebook coverage appears to be neutral, although it is punctuated by afew negative posts/commentary
Carlos MendezUniversity of Strathclyde Add title of presentation here
Cohesify meeting:Brussels, March 23 12
/ 22
Most commentary is neutral, though punctuated by NEGATIVE COMMENTARY
USER COMMENTS: UK
30
Figure: Sentiment analysis of User Comments from UK media.
Most of the sentiment associated with USER COMMENTS is negative, especially for the Daily Mail
User Generated Content (USG): UK
Figure: Sentiment analysis of UGC from UK media. Note: Most of the sentimentassociated with UGC is negative, especially for the Daily Mail
Carlos MendezUniversity of Strathclyde Add title of presentation here
Cohesify meeting:Brussels, March 23 13
/ 22
FACEBOOK (ENG): Activity stats
31
Figure: Evolution of Facebook activity statistics over time
Facebook: English
Figure: Coverage of meta-statistics over time. Note: From roughly 2012-2013,levels of FB activity steadily increase over time
Carlos MendezUniversity of Strathclyde Add title of presentation here
Cohesify meeting:Brussels, March 23 14
/ 22
From 2012-2013, levels of FB activity are steadily INCREASING.
FACEBOOK: Sentiment analysis of Facebook posts
32
Most sentiment is NEUTRALor POSITIVE
MORE POSITIVE posts in Spanish than English
Facebook: Sentiment analysis
(a) English
(b) Spanish
Figure: Sentiment analysis of Facebook posts. Note most sentiment detected iseither neutral or positive
Carlos MendezUniversity of Strathclyde Add title of presentation here
Cohesify meeting:Brussels, March 23 17
/ 22
Facebook: Sentiment analysis
(a) English
(b) Spanish
Figure: Sentiment analysis of Facebook posts. Note most sentiment detected iseither neutral or positive
Carlos MendezUniversity of Strathclyde Add title of presentation here
Cohesify meeting:Brussels, March 23 17
/ 22
TWITTER (ES): Topic proportions & sentiment
33
12,7K tweets in Spain (compared to 7,3K in UK)
BUT NEED MORE TIME!
Figure: Sentiment analysis of tweets.
34
COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS: Conclusions (i)
Large variation across 3 cases in Cohesion Policy topic emphasisand coverage
Topics mirror thematic Objectives and broader EU political themes,e.g. Conditionality & EU affairs/Brexit & Irregularities
Significant territorial differences in topic emphasis & sentimentanalysis e.g. EU affairs focus at national level
35
COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS: Conclusions (ii)
News comments contain more negative sentiment (esp. UK)
Facebook activity increasing over time, but most sentiment neutral- not surprising as mostly about objective information
Twitter analysis reveals also neutral sentiment