The Volkswagen Emissions Scandal: News Media Coverage
And Public Opinion
To what extent does the news media coverage of the Volkswagen Emissions
Scandal have an impact on public opinion, as expressed in social media?
Mariya Mihaylova 10852662 Master Thesis
Graduate School of Communication, MSc Corporate Communication Supervisor: Rens Vliegenthart
Abstract
This Master Thesis focuses on the relationship between news media and public opinion, with the goal to find the extent to which news coverage influences the general public. In order to investigate this, the recent Volkswagen Emissions Scandal was used as a case study. A quantitative content analysis of English-language news media articles and tweets, collected from the period between September 18th 2015 and March 30th 2016, was conducted. The findings of the study show interesting results: while the theory of agenda setting was supported, this research was not able to find any significant proof that the media could have an impact on the tone and frames used by the public in times of organisational crisis. These conclusions highlight the growing importance and influence of social networks, as well as the development of a newly empowered audience, which can challenge the traditional one-way communication of the media.
Introduction
By the end of 2015 all eyes were on Volkswagen – a brand that over time had
become “more a German institution than a corporation” (Boston, 2015), as well as a
symbol of the German efficiency and responsibility, was now a target of numerous
regulatory investigations and a significant public outrage. So what happened that turned the people against “The People’s Car”?
On September 18th 2015, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) issued a
notice of violation to the car manufacturer, which found that Volkswagen (VW) had
been using software in many of their cars that could automatically change the
performance results during emission tests. While the VW cars seemed to be
performing positively during testing, in reality the emissions far exceeded the
permitted limits. Thus, the findings of EPA sparked major public outrage, as well as
legal and financial consequences for the company.
What became known as the ‘Diesel Dupe’ can be considered one of the
biggest organisational crises of 2015, which challenged the up-until-then impeccable
reputation of Volkswagen and raised numerous concerns about possible severe
economic repercussions. An organisational crisis, as defined by Coombs (2012), is the “perception of an unpredictable event that threatens important expectancies of
stakeholders and can seriously impact an organization’s performance and generate
negative outcomes” (p. 2–3). By this definition, the Volkswagen emissions scandal
can clearly be considered an organisational crisis, as the consequences that are likely
to arise from it are not only detrimental to the organisation's performance but also
have a negative impact on different stakeholders, including the public. According to a
report by Reuters (Nienaber, 2015), the VW Emissions Scandal poses a threat to the
German economy that could even exceed the recent Greek economic crisis.
highlighted in the news. More specifically, this research paper aims to distinguish the
relationship between the media and the public, and to find out to what extent the
media influenced the public perception of the VW company. Hence, the main goal of
this thesis is to answer the following research question:
To what extent does the news media coverage of the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal have an impact on public opinion, as expressed in social media?
Answering this question will contribute to the field of agenda setting, framing
and crisis communication, and it will provide us with valuable insights into the interplay
between the media and the public in times of crisis. Moreover, it will develop the
understanding of the extent to which the public can be impacted by news media
coverage. For this research, public opinion will be measured via Twitter, which will
also provide an interesting angle to this topic, as it will ultimately study the
development of the crisis within both traditional and social media.
Theoretical Background Agenda setting
The relationship between the media and the audience’s agenda has been a
widely discussed topic in the social sciences. The concept of the public’s agenda is
defined as the “ranking of the relative importance of various public issues” (Dearing as
cited in Soroka, 2002, p. 266) and researchers have spent a significant amount of time
trying to determine the exact effects of media coverage on the perceptions of individuals. In fact, numerous studies have found that the public’s agenda changes in
Agenda setting is the process, which occurs when the high amounts of attention attributed to an issue by the mass media determine the scale of the public’s
attention given to that same issue (Behr & Iyenar, 1985; Carroll & McCombs, 2003;
Scheufele and Tewksbury, 2007; Soroka, 2002; Walgrave & van Aelst, 2006). When examining the media’s agenda setting function, Lang and Lang state that: "The mass
media force attention to certain issues. They build up public images of political figures.
They are constantly presenting objects suggesting what individuals in the mass should think about, know about, have feelings about” (as cited in McCombs & Shaw, 1972, p.
177).
As Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007) argue, when individuals make decisions,
their attitudes and considerations are based on cues that are most accessible and
salient to them. The agenda setting process begins when the media direct a
significant amount of attention to a certain object or issue and thus, this repeated
media focus has a strong effect on the perceived importance of that same issue by the
public (Carroll & McCombs, 2003). Therefore, the emphasised journalistic coverage of
a certain issue can determine the amount of public concern for that same event (Behr
& Iyenar, 1985): the higher the issue salience in the media, the higher it will be for the public (Soroka, 2002). Furthermore, Hilgartner and Bosk (1988) argue that there is an
interaction between the different public arenas, which often means that if a social
problem becomes prominent in one arena, it could quickly spread to another. As a
consequence, this spread of attention can lead to the issue dominating the public
discourse as a whole: not only in the arena where it initially developed, but in the other
arenas as well (Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988).
However, the exact degree to which the media might influence the public
discourse has at times been debated in literature. Some of the early studies on the media’s impact on the audience’s opinion have shown that television coverage has no
studies have also shown that many real world events may have a direct impact on the
audience and not be mediated by journalists (Soroka, 2002, Zucker, 1978). As Soroka
(2002) argues, the dynamics of agenda setting depend on the characteristics of the
issue that is taking place: while some issues may allow for a higher media influence, others are directly conceived by the public. This notion is linked to Zucker’s (1978)
‘obtrusiveness’ hypothesis, according to which the more directly individuals
experience an issue, the less likely the media coverage of that issue will affect public
opinion (Soroka, 2002). Furthermore, as Behr and Iyenar (1985) suggest, the news is not the primary source of individuals’ concerns and issues are often defined by
personal experiences, as well as real-world conditions. Therefore, the overestimation of media effects on public opinion may lead to “severely inflated estimates of media
influence” (Behr & Iyenar, 1985, p. 53).
Based on the literature discussed above, it can be observed that the notion
that the media has an impact on public opinion has been subjected to some
discussion. However, the theory of agenda setting is doubtlessly of significant value
when studying why certain topics become more visible in the public eye. As Cohen argues, the media “may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to
think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about” (as cited
in Soroka 2002, p. 265). Therefore, the agenda setting effects lie within the attention
and time given to an issue by the media (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007).
Due to the aforementioned effects of agenda setting, the media’s ability to
bring issues into the public’s attention is particularly important in organisational
contexts. When a critical situation arises in a company, the attention surrounding it
could be quickly spread by the media. Therefore, if the crisis carries a negative
connotation, which is the case with the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal, it is likely that the media will attract the public’s attention to the negative event. As a consequence,
Wassenhove, Besiou and van Halderen (2013) suggest, the stakeholders of a
company are not only the ones who can be affected by its activities or actions, but can
also be these individuals whose support is essential for the survival of the
organisation. Therefore, agenda setting plays an important role in organisational
crises.
The analysis of the agenda setting literature discussed in this section leads to
the conclusion that the media has a rather influential role in the development and
transformation of the public discourse. As Carroll and McCombs (2003) note, “repeated attention to the same object/event day after day is the strongest and most
powerful message about how salient that object is” (p. 37). In the case of the
Volkswagen Emissions Scandal, the media’s agenda setting function is of a particular
significance, since the scandal was widely reported on and it had serious economic, personal and even potential health implications for the company’s stakeholders.
Therefore, the first hypothesis of this paper focuses on the agenda setting capabilities
of the media and suggests that the intensified media coverage of the VW Emissions
Scandal forced the issue into becoming a more prominent and important topic for the public. Hence, H1 states that:
H1: The more media coverage there is on the Volkswagen scandal, the
higher it will be the public’s agenda.
When studying the effects of agenda setting, Staw and Epstein (2000) found
that when the media put an increased focus not just on a company, but also on some
specific organisational attributes, there was an influence on the salience of these
attributes on the public agenda. According to their findings, the way a company and its
management style was regarded by the audience was improved due to favourable
(2003) suggest, the media could have both a positive and negative effect on the pubic
perception of organisational attributes. Therefore, it can be observed how the mere
association with positive or negative characteristics can influence the public
perception of the company.
The function of the media to amplify the effects of a story has been discussed by van Dalen, de Vresse and Albaek (2015) through the metaphor of the ‘magnifying
glass’. According to their study, media reports on unfavourable events carry a more
exaggerated negative sentiment than reality. Similarly, when covering a favourable
occurrence, journalists typically amplify their positive tone of reporting (van Dalen et
al, 2015). Thus, even though the media does not per se spin the perception of a story,
it can significantly influence the magnitude of its effect on the public. Furthermore,
research has shown that during crises, the media coverage intensifies (Boin, Hart &
McConnel, 2009).
Therefore, considering the negative sentiment of the Volkswagen Emissions
Scandal, the second hypothesis of this study will attempt to establish whether the VW
organisational crisis led to an amplified negative media reporting, which in turn
influenced the public perception of the company:
H2: The media amplified the negative effects of the Volkswagen scandal
and therefore, it had a negative influence on the public perception of the
company.
Negativity Bias
The magnifying-glass-function of the media during both favourable and
unfavourable events, however, does not mean that the audience perceives positive and negative coverage in the same way. In fact, the notion of ‘negativity bias’ has
respond more strongly to negative events (Casey & Owen, 2013; Soroka, 2006;
Soroka 2012). Therefore, when individuals are confronted with both a positive and a
negative situation, the negative one will be of a bigger concern to them, even if the
positive one is of similar importance.
The tendency of audiences to respond more strongly to negativity than to
positivity can explain to a large degree why oftentimes the media purposefully
chooses to report on unfavourable and controversial issues. Moreover, it is frequently
observed that journalists not only focus primarily on conflict events, but also
systematically produce stories that are more negative than the real world events
(Soroka, 2012). Studies of the selection of media stories have found that reporters generally operate within various selection principles and ‘news values’, according to
which they determine the newsworthiness of events. Even though academics have
come up with different types of news values, the following themes are most
consistently found in research: geographical proximity, presence of elites, continuity,
relevance, personification, controversy and negativity (Eilders, 2006). In most cases, a
crisis event contains at least one or more of the aforementioned values and thus, it
can quickly become a topic of media interest and widespread attention: as Soroka (2006) argues, events that are crime- or conflict-related, and constitute as a crisis, are
usually preferred and exaggerated by journalists.
Based on the discussed literature, we can establish that when a crisis event takes place, it is likely that the media will pick up on the ‘negativity’ news value
(Eilders, 2006), it will amplify these negative effects (van Dalen et al, 2015) and it will
have a stronger effect on the public, due to its greater sensitivity to negative events
(Casey & Owen, 2013; Soroka, 2006; Thaler et al, 1991). Therefore, going back to the
case of the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal, the third hypothesis of this paper states
positive media reporting.
Framing
One of the key concepts when studying the relationship between the media
and the public in times of crises is news media framing. While agenda setting argues
that the media determines whether individuals think about an issue, the concept of
framing focuses on how they think about it (Pan & Kosicki, 1993; Scheufele &
Tewksbury, 2007). The theories of agenda setting and framing are complementary to
each other and are both central to the understanding of media effects on audiences:
through agenda setting the media can direct the attention of the public to an issue, but
it is with the help of framing techniques that news reporters could influence the
presentation and understanding of that issue (de Vreese, 2005; Scheufele &
Tewksbury, 2007). Therefore, after a story has been selected for news coverage, it is
through framing that the media can have an effect on the opinion of the public, even
though these techniques are not always deliberate actions on behalf of the journalists.
The concept of framing has been linked to the process of shaping the public’s
understanding and evaluation of an issue through the usage of different frames that shape, define and present the issue (de Vreese, 2005; Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). As previous research has argued, framing refers to selecting “some aspect of a
perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way
as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation’’ (Entman 1993, p. 52). Therefore, the way the
media portrays an event can influence the way the audience characterises it
(Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007) and it is through the use of framing that journalists
can attribute meaning to issues (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; van der Meer &
Verhoeven, 2012). Furthermore, Chong and Druckman (2007) outline the significance and scale of framing by arguing that framing effects “occur when (often small)
changes in the presentation of an issue or an event produce (sometimes large) changes of opinion” (p. 104).
Considering these definitions, the framing paradigm can be regarded as key in
the development of crises, as well as to the way individuals make sense of a crisis
(van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2012). As discussed earlier in this text, when a critical
event takes place, it is likely that the media will pick up on it (Soroka, 2006) and
amplify the attention focused on it; thus, when studying the effects of the media on
public opinion during crisis situations, it is imperative to outline which frames are
preferred by journalists when defining the issue.
As de Vreese (2005) argues, “The potential of the framing concept lies in the
focus on communicative processes” (p. 51; italics in original). Therefore, framing is the
result of the interplay between different internal and external factors. According to
Entman, framing includes the communicator, the receiver, the content of the text and
the culture within which the text is interpreted (as cited in de Vreese, 2005). Therefore,
the dynamic nature of communication means that framing cannot be observed as a
simple and straightforward process, but should rather be seen as the result of the
continuous interaction between the media and its various internal and external influencers (de Vreese, 2005).
According to the analysis of de Vreese (2005), framing involves both a
frame-building and frame-setting aspect. The process of frame-frame-building refers to both the
internal and external factors that may influence how journalists frame events. The
internal factors can consist of news values, such as the ones discussed by Eilders
(2006), as well as editorial policies that affect the way news outlets select and report
on a story. At the same time, there are also external influencers, such as the
interactions between journalists, elite figures and social movements (de Vreese,
aforementioned factors are determinant of what kind of frames will be chosen when
reporting on an issue.
Frame-setting, on the other hand, takes into account the audience’s prior
knowledge and predispositions (de Vreese, 2005). Even though this action may not
always be purposeful, by choosing a certain way to frame an issue, the media can
influence the interpretation and understanding of the event by the public.
The exact degree to which the audience echoes news frames, as well as the
consequences of this reflection has been often debated and extensively researched in
the social sciences (de Vreese, 2005; Giles & Shaw, 2009). In particular, the rise of
social media in recent times has in many ways given power to the public to participate
and contribute to the development of frames (van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2012). The immediacy and ease of social networks has set the stage for “rapid mass self-communication” between individuals (van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2012, p. 229).
Nowadays, online media has become one of the main “crisis information-sharing
resources” (Liu, Austin & Jin as cited in van der Meer & Verhoeven, 2012, p. 229); the
audience does no longer consist of passive viewers who cannot participate in the
framing of an event, but is now more empowered, knowledgeable and has the tools to create its own frames. As Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007) argue, “more
knowledgeable individuals are more likely to engage in systematic information
processing by comparing the relative strength of alternative frames in competitive situations” (p. 14) and thus, the mere repetition of frames is not enough to influence
their perceptions. The dynamic nature of social media can therefore allow for a
speedy and vast spread of crisis information on one hand, but it can also lead to the
rapid change of frames from one to another (Karlsson, 2012). This, in turn, contributes
to the growing complexity of the framing process.
Nevertheless, research has found that despite the public’s active reach to
influencer of the audience’s response to a crisis (Liu, Austin & Jin, 2011). Therefore,
even though the public can collaborate with the media in the creation of frames, news media is still argued to be “the final arbitrator of the crisis frames” (Coombs, 2007, p.
171).
In order to distinguish different news frames, researchers have suggested
different criteria that a frame must meet. According to Cappella and Jamieson (1997), a news frame should have “identifiable conceptual and linguistic characteristics […], it
should be commonly observed in journalistic practice […], it must be possible to
distinguish the frame reliably from other frames […][and it] must have representational
validity (i.e. be recognized by others)” (as cited in de Vreese, 2005, p. 54).
Furthermore, a news frame needs to be different from what is considered core news
facts (de Vreese, 2005).
The study by Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) outlined five distinct crisis
frames, which have been most prominently outlined in previous literature: (1) conflict,
(2) human interest, (3) economic consequences, (4) morality and (5) responsibility. The conflict frame “emphasizes conflict between individuals, groups, or institutions as
a means of capturing audience interest” (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000, p. 95). The
human interest frame, on the other hand, uses a more emotional and humanised
angle when describing an occurrence. The third frame refers to when the media
coverage of a story focuses on the economic consequences that an issue might have
on a certain group or institution. Next, Semetko and Valkenburg describe the morality frame as a frame used when presenting issues “in the context of religious tenets or
moral perceptions” (p. 96). Lastly, the responsibility frame defines an issue in a way
that attributes the responsibility for that issue to an individual, organisation or group. Semetko and Valkenburg’s crisis frames were selected as suitable for this research,
context, and thus, will be helpful when comparing news media articles and public
opinion.
Based on the literature discussed in this section, we can see that news media
framing is a complex and interactive process that can often be influenced by different
factors. Nevertheless, framing is also of key value when attempting to understand
whether and how the media may influence public opinion. Therefore, the last
hypothesis of this paper concerns itself with the extent to which the frames utilised by
the news during the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal were picked up by the audience,
and as a result, influenced their perception of the crisis. For this purpose, this study
will make use of the news media frames outlined in the research of Semetko and
Valkenburg (2000). Hence, H4 states that:
H4: The frames employed by the public in social media will change in line
with the news media frames throughout the development of the VW
scandal.
Methods
Design
This study utilised a quantitative content analysis of news media articles and
tweets, gathered from the period between September 18th 2015 and March 30th 2016.
The choice to measure public opinion via social media was made, as it provides quick
access to a vast amount of information. Twitter was selected for this research since it
is easier to obtain data from it, rather than from other social media sites, due to the
open profiles of the majority of its users. Furthermore, the 140-character limitation of
Sample
The random sample of this research contains 311 news media articles and 275
tweets from the suggested timeline. This period has been selected as the most
significant for the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal, since September 18th 2015 marks the day of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s issue of
violation against VW, while March 30th is precisely 3 weeks after the resignation of Volkswagen’s US chief, Michael Horn. The final three weeks are included in the
timeframe in order to be able to study the public’s reaction to the event most
adequately. Only English-language materials were used in the sample. Due to
practical limitations, not all articles and tweets were studied and a random selection of
each was used.
All news media articles were collected via LexisNexis, by using the search term “Volkswagen scandal” and specifying the timeframe. Each article had been
published in one of the following major English-language news outlets: The New York
Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, Financial Times and Daily Mirror.
The tweets were found through looking for results containing the #volkswagenscandal hashtag from the same timeframe, searched within the Twitter
search engine. Since this research studies public opinion, an important criterion for
the collection of tweets was that the post had been published by a personal, or
individual account, rather than an account representing an organisation or a group.
Thus, the aforementioned selection criteria resulted in 586 items in total that
Procedure
This study was conducted in 2016 by a master student at the University of
Amsterdam, as part of her Master thesis for the track MSc Corporate Communication.
The student completed the sampling and coding between April 24th and May 24th.
Based on the previously developed codebook (Appendix 1), a reliability test
was conducted with the help of an external coder. The external coder was responsible
for coding 25 news articles and 25 tweets. The results of the reliability testing will be presented in the following section and in more detail – in Appendix 2.
The statistical analyses that were carried out in this study were correlation
analysis and linear regression analysis. The correlation analysis aimed to find if there
is a significant relationship between the variables of interest, while the linear
regression was used in order to establish the effects of news media on public opinion
expressed on Twitter.
Variables
All variables from the Codebook were included in a coding scheme in SPSS.
The first set of variables was descriptive, allowing to identify the article or tweet, as well as to describe all the characteristics of the materials that are relevant to this
study. Furthermore, the descriptive variables allow for an easy replication of the
research.
For each item in the dataset, type, title, outlet, number of words and date were registered. The binary variable Passing (‘1’ for ‘Yes’ and ‘0’ for ‘No’) was also used in
order to determine whether the author of the text focuses directly on the VW crisis, or
rather mentions it in passing. Thus, if the coder detected that the article or tweet was
not primarily focused on the issue of interest, he was required to stop coding at this
sample (n = 586). The inter-coder reliability for this variable demonstrated a high reliability, with Krippendorff’s alpha = 0.7.
The scale variable Tone was created in order to be able to measure the tone of the article or tweet’s author towards Volkswagen and therefore determine whether
there is a correlation between the media, and the public’s perception of VW. This
variable was measured with the help of a -2-to-2-point scale, varying from ‘Very
negative’ (-2) to ‘Very positive’ (2). The inter-coder reliability testing showed relatively
low reliability, with Krippendorff's alpha = 0.46, or a 64% of agreement. As it is often
difficult to reach high inter-coder reliability for this type of variable, the -2-to-2 scale
was recoded into -1-to-1 scale (Negative-Neural-Positive), in an attempt to reach a
higher score. The new reliability testing showed that Krippendorff's alpha = 0.5, or
88% of agreement, which is still a lower reliability score than anticipated. However, for
the purpose of this research this result was accepted as high enough.
The remaining variables in the dataset were concerned with the framing of the
texts and were borrowed from the research of Semetko and Valkenburg (2000).
Semetko and Valkenburg developed five frames that news media use during crises,
namely: Responsibility frame, Human Interest frame, Conflict frame, Morality frame and Economic frame. The five frames were measured with the help of a framing scale
containing twenty questions, also developed by Semetko and Valkenburg; there are
respectively five questions referring to the Responsibility frame, five for the Human
Interest frame, four for the Conflict frame, three for the Morality frame and three for the
Economic frame. Due to limitations in obtaining visual content, question Nº5 referring to the Human Interest frame, namely “Does the story contain visual information that
might generate feelings of outrage, empathy-caring, sympathy, or compassion?” was
not included in the analysis. Thus, the remaining nineteen questions were coded as binary variables, where 0 = ‘No’ and 1 = ‘Yes’. The reliability testing overall
Before creating the frame variables, the frame questions were checked for
variance. Since the coding for the first question referring to the responsibility frame
(RF1: Does the story suggest that Volkswagen has the ability to alleviate the
problem?) had no variation for tweets (M = 0), it was disregarded from the dataset.
Next, the reliability of the framing scale was tested. Even though the reliability for the Responsibility frame showed to be low (αarticles = 0.35; αtweets= 0.11), the framing
items RF2, RF3, RF4 and RF5 were retained, given the fact that this is a commonly
employed scale in previous research. The analysis also demonstrated that if any of
the items were deleted, that would only worsen the overall reliability of the
Responsibility frame for both articles and tweets. For the Human Interest frame, the reliability proved to be more reliable, with αarticles = 0.62 and αtweets= 0.67. All framing
items were retained, as the removal of any of them did not improve the reliability of the
frame. Next, the reliability of the Conflict frame showed to be relatively low, αarticles =
0.45 and αtweets= 0.45 but it was retained for the same reasons as the Responsibility
frame. No significant improvement was observed after the removal of any of the
framing items and thus, all of them were kept. The testing of the Morality frame also showed a relatively low reliability, αarticles = 0.45 and αtweets= 0.46. Even though the
analysis suggested that if the MF2 framing item (“Does the story make reference to
morality, God, and other religious tenets?”) were to be removed for news articles, the
overall reliability of the frame would improve, it was still retained, as improvement
would only have been modest. Finally, for the Economic frame, the reliability testing showed αarticles = 0.51 and αtweets= 0.45. The framing item EF3 (“Is there a reference to
economic consequences of pursuing or not pursuing course of action?”) was deleted
after showing a considerable improvement for both articles and tweets after removal (αarticles = 0.61 and αtweets= 0.55).
After completing the reliability analysis, all the items that were retained were
new frame variables were accordingly: the Responsibility frame (consisting of 4
items), the Human Interest frame (consisting of 4 items), the Conflict frame (consisting
of 3 items), the Morality frame (consisting of 3 items), and the Economic frame
(consisting of 2 items).
The final variable in the dataset, Dominant frame, was concerned with measuring which of Semetko and Valkenburg’s frames was most prominently used in
the text of analysis. Each of the five frames was attributed a number: 1 =
Responsibility frame, 2 = Human Interest frame, 3 = Conflict frame, 4 = Morality frame,
and 5 = Economic frame. In the case that the coder could not determine a dominant
frame, they were coded as missing. The inter-coder reliability analysis demonstrated a
Krippendorff's alpha= 0.7, or a 74% of agreement between the coders. Thus, the test
showed that the reliability for coding Dominant Frame was overall good, with some
deviations. In order to be able to find a relationship between the dominant frames
used in news media and in tweets, the variable was split in 5 separate variables, one
for each of the dominant frames.
An extra variable was computed with the goal of organising the dataset
according to week numbers. With the help of the new variable, an aggregated dataset was created, where all relevant variables were organised according to week and type
of outlet. Week 53, Week 6 and Week 10 were removed, as there were no tweets
published during that time. A variable measuring the attention focused on the scandal
was computed based on the amount of items coded per week.
Finally, the data was aggregated to a weekly level and new variables were
constructed (e.g. mean presence for each of the frames). This was done in order to be
able to find causal effects by comparing articles with tweets from the preceding week
Results
The descriptive variable “Date” is particularly important, as it allows us to follow
the development of the scandal through time. A frequency analysis showed variation
in the number of items over time, which can be explained due to the fact that a
random sample was used for this research and the attention focused on the issue
fluctuated considerably throughout the development of the scandal. The visual
depiction of the data in Figure 1 gives us an interesting idea about the frequency of
materials published regarding the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal through time:
according to the random sample, there were a lot of texts published shortly after the
outbreak of the scandal, but with time, the interest in the issue decreased.
Figure 1. Distribution of items posted in news media and Twitter about the VW Emissions Scandal. This
figure illustrates the number of items posted in both outlets from Week 38, 2015 to Week 13, 2016.
W 38 W 39 W 40 W 41 W 42 W 43 W 44 W 45 W 46 W 47 W 48 W 49 W 50 W 51 W 52 W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 11 W 12 W 13 Articles 24 53 29 17 20 14 8 9 8 10 5 9 9 6 5 6 10 14 5 4 5 6 5 1 2 10 Tweets 5 54 31 33 12 20 24 27 9 7 10 2 12 6 2 1 3 2 4 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 N of Ite m s
A descriptive statistical analysis was also conducted for the tone expressed
towards Volkswagen during the observed time period. The analysis shows that
throughout this timeframe, the tone towards Volkswagen was primarily negative, with 387 texts coded as ‘Negative’, 50 as ‘Neutral’ and 26 as ‘Positive’.
Furthermore, a frequency analysis of the frames employed by news media and
Twitter users shows that the Responsibility frame was the most commonly employed
for both journalists and social media users (n = 154). An interesting disproportion was
found for the usage of the Conflict, Morality and Economic frame (See Figure 2). The
descriptive analysis of the Dominant frames also found a discrepancy between the
usage of dominant frames in news media articles and tweets, with the exception of the
Responsibility frame (See Figure 3). The disproportion in the usage of frames and
dominant frames may be explained due to the fact that in general, the media
oftentimes focuses on more global issues that involve the Conflict and Economic
frame, while individuals are a lot more concerned with emotional issues, which are
reflected through the Human Interest and Morality frames. The Conflict frame was
often present in news media, which focused a lot more on the legal conflict that arose
between the different countries and stakeholders of VW. This issue does not directly impact the public and their personal lives, and thus will less likely be discussed via
their personal accounts. This is similar to the Economic frame, which was frequently
used in articles when discussing the financial losses of Volkswagen as a result of the
scandal: an issue that is more relevant to the organisation and its stakeholders, rather
than the general public. On the other hand, the Human Interest and Morality frames
were preferred by Twitter users who used the platform to voice their concerns
Figure 2. Frequency of frames. This figure represents how many times each frame has been used in both
news media and Twitter.
Figure 3. Frequency of dominant frames. This figure represents how many times each dominant frame
has been used in both news media and Twitter.
Responsibility InterestHuman Conflict Morality Economic
Articles 209 168 167 31 156 Tweets 235 144 75 61 42 0 50 100 150 200 250
Responsibility InterestHuman Conflict Morality Economic
Articles 78 25 40 1 58 Tweets 78 80 16 42 29 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Setting the agenda of the public
For H1, a correlation analysis was firstly conducted for the Attention variable.
The relationship between the attention devoted to the VW Emissions Scandal by
Twitter users versus the attention spent on the issue by news media, was investigated
by using a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. A strong, positive
correlation was found between the two variables (r = .78, n = 26, p < .001), which
means that high attention on Twitter was associated with high attention on the news
media.
Next, a simple linear regression was conducted, in order to predict if the level
of attention on Twitter will change based on the level of attention devoted to the
scandal in the news media. Here attention on Twitter is predicted using attention on
Twitter in the previous week, as well as newspaper attention in the previous week. A
significant result of the regression was found, F(2,22) = 11.65, p < .000. Based on the
output it was found that 51% of the variance in attention on Twitter was explained by
the model (R2 = 0.51). The analysis shows that for every new news media article, the
number of tweets increase with 0.95 (B = 0.95, SE = 0.29, p < .01) in the following week. Thus, this supports H1, according to which the more the media covered the
Volkswagen Emissions Scandal, the higher it went on the public’s agenda.
Negative media tone and negative public perception
A correlation analysis was completed for H2 as well, which showed a
non-significant relationship between the tone used in the media and the tone used in
Twitter (r = .18, n = 26, p = .571).
In order to predict if the tone used in news media had an effect on the tone of
tweets could be explained by the model, according to the results (R2 = .52). However,
the analysis also shows that the tone in news media articles does not make a
significant unique contribution to the prediction of tone used in tweets (p = .299).
Based on this, H2, which stated that the amplified negativity in news media would
predict a negative public perception of the company, was rejected.
Negative vs. Positive media effects
In order to determine whether the negative or positive media reporting had a
stronger influence on the public, separate correlation and simple linear regression
analyses were carried out, one for negative effects and one positive effects
accordingly. The variable Tone was split into Negative and Positive variables, with the
intention to be able to easily identify the relationship between the negative tone found
in media reporting and the negative tone in Twitter, as well as the positive tone in
media reporting and the negative tone in Twitter.
The relationship between the first two variables of interest – negative tone in
articles and negative tone in tweets, showed a non-significant and small correlation (r
= .11, n = 26, p = .597). The simple linear regression, which aimed to find out whether the negative tone of the public changed in line with the negative media reporting
showed a significant result, F(2,22) = 6.67, p < .005. 38% of the variance in negative
tone used in tweets (R2 = .38). Interestingly, the output also shows that for every
increase in negativity in the news articles, the negativity in tweets decreases with 0.29
(B = 0.29, SE = 0.11, p < .05) in the following week. This suggests a strong
disconnect between the two variables.
The same analysis was done for the positive tone found in news media articles
and tweets. There was no significant negative relationship found between the two (r =
F(2,22) = 7.15, p < .005. The output showed that 39% (R2 = .39) in the positive tone on Twitter could be explained by the model. The results of the regression analysis
also demonstrate that for every unit increase of positive tone on news media, the tone
on Twitter becomes more positive with 0.15 (B = 0.15, SE = 0.19). However the
variable is not making a significant unique contribution to the prediction of the tone in
tweets (p = .411). Based on these results, H3 is also rejected.
Development of frames
When testing H4 the correlation analysis for all frames showed no significant
relationship between the frames employed by the media and twitter users (pRF1 = .043,
pHF2 = - .183, pCF3 = .227, pMF4 = - .158, pEF5 = .168).
Subsequently, linear regression analyses were conducted for each of the five
frames, in order to establish whether news media frames could predict the crisis
frames utilised by users on Twitter. The analyses yielded disappointing results, with
none of them demonstrating a statistical significance (FRF(2,22) = 2.68, pRF = .091;
FHF(2,22) = 0.74, pHF = 0.488; FCF(2,22) = 3.25, pCF = .058; FMF(2,22) = 0.34, pMF =
.751; FEF(2,22) = 0.17, pRF = .844).
A correlation and a linear regression analyses were also conducted for the
dominant frames used by the news media and in Twitter. The results of the correlation
analysis showed a positive large significant correlation between the usage of the
Responsibility frame in articles and in tweets (rDRF = .68, nDRF = 26, pDRF < .001).
However, the correlation test for the rest of the frames showed non-significant results
(pDHF = .656, pDCF = .558, pDMF = .763, pDEF = .743). The following linear regression
analysis did not find any significant results for any of the dominant frames, FDRF(2,22)
1
RF = Responsibility Frame
2
= 0.94, pDRF = .408; FDHF(2,22) = 0.37, pDHF = .695; FCF(2,22) = 0.05, pDCF = .954;
FMF(2,22) = 0.12, pDMF = .888; FEF(2,22) = 1.95, pDRF = .166.
Therefore, based on the majority of non-significant results, H4, according to
which the frames employed by the public in Twitter would change in line with the news
media frames, is rejected.
Discussion
The relationship between the media and the public has for a long time been a
topic of interest in the social sciences. The recent case of the Volkswagen Emissions
Scandal is a key contribution to this field, as it offers a few interesting insights into this
relationship. Furthermore, this research paper opens space for several reflections
regarding the current scale of the media influence on the public, considering the
growing prevalence and popularity of social media. The results of this study show that
agenda setting is in fact an essential characteristic of the media and that journalists
still hold the power to attribute importance to certain issues. However, the rejection of
the other three hypotheses of this thesis might be regarded as a sign of an evolving
audience, which is more empowered than ever and has the ability to make sense of events on its own, rather than to readily accept the media’s side of the story.
The first hypothesis of this study argued that the intensified journalistic
coverage on the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal would predict a high attention focused on the issue from the public’s side. This hypothesis was accepted and thus,
this finding contributes to the vast amount of literature proving the agenda setting
function of the media.
However, this research also yielded some surprising results. The rejection of
hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 mean that the impact of the media is not as large as it is
sometimes believed. The news media coverage of the event was not successful in
coverage was not more strongly received than the positive, nor were the media
frames determinant of how the public will frame the issue. Therefore, the results
obtained from analysing the four hypotheses of this thesis seem to confirm Cohen’s
(1963) words, which highlighted that the media can be very successful in telling its audience “what to think”, even if it is not at all times able to tell them “what to think
about” (as cited in Soroka 2002, p. 265).
The negative results obtained when testing the last three hypotheses might
also be explained from a methodological point of view. First of all, it is possible that
the overwhelming negative tone found both in news articles and tweets has made the
establishment of effects more difficult and thus, has impacted the outcomes from H2
and H3. Secondly, for H4, while the short length of the tweets was beneficial for the
rapid gathering of data, it could have made the interpretation of their frames more
difficult.
Nevertheless, the negative outcomes obtained as a result of testing
hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 raise certain questions in regard to how social media has
challenged the traditional way of broadcasting messages to the public. As earlier
discussed in this paper, van der Meer and Verhoeven (2012) have argued that the rise of the new medium has given the power to audiences to participate more and more in
the development of frames. Through social media, the public is now able to challenge
the information it receives from traditional outlets to a certain extent and to offer its
own interpretation of the events. Therefore, average people can no longer be
regarded as passive viewers, but rather more knowledgeable and active citizens, who
have an important role in the sense-making process. Furthermore, as discussed in the
theoretical section of this paper, recent studies have shown that the pure repetition of
frames by the media is not enough to influence the opinion of individuals (Scheufele &
spread of this attention – however, this rapid distribution of news and opinions can
lead to a very dynamic change of frames (Karlsson, 2012). As a consequence, the
framing process has become a lot more complex and the traditional media frames are
no longer so readily and easily digested by the audience. Interestingly, more than
three decades ago, Behr and Iyenar (1985) argued that “While there can be no
denying that citizens are highly dependent upon the media for public affairs information, personal experience too is a sufficiently credible source of information” (p.
40). With the rise of social media networks, these personal experiences can now be
shared faster and with more people than ever. This means that looking at the media
as a mere broadcaster of messages that are readily absorbed by the public is an
oversimplification of the complex nature of the communication processes of today.
Therefore, the literature discussed in this paper can explain to a large extent why this
study struggled in finding a significant result to some of its expectations of media
influence on the public. Furthermore, most of the prior research used to back up this
study had previously focused on regular media coverage, which might change during
times of crisis.
From an organisational point of view, the knowledge of the media’s ability to draw the public’s attention to events is of high importance. Whether or not the
organisation has the power of influencing the perception of the issue, this knowledge
can help managers to anticipate the scale it might reach and to be prepared for the
possible consequences. Furthermore, this paper can be helpful to individuals in
executive positions, as it provides them with a better understanding of how important
social media may be in order to avoid the media frames dominating the public
discourse. The new media technologies give voice not only to the audience but can
also give organisations the ability to defend themselves in times of crisis. This study
found that individuals were not in fact influenced by the tone, nor the frames utilised in
opportunity to participate in the sense-making process, even after the media attention
has spread. In the case of the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal, the scarcity of corporate communication is discouraging, as it limits the company’s influence on how
the crisis will be perceived by the public.
Limitations and future research
It is important to acknowledge that this research had several limitations, which
might have impacted its results. While Twitter was used to study public opinion, due to
time constraints, it might not be the most representative social network. First of all, in
the past few years Twitter has seen some decline in user activity (Roettgers, 2016),
which means the popularity of the website has dropped. Secondly, Twitter does not
compile a user base that is as diverse as other social networks do. Therefore, it is
likely that the users who took their opinions to the website do not compile the most
representative sample. A network such as Facebook would have perhaps driven
better results but however, Twitter was selected as it allows the easy collection of
items, as well as the quicker analysis of its contents due to the 140-character limit.
Furthermore, the extent to which public opinion can be measured through social media can also be debated. While social networks provide us with more “natural” content that has not been subjected to survey- or experiment-environment
conditions, the behaviour of individuals online is oftentimes different than the real
world. Nevertheless, considering the possibilities of this research, social media was a
suitable choice for studying public opinion.
The results of this paper call for several points for future research. Firstly, the
influence of traditional media on the public should be revised, while also taking into
account the characteristics of social media. Secondly, future researchers can learn
All in all, the conclusions drawn from this research are useful not only for the
overall understanding of the interplay between the media and the public, but also
provide insights into the challenges traditional media outlets face due to the growing
References
An, S.-K., & Gower, K. K. (2009). How do the news media frame crises? A content analysis of crisis news coverage. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 107–112.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.010
Behr, R. L., & Iyengar, S. (1985). Television news, real-world cues, and changes in the public agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(1), 38. doi:10.1086/268900
Boin, A., ’t Hart, P., & McConnell, A. (2009). Crisis exploitation: Political and policy impacts of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 81–106. doi:10.1080/13501760802453221
Boston, W. (2015, September 24). Volkswagen, the symbol of Germany Inc. The Wall
Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/volkswagen-the-symbol-of-germany-inc-1443052692
Carroll, C. E., & McCombs, M. (2003). Agenda-setting effects of business news on the public’s images and opinions about major corporations.Corporate Reputation
Review, 6(1), 36–46. doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540188
Casey, G. P., & Owen, A. L. (2012). Good news, bad news, and consumer confidence. Social Science Quarterly, 94(1), 292–315. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00900.x
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political
Science, 10(1), 103–126. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
Cohen, B (1963). The press and foreign policy. New York: Harcourt
Coombs, W. T. (2007a). Attribution theory as a guide for post-crisis communication research. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 135–139. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.11.016
Coombs, W. T. (2007b). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of Situational crisis communication theory. Corporate
Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176. doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect Reputational assets: Initial tests of the Situational crisis communication theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 165–186. doi:10.1177/089331802237233
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2011). An exploration of the effects of victim visuals on perceptions and reactions to crisis events. Public Relations Review, 37(2), 115– 120. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.01.006
de Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology.Information Design
Journal, 13(1), 51–62. doi:10.1075/idjdd.13.1.06vre
Eilders, C. (2006). News factors and news decisions. Theoretical and methodological advances in Germany. Communications, 31(1), . doi:10.1515/commun.2006.002
Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Sever, J. M. (2000). The reputation QuotientSM: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation.Journal of Brand
Management, 7(4), 241–255. doi:10.1057/bm.2000.10
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A Constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1. doi:10.1086/229213
Giles, D., & Shaw, R. (2009). The psychology of news influence and the development of media framing analysis - Giles - 2009 - social and personality psychology compass - Wiley Online library. Social and personality psychology compass, 3(4), 375–393. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00180.x
Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53. doi:10.1086/228951 Hollanders, D., & Vliegenthart, R. (2011). The influence of negative newspaper coverage on consumer confidence: The Dutch case. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 32(3), 367–373. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2011.01.003
Hunter, M. L., Van Wassenhove, L. N., Besiou, M., & Van Halderen, M. (2013). The agenda-setting power of Stakeholder media. California Management Review, 56(1), 24–49. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1832522
Jin, Y., Liu, B. F., & Austin, L. L. (2014). Examining the role of social media in effective crisis management: The effects of crisis origin, information form, and source on
Publics’ crisis responses. Communication Research, 41(1), 74–94. doi:10.1177/0093650211423918
Karlsson, M. (2012). The online news cycle and the continuous alteration of crisis frames: A Swedish case study on how the immediacy of online news affected the framing of the swine flu epidemic. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social
Change, 9(3), 247–259. doi:10.1386/jots.9.3.247_1
Liu, B. F., Austin, L., & Jin, Y. (2011). How publics respond to crisis communication strategies: The interplay of information form and source.Public Relations
Review, 37(4), 345–353. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.004
Mason, A. M. (2014). The impact of media frames and treatment responsibility within the Situational crisis communication theory framework. Corporate Reputation
Review, 17(1), 78–90. doi:10.1057/crr.2013.26
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176. doi:10.1086/267990
McDonald, L. M., Sparks, B., & Glendon, A. I. (2010a). Stakeholder reactions to company crisis communication and causes. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 263–271. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.04.004
McDonald, L. M., Sparks, B., & Glendon, A. I. (2010b). Stakeholder reactions to company crisis communication and causes. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 263–271. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.04.004
Nienaber, M. (2015, September 23). Volkswagen could pose bigger threat to German
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-volkswagen-germany-economy-idUSKCN0RN27S20150923
Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10(1), 55–75.
doi:10.1080/10584609.1993.9962963
Roettgers, J. (2016, February 10). Twitter’s number of active users declined last quarter. Retrieved June 17, 2016, from http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/twitter-declining-monthly-actives-1201702526/
Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of Three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00326.x
Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Göritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication via twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public
Relations Review, 37(1), 20–27. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.001
Semetko, H., & Valkenburg, P. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93–109.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x
Siah Ann Mei, J., Bansal, N., & Pang, A. (2010). New media: A new medium in escalating crises? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(2), 143– 155. doi:10.1108/13563281011037919
Soroka, S. N. (2002). Issue attributes and agenda-setting by media, the public, and policymakers in Canada. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(3), 264–285. doi:10.1093/ijpor/14.3.264
Soroka, S. N. (2006). Good news and bad news: Asymmetric responses to economic information. The Journal of Politics, 68(02), . doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00413.x Soroka, S. N. (2012). The Gatekeeping function: Distributions of information in media and the real world. The Journal of Politics, 74(2), 514–528.
doi:10.1017/s002238161100171x
Staw, B. M., & Epstein, L. D. (2000). What Bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on corporate performance, reputation, and CEO
pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 523. doi:10.2307/2667108
Thaler, R. H., Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., & Schwartz, A. (1997). The effect of myopia and loss aversion on risk taking: An experimental test. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 112(2), 647–661. doi:10.1162/003355397555226
Utz, S., Schultz, F., & Glocka, S. (2013). Crisis communication online: How medium, crisis type and emotions affected public reactions in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Public Relations Review, 39(1), 40–46. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.09.010
van Dalen, A., de Vreese, C., & Albæk, E. (2015). Economic news through the
magnifying glass. How the media cover economic boom and bust. Journalism Studies. doi:10.1080/1461670x.2015.1089183
van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Verhoeven, P. (2013). Public framing organizational crisis situations: Social media versus news media. Public Relations Review, 39(3), 229– 231. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.12.001
van der Meer, T. G. L. A., Verhoeven, P., Beentjes, H., & Vliegenthart, R. (2014). When frames align: The interplay between PR, news media, and the public in times of crisis. Public Relations Review, 40(5), 751–761. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.07.008 Walgrave, S., & Van Aelst, P. (2006). The contingency of the mass media’s political agenda setting power: Toward a preliminary theory.Journal of Communication, 56(1), 88–109. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00005.x
Zhou, Y., & Moy, P. (2007). Parsing framing processes: The interplay between online public opinion and media coverage. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 79–98.
doi:10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00330.x
Zucker, H. G. (1978). The variable nature of news media influence. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 2 ed.). New Brunswick: NJ, Transaction Books.
Appendix 1
Volkswagen Emissions Scandal - Codebook
General instructions
For this study only English language news media articles and Twitter comments from the period between 18/09/2015 and 30/03/2016 are included in the sample. The news articles are collected via LexisNexis and are selected randomly from different dates within the timeline. All articles have been published in one of the following major news media outlets:
The New York Times The Guardian
The Washington Post USA Today
The Daily Mail The Daily Telegraph The Independent Financial Times Daily Mirror
A random sample of tweets from the same time period is examined. The tweets are selected through searching the hashtag: #volkswagenscandal. Additionally, the tweets need to have been published by personal and individual accounts and not via the accounts of an organisation, group, company, brand, etc.
The coding needs to be completed on an SPSS coding scheme.
The coder must:
Follow all instructions carefully
Read the full article or tweet when coding, as their entire content is a research unit for this study
Be able to read and fully understand English
Not leave any questions unanswered and fields blank, and must complete the entire coding scheme for each news article and tweet
Not follow any redirecting links, nor content that is not part of the original article or tweet
I. Descriptive variables
The following descriptive variables are proposed in order to be able to identify the article or tweet and to create an organised dataset, which allows for future research
Type
Is the analysed material that is being a news media article or a tweet? 1. Article
2. Tweet
Text_N
This variable refers to the unique number assigned to the article or tweet, which will make the text easily identifiable.
If the text is an article, the coder should put the letter ‘1’ before the number, e.g. if the number of the article is 35, then coder should put: 135
If the text is a tweet, the coder should put the letter ‘2’ before the number, e.g. if the number of the tweet is 466, then coder should put: 2466
Outlet
This variable refers to the specific news outlet where the article was published. The name of the outlet needs to be specified in the coding scheme.
If the text is a tweet, the coder needs to write ‘Tweet’ in this column.
Title
The headline of the article should be copied into this column. If the text is a tweet, the full tweet should be copied in the column.
Date
The date when the article or tweet was published should be inserted here in the following format: DD.MM.YYYY (e.g. 08.02.2016).
Words
Insert the word length of the article or tweet.
Passing
Does the article or tweet mention the Volkswagen emissions scandal in passing? 1. Yes (no need for further coding)
0. No (coder may continue)
