Understanding Divergent Framing of the Supreme Court Controversies:
  Social Media vs. News Outlets
Jinsheng Pan Zichen Wang Weihong Qi Hanjia Lyu Jiebo Luo
Understanding the framing of political issues is of paramount importance as
it significantly shapes how individuals perceive, interpret, and engage with
these matters. While prior research has independently explored framing within
news media and by social media users, there remains a notable gap in our
comprehension of the disparities in framing political issues between these two
distinct groups. To address this gap, we conduct a comprehensive investigation,
focusing on the nuanced distinctions both qualitatively and quantitatively in
the framing of social media and traditional media outlets concerning a series
of American Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action, student loans, and
abortion rights. Our findings reveal that, while some overlap in framing exists
between social media and traditional media outlets, substantial differences
emerge both across various topics and within specific framing categories.
Compared to traditional news media, social media platforms tend to present more
polarized stances across all framing categories. Further, we observe
significant polarization in the news media's treatment (i.e., Left vs. Right
leaning media) of affirmative action and abortion rights, whereas the topic of
student loans tends to exhibit a greater degree of consensus. The disparities
in framing between traditional and social media platforms carry significant
implications for the formation of public opinion, policy decision-making, and
the broader political landscape.