Paper detail

Journalists' ego networks in Twitter: invariant and distinctive structural features

Ego networks have proved to be a valuable tool for understanding the relationships that individuals establish with their peers, both in offline and online social networks. Particularly interesting are the cognitive constraints associated with the interactions between the ego and the members of their ego network, which limit individuals to maintain meaningful interactions with no more than 150 people, on average, and to arrange such relationships along concentric circles of decreasing engagement. In this work, we focus on the ego networks of journalists on Twitter, considering 17 different countries, and we investigate whether they feature the same characteristics observed for other relevant classes of Twitter users, like politicians and generic users. Our findings are that journalists are generally more active and interact with more people than generic users, regardless of their country. Their ego network structure is very aligned with reference models derived in anthropology and observed in general human ego networks. Remarkably, the similarity is even higher than the one of politicians and generic users ego networks. This may imply a greater cognitive involvement with Twitter for journalists than for other user categories. From a dynamic perspective, journalists have stable short-term relationships that do not change much over time. In the longer term, though, ego networks can be pretty dynamic, especially in the innermost circles. Moreover, the ego-alter ties of journalists are often information-driven, as they are mediated by hashtags both at their inception and during their lifetime. Finally, we found that relationships between journalists are assortative in popularity: journalists tend to engage with other journalists of similar popularity, in all layers but especially in their innermost ones.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.