Journalism
http://jou.sagepub.com/
The boys on the timeline: Political journalists' use of Twitter for building
interpretive communities
Rachel Reis Mourão
Journalism published online 6 October 2014
DOI: 10.1177/1464884914552268
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jou.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/10/01/1464884914552268
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journalism can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jou.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jou.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Oct 6, 2014
What is This?
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
552268
research-article2014
JOU0010.1177/1464884914552268JournalismMourão
Article
The boys on the timeline:
Political journalists’ use
of Twitter for building
interpretive communities
Journalism
1­–17
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1464884914552268
jou.sagepub.com
Rachel Reis Mourão
The University of Texas at Austin, USA
Abstract
During the 2012 presidential election, Twitter emerged as a key reporting tool for
journalists on the campaign trail. Through a textual analysis of over 5700 tweets from
430 political journalists, this study sought to understand how the platform was used
as a channel for community building during the first 2012 presidential debate. Building
upon Zelizer’s definition of journalists as interpretive communities and Goffman’s
dramaturgical model, results reveal that journalists used the online tool for constructing
narratives. In addition, online interactions uncover facets of campaign reporting previously
confined to backstage regions. Narrative-building, interpretive community discourses,
and backstage behaviors were found in tweets in which journalists gave opinions about
the political process and used humor to construct the traits of a professional group.
Findings suggest that Twitter coverage helps establish new professional boundaries for
political communication.
Keywords
Elections, interpretive community, political communication, Twitter
Introduction
For decades, reporters have closely followed campaigns and shared constructed meanings of key events during elections, as elucidated by the terms ‘pack journalism’ and ‘the
boys on the bus’ (Crouse, 1973). In the 2012 presidential campaign, for the first time in
Corresponding author:
Rachel Reis Mourão, School of Journalism, The University of Texas at Austin, 300 W. Dean Keeton, Austin,
TX 78712, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
2Journalism 
history, an audience of thousands followed these discussions. Despite its potential for
interactivity with audiences, research on journalists’ use of Twitter has shown that conversations on the microblog are limited to a small elite of journalists and politicians
(Lasorsa et al., 2012; Lawrence, 2012). Journalists overwhelmingly mention, retweet,
and hyperlink other journalists and news organizations (Lawrence et al., 2013; Molyneux,
2013). These conversations constitute a channel of informal networking that echoes
Zelizer’s definition of journalists as interpretive communities (Zelizer, 1993).
Furthermore, these interactions reveal facets of campaign coverage previously invisible
to the public eye (Goffman, 1959 ).
This article seeks to explore the novelty of interacting in real time with other journalists and audiences online in order to make sense of an event everyone is watching
together. Through textual analysis of tweets posted by political journalists, this study
aims to understand how Twitter was used as a channel where reporters came together to
construct meanings for a specific political event: the presidential debate.
Theoretical construct
This study is guided by two theoretical frameworks: Zelizer’s interpretive communities
(Hymes, 1980), as applied to journalism, and Goffman’s dramaturgical model. The evidence presented suggests that Twitter works as a place of informal networking where
journalists engage in behaviors previously not visible to the public. In addition, in their
efforts to self-brand and compete for attention online, journalists seem willing to break
away from traditional norms of objectivity.
The concept of interpretive communities dates to Stanley Fish’s work on the meaning
of texts, where the author states that the structure of the reader’s experience, rather than
the text itself, determines how a text will be interpreted. The author contends that we
interpret texts within the boundaries of our interpretive communities (Fish, 1976, 1980).
Zelizer (1993) adapted the concept of interpretive communities to journalists, who are
united by ‘shared discourse and collective interpretation of key public events’ (p. 219).
For the author, journalists should be understood as communities that arise from informal
associations constructed around shared interpretations. In that sense, formal and rigid
training loses importance to narrative practices when it comes to defining the journalistic
profession.
Zelizer (1993) identifies two modes of interpretation used by journalists, depending
on their temporal position regarding an event: local and durational. Through the local
mode of interpretation, reporters discuss events as eyewitnesses in a predictable way that
operates according to their claims about journalistic practice. According to Zelizer
(1993), ‘as events happen, journalists tend to interpret them unidimensionally because
they see them collectively moving the community in one way or another’ (p. 225).
Inversely, the durational mode of interpretation allows journalists to sustain cultural
authority over discourses even within a temporal continuum, using past interpretation to
generate current accounts. Journalistic authority, then, comes from narrative (Zelizer,
1993). According to the author, ‘those narratives are then transported into collective
memory, where they are used as models for understanding the authoritative role of the
journalist and journalistic community’ (p. 189).
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
3
Mourão
Journalists pass along narrative practices and constructed meanings during informal
talks, professional meetings, interviews on talk shows, and so on (Zelizer, 1993).
Therefore, the profession is defined by the way journalists talk about themselves and
how they generate shared meanings of reality. Journalism thus becomes a discursive
construct. This article identifies Twitter as a place for community building, where journalists share narrative constructions about themselves and the political events they cover.
Twitter works as another space for reporters to share and internalize collective understandings of Journalism as a profession (Zelizer, 1992).
Zelizer (1993) points out that while journalists often discuss ways to cover a story,
‘admitting to non-reporters a dependence on narrative practice seems to imply a lack of
professionalism’ (p. 221). Practices of storytelling are seldom discussed and journalists
are reluctant to admit to what Political Communication scholar Timothy Cook identifies
as the ‘structural bias’ of news reporting. Sharing details about informal networking
among reporters may endanger front stage characteristics associated with journalism,
most notably objectivity and neutrality.
Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical model for social relationships defines the backstage
as ‘a place relative to a given performance, where the impression fostered by the performance is knowingly contradicted as a matter of course’ (p. 112). The dramaturgical
model understands interaction between individuals as theatrical representations. The
backstage only exists in relationship to a front stage performance, that is, the actions
individuals choose to perform in order to control the impression they make (García et al.,
2001). In the case of political journalism, front stage behaviors include norms attributed
to the profession and the accepted role of the press in the political system.
Using the theoretical lenses of journalists as interpretive communities and the dramaturgical model, this study sought to answer the following research questions: How do
journalists construct narratives of key political events on Twitter? How does journalists’
discourse on Twitter help establish new professional boundaries?
Literature review: The boys on the bus are online
During the 1972 presidential election, Rolling Stone reporter Timothy Crouse followed
the Nixon and McGovern campaigns across the country, revealing the details of political
reporting in his iconic book ‘The Boys on the Bus’. More than a collection of backstage
stories about booze, romantic encounters, and bad food, Crouse’s piece revealed the
backstage of a cozy relationship between politicians and journalists, as well as the pervasive nature of ‘pack journalism’.
Pack journalism works in ways similar to groupthink behavior, with reporters striving
for unanimity and suppressing dissenting opinions in an effort to build consensus (Janis,
1982; Matusitz and Breen, 2012). After conducting interviews with several reporters,
Matusitz and Breen (2012) identified numerous symptoms of groupthink behavior in
pack journalism, including members follow an influential member, usually the most
experienced reporter; the group is cohesive, fostered by the proximity of spaces designated to the press; and members strive for unanimity and desire to get along. The standardization of processes has led to homogeneous news content across seemingly
independent media outlets (Bennett, 1996, 2003). According to Tuchman (1978), ‘this
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
4Journalism 
similarity to feature stories confirms the characterization of general news as a web of
mutually self-validating facts, for it confirms intermeshed facticity, embedded in every
day understandings, as an accomplished feature of general news’ (p. 101).
But what is the role of the media in American politics? Several scholars have argued
that, in the United States, the news media work as a political institution (Allern and
Blach-Ørsten, 2011; Cook, 2005 [1998]; Sparrow, 1999). Using Gidden’s definition of
social institutions, Cook (2005 [1998]) identifies how the press fits the following criteria:
Journalists obey intrinsic social patterns of behavior, media practices have evolved and
endured over time, and the media preside over a given part of social and political life.
The first criterion refers to journalistic norms, procedures, routines, and assumptions
about what it newsworthy. According to the author, individual journalists write stories
according to unspoken but generally accepted rules and routines (Cook, 2005 [1998]).
Such organizational processes have been documented by media sociologists across the
country (Gans, 1979; Tuchman, 1978; Tunstall, 1971). The news is, therefore, defined by
the processes used by journalists when covering it, rather than by a set of preexisting
characteristics of an event (Cook, 2005 [1998]; Tuchman, 1978).
One of the core foundations of the journalistic profession is the pursuit of objectivity.
Journalists are expected to keep personal opinions to themselves, particularly during
political events (Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2007). However, despite attempts at objectivity,
journalists implicitly add structural bias to the news, overwhelmingly favoring official
sources, specific political events, and issues and concentrating coverage on the agenda of
powerful politicians (Cook, 2005 [1998]). The impact of structural bias is that key political actors can exert control over information provided to the media, who in turn add
legitimacy to the news. News media are, thus, a central political force within the government, subsidized by officials through the information they provide (Cook, 2005 [1998]).
The pursuit of objectivity also leads journalists to cover ‘horse race’ aspects of campaigns, emphasizing strategy and polling results (Cappella and Jamieson, 1997; Sparrow,
2006; see Aalberg et al. (2012) for a review). Patterson (1993) notes the way journalists’
cynicism feeds ‘horse race’ coverage, deviating the focus from candidates’ positions on
issues. As a result, Cappella and Jamieson (1997) argue that media use of the strategic
frame – focusing on motives and style – engenders cynical responses to politics, affecting civic engagement and political participation, although such correlation is contingent
upon the extent to which the strategic frame dominates the news (De Vreese, 2005).
The spiral of distrust and cynicism between journalists and politicians is not restricted
to North America. In Europe, scholars contend that journalists and politicians are cynical
about each other and their role in politics, and journalists are even more cynical when
they perceive spin doctors exerting political pressure (Brants et al., 2009; Van Dalen
et al., 2011).
While this article refers to ‘the boys’ as a reference to Crouse’s piece, a clarification
regarding the use of the term must be made. Using ‘the boys on the bus’ to refer to pack
journalism practices reveals gendered notions associated with political coverage. Election
coverage is often characterized as a male arena, ‘masculine’ characteristics are lauded in
candidates, and gender stereotypes also interact with media routines to shape political
coverage (Cantrell and Bachmann, 2008; Duerst-Lahti, 2007; Lawrence and Rose, 2010;
Meeks, 2012). While this is not the primary focus of this article, it is important to note that
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
5
Mourão
the term ‘boys on the bus’, as well as the general tone of media coverage of politics in the
United States, is a highly male-centric one. In this study, therefore, the term ‘the boys on
the bus’ should be considered to refer to journalists in general, regardless of gender.
In recent presidential elections, Communication scholars have tried to assess the way
news technologies have disrupted the balance between politicians and news media.
Hamby’s (2013) study on the 2012 presidential campaign revealed the disruptive nature
of news technologies, especially Twitter, for the ‘boys on the bus’. Through a series of
observations and interviews with young reporters, senior journalists, and political actors
involved in the campaign, the article exposes collective anxiety about the impact of the
new medium on campaign communications. While young reporters displayed excitement to be able to break into insiders’ conversations and participate in the narrativebuilding process, experienced journalists and political strategists shared concerns about
Twitter’s potential to result in shallow reporting, groupthink, and self-involvement.
In 2012, 15 percent of American adults used Twitter to learn about the presidential
campaign, consolidating the microblogging platform’s reputation ‘as the place readers
and journalists alike go for the latest updates on breaking news’ (Pew Research Center,
2013). Hamby (2013) argues that ‘Twitter is the central news source for the Washingtonbased political news establishment’ (p. 2). The impact of the platform for journalists and
politicians is documented as revolutionary: ‘this filter-free new ecosystem is having a
profound impact on how campaign strategists are deciding to present their candidates to
the media and to voters’ (Hamby, 2013: 4).
Drawing on the literature of communications systems, Hermida (2010) argues that
Twitter functions as ambient journalism, an awareness system that goes beyond sharing
breaking news from individual users to also alert journalists to trends, facilitating the
instant dissemination of information from official and unofficial sources. According to
the author, Twitter is ambient journalism through ‘broad, asynchronous, lightweight and
always-on communication systems [that] are creating new kinds of interactions around
the news, and are enabling citizens to maintain a mental model of news and events
around them’ (Hermida, 2010: 2). Building upon Hermida’s model, Burns (2010) emphasizes that rather than enforcing participation, ambient journalism augments journalistic
norms as professionals rely on craft and skill to make sense of the system, in a process
called ‘institutional adaptiveness’.
Several quantitative studies have suggested that Twitter resulted in changes in established journalistic practices such as objectivity (Lasorsa et al., 2012; Lawrence et al.,
2013), interactivity (Lawrence, 2012), and personal brand development (Molyneux,
2013). While journalists have historically avoided revealing much of their backstage
processes (Singer, 2005), Lasorsa (2012) argues that Twitter allowed for more transparency, which includes revealing details about how news is made. Furthermore, in the
competitive landscape of social media, users have been faced with the challenge of not
only monitoring what other users are doing but also adapting to the norms of Twitter in
order to get their audience’s attention (Marwick and boyd, 2011a, 2011b).
When Twitter users, especially micro-celebrities, brand themselves to their followers,
Marwick and boyd (2011a, 2011b) identify a process of strategic self-commodification
where users adapt content to an imagined audience they speak to in their tweets. This
process creates a sense of intimacy, granting ‘backstage’ access and creating rapport with
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
6Journalism 
followers. In addition, Page (2012) contends that Twitter celebrities use hashtags for selfbranding and further augmenting the personalization of their timelines, distancing themselves from ‘average’ users.
During this process of self-commodification, there is a constant struggle between the
desire to meet audience expectations, self-branding, and personal authenticity. While
celebrities preferred not to share genuine ‘backstage’ behaviors on the platform, selfcensorship tendencies clashed with desires for self-expression, audience approval, and
intimate interaction with followers (Marwick and boyd, 2011a, 2011b). In the interaction
between journalists and their audiences, it is the very desire to meet the expectations of
followers that clashes with traditional professional norms. Journalists on Twitter struggle
to balance journalistic impartiality and objectivity with the transparency and openness
social media encourage (Molyneux, 2013; Molyneux and Holton, 2014).
Similarly, other studies have found that journalists are becoming more open to sharing
personal information, opinion, and humor on Twitter (Lasorsa et al., 2012; Holton and
Lewis, 2011). In a content analysis of tweets published by journalists during the 2012 party
conventions, Lawrence et al. (2013) found that reporters contested the norm of objectivity
through minor opinion and personal expression. In addition, political journalists used
Twitter to talk about their work, giving audiences an inside view of political reporting.
Despite evidence that Twitter has challenged some established rules, Communication
scholars agree that the microblogging platform incorporated traditional journalistic norms
and routines (Hermida, 2013; Lasorsa et al., 2012). Building upon the literature of ‘normalization’ of new media (Singer, 2005), the ‘normalization of Twitter’ occurs through
journalists’ tendency to reinforce gatekeeping authority rather than invite debate when
covering politics (Lawrence et al., 2013). Evidence from content analyses suggests that
gatekeeping processes happen when journalists overwhelmingly mention, retweet, and
hyperlink content from other journalists and elite sources, despite the expanded network
available on their timelines (Artwick, 2013; Lasorsa et al., 2012; Lawrence et al., 2013).
Regarding campaign coverage, Lawrence et al. (2013) warn of methodological limitations for using quantitative content analyses to measure horse race and strategic frames
on Twitter. According to Lawrence et al. (2013), ‘Twitter’s highly condensed form (a
maximum of 140 characters per tweet) may make it challenging to train coders to recognize the strategic news frame that suffuses typical campaign coverage’ (p. 12). This study
aims to fill the current gap in the literature on the ‘normalization’ of Twitter through
qualitative textual analysis. This article argues that two processes occur simultaneously
on Twitter: While some standard practices of campaign coverage may have been ‘normalized’ on the new medium, journalists have also deviated from norms of objectivity,
establishing new professional boundaries as they expose narrative construction processes
to their followers. Thus, behaviors previously confined to the backstage are used strategically to gain attention online.
Method
In order to capture the nature of insiders’ conversations, a textual analysis of tweets from
430 journalists during the first 2012 presidential debate was conducted. Following an
iterative approach, this article alternates between inductive categories emerging from
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
7
Mourão
recurring types of tweets and interactions and deductive use of the theoretical models of
interpretive community (Zelizer, 1993) and backstage behavior (Goffman, 1959). While
quantitative content analyses are useful to count tweets and established themes on
Twitter, the conventional count of individual tweets misses emergent themes and forms
of interaction between users and timelines.
The first 2012 presidential debate between President Barack Obama and Republican
nominee Mitt Romney took place on 3 October at the University of Denver, and was
moderated by Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) journalist Jim Lehrer. The event was
broadcast live from 9:00 to 10:30 p.m. (ET). Only tweets related to the presidential
debate were included in this analysis.
This study uses data collected from Twitter through a software program designed
to monitor political journalists’ accounts and save feeds into an archive using an
application-programming interface (API). The sample comprises 5700 tweets generated by a variety of journalists working for national news outlets, online news websites, and outlets located in key swing states. Of the tweets selected, a slight majority
came from journalists representing websites (34%), followed by newspapers (27%),
cable news (24%), and broadcast TV (12%). Tweets from radio and wire services
accounted for less than 4 percent of the sample.
Findings
Tweets were grouped into three moments: (1) pre-debate, comprehending the hour before
the event began; (2) debate period; and (3) post-debate period, encompassing the 14 hours
after the debate was over.
Setting the stage
Pre-debate coverage was marked by higher interaction, intense insider conversations,
and job/personal talk. It was during pre-debate coverage that journalists retweeted and
mentioned other users the most. During this period, journalists also asked the audience
and their peers what to expect from the debate and discussed the newfound role of Twitter
in political coverage. Journalists engaged in meta-analysis about their Twitter use and
deliberated on the importance of the debate to new media vis-à-vis other important
events. For example, Chris Cillizza, from The Washington Post’s blog The Fix, collectively listed important moments in the history of Twitter: ‘Things that were bigger than
this debate on Twitter: OBL death, Aurora shooting, Tucson shooting, Packers-Seahawks
game. What else?’ (@TheFix, 2012).
During pre-debate coverage, two distinct groups of journalists emerged: those in
Denver and those not present at the debate site. The first group shared background information and details about the process of covering a presidential debate, much of which
may have been novel to the audience. Journalists posted pictures of the pressroom and
described important behind-the-scenes action, such as the first lady’s handshakes and
who sat next to whom. Audiences following these journalists had access to a first-hand
account of the debate hall, including aspects previously inaccessible to the public. For
example, the vast majority of journalists present at the debate shared in detail Jim
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
8Journalism 
Lehrer’s description of the rules to the audience, as well as the audio problems in the
pressroom:
Moderator Jim Lehrer warming up the crowd, testing teleprompter ‘I just wanted to make sure
I could pronounce my name correctly’. (@scottwfoster, 2012)
UNIVERSITY OF DENVER, FIX THE AUDIO-VISUAL MATCHUP! NOW! (@DylanByers,
2012)
Journalists not present at the debate hall utilized synecdoche, a narrative strategy in
which part is substituted for the whole. According to Zelizer (1990), synecdoche allows
journalists to apply previous journalistic authority to events they did not experience firsthand. During the debate coverage, journalists who were not in Denver relied on previous
journalistic experience to interpret an event for audiences watching it simultaneously on
television. This was possible by extending the narrative to the pre-debate insider’s scoops
and post-debate media punditry, both covered as integral part of the political event.
Interestingly, this group did not try to conceal the fact they were not present at the event.
Instead, they published pictures of their living rooms, food, pets, and watch parties with
other journalists. The lack of eyewitnesses at the debate hall was compensated by metacoverage of the TV spectacle, both before and after the debate.
Websites like BuzzFeed and Talking Points Memo shared drinking games and
debate bingo cards, creating a unique ‘virtual watch party’ experience. For example,
The New York Times White House correspondent Michael Shear tweeted about his
debate experience: ‘Best thing about live-blogging the #DenverDebate at the NYT is
that you can do it with a trimalleolar ankle fracture. #couchpotato’ (@shearm, 2012).
Similarly, commentator Jammal Simmons retweeted The Washington Post’s invitation
to a watch party: ‘See u there! RT @theroot_dc: BTW, there will be free food, an open
bar, and political commentary from CNN & MSNBC analyst @jamalsimmons’ (@
jammalsimmons, 2012).
Despite the physical distance between them, both groups were in sync and tweeted
about the same topics, creating narratives that would last until the end of the debate. The
most prominent discourses created during the pre-debate phase were Romney’s preparation rituals, the debate rules, and Jim Lehrer’s performance. Journalists also began tweeting and retweeting sarcastic pieces, mostly aimed at the debate process itself. For
instance, NBC News Garrett Haake tweeted, ‘Romney has arrived at the Denver debate
site … we’re getting close. Next is the weigh-in’ (@GarrettNBCNews, 2012).
Political humor was prevalent during the three periods of the debate coverage. While
political humor can refer to jokes by politicians themselves (Young, 2011), it is more
often associated with remarks that mock public officials and can take the forms of satirical and non-satirical pieces. Non-satirical jokes are characterized by direct insult, an
aggressive and simplistic form of humor (Schutz, 1977). Political satire, conversely,
involves aspects of aggression, but also play and judgment (Young, 2011). This form of
humor requires the audience to have previous knowledge of the subject, encouraging
debate and making criticism accessible (Caufield, 2008; Schutz, 1977; Simpson, 2003).
A derogatory sarcastic comment is often referred to as a snark, a combination of ‘snide’
and ‘remark’.
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
9
Mourão
In the hour prior to the debate, the Associated Press released a series of pictures of the
Romney family playing Jenga. As opposed to traditional media’s coverage of an intimate
moment between the candidate’s family members, the Twittersphere immediately used
the game to display its cynicism. CNN’s Zach Wolf, for example, questioned, ‘Is Jenga
the weirdest thing that will happen tonight? #debates’ (@zbyronwolf, 2012). Another
example of snark came from website journalist Brian Beutler: ‘Romney’s Jenga obsession is a great metaphor for redistributing upwards until everything comes tumbling
down’ (@brianbeutler, 2012). Humorous and opinionated tweets were not limited to columnists or commentators. Even the Washington correspondent for The New York Times,
Ashley Parker, tweeted a piece of related satire: ‘Romney helping yet another business/
entrepreneur (Hasbro); Jenga now trending on Twitter’ (@AshleyRParker, 2012).
Criticism of moderator Jim Lehrer began during pre-debate coverage and lasted until
the end of the debate. Jokes about debate rules and the moderator were frequent, such as
‘Complete silence! says Lehrer, sounding like a cranky substitute teacher. #debates’ (@
elistokols, 2012).
The debate
During the 2012 presidential debate, Twitter allowed journalists to recapitulate every
moment of the event and add commentary in real time, usually in the form of snark. For
the most part, the coverage on Twitter followed a systematic process: (1) candidate’s
quote is tweeted, (2) journalist comments on quote, and (3) a humorous twist is given,
either through an original tweet or retweet. Obama’s quote on Romney’s tax plan will be
used to illustrate this process. During the first segment of the debate, after Governor
Romney explained his proposed tax reform, President Obama (2012) was given time for
a response:
[But] under Governor Romney’s definition, there are a whole bunch of millionaires and
billionaires who are small businesses. Donald Trump is a small business. And I know Donald
Trump doesn’t like to think of himself as small anything, but – but that’s how you define small
businesses if you’re getting business income. And that kind of approach, I believe, will not
grow our economy because the only way to pay for it without either burdening the middle class
or blowing up our deficit is to make drastic cuts in things like education, making sure that we
are continuing to invest in basic science and research, all the things that are helping America
grow. And I think that would be a mistake.
The first step on Twitter coverage consisted of tweeting the quote immediately after
the candidate said it. This step is particularly interesting because journalists were aware
that their followers were watching the event while reading their timelines. Hence, tweeting a quote functions as a highlighter, pointing out sentences that the audience may have
missed or did not pay attention to. Anjeanette Damon, from the Las Vegas Sun News,
tweeted the short version of the quote: ‘Obama just called Donald Trump a “small business.” Then: I know Donald Trump doesn’t like to define himself as small anything’ (@
anjeanettedamon, 2012).
The second step, only a few seconds after the quote is tweeted, entailed the journalists’
addition of minor opinion on the topic. Minor opinion comprises evaluative sentences or
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
10Journalism 
commentary related to factual information (Lasorsa et al., 2012; Lawrence et al., 2013).
In addition, this second moment includes tweets related to information seeking, that is,
asking for the audience’s opinion or fact-checking. For example, Rittman (2012), a
reporter for NBC Denver tweeted, ‘Obama drags Donald Trump into the fray, says
Romney considers Trump a small business. #DebateDenver’ (@brandonRittman, 2012).
It is also during this step that journalists started using the retweet function to pass
along commentary. Bartels (2012) retweeted Fox News colleague Ed Henry, ‘RT @
edhenryTV: Potus scores first #zinger – but aimed at Trump not Romney?’ (@lynn_bartels, 2012). Retweeting is an important and unique activity on Twitter: it allows journalists to pass along an original tweet to their followers, with the option to add a commentary.
Through a textual analysis of what journalists retweet, Molyneux (2013) argues that
retweeting is not to be considered the journalists’ own voice. In fact, most journalists
choose to avoid this responsibility by having a note stating that ‘retweets are not endorsements’ on their profile pages. According to Molyneux (2013), ‘this [retweeting] may be
considered similar to using quotes in a news story, but without the formal editing and
refining process’.
Finally, the third step of Twitter coverage during the debate was characterized by a
snark. Humorous tweets were posted and reposted for a longer period of time. Snarks could
be original tweets, retweets with comments, or full retweets. Later on in the debate, journalists also hyperlinked to comedy memes, gifs, or satirical Twitter accounts (e.g. @
FiredBigBird). Several tweets contained multiple levels of humor. For instance, Time
reporter Michael Scherer targeted both Donald Trump and the fact-checking media trend
with the following tweet: ‘Fact Check: Donald Trump is HUGE’ (@michaelscherer, 2012).
Many moments of the debate followed this pattern, including Romney’s joke about
Obama’s wedding anniversary, Jim Lehrer’s performance, and Romney’s comments
about cutting PBS funds, just to cite a few. Of particular relevance, the ‘Big Bird’ mention became one of the main memes of the debate. After being questioned about where
he would cut spending, Republican candidate Mitt Romney (2012) replied,
I’m sorry, Jim. I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS.
I love Big Bird. I actually like you too. But I’m not going to – I’m not going to keep on
spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it. That’s number one.
This moment spread on the Twittersphere like wildfire, and journalists were eager to
tweet their own snarks and retweet the best jokes about the quote. Some examples
include,
Romney backs Big Bird, wins toddler vote. (@JonathanTamari)
Big Bird: One minute having a drink, minding his own business; next, in the NYPD drunk tank,
a half-plucked rhetorical device. Rough night. (@danbarrynyt)
Minutes later, several related Twitter accounts were created, and journalists in the sample, particularly the ones from websites, found them to be newsworthy enough to be
retweeted. The following tweet, for example, reverberated among several journalists analyzed: ‘RT @GMA: In just minutes, the twitter account @FiredBigBird has over 2,700
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
11
Mourão
followers’ (@insmall, 2012). The tweet ‘RT @BlGBlRD: WTF Mitt Romney… :(’ was
retweeted several times by political journalists and over 54,500 times in general, being the
most popular tweet in the sample. Similarly, the tweet ‘@sesamestreet: Big Bird: My bed
time is usually 7:45, but I was really tired yesterday and fell asleep at 7! Did I miss anything last night?’ was the most popular tweet among the journalists analyzed.
Twitter coverage of the debate was frantic: Journalists displayed impatience with segments that were too technical or when the candidates went over details of economic plans
and fiscal policies, like the Dodd-Frank Act or the Simpson-Bowles Fiscal Plan. ‘So,
apparently everyone in America knows what Dodd/Frank and Simpson-Bowles are.
#wonkfest #debates’, commented Amy Walter (@amywalter, 2012). Matt Negrin displayed more personal discontent with the tone of the debate: ‘Yeah Obama, this BORED
we’re talking about’ is me’ (@mattnegrin, 2012).
Although a few journalists did criticize the pack behavior displayed in the quest for
zingers, very few actually discussed issues outside the group’s main narratives. Alex
Burns of Politico retweeted an excellent example: ‘RT @mattapuzzo: For months,
reporters criticized lack of substance. Now, criticize debate as “wonky.” Maybe they
should just debate favorite lolcats’ (@aburnspolitico, 2012). Other journalists showed
concern about the audience’s perception of the debate: ‘Romney really is ahead on style
and substance. Just wonder if anyone is still watching all this wonky policy stuff.
#debates’ (@stevefriess, 2012).
Overall, journalists on Twitter focused on candidates’ appearance and body language,
gaffes, and the political strategy employed by the parties. Even the candidates’ choice of
ties was used as a metaphor to criticize partisan politics: ‘Glad they’re going w/red and
blue ties that correspond with our now well-established chromatic partisan coding’ (@
chrislhayes, 2012).
Another popular narrative on Twitter was Obama’s lackluster performance. From the
first segment on, journalists in the sample criticized the President’s body language and
speech mannerisms. Only 6 minutes after the beginning of the debate, the first journalist
retweeted, ‘RT @GoMeteoric: Congrats to Mitt Romney for his decisive victory in
tonight’s debate!! #first’ (@adamSmith, 2012). About 40 minutes later, Zeke Miller of
Buzzfeed posted a link to a story entitled ‘How Mitt Romney Won the First Debate’.
Hamby (2013) described the ‘eye-rolls’ when the other journalists read the tweet in the
debate hall. However, according to Hamby (2013),
Smith [the story’s author] was only reporting what was obvious to any political junkie with half
a brain – Obama was stumbling badly and quickly losing control of the narrative. Smith just
didn’t feel the need for the bell to ring before posting his story. The judges of Twitter had
already delivered their verdict. (p. 28)
Although the vast majority of journalists in the sample followed similar patterns of
coverage on Twitter, there was variety between journalists representing different types of
media. Journalists working for national outlets, especially print and websites, were leaders in sharing humor and minor opinion, as well as judgments on the candidates’ political
strategy and performance. It is somewhat surprising that cable news journalists were more
contained in their opinion and tried to focus on candidates’ policy issues and strategy,
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
12Journalism 
rather than personal characteristics. Instead, cable news journalists preferred to share
opinion when interacting directly with their audiences. While national journalists were
invested in branding themselves, sharing insiders’ conversations, and discussing narratives with other journalists on Twitter, local reporters opted for tweeting less opinion, less
humor, and less personal content. Local journalists who tweeted about the debate limited
their coverage to the confines of the debate hall and tweeted less humor-related content.
These reporters also engaged in less personal forms of interactivity, opting to share content from their news organizations and tweet hyperlinks to their websites.
Post-debate
The post-coverage period of the debate was marked by an attempt to reinforce journalistic authority by deconstructing the event: who won, who lost, what issues were talked
about, and what issues should have been talked about. Interactivity between media users
increased as they discussed how to make sense of the debate. The majority of tweets also
contained a link to stories written by the journalists themselves or other journalists at
their home outlet. Some examples are listed:
Good debate for Romney. Someone should get POTUS some stronger coffee before the next
one. (@ morningmoneyben, 2012)
Very important night for Mitt Romney. And he rose to the challenge. (@chucktodd, 2012)
During the post-debate coverage, the media themselves also became the focus of
Twitter conversations among journalists. Many users analyzed debate punditry on cable
news. A few journalists working for conservative outlets bemoaned the liberal media’s
alleged inability to cover Romney’s victory. A multitude of journalists replied to these
charges by pointing out that there was no media bias precisely because they were extensively reporting on Romney’s victory:
Folks who believe the media is biased towards Obama should watch the cable networks tonight.
Media is biased towards winners. (@ezraklein, 2012)
Folks obsessed with crying media bias should take a good look at debate coverage. Press loves
a dogfight more than a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g. (@aburnspolitico, 2012)
This type of coverage focusing on the news media themselves during political events
is not new to Twitter. In fact, meta-coverage has been present in print and broadcast
formats during presidential campaigns and is characterized by emphasis on behaviors,
roles, and practices of press members (press meta-coverage) or activities conducted by
publicity experts in order to get media attention (publicity meta-coverage) (D’Angelo,
2008; Esser and D’Angelo, 2003). While both types were present during the first 2012
presidential debate, publicity meta-coverage focusing on spin doctors and pundits dominated post-debate coverage. Results show that the journalists in Denver extensively covered the spin room using the strategic frame, that is, not focusing on specific policy
issues. Tweets highlighted the political strategy used by Democrats to try to spin the
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
13
Mourão
event. Particular attention was given to Democrat’s senior advisor David Axelrod’s comments on the President’s strategy. The effect of such strategic meta-coverage can be
pernicious for American politics, as emphasizing candidates’ public relation efforts can
cultivate public cynicism (De Vreese and Elenbaas, 2008).
The most popular humorous topics, such as Jenga and Big Bird, lasted through the
next day. Around 10 a.m. of the following day, tweets about the debate began to give way
to the campaign news of the day: President Obama speaking at a rally in Sloan’s Lake
and Governor Romney making a surprise appearance at the Conservative Political Action
Conference.
Discussion
Interpretative community discourses and previously private backstage behaviors were
found in tweets in which journalists talked to each other about their work; gave opinions
about political processes, institutions, and actors involved; and used humor. Findings
suggest that Twitter coverage has adopted campaign coverage norms, although journalists are willing depart from objectivity and neutrality.
Evidence shows that Twitter provides an instant mechanism for journalists to engage
in traditional norms of campaign coverage, including a focus on strategy, spectacle, the
horse race, and candidate characteristics. Such findings support the expansion of the
theory of ‘normalization’ to campaign coverage online. This is particularly important
since previous content analyses on election coverage on Twitter report a methodological
limitation in identifying horse race and strategic coverage in randomly selected tweets
(Lawrence et al., 2013).
In addition, this article analyzed community-building traits of the platform, as journalists preferred to talk to one another on Twitter, sharing their perceptions of the debate
without including outsiders. Hence, Twitter was used as a space where journalists could
negotiate their narrative construction about the main stories during the first 2012 presidential debate. Very few tweets deviated from main topics, and journalists rarely questioned
their colleagues’ viewpoints in their timelines. Twitter was, in this sense, a place where
journalists could reinforce their authority. Echoing Zelizer (1992), ‘[journalistic authority]
exists in narrative, where journalists maintain it through the stories they tell’ (p.189).
The findings presented here also suggest a further distancing from news organizations
and an increase in the personalization of Twitter accounts, with journalists opting for
openness and personal expression in ways not traditionally permissible in main media
outlets. In other words, although outsiders are not being included in conversations, community-building processes previously confined to newsrooms and meetings are now
more visible and open to public scrutiny as part of journalists’ strategic goal to gain attention online. Further research is necessary to investigate the decision-making processes
behind journalists’ use of strategies that challenge the norm of objectivity and how this
can affect the way they cover campaign stories for their main media outlets. A further
question arises as to what role, if any, news organizations play in this process.
The character of Twitter discourse may have forced some journalists to adapt to the
medium, trying to fit their coverage into an innovative format that incorporates play and
judgment (Holton and Lewis, 2011; Molyneux, 2012). Overall, the vast majority
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
14Journalism 
of journalists engaged in some type of humor on Twitter, including satire, retweets, or
sharing memes and hyperlinks. Snark and opinion were particularly popular, with narratives like Big Bird and Donald Trump reverberating between timelines for hours. The
online journalistic community seems to have mastered the format and is fully utilizing its
advantages in Twitter coverage of political events.
While there is truth to the fact that satire is particularly popular on Twitter, the charge
that the platform has been transforming political journalists into sarcastic, self-deprecatory professionals has been grossly exaggerated. The use of humor by political journalists is not new to the 2012 election coverage. During the era of the partisan press,
journalists already engaged in humorous practices to attack their opponents, mock
authorities, and entertain audiences (Baumgartner and Morris, 2008). It was only with
the rise of professional journalism during the Progressive years that the use of political
humor vanished, giving way for norms of objectivity and suppression of personal opinion (Mindich, 1998). The findings presented in this article reveal that humor was prevalent and celebrated among journalists from all types of outlets in the sample.
It is hard to determine whether the format changed the way journalists view the political process; Twitter may have simply provided a space where they can express themselves in a language that is familiar to them, but that they could not display in their
mainstream news outlets. While journalists on Twitter are undoubtedly aware of their
audience, as evidenced by strategic discourse on the platform, Twitter also operated as a
space for interpersonal communication among journalists.
Perhaps more important than pointing out the direction of a causal relationship
between journalists’ personality traits and the Twitter format is to reflect on the impact of
the platform on political communication as a whole. For many years, the media have
operated as a political institution in tune with key political actors’ agendas. Twitter has
disrupted this balance. While candidates may feel like they are being bullied by journalists desperate for zingers and willing to share their opinion regardless of official quotes,
the public is rewarded with carefully crafted political messages being collectively and
publicly deconstructed online.
Evidence suggests that Twitter allows for a space of collective interpretation of political events. Even if the conversations are not yet including media outsiders, they are
occurring in public space and open to public inquiry. In that sense, political coverage on
Twitter is not completely ‘normalized’. In fact, it is precisely the lack of ‘normalization’
that causes so much discomfort for political actors, who have not yet mastered the formula for controlling messages passed between users and timelines. In addition, Twitter
allows for the public to watch and possibly interact with the meaning-making process,
functioning as a channel for reflection on the media’s roles and processes. Transparency
about how meaning is made and the possibility of public participation in narrativebuilding are some of the key advantages of Twitter in political communication. This
holds true even for discourse in the form of a 140-character snark.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Mitchell Wright, Dr. Regina Lawrence, and the Twitter Research Group for
designing and maintaining the data-capture system.
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
15
Mourão
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.
References
Aalberg T, Stromback J and De Vreese C (2012) The framing of politics as strategy and game: A
review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism 13(2): 162–178.
Allern S and Blach-Ørsten M (2011) The news media as a political institution. Journalism Studies
12(1): 92–105.
Artwick C (2013) Reporters on Twitter. Digital Journalism 1(2): 212–228.
Baumgartner J and Morris JS (eds) (2008) Laughing Matters: Humor and American Politics in the
Media Age. New York: Routledge.
Bennett WL (1996) An introduction to journalism norms and representations of politics. Political
Communication 13: 373–384.
Bennett WL (2003) The Politics of Illusion. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Brants K, De Vreese C, Möller J, et al. (2009) The real spiral of cynicism? Symbiosis and mistrust
between politicians and journalists. International Journal of Press/Politics 15: 25–40.
Burns A (2010) Oblique strategies for ambient journalism. Media-Culture Journal 13(2). Available
at: http://journal.mediaculture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/Article/230.
Cantrell TH and Bachmann I (2008) Who is the Lady in the window? Journalism Studies 9(3):
429–446.
Cappella JN and Jamieson KH (1997) Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Caufield RP (2008) The influence of ‘infoenterpropagainment’: Exploring the power of political
satire as a distinct form of political humor. In: Baumgartner J and Morris JS (eds) Laughing
Matters: Humor and American Politics in the Media Age. New York: Routledge, pp.
117–130.
Cook TE (2005 [1998]) Governing with the News: The News Media as a Political Institution.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Crouse T (1973) The Boys on the Bus. New York: Random House.
D’Angelo P (2008) Metacoverage. In: Lee L and Holtz-Bacha C (eds) Encyclopedia of Political
Communication, vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 452–455.
De Vreese CH (2005) The spiral of cynicism reconsidered. European Journal of Communication
20(3): 283–301.
De Vreese CH and Elenbaas M (2008) Media in the game of politics: Effects of strategic metacoverage on political cynicism. International Journal of Press/Politics 13(3): 285–309.
Duerst-Lahti G (2007) Masculinity on the campaign trail. In: Han LC and Heldman C (eds)
Rethinking Madam President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House? Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 241–259.
Esser F and D’Angelo P (2003) Framing the press and the publicity process: A content analysis
of meta-coverage in campaign 2000 network news. American Behavioral Scientist 46(5):
617–641.
Fish S (1976) Interpreting the ‘Variorum’. In: Tompkins J (ed.) Reader-Response Criticism: From
Formalism to Post-Structuralism. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 164–
184.
Fish S (1980) Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Boston,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
16Journalism 
Gans HJ (1979) Deciding What’s News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News,
Newsweek, and Time. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Press.
García JR, Puigvert L and Alonso JG (2001) Teoría Sociológica Contemporánea. Barcelona:
Paidós Studio.
Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
Hamby P (2013) Did Twitter kill the boys on the bus? Discussion paper series, Joan Shorenstein
Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, p. 80. Available at: http://shorensteincenter.
org/2013/08/d80-hamby/
Hermida A (2010) Twittering the news. Journalism Practice 4(3): 297–308.
Hermida A (2013) #Journalism. Digital Journalism 1(3): 295–313.
Holton E and Lewis S (2011) Journalists, social media, and the use of humor on Twitter. Electronic
Journal of Communication 21(1–2)
Hymes D (1980) Language in Education: Ethnolinguistic Essays. Washington, DC: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Janis IL (1982) Groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Kovach B and Rosenstiel T (2007) The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should
Know and the Public Should Expect, Completely Updated and Revised. New York: Crown
Publishers.
Lasorsa D (2012) Transparency and other journalistic norms on Twitter. Journalism Studies 13(3):
402–417.
Lasorsa D, Lewis S and Holton A (2012) Normalizing Twitter: Journalism practice in an emerging
communication space. Journalism Studies 13: 19–36.
Lawrence RG (2012) Campaign news in the time of Twitter: An observational study. In: Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans,
LA, 30 August–2 September.
Lawrence RG and Rose M (2010) Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House: Gender Politics
and the Media on the Campaign Trail. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Lawrence RG, Molyneux L, Coddington M and Holton A (2013) Tweeting conventions: Political
journalists’ use of Twitter to cover the 2012 presidential campaign. Journalism Studies. Epub
ahead of print 20 September. DOI:10.1080/1461670X.2013.836378.
Marwick AE and boyd d (2011a) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society 13(1): 114–133.
Marwick AE and boyd d (2011b) To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter. Convergence
17(2): 139–158.
Matusitz J and Breen GM (2012) An examination of pack journalism as a form of groupthink: A
theoretical and qualitative analysis. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment
22(7): 896–915.
Meeks L (2012) Is she ‘Man Enough’? Women candidates, executive political offices, and news
coverage. Journal of Communication 62(1): 175–193.
Mindich DT (1998) Just the Facts. New York: New York University Press.
Molyneux L (2013) What journalists retweet: Opinion, humor and brand development on Twitter.
In: Paper presented at the association for education in journalism and mass communication
conference, Washington, DC, 8–11 August 2013. Molyneux L and Holton A (2014) Branding (health) journalism: Perceptions, practices, and
emerging norms. Digital Journalism. Epub ahead of print 30 April. DOI:10.1080/2167081
1.2014.906927.
Obama B (2012) First Presidential Debate. Denver, CO: University of Denver. Available at: http://
www.npr.org/2012/10/03/162258551/transcript-first-obama-romney-presidential-debate.
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014
17
Mourão
Page R (2012) The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags.
Discourse & Communication 6(2): 181–201.
Patterson TE (1993) Out of Order. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Pew Research Center (2013) State of the news media. Available at: http://stateofthemedia.org
Romney M (2012) First presidential debate. Available at: http://www.npr.org/2012/10/03/162258551/
transcript-first-obama-romney-presidential-debate
Schutz CE (1977) Political Humor: From Aristophanes to Sam Ervin. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press.
Simpson P (2003) On the Discourse of Satire: Towards a Stylistic Model of Satirical Humor, vol.
2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Singer J (2005) The political j-blogger: ‘Normalizing’ a new media form to fit old norms and
practices. Journalism 6(2): 173–198.
Sparrow BH (1999) Uncertain Guardians: The News Media as a Political Institution. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sparrow BH (2006) A research agenda for an institutional media. Political Communication 23 (2):
145–157.
Tuchman G (1978) Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Tunstall J (1971) Journalists at Work. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Van Dalen A, Albaek E and de Vreese C (2011) Suspicious minds: Explaining political cynicism
among political journalists in Europe. European Journal of Communication 26(2): 147–162.
Young DG (2011) Humor, political. In: Kurian GT (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Political Science,
vol. 3. Washington, DC: CQ Press, p. 751.
Zelizer B (1990) Achieving journalistic authority through narrative. Critical Studies in Media
Communication 7(4): 366–376.
Zelizer B (1992) Covering the Body: The Kennedy Assassination, the Media, and the Shaping of
Collective Memory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Zelizer B (1993) Journalists as interpretive communities. Critical Studies in Media Communication
10(3): 219–237.
Author biography
Rachel Reis Mourão (MA, The University of Florida) is PhD student in the School of Journalism
at the University of Texas at Austin. Her areas of interest include political communication, international communication, new media, and Latin American Studies.
Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on October 7, 2014