Networked Gatekeeping in 'Twitter' During A Crisis Event: A Case Study of #Taksim in Turkey

Öz

Social media allows both elites and non-elites to share real-time information about crisis events, such as terrorist attacks, and express support and sympathy for victims using hashtags. Recently, a terrorist attack occurred in Taksim Square, Turkey, resulting in numerous deaths and injuries. Following the attack, Turkish citizens created the popular hashtag #Taksim to share information and express their emotions about the incident. This article explores the key influencers within #Taksim during the attack on Taksim Square by reviewing literature on hashtags, crisis events, gatekeeping, and networked gatekeeping theory. Through a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of 285,081 tweets under the hashtag #Taksim, the article examines how key users became prominent in the information flow. The findings demonstrate that Twitter's communicative practices (retweets, likes, replies, and quote tweets) allowed primarily elite actors, such as politicians and mass media journalists, to become key gatekeepers following the attack. This suggests that views of Twitter hashtags and their democratizing effects in crisis events need to be reconsidered, as the study highlights the significant role of elites. The findings also confirm that users who played crucial roles in the information flow through #Taksim became more prominent by addressing problematic issues like the refugee problem and freedom of the internet in Turkey. Additionally, users gained prominence within #Taksim by posting messages accompanied by influential visuals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Twitter
• Hashtag
• Gatekeeping
• Content Analysis
• #Taksim
• Turkey
• Elits

Kriz Anında 'Twitter'da Eşik Bekçiliği: Türkiye'de #Taksim Patlaması Olayının İncelenmesi

Öz

Sosyal medya, elit ve elit olmayan aktörlerin terör saldırıları gibi kriz olayları hakkında gerçek zamanlı bilgileri paylaşmasına olanak tanımaktadır. Aynı zamanda bu aktörler, hashtag kullanımı ile mağdurlara desteklerini ve sempatilerini gösterebilmektedirler. Türkiye'de Taksim Meydanı'nda meydana gelen terör saldırısında çok sayıda ölüm ve yaralanma meydana gelmiştir. Saldırının ardından Türk vatandaşları olayla ilgili bilgi paylaşmak ve duygularını ifade etmek için popüler #Taksim hashtag'i oluşturdular. Makale hashtag'ler ve kriz olayları ile eşik bekçiliği ve ağ eşik bekçiliği teorileri hakkındaki literatürü gözden geçirerek, Taksim Meydanı'ndaki saldırı sırasında #Taksim hashtag’inde etkili olan kilit unsurların kimler olduğunu araştırmaktadır. Bu makale, #Taksim kapsamındaki 285.081 tweet için nicel ve nitel içerik analizi uygulayarak, hashtag kapsamındaki bilgi akışı içinde kilit kullanıcıların nasıl öne çıktığını incelemektedir. Bulgular, Twitter'ın iletişimsel uygulamalarının (retweet, beğeni, yanıtlama ve tweet alıntılama) öncelikle politikacılar ve profesyonel gazeteciler gibi elit aktörlerin saldırının ardından kilit eşik bekçileri olmasına izin verdiğini göstermiştir. Çalışma elitlerin önemli rolünü gösterdiğinden, Twitter hashtag'lerin kriz olaylarındaki demokratikleştirici etkilerinin yeniden gözden geçirilmesi gerektiğini öne sürmektedir. Bulgular, #Taksim üzerinden gerçekleşen bilgi akışında önemli rol oynayan kullanıcıların, Türkiye'deki mülteci sorunu ve internet özgürlüğü gibi sorunlu konuları ele alarak öne çıktıklarını doğrulamaktadır. Ayrıca kullanıcılar, #Taksim içerisinde etkili görsellerle birlikte yaptıkları paylaşımlarla ön plana çıkmayı başarmışlardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Twitter
• hashtag
• eşik bekçiliği
• içerik analizi
• #Taksim
• Elit
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. Barzilai‐Nahon, K. (2009). Gatekeeping: A critical review. Annual review of information science and technology, 43(1), 1-79.
2. BBC. (2022). Istanbul: Six dead, dozens wounded in Turkey explosion. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63615076
3. Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2011). The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics [Conference Paper]. Proceedings of the 6th European consortium for political research (ECPR) general conference 2011 (pp. 1-9). The European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR).
4. _____________________. (2015). Twitter hashtags from ad hoc to calculated publics. Hashtag publics: The power and politics of discursive networks, 13-28.
5. Bruns, A., & Stieglitz, S. (2012). Quantitative approaches to comparing communication patterns on Twitter. Journal of technology in human services, 30(3-4), 160-185.
6. Burnap, Williams, M. L., Sloan, L., Rana, O., Housley, W., Edwards, A., Knight, V., Procter, R., & Voss, A. (2014). Tweeting the terror: Modelling the social media reaction to the Woolwich terrorist attack. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-014-0206-4
7. Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford University Press.
8. Chaudhry, I. (2014). Arab revolutions: Breaking fear|# hashtags for change: Can Twitter generate social progress in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Communication, 8, 943-961.

9. Chin-Fook, L., & Simmonds, H. (2011). Redefining gatekeeping theory for a digital generation. The McMaster Journal of Communication. 8, 7-34.
10. DeIuliis, D. (2015). Gatekeeping theory from social fields to social networks. Communication Research Trends, 34(1), 4-23.
11. Dovbysh, O. (2021). New gatekeepers in town: How groups in social networking sites influence information flows in Russia’s provinces. Social Media+ Society, 7(2), 1-11.
12. Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what's news: A study of CBS evening news, NBS nightly news, Newsweek and Time. Pantheon Books.
13. ________ (2004). Deciding what's news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek, and Time. Northwestern University Press.
14. Gauthier-Villars D., Ceylan A., and Toksabay E. (2022). Six dead in Istanbul blast, Erdogan says it ‘smells like terrorism’. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/central-istanbul-blast-leaves-multiple-wounded-media-video-2022-11-13/
15. Giglietto, F., & Lee, Y. (2017). A hashtag worth a thousand words: Discursive strategies around# JeNeSuisPasCharlie after the 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting. Social Media+ Society, 3(1), 1-15.
16. Heverin, T., & Zach, L. (2012). Use of microblogging for collective sense‐making during violent crises: A study of three campus shootings. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 34-47.
17. Housley, Webb, H., Williams, M., Procter, R., Edwards, A., Jirotka, M., Burnap, P., Stahl, B. C., Rana, O., & Williams, M. (2018). Interaction and transformation on social media: The case of Twitter campaigns. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117750721
18. Islamoglu, U. (2022). PKK terrorists in Syria ordered deadly bomb attack in Istanbul, admits perpetrator. AA. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkiye/pkk-terrorists-in-syria-ordered-deadly-bomb-attack-in-istanbul-admits-perpetrator/2737512
19. Jackson, S. J., & Foucault Welles, B. (2016). #Ferguson is everywhere: Initiators in emerging counterpublic networks. Information, Communication & Society, 19(3), 397-418.
20. Kemp, S. (2022). Twitter statistics and trends. Datareportal. https://datareportal.com/essential-twitter-stats
21. Lee, S., Chung, J. E., Park, N., & Welch, J. R. (2020). Status and expertise in the structuring of reciprocal exchanges on Twitter: Replies, retweets, and mentions during national diabetes awareness month. International Journal of Communication, 14, 6242-6265.
22. Mazza, M., Cola, G., & Tesconi, M. (2022). Ready-to-(ab) use: From fake account trafficking to coordinated inauthentic behavior on Twitter. Online Social Networks and Media, 31, 100224.
23. Meeyoung Cha, Benevenuto, F., Haddadi, H., & Gummadi, K. (2012). The world of connections and information flow in Twitter. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part A, Systems and Humans, 42(4), 991-998. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2012.2183359
24. Meraz, S. (2011). Citizen journalism, citizen activism, and technology: Positioning technology as a ‘second superpower’in times of disasters and terrorism [Conference Paper].  International Symposium on Online Journalism (pp. 27-30). Austin, University of Texas.
25. Meraz, S., & Papacharissi, Z. (2013). Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on# Egypt. The international journal of press/politics, 18(2), 138-166.
26. _______________________ (2016). Networked framing and gatekeeping. The SAGE handbook of digital journalism, 95-112.
27. Messina, C., (2007). Groups for Twitter; or a proposal for Twitter tag channels. FactoryJoe. https://factoryjoe.com/2007/08/25/groups-for-twitter-or-a-proposal-for-twitter-tag-channels/.
28. Molina, R. G. (2019). Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on Twitter protests in Mexico about the Ayotzinapa case. RIMCIS: Revista Internacional y Multidisciplinar en Ciencias Sociales, 8(3), 235-266.
29. Murthy, D., (2018). Twitter (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
30. Netblocks. (2022). Social media restricted in Turkey after blast in Taksim, Istanbul. Netblocks. https://netblocks.org/reports/social-media-restricted-in-turkey-after-blast-in-taksim-istanbul-7yNnr0yq
31. Newman, N. (2022). Overview and key findings of the 2022 digital news report. Reuters Institute. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2022/dnr-executive-summary
32. O'sullivan, T., Hartley, J., Saunders, D., Montgomery, M., & Fiske, J. (1994). Key concepts in communication and cultural studies. Routladge.
33. Pearce, W., Niederer, S., Özkula, S. M., & Sánchez Querubín, N. (2019). The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Climate change, 10(2), e569.
34. Petersen, L., Fallou, L., Havarneanu, G., Reilly, P., Serafinelli, E., & Bossu, R. (2018). November 2015 Paris terrorist attacks and social media use: preliminary findings from authorities, critical infrastructure operators and journalists [Conference Paper].  ISCRAM 2018 Conference Proceedings (pp. 629-638). Rochester, NY, USA.
35. Pourebrahim, N., Sultana, S., Edwards, J., Gochanour, A., & Mohanty, S. (2019). Understanding communication dynamics on Twitter during natural disasters: A case study of Hurricane Sandy. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 37, 101176.
36. Reilly, P., & Vicari, S. (2021). Organizational Hashtags during times of crisis: Analyzing the broadcasting and gatekeeping dynamics of# PorteOuverte during the November 2015 Paris terror attacks. Social Media+ Society, 7(1), 1-13.
37. Rogers, R. (2013, May). Debanalizing Twitter: The transformation of an object of study [Conference Paper]. Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM web science conference (pp. 356-365). Paris, France.
38. Schwalbe, C. B., Silcock, B. W., & Candello, E. (2015). Gatecheckers at the visual news stream: A new model for classic gatekeeping theory. Journalism Practice, 9(4), 465-483.
39. Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. Routledge.
40. Shulman, S. (2011). DiscoverText: Software training to unlock the power of text [Conference Paper]. Proceedings of the 12th Annual international digital government research conference: Digital government innovation in challenging times (pp. 373-373). College Park, USA.
41. Singer, J. B. (2006). Stepping back from the gate: Online newspaper editors and the co-production of content in campaign 2004. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(2), 265-280.
42. Spicer, J., Kucukgocmen, A. & Toksabay, E. (2022). Turkey blames deadly bomb on Kurdish militants; PKK denies involvement. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkey-blames-istanbul-blast-kurdish-militants-arrests-22-including-bomber-2022-11-14/
43. Steensen, S. (2018). Tweeting terror: An analysis of the Norwegian Twitter-sphere during and in the aftermath of the 22 July 2011 terrorist attack.  Social media use in crisis and risk communication (pp. 15-41). Emerald Publishing Limited.
44. Thorson, K., & Wells, C. (2015). How gatekeeping still matters: Understanding media effects in an era of curated flows. Gatekeeping in transition (pp. 25-44). Routledge.
45. Tikka, M. (2019). Ritualisation of Crisis Communication: Crowd-enabled responses to the Stockholm terror attack on Twitter. Nordicom Review, 40(1), 105-120.
46. Vicari, S. (2017). Twitter and non-elites: Interpreting power dynamics in the life story of the (#) BRCA Twitter stream. Social Media+ Society, 3(3), 2056305117733224.
47. Zhou, Y., Dredze, M., Broniatowski, D. A., & Adler, W. D. (2019). Elites and foreign actors among the alt-right: The Gab social media platform. First Monday, 24(9).