The current Russian–Ukrainian War sparked a new wave of misinformation across social media. However, there is a lack of cross-platform research approaches around war events. This article followed the path of comparative media analysis. We used a three-step method from Triangulation theory and gathered 309,260 relevant posts from both the Twitter and Weibo platforms. We found that (1) Weibo posts are synchronized with Chinese mainstream media, and there is an “Amplification” phenomenon; Twitter posts are delicate and provocative from the perspective of individual encounters; (2) the topics of Weibo are “wide and scattered,” together to form a panoramic broadcast of the conflict. While topics of Twitter formed a condemnation around the invasion war; (3) the positive and negative emotion volume has gone through three stages: “Confrontation,” “Polarization,” and “Extension” with the development of the war. Finally, though the two social media fields present different characteristics, the call for humanitarianism and peace constitutes the unity of public opinion.
BourdieuP.WacquantL. J. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press.
2.
BuccolieroL.BellioE.CrestiniG.ArkoudasA. (2020). Twitter and politics: Evidence from the US presidential elections 2016. Journal of Marketing Communications, 26(1), 88–114.
3.
CaiF. Z. (2017). Research on Weibo public opinion field from the perspective of “life politics”: Based on the content analysis of popular Weibo in 2016 US election. Today’s Media, 8, 84–86.
4.
ChalabyJ. (2007). Beyond Nation-centrism: Thinking international communication from a cosmopolitan perspective. Studies in Communication Sciences. Journal of the Swiss Association of Communication and Media Research, 7(1), 61–83.
5.
CuiY.CheW.LiuT.QinB.YangZ. (2021). Pre-training with whole word masking for Chinese BERT. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29, 3504–3514.
6.
DenzinN. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88.
7.
Denzin NormanK. (1989.). The research act. Prentice Hall.
8.
DevlinJ.ChangM. W.LeeK.ToutanovaK. (2018). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. https://aclanthology.org/N19-1423.pdf
9.
DomínguezE. (2017). Going beyond the classic news narrative convention: The background to and challenges of immersion in journalism. Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 4, 10.
10.
DongY.QianL. P. (2017). Text similarity calculation based on semantic dictionary and word frequency. Information Computer Science, S2, 422–427.
11.
DuanR.TakahashiB. (2017). The two-way flow of news: A comparative study of American and Chinese newspaper coverage of Beijing’s air pollution. International Communication Gazette, 79(1), 83–107.
12.
FlickU. (2008). Triangulation [Triangulation. An Introduction]. VS Verlag.
13.
FoyleD. C. (2004). Leading the public to war? The influence of American public opinion on the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16(3), 269–294.
14.
FuschP.FuschG. E.NessL. R. (2018). Denzin’s paradigm shift: Revisiting triangulation in qualitative research. Journal of Social Change, 10(1), 2.
15.
GamsonW. A.ModiglianiA. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. Research in Political Sociology, 3, 137–177.
16.
GaoH. B. (2008). Source of Laswell 5W model. International Press, 10, 37–40.
17.
GartnerS. S.SeguraG. M. (1998). War, casualties, and public opinion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(3), 278–300.
18.
GoffmanE. (1986). Frame analysis. University of Pennsylvania Press. (Original work published 1974)
19.
GoldenbergA.GarciaD.HalperinE.GrossJ. J. (2020). Collective emotions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(2), 154–160.
20.
GriesP. H. (2001). Tears of rage: Chinese nationalist reactions to the Belgrade embassy bombing. The China Journal, 46, 25–43.
21.
GuoQ. (2012). Perceptions of news value: A comparative research between China and the United States. China Media Research, 8, 2.
22.
HallinD. C.ManciniP. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge University Press.
23.
HannanJ. (2018). Trolling ourselves to death? Social media and post-truth politics. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 214–226.
24.
HaskingP. A.Di SimplicioM.McEvoyP. M.ReesC. S. (2018). Emotional cascade theory and non-suicidal self-injury: The importance of imagery and positive affect. Cognition and Emotion, 32(5), 941–952.
25.
HollihanT. (Ed.). (2014). The dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: How media narratives shape public opinion and challenge the global order. Springer.
26.
JiangK.TangZ. F. (2015). Analysis of network cohesion subgroups of entrepreneurial practice in university classes. China Agricultural Education, 6, 57–63.
27.
KatzE. (1987). Communications research since Lazarsfeld. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, S25–S45.
28.
KatzE.LazarsfeldP. F. (2017). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Routledge.
29.
KruskalJ. B. (1967). How to use MDSCA (pp. 283–295). Murray Hill.
30.
LabhardtD. (2019). A transnational study using sequential triangulation and immersive technology to advance bystander intervention research in sexual assault (Doctoral dissertation, Coventry University, Coventry).
31.
LawJ.BauinS.CourtialJ.WhittakerJ. (1988). Policy and the mapping of scientific change: A co-word analysis of research into environmental acidification. Scientometrics, 14(3–4), 251–264.
32.
LeeE.RustamF.AshrafI.WashingtonP. B.NarraM.ShafiqueR. (2022). Inquest of Current Situation in Afghanistan Under Taliban Rule Using Sentiment Analysis and Volume Analysis. IEEE Access, 10, 10333–10348.
33.
LernerD. (1958). The passing of traditional society: Modernizing the Middle East. Routledge.
34.
LiB. (2019). Hegemony and adjustment: The communication rhetoric and discourse production of the government notice text in the crisis context: Based on the multivariate analysis of 44 “situation reports” that triggered secondary public opinion. News and Communication Research, 4, 25–44, 126.
35.
LiuQ.YeY. (2012). Document bibliography information mining technology and its software SATI realization—Taking Chinese and foreign library and information science as an example. Journal of Information Resources Management, (1), 50–58.
36.
LutherC. A.ZhouX. (2005). Within the boundaries of politics: News framing of SARS in China and the United States. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(4), 857–872.
PanD. T.SongY. (2012). Ideological conflict between East and West and war consciousness of journalists. News Communication, 5, 81.
39.
ParsonsP.XiaogeX. (2001). News framing of the Chinese embassy bombing by the People’s Daily and the New York Times. Asian Journal of Communication, 11(1), 51–67.
ShangA. D. (2019). The turning point of domestic public opinion in the United States—Review and analysis of the relevant reports of American television media before and after the “Spring Festival offensive” of the Vietnam War. Audio Visual, 7, 201–202.
42.
SiebertF.SiebertF. T.PetersonT. B.PetersonT.SchrammW. (1956). Four theories of the press: The authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and Soviet communist concepts of what the press should be and do. University of Illinois Press.
43.
SnowD. A.BenfordR. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1(1), 197–217.
44.
VoetenE.BrewerP. R. (2006). Public opinion, the war in Iraq, and presidential accountability. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(6), 809–830.
45.
WangS. (1992). Factors influencing cross-national news treatment of a critical national event: A comparative study of six countries’ media coverage of the 1989 Chinese student demonstrations. Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands), 49(3), 193–214.
46.
WettlerM.RappR. (1993). Computation of word associations based on co-occurrences of words in large corpora. Academic and Industrial Perspectives.
47.
WikströmP. (2016). No one is “pro-politically correct”: Positive construals of political correctness in Twitter conversations. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 15(2), 159–170.
48.
WilsonV. (2014). Research methods: Triangulation. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 9(1), 74–75.
49.
WuM. (2006). Framing AIDS in China: A comparative analysis of US and Chinese wire news coverage of HIV/AIDS in China. Asian Journal of Communication, 16(3), 251–272.
50.
YadavA.VishwakarmaD. K. (2020). Sentiment analysis using deep learning architectures: A review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 53(6), 4335–4385.
51.
YanY.WangG. Y. (2018). Cohesion, differentiation and exit of the community: Evolution of the co-occurrence structure of official disaster relief discourse since the founding of the people’s Republic of China (1949-2017). News and Communication Research, 1, 97–112, 128.
52.
YuL.YuanL. L. (2021). Situation, motivation and future trend of Sino US strategic game in cyberspace. Journal of Zhengzhou University, 54(6), 27–33.
53.
ZhangW. Z.HuP. (2022). Sino US Public Opinion Debate and China’s International Communication. Peace and Development, 1, 1–15, 136.
54.
ZhangY. Y.YeZ. Y. (2022). From the urban level of “Aphasia” to the agenda framework of “empowerment”—An analysis of the effect of urban external communication based on the Twitter data of 31 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions in China. Journal of Hubei University, 1, 162–170, 181.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
