Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Executive Summary
Research Background
Research Problem and Relevance of the Study
Preliminary Conclusions
Chapter 3: Methodology
Method: Thematic and Semantic Analysis
Method: Qualitative Framing Analysis
Data Collection, Analysis Process and Limitations
Summary: Six-Points Framework
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Discourse Analysis

Framing the Narrative: News Media Coverage of Big Tech Discourse

Profile image of Luis Manuel Arellano CervantesLuis Manuel Arellano Cervantes

2024, Universität Salzburg

Abstract

Previous research suggests that public hearings involving Big Tech generate significant media and public attention, raising awareness of the impact of Big Tech on society. However, there is not a full understanding of how Big Tech ideology and discourse are articulated in public hearings and how they are reflected by the news media. This study fills the gap by providing an analysis of Big Tech discourse during the 2020 antitrust hearing before the House Judiciary Committee of the U.S., and how it was framed in the news coverage of The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Employing a Critical Discourse Analysis lens, the research conducted a thematic analysis to identify salient topics in the public hearing and a semantic analysis to uncover the ideology shaping the discourse. The news media coverage was studied with a framing analysis to identify if the Big Tech discourse was being challenged or uncritically reproduced.The results show that Big Tech discourse can be understood by applying a framework of six themes: 1) Objectives: Big Tech as guardian of American ideals, above being providers of services/products; 2) Activities: trustworthy platform management, downplaying profit-driven actions; 3) Norms and Values: Championing self-regulation and compliance with policies, facilitating public speech rather than platform moderation; 4) Resources of Power/Position in Society: Big Tech as gateways for human needs, rather than entities commodifying data; 5) Group Relations: Benefit providers to allies and competitive fighters to adversaries; 6) Identity: Big Tech articulates their relevance through American exceptionalism, their societal role through the Californian Ideology, and their origins with the American Dream.The framing analysis identified three types of frames. Articles with the economic consequences frame were the least critical, echoing Big Tech’s activities and group relations. Articles with the attribution of responsibility frame were the most critical, challenging Big Tech's activities, values, norms, power resources, and group relations. The conflict frame had a mixed approach, challenging Big Tech’s activities and values. This research confirms that Big Tech discourse aims at maintaining current digital regulation and that news media is critical to their stance, however in some instances it can reproduce Big Tech positions. This research contributes by offering a six-point framework that can be applied to analyze Big Tech discourse in various settings.

Figures (25)
The qualitative framing analysis started by determining which newspapers to compare. As a
The qualitative framing analysis started by determining which newspapers to compare. As a
in the thematic analysis.
in the thematic analysis.
user’s internal needs. psychological spheres of the individuals in their platforms: Understanding and supplying the
user’s internal needs. psychological spheres of the individuals in their platforms: Understanding and supplying the
The semantic analysis showed that the discourse about the activities of running a platform trustworthy platform as opposed to their profit-oriented activities. listribution shows that Big Tech emphasizes those activities which relate to ensuring <
The semantic analysis showed that the discourse about the activities of running a platform trustworthy platform as opposed to their profit-oriented activities. listribution shows that Big Tech emphasizes those activities which relate to ensuring <
The study of code frequency (figure 9) showed that there is an unequal distribution of the assuring full and strict compliance with established regulations. compliance. The analysis shows that the values and norms foregrounded in this area are:
The study of code frequency (figure 9) showed that there is an unequal distribution of the assuring full and strict compliance with established regulations. compliance. The analysis shows that the values and norms foregrounded in this area are:
Finally, the semantic analysis of the coded segments showed that there is an underlying US- discourse remains unchanged in its alignment with the Communications Decency Act.
Finally, the semantic analysis of the coded segments showed that there is an underlying US- discourse remains unchanged in its alignment with the Communications Decency Act.
asset-based and role-based (Figure 10). In the former group, I identified three themes: mark he basis of their perceived power and/or position in society can be grouped in two categories:
asset-based and role-based (Figure 10). In the former group, I identified three themes: mark he basis of their perceived power and/or position in society can be grouped in two categories:
as possible thanks to them securing immaterial resources such as the user’s trust. The semantic analysis revealed that access to data, although it is normally de-emphasized in consumption, job creation and goods purchasing. This position and activities are presented
as possible thanks to them securing immaterial resources such as the user’s trust. The semantic analysis revealed that access to data, although it is normally de-emphasized in consumption, job creation and goods purchasing. This position and activities are presented
The code frequency analysis (Figure 17) shows overall a more balanced presentation of each for people to achieve great success by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps (Arche:
The code frequency analysis (Figure 17) shows overall a more balanced presentation of each for people to achieve great success by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps (Arche:
conflict also being the predominant frame used by its reporters. Washington Post had fewer articles published during the studied period, with the frame «
conflict also being the predominant frame used by its reporters. Washington Post had fewer articles published during the studied period, with the frame «

Related papers

Framing of issues across actors: Exploring competing discourses in digital arenas
Carmen Daniela Maier

Journal of Communication Management, 2017

To show how the strategic selection of discursive and interactive strategies generates specific framings of an issue to advocate opposite positions, embodying a struggle of power between parties with their own agendas. Design/methodology/approach: Drawing on literature within framing, digital issue arenas and critical discourse, this study is based upon detailed explorations of qualitative hypermodal data retrieved from two websites, Protect Mauna Kea and Maunakea and TMT, which frame from alternative perspectives the internationally renowned Thirty Meter Telescope's construction on Mauna Kea Mountain in Hawaii. Findings: On each website, frame articulation attempts to connect the event to specific concerns, values and beliefs in order to construct alternative versions of reality which can possibly fit with those of supporters. Simultaneously, this is reinforced by frame amplification concretised in selected discursive and interactive strategies that highlight or downplay the issue from particular perspectives. Originality/value: The study offers a deep insight into the complexity and dynamic nature of framing, in particular into how framing can vary and compete across actors. It also responds to "the need for critical awareness of discourse in contemporary society" (Fairclough, 2010, p. 554) by revealing how the power positions of "challengers and powerholders" (Steinberg, 1998, p. 846) are discursively reproduced and reinforced through distinctive discursive and interactive strategies. Finally, this study adopts a critical approach to hypermodal discourse analysis, employed in digital arenas where both organisations and activists are seen as frame strategists.

View PDFchevron_right
Framing Analysis and Technocracy
Anab Whitehouse

Framing Analysis and Technocracy

A relatively brief overview of Erving Goffman's notion of "framing analysis" is given, developed through several examples, and, then, that perspective is placed in dynamic juxtaposition to various issues concerning technocracy, especially in conjunction with the idea of "infrastructure".

View PDFchevron_right
The Power of Big Tech Corporations as Modern Bigness and a Vocabulary for Shaping Competition Law as Counter-Power
Pauline Phoa

Routledge eBooks, 2022

View PDFchevron_right
Big Tech’s Partnership with Authoritarianism
Marc O Jones

Middle East Report, 2023

The problem of digital repression and digital authoritarianism is often framed as something done exclusively by states like China, Iran or Russia. But this framing is a misconception. Authoritarian regimes across the world and US-based Big Tech converge in transnational repression through a combination of content control, surveillance and data collection. Driven by profits, Big Tech platforms often selectively moderate content, amplifying certain narratives while suppressing others based on corporate interests or geopolitical alignments. These tech giants, with their vast reach and influence, exceed or complement the power of states, enabling a broader scope for repression.

View PDFchevron_right
The Tech Lobby: Tracing the Contours of New Media Elite Lobbying Power
Pawel Popiel, Pawel Popiel

Communication, Culture and Critique, 2018

This paper traces the contours of media elite power via tech industry lobbying of the U.S. government. Tech companies wield considerable influence over digital communications, and the success of their lobbies in accomplishing policy goals reflects their ability to maintain and expand that power. The analysis reveals the depth and pervasiveness of its political influence; a proxy for media elite power. Exploring the ideological framing of the issues on which these companies lobby offers insights into how this power operates, subsuming the public interest under corporate priorities. Finally, analyzing tensions between state and lobby interests reveals both the implications of its political activity and the contours of lobbying as an instrument of media elite power.

View PDFchevron_right
How journalists and experts metaphorically frame emerging information technologies: The case of cyberinfrastructure for big data
Christian Burgers

Public Understanding of Science, 2020

Journalists and experts contribute to the creation of frames (frame-building) of innovations. However, little is known about the specific contribution of these different societal actors to the frame-building of emerging information technologies. This article focuses on a specific emerging information technology-cyberinfrastructure for big data. In particular, we investigated the role of metaphors in the frame-building of cyberinfrastructure during its early development, and contrast the metaphorical framing of cyberinfrastructure by journalists in a corpus of US news texts (Study 1) with the metaphorical framing of experts in a corpus of interviews (Study 2). Results show considerable differences between the frames by journalists and experts in the frame-building process. Journalists, to a great extent, employ their own frames in conceptualizing cyberinfrastructure rather than drawing on the frames used by experts. Future research should investigate the impact of these different metaphorical frames on audience members.

View PDFchevron_right
Politicized social imaginaries: How partisan ‘truth-makers’ derailed Google’s 2018 congressional hearing
Vinit Béléy

2020

Our pursuit for a social order is an epistemic and heuristic process and involves making sense of our observations and imaginations. Technologies are a part of our imagined futures but they also have social and political dimensions, and can have negative consequences either from abuse or flaws in design. Using the concept of social imaginaries by Charles Taylor, and sociotechnical imaginaries by Shiela Jasanoff, this study analyses the U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing of Google's CEO Sundar Pichai from December 2018. The use of specific social imaginaries around Google's technologies and Google as a corporation by members of political parties points towards the role of political intentionality and performativity in manufacturing public consent around governance decisions. Such imaginaries are termed as politicized social imaginaries as they are not employed for cognitive interpretation of technological concepts, but used to drive partisan political narratives.

View PDFchevron_right
No innocents: Platforms, politics, and media struggling with digital governance
Tales Tomaz

Communications

In retrospect, the communication world was so different in February 2020, when scholarly members of the Euromedia Research Group applied to become a Jean Monnet Network, focusing on media and platform policy (EuromediApp). Shortly after sending off the application, Covid-19 conquered the planet and jeopardized the main objective of networks, namely, to strengthen ties between network nodes. When the three-year network started operating in October 2020, it immediately became clear that dominant features of the pandemic would be fake news and harmful content online. Additionally, it was evident that digital platforms would play an even more central role in opinion-shaping during lockdowns than they had before. During the following three years, it turned out that the concept of the Eurome-diApp network was smart. Focusing on digital platforms, their relations to mass communication, and their performance regarding democracy and human rights allowed the network to organize cutting-edge workshops and conferences. For these events, it invited scholars to contribute scientific state-of-the-art texts and presentations on this fast-moving topic. This special issue of Communications serves to consolidate the learnings from that journey, timely addressing burning issues in digital platform governance. It explores questions such as how to limit hate speech and other harmful content online, how to hold digital platforms accountable for publishing it, how to accommodate automated decision-making (a.k.a. artificial intelligence), and how to economically balance platform profits achieved at the expense of mass media. Several attempts have been made over the last years to allow digital platform communication to thrive within the boundaries of the wider policy concept of

View PDFchevron_right
ARE SOCIAL MEDIA EMANCIPATORY OR HEGEMONIC? SOCIETAL EFFECTS OF MASS MEDIA DIGITIZATION IN THE CASE OF THE SOPA DISCOURSE
Amber Young

MIS Quarterly, 2016

Our research on the social movement opposing proposed piracy legislation reveals novel societal opportunities and challenges caused by digitization. We summarize literature on the Katz and Lazarsfeld Two-Step Model of Communication and propose a new model of mass communication for the digital age. We develop a digital discourse bias framework comprised of three structural constraints (on authorship, citation, and influence) and three content restrictions (on frames, signatures, and emotion). Our findings paradoxically reveal social media affords emancipation with regard to structural constraints, but is hegemonic with regard to an important content restriction (i.e., frames). Lean social media mitigated structural advantages and exacerbated content problems. These findings suggest that, as with traditional media, some inevitable evils accompany the societal benefits of social media and that mass media is having a detrimental effect on public discourse. Compared to traditional mass media, digital mass media are in some ways emancipatory (i.e., permitting widespread participation in public discourse and surfacing of diverse perspectives) and in other ways hegemonic (i.e., contributing to ideological control by a few).

View PDFchevron_right
Challenging ‘Leftist Big Tech’ through Right-wing Alternative Social Media: Parler and Albicla in Polish Conservative Media Discourse
Szymon Wigienka

Zarządzanie Mediami, 2023

Numerous "free speech" platforms have been launched in recent years as a form of protest against content moderation practices on mainstream social media. This paper asks the question of how the issue of these emerging right-wing alternative social media is discursively constructed, taking as an example the Polish conservative media debate over the American service Parler and its Polish equivalent Albicla. Taking a critically discursive approach, the article provides an analysis of the discursive strategies applied, and critically embeds the findings in the broader socio-political context, as well as in the alternative media theory. The results show that, drawing on the wartime rhetoric and numerous references to Poland's non-democratic past, the discourse creates a populist narrative of identity conflict between two opposing groups: "them"-hostile "leftists" seeking to impose a radical, progressive social order and "us"-oppressed protectors of freedom and common-sense values. The study additionally indicates that the issue is also utilised for the purposes of rivalry between domestic right-wing factions. Furthermore, the data contains frequent reference to issues of political economy and thus, intriguingly, overlaps to some extent with left-wing media critique, in that both agree on the necessity of contesting a monopolised media market and developing alternative means of communication.

View PDFchevron_right

References (78)

  1. Bibliography
  2. Alford, R. (2022). The Bipartisan Consensus on Big Tech, Emory L. J., 71. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol71/iss5/1
  3. Ali, C. (2019). Analyzing Talk and Text III: Discourse Analysis. In The Palgrave Handbook of Methods for Media Policy Research, pp. 403-418. Springer.International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16065-4_23
  4. Allen D., Castro D. (2017). Why So Sad? A Look at the Change in Tone of Technology Reporting From 1986 to 2013, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. https://www2.itif.org/2017-why-so-sad.pdf
  5. Amoussou F., Allagbe A. (2018). Principles, Theories and Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 1 (6), pp. 11-18. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.20431/2347-3134.0601002
  6. Archer, J. (2014). The resilience of myth: The politics of the American Dream. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review, 25(2), 7-21. International Association for the Study of Traditional Environments. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24347714
  7. Bank M., Duffy F., Leyendecker V., Silva M., (2021). The Lobby Network: Big Tech's Web of Influence in the EU, Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl e.V., Brussels and Cologne. https://corporateeurope.org/en/2021/08/lobby-network-big-techs-web-influence- eu Barbrook, R., Cameron, A. (1996). The Californian ideology. Science as Culture, 6 (1), 44- 72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505439609526455
  8. Barendregt, W., Becker, C., Cheon, E., Clement, A., Reynolds-Cuéllar, P., Schuler, D., & Suchman, L. (2021). Defund Big Tech, Refund Community. Tech Otherwise. https://doi.org/10.21428/93b2c832.e0100a3f
  9. Barlow, J.P. (1996). A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html
  10. Barnard, S.R. (2018). Citizens at the Gates: Twitter, Networked Publics, and the Transformation of American Journalism. Springer.
  11. Beekmans, I., Maly, I., Van Hout, T. (2023). 'Here in the US': Identity narratives, national beliefs and corporate governance values in Big Tech Hearing discourse. First Monday, 28(5). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v28i5.12803
  12. Bradford, A. (2023). Digital Empires. The Global Battle to Regulate Technology. Oxford University Press.
  13. Bucher, T. (2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1164-1180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812440159
  14. Couldry, N. (2014). Mediatization and the future of field theory. In: Lundby, K. (Ed.). Mediatization of Communication. Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 227-245.
  15. De Zúñiga, H.G.,Diehl, T., Ardèvol-Abreu, A. (2018): When Citizens and Journalists Interact on Twitter. In: Journalism Studies 19(2), 227-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1178593.
  16. Dyer-Witheford, N., Mularoni, A. (2022). Framing Big Tech: News media, digital capital and the antitrust movement. Political Economy of Communications, 9(2), 2-20.
  17. Gilder, G. (2000). Telecosm: The World After Bandwidth. The Free Press.
  18. Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of 'platforms'. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738
  19. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching. Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. University of California Press.
  20. Hassell, H. J. G., Miles, M. R., & Reuning, K. (2022). Does the ideology of the newsroom affect the provision of media slant? Political Communication, 39(2), 184-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2021.1981289
  21. Herzog C., Handke C., Hitters E., (2019). Analyzing Talk and Text II: Thematic Analysis (April 25, 2019). In Van den Bulck, H., Puppis, M., Donders, K., Van Audenhove, L. (Eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Methods for Media Policy Research. Palgrave Macmillan. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3068081
  22. Jørgensen, M. W., Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849208871
  23. Keen, A. (2015). The Internet is not the answer. Atlantic Books.
  24. Linström M., Marais W. (2012). Qualitative news frame analysis: A methodology. Communitas 17: 21-38
  25. Määttä, S. (2014). Discourse and Ideology: Why Do We Need Both?, In Callahan, L. (ed). Spanish and Portuguese across Time, Place, and Borders: Studies in Honour of Milton M. Azevedo, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 63.
  26. Maingueneau, D., Angermüller, J. (2007). Discourse Analysis in France. A Conversation. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-8.2.254
  27. Mager, A., Katzenbach, C. (2021). Future imaginaries in the making and governing of digital technology: Multiple, contested, commodified. New Media & Society, 23(2), 223- 236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820929
  28. Maly, I. (2023). Digital economy and platform ideologies. Diggit Magazine. https://www.diggitmagazine.com/working-papers/digital-economy-platform-ideologies- influencer-culture
  29. McCarthy A. (2008). Fred Turner, From Counterculture to Cyberculture:Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism 1. Journal of e-Media Studies, 1. (1) :10.1349/PS1.1938-6060.A.316
  30. Meraz, S., Papacharissi, Z. (2013): Networked Gatekeeping and Networked Framing on #Egypt. In: International Journal of Press/Politics 18(2), 138-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161212474472
  31. Molek-Kozakowska K. (2011). Discursive Exponents of the Ideology of Counterculture in Allen Ginsberg's Poems, Opole University Press.
  32. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital. Alfred a Knopf.
  33. Nolan, E., Kenned, M. (2017). Explaining the American exceptionalism. INOSR Arts and Humanities, 3(1), 1-8. http://www.inosr.net/inosr-arts-and-humanities/
  34. Othamn, A., Salih, S. (2023). The Relationship between Structure of Discourse and Structure of Ideology. A Socio-Cognitive Perspective. Koya University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, (1) 5.
  35. Pease, D. E. (2009). The new American exceptionalism. University of Minnesota Press.
  36. Pierson, J. (2022). Media and Communication Studies, Privacy and Public Values: Future Challenges, In González-Fuster, G., van Brakel, R., De Hert, P. (Eds.). Research Handbook on Privacy and Data Protection Law: Values, Norms and Global Politics, Edward Elgar Publishing, 175-195.
  37. Plantin, J.C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P. N., & Sandvig, C. (2018). Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society, 20(1), 293- 310. doi:10.1177/1461444816661553
  38. Poell, T., Nieborg, D., van Dijck, J. (2019). Platformisation. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1425
  39. Prandner, D., Kirchhoff, S. (2017). Die Paywall-Debatte Erkenntnisse aus internationalen Erfahrungen mit bezahlten Onlineinhalten. In: Kirchhoff, S., Prandner, D., Renger, R., Götzenbrucker, G., Aichberger, I. (Eds.). Was bleibt vom Wandel. Baden-Baden. Nomos, 179-200
  40. Reese S., Gandy O., Grant A. (2001). Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Routledge.
  41. Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Addison-Wesley.
  42. Riggio, C. R. (2021). Defining the American Dream: A generational comparison. Modern Psychological Studies, 27(1). University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.
  43. Sadowski J. (2020). The internet of landlords: Digital platforms and new mechanisms of rentier capitalism. Antipode, 52(2), 562-580. 10.1111/anti.12595
  44. Semetko H., Valkenburg P. (2000). Framing European politics: a content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), pp. 93-109.
  45. Short, J. L., Schiller, R., Silbey, S., Jones, N., Hemmatian, B., Bowman-Carpio, L. (2022).The Dog That Didn't Bark: Looking for Techno-Libertarian Ideology in a Decade of Public Discourse about Big Tech Regulation. Ohio State Technology Law Journal, 1 (19).
  46. Therborn, G. (1980). The ideology of power and the power of ideology. NLB
  47. Thompson, J.B. (1991). Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. Stanford University Press.
  48. Trappel, J. (2019). Digital Media Inequalities: Policies Against Divides, Distrust and Discrimination. Nordicom.
  49. Turner, F. (2006). From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. University of Chicago Press.
  50. Uluorta, H., Quill L. (2022). The Californian Ideology Revisited.In Armano, E., Briziarelli M., Risi E. (Eds.). Digital Platforms and Algorithmic Subjectivities, University of Westminster Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv319wpvm.5
  51. Vaismoradi M., Jones J., Turunen H., Snelgrove S. (2016). Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(5), 100-110. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v6n5p100
  52. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse Society, 4(2), 249-283.
  53. Van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage.
  54. Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Discourse, Ideology and Context, Folia Linguistica, vol. 35, no. 1- 2, 2001, pp. 11-40. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2001.35.1-2.11
  55. Van Dijk, T. A. (2012). Ideology and discourse. A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Pompeu Fabra University
  56. Van Dijk, T. A. (2013). Ideology and Discourse, In Freeden, M., Stears, M. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies. Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.013.007
  57. Watson, A. (2024, May 10). Leading daily newspapers in the U.S. 2023, by print circulation. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/[specific-statistics-number Weiss-Blatt, N. (2021). The Techlash and Tech Crisis Communication. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781800430853
  58. Wodak, R., de Cillia R., Reisigl M., Liebhart K. (1999). The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh University Press. News articles and publications
  59. Albergotti, R. (2020, August 1). Developer cooperating with antitrust probe accuses Google of retaliation. The Washington Post.
  60. Benton, J. (2018, October 5). Here's how much Americans trust 38 major news organizations (hint: not all that much!). Nieman Lab. https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/10/heres-how-much-americans-trust-38-major-news- organizations-hint-not-all-that-much/
  61. Greene, J. (2020, July 30). Bezos: Amazon may have used proprietary data to compete with other sellers. The Washington Post.
  62. Herrera, S. (2020, July 28). Amazon CEO faces rare test in first testimony before Congress. The Wall Street Journal.
  63. Herrera, S. (2020, July 31). Amazon leads its tech peers in gains. The Wall Street Journal.
  64. Larger, T. (2021, January 19). EU Parliament moves ahead with Big Tech hearing plan. Politico. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-parliament-gives-green-light-for-big-tech- hearing-google-facebook-amazon/
  65. Lerman, R., Albergotti, R., Dwoskin, E., Kelly, H. (2020, July 31). A day after congressional grilling, Big Tech companies post strong results. The Washington Post.
  66. Needleman, S. E. (2020, July 23). Technology: Apple defends App Store as scrutiny increases. The Wall Street Journal.
  67. Romm, T. (2020, July 28). Big Tech is next industry to face Congress's glare. The Washington Post.
  68. Seetharaman, D. (2020, July 30). Documents shed light on Instagram deal. The Wall Street Journal.
  69. Silverman, C. (2016, December 30). Here are 50 of the biggest fake news hits on Facebook from 2016. BuzzFeed News. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/2016- biggest-fake-news-hits
  70. Tracy, R., McKinnon, J. D., Glazer, E. (2020, July 29). Big Tech's top four CEOs set to testify. The Wall Street Journal.
  71. Tracy, R. (2020, July 30). Tech Titans face antitrust questions. The Wall Street Journal.
  72. Tracy, R. (2020, July 31). Divided Congress takes aim at Big Tech. The Wall Street Journal.
  73. Wooldridge, A. (2013, November 18). The coming tech-lash. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/news/2013/11/18/the-coming-tech-lash Government documents U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary. (2020, July 29). Online platforms and market power, Part 6: Examining the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google hearing (Serial No. 116-94). http://judiciary.house.gov Attribution of responsibility frame Story -Amazon used proprietary data to compete Documents shed light on Instagram deal Quotes Washington Post investigation Hank Johnson (D-Ga. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD.
  74. Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.)
  75. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-wash.)
  76. Attribution of resp -neg BT -Activities -Platform Management Attribution of resp -neg BT -Norms and Values - inside policy Attribution of resp-neg Gov -Norms and values- law enforcement Attribution of resp -neg BT -Activities -selling Attribution of responsibility -neg BT -activities- data usage
  77. Conflict -neg BT -Activitites-data and business development Ken Buck (R., Colo.)
  78. Mr. Bezos, Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Pichai, David Cicilline (D., R.I.), the subcommittee chairman Attribution of resp-proQ BT -American excep -ID Attribution of resp -proQ BT -position in society Attribution of resp-pro BT -American dream - ID Attribution of resp -proQ BT-American excep -ID Attribution of resp-NegQ Gov -BT activities Mr. Bezos, Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Pichai Conflict -neg BT -Activities -acquisition Economic conse -Pro BT -Activities -data sale Conflict -Pro gov -activities -gatekeeping Conflict -Pro BT -activities Conflict -Pro Gov -activities Conflict -neg BT -Activities -content manag Attribution of resp -neg BT-activities Attribution of resp -pro BT American exceptionality -Identity Attribution of resp -pro BT position in society

Related papers

‘Here in the US’: Identity narratives, national beliefs and corporate governance values in Big Tech Hearing discourse
Ico Maly

First Monday

Starting from the idea that understanding Big Tech ideologies is a prerequisite for assessing how major tech corporations see a (re)organization of society, this paper offers an analysis of the opening statements of the CEOs of four of these corporations during 2020 antitrust hearings before the U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee. These statements were ‘critical discourse moments’ that foregrounded the beliefs of the CEOs in the collision between their discourse and that of government and politics. Using a critical perspective on discourse analysis as a main research approach, this research found that the opening statements blended (inter)national imaginaries, identity narratives and corporate values. Together, these factors communicated the notion of an ideal society in which tech companies awarded themselves a dual role: (1) national conductors towards what we call ‘techno/opportunity’ for individuals, and (2) politically neutral agents in the service of American world do...

View PDFchevron_right
Transversal Politics of Big Tech
Tobias Liebetrau

International Political Sociology

Our everyday life is entangled with products and services of so-called Big Tech companies, such as Amazon, Google, and Facebook. International relations (IR) scholars increasingly seek to reflect on the relationships between Big Tech, capitalism, and institutionalized politics, and they engage with the practices of algorithmic governance and platformization that shape and are shaped by Big Tech. This collective discussion advances these emerging debates by approaching Big Tech transversally, meaning that we problematize Big Tech as an object of study and raise a range of fundamental questions about its politics. The contributions demonstrate how a transversal perspective that cuts across sociomaterial, institutional, and disciplinary boundaries and framings opens up the study of the politics of Big Tech. The discussion brings to the fore perspectives on the ontologies of Big Tech, the politics of the aesthetics and credibility of Big Tech and rethinks the concepts of legitimacy and ...

View PDFchevron_right
Defining Away the Digital Divide: A Content Analysis of Institutional Influences on Popular Representations of Technology
Lynette Kvasny, Duane P. Truex

2001

It is our contention that information technology is a cultural commodity whose influence is spread through economic and political action of institutions such as the government and corporations. Informed by Bourdieu's sociology of language, we conduct a content analysis of political speeches regarding "digital opportunities" delivered by U. S. government officials. In this analysis we demonstrate how institutions actively (re)produce and legitimize popular representations of technology and its role in the new economy. The broader implication of this analysis is to offer a way in which information systems research can consider the larger socio-political context in which so many of our research activities and debates are situated.

View PDFchevron_right
A critical analysis of media discourse on information technology: preliminary results of a proposed method for critical discourse analysis
Wendy Cukier

Information Systems Journal, 2009

Since the 1980s, there has been a growing body of critical theory in information systems research. A central theoretical foundation of this research is Habermas' theory of communicative action, which focuses on implications of speech and proposes general normative standards for communication. Habermas also places particular emphasis on the importance of the public sphere in a democratic society, critiquing the role of the media and other actors in shaping public discourse. While there has been growing emphasis on critical discourse analysis (CDA), there has been limited effort to systematically apply Habermas' validity claims to empirical research. Moreover, while critical research in information systems has examined communication within the organizational context, public discourse on information technology has received little attention. The paper makes three primary contributions: (1) it responds to Habermas' call for empirical research to ground and extend his theory of communication in every day critical practice; (2) it proposes an approach to applying Habermas' theory of communication to CDA; and (3) it extends the reach of critical research in information systems beyond micro-level organizational concerns and opens up to critical reflection and debate on the impact of systematically distorted communication about technology in the public sphere.

View PDFchevron_right
Deplatforming, demotion and folk theories of Big Tech persecution
Emillie de Keulenaar

Fronteiras, 2021

This article examines YouTube’s moderation of conspiracy narratives surrounding COVID-19 through an analysis of deplatformed and demoted YouTube videos. Building upon the literature on moderation, it compares the types of content moderated by YouTube from April to October, 2020. In doing so, it seeks to determine the extent to which YouTube’s own moderation actions are brought in as part of the conspiratorial narratives surrounding COVID-19, while investigating how it is that moderation becomes entangled with questions of truth and visibility.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Critical Discourse Analysis
  • Big Data Technologies
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved