Twitter and the Press: an Ego-Centred Analysis

Ego networks have proved to be a valuable tool for understanding the relationships that individuals establish with their peers, both in offline and online social networks. Particularly interesting are the cognitive constraints associated with the interactions between the ego and the members of their ego network, whereby individuals cannot maintain meaningful interactions with more than 150 people, on average. In this work, we focus on the ego networks of journalists on Twitter, and we investigate whether they feature the same characteristics observed for other relevant classes of Twitter users, like politicians and generic users. Our findings are that journalists are generally more active and interact with more people than generic users. Their ego network structure is very aligned with reference models derived from the social brain hypothesis and observed in general human ego networks. Remarkably, the similarity is even higher than the one of politicians and generic users ego networks. This may imply a greater cognitive involvement with Twitter than with other social interaction means. Moreover, the ego networks of journalists are much stabler than those of politicians and generic users, and the ego-alter ties are often information-driven.

[1]  Robin I. M. Dunbar,et al.  Social network size in humans , 2003, Human nature.

[2]  Isabell M. Welpe,et al.  Predicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal about Political Sentiment , 2010, ICWSM.

[3]  Marco Conti,et al.  Dynamics of personal social relationships in online social networks: a study on twitter , 2013, COSN '13.

[4]  Marco Conti,et al.  The structure of online social networks mirrors those in the offline world , 2015, Soc. Networks.

[5]  Daniele Quercia,et al.  The Social World of Twitter: Topics, Geography, and Emotions , 2012, ICWSM.

[6]  Lily Canter Personalised Tweeting , 2015 .

[7]  Dorin Comaniciu,et al.  Mean Shift: A Robust Approach Toward Feature Space Analysis , 2002, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[8]  Didier Sornette,et al.  Discrete hierarchical organization of social group sizes , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[9]  Timothy W. Finin,et al.  Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities , 2007, WebKDD/SNA-KDD '07.

[10]  Martin Everett,et al.  Ego network betweenness , 2005, Soc. Networks.

[11]  K. Cook,et al.  Social Capital: Theory and Research , 2017 .

[12]  Marshall Van Alstyne,et al.  The Diversity-Bandwidth Tradeoff , 2010 .

[13]  Robin I. M. Dunbar Social Brain Hypothesis , 1998, Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science.

[14]  Frank M. Russell,et al.  Who Sets the News Agenda on Twitter? , 2015 .

[15]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Modeling Users' Activity on Twitter Networks: Validation of Dunbar's Number , 2011, PloS one.

[16]  Marco Conti,et al.  Structure of Ego-Alter Relationships of Politicians in Twitter , 2017, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[17]  Jens F. Binder,et al.  Relationships and the social brain: integrating psychological and evolutionary perspectives. , 2012, British journal of psychology.

[18]  Christopher McCarty,et al.  Structure in Personal Networks , 2002, J. Soc. Struct..