EU COHESION POLICY IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE: HOW DO THE MEDIA FRAME EU - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
EU COHESION POLICY IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE: HOW DO THE MEDIA FRAME EU COHESION POLICY? Results from the COHESIFY media analysis VasilikiTriga Cyprus University of Technology COHESIFY Final Conference, Brussels 26 April, 2018 The COHESIFY project
1
Results from the COHESIFY media analysis
VasilikiTriga Cyprus University of Technology COHESIFY Final Conference, Brussels 26 April, 2018
The COHESIFY project (February 2016-April 2018) has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 693127
2
Table: Dataset Overview
3
Job creation Development Research & Innovation Financial Burden
Environment Social justice Public services Infrastructure Cultural heritage Cultural development Mismanagement
Bureaucracy Fail to inform public/applicants Restore order
ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES QUALITY OF LIFE CULTURE
INCOMPETENCE OF LOCAL GOVERNANCE
Political Leverage Political Capital Empowerment
External relations Tackling brain drain Sovereignty Civic participation/ Collaboration Social Awareness Solidarity Corruption Fraud
POWER NATIONAL INTERESTS COHESION
MISUSE OF FUNDS
13.4% 34.2% 27.3% 4.1% 9.0% 4.1% 1.0% 2.9% 3.8% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% No frame Economic consequences (Frame 1) Quality of life (Frame 2) Culture (Frame 3) Incompetence of local/ national authorities (Frame 4) Power (Frame 5) National Interests (Frame 6) Cohesion (Frame 7) Fund abuse (Frame 8)
9
12.5 17.9 18.3 20.2 21.5 21.7 21.8 24.3 27.9 31.1 42.2 43.2 46.9 49.2 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Quality of life (Frame 2)
22.3 22.8 25.7 27.6 29.7 30.3 31.1 31.5 32.1 33.3 42.3 47.2 47.6 54.7 10 20 30 40 50 60
Economic Consequences (Frame 1)
11
1.8 2.5 4.0 4.2 6.3 7.8 7.8 8.7 9.3 9.9 10.6 11.5 12.4 21.7 5 10 15 20 Hungary Ireland UK Netherlands Greece Slovenia Cyprus Italy Total European/ … Spain Germany Poland Romania
Incompetence of local/ national authorities (Frame 4)
.6% 1.3% 2.3% 2.5% 2.5% 3.2% 3.6% 4.0% 4.7% 5.4% 5.5% 6.7% 7.2% 12.9% 0% 5% 10% 15% Cyprus Hungary Poland Ireland Greece Italy UK Total Slovenia Netherlands Romania Germany Spain European/ …
Power (Frame 5)
13
0% 0% 0% .4% .4% .5% .8% .8% .8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.3% 2.9% 3.1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% Ireland Cyprus European/ … Romania Hungary Italy Poland UK Greece Total Netherlands Spain Germany Slovenia
National Interests (Frame 6)
0% 0% .3% .5% .8% .9% 1.6% 2.2% 2.5% 2.7% 2.8% 5% 6% 20.2% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Spain Cyprus Poland Italy Greece Romania Slovenia Hungary Ireland Total UK European/ … Netherlands Germany
Cohesion (Frame 7)
0% 0% .4% .5% 1% 1.9% 2.3% 2.4% 3.4% 5.1% 8.9% 8.9% 10.2% 10.7% 0% 5% 10% 15% Ireland Cyprus Greece Slovenia Poland Germany Italy UK Total Spain European/ … Romania Hungary Netherlands
Fund abuse (Frame 8)
15
89% 79% 78% 75% 69% 62% 56% 55% 48% 37% 25% 16% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Positive News Valence
17
58% 20% 19% 12% 12% 11% 8% 8% 4% 3% 3% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Europeanisation of News
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Figure: Logit estimates of effect size of changing from one category to another. Note: Error bars that do not overlap with the zero line are statistically significant. Positive coefficients mean that the topic receives more emphasis at the “national” level, while negative coefficients imply that the regional level emphasises the topic more.
28
Figure: Comparison of sentiment per territorial level. The sentiment analysis was performed on the English language sources, which means that "Regional" and "National" refer to UK
29
Figure: Sentiment analysis of User Comments from international-focused media.
30
Figure: Sentiment analysis of User Comments from UK media.
31
Figure: Evolution of Facebook activity statistics over time
32
33
Figure: Sentiment analysis of tweets.
34
35
36