{"id":1166,"date":"2010-08-18T23:37:20","date_gmt":"2010-08-18T13:37:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mappingonlinepublics.net\/2010\/08\/18\/twitters-response-to-qa-abbott-edition\/"},"modified":"2012-04-10T14:22:00","modified_gmt":"2012-04-10T04:22:00","slug":"twitters-response-to-qa-abbott-edition-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mappingonlinepublics.net\/dev\/2010\/08\/18\/twitters-response-to-qa-abbott-edition-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Twitter\u2019s Response to Q&A: Abbott Edition"},"content":{"rendered":"

The other day I had a look at Twitter\u2019s response to the Australian political leaders\u2019 appearances on ABC1\u2019s citizen forum-style show Q&A<\/a><\/em><\/em> \u2013 by looking at the #qanda hashtag. My last post focussed especially on the commentary about Julia Gillard\u2019s performance \u2013 today, it\u2019s Tony Abbott\u2019s turn.<\/p>\n

First, though: in comparing the volume of tweets across the two programmes I noted that the Twapperkeeper<\/em> archive for Tony Abbott\u2019s appearance<\/a> had a number of crucial gaps \u2013 for several periods of up to ten minutes at a time, we\u2019re simply missing tweets altogether. I\u2019ve checked this with the good folks at Twapperkeeper<\/em>, and I\u2019m afraid the response is that there\u2019s nothing that can be done to retrieve those tweets now<\/a> \u2013 so we\u2019ll have to make do with what we\u2019ve got. In that light, I\u2019ve re-done the side-by-side comparison of tweeting activity in response to both leaders, and \u2013 for illustration only<\/em> \u2013 added in a \u2018moving average\u2019 trendline to extrapolate what volume we might have seen during those gaps in the Abbott tweetstream.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"image\"<\/a> <\/p>\n

Very obviously, that trendline is only a very loose approximation \u2013 especially in those big gaps in the tweetstream, we could have missed some significant momentary spikes in activity (similarly, if Gillard\u2019s tweetstream had blanked out for just a couple of minutes, we could have missed her spike around 21:53, for example\u2026). Still, if that extrapolated trendline is even just in the general ballpark, Abbott\u2019s average during the programme would seem to be around the mid-500s, while Gillard\u2019s is in the mid-300s.<\/p>\n

In looking at what was tweeted during Abbott\u2019s appearance, then, we\u2019re obviously dealing with an incomplete sample. That\u2019s not to say it\u2019s not substantial in its own right \u2013 even in spite of the gaps, we\u2019re counting 17520 tweets between 9 p.m. and midnight for Abbott, against 23868 for Gillard. So, for its obvious flaws, there\u2019s still useful information to be extracted from it.<\/p>\n

With those caveats<\/em>, let\u2019s move on to the top keywords in tweets between 9 p.m. and 12 a.m.:<\/p>\n

\"image\"<\/a> <\/p>\n

And the most common multi-word phrases:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
 <\/td>\nFREQUENCY<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
TONY ABBOTT<\/td>\n890<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
CLIMATE CHANGE<\/td>\n433<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
FRIENDS ARE<\/td>\n340<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
MR RABBIT<\/td>\n316<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
MR ABBOTT<\/td>\n303<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
STOP THE<\/td>\n259<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
TONY JONES<\/td>\n219<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
BOAT PEOPLE<\/td>\n217<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
ABBOTT IS<\/td>\n210<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
GAY MARRIAGE<\/td>\n181<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
BEAUTY AND THE GEEK<\/td>\n174<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
NA NA NA NA<\/td>\n174<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VOTE FOR<\/td>\n168<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
TALK ABOUT<\/td>\n155<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
STOP THE BOAT<\/td>\n150<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
QANDA IS<\/td>\n144<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LACK OF<\/td>\n143<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
PARENTAL LEAVE<\/td>\n141<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
NA NA NA NA NA<\/td>\n139<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
KEVIN RUDD<\/td>\n138<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
BASED ON<\/td>\n137<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
PEOPLE SMUGGLER<\/td>\n135<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
APPEAL TO<\/td>\n131<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
PEOPLE A<\/td>\n129<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
GAY PEOPLE<\/td>\n129<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
CHRISTIAN SIDE BY DRESSING BOAT PEOPLE A<\/td>\n125<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
BOAT PEOPLE A TWO OF EACH ANIMAL<\/td>\n125<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
SIDE BY DRESSING BOAT PEOPLE A TWO<\/td>\n125<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DRESSING BOAT PEOPLE A TWO OF EACH<\/td>\n125<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Some interesting phenomena to observe here. First, and I\u2019m not sure what to read into this: notice who\u2019s absent from this list? Yes, Julia Gillard was mentioned only 68 times by her full name on Abbott\u2019s night, while Tony Abbott\u2019s full name appeared a whopping 392 times when Gillard appeared on Q&A<\/em>. Now, of course they were each referred to a good deal more often by their respective first and last names (\u2018Gillard\u2019 appears 298 times in Abbott\u2019s tweetstream), but still that discrepancy strikes me as unusual \u2013 it\u2019s not like \u2018Julia Gillard\u2019 is notably harder (or longer) to tweet than \u2018Tony Abbott\u2019, so we should expect their full names to appear with relatively similar frequency in their tweetstreams. <\/p>\n

One possible reading of this, then, is that when Abbott was on Q&A<\/em>, the discussion was all about him and his political views; when Gillard was on, the discussion focussed more on the contest between them.<\/p>\n

Also of interest: \u2018climate change\u2019 leads the pack, and almost completely without the help of substantial retweets \u2013 all of the key phrases we observed on Gillard\u2019s night rated so highly because one or two tweets were retweeted quite frequently, but here, we really do have nearly individual 433 tweets mentioning climate change: only two tweets managed to clock up ten retweets each. Can we infer from this that people really do strongly oppose Abbott\u2019s scepticism towards the established scientific consensus on climate change?<\/p>\n

For quite a few of the other high-ranking phrases, the story is very<\/em> different. The 340 tweets containing the phrase \u2018friends are\u2019 are largely variations on the line \u2018some of my best friends are gay\u2019, or indeed retweets of its extensions<\/p>\n

\n

RT @HyperBrendan: "some of my best friends are non-smoking gay boat arriving muslims" #qanda<\/p>\n

RT @marcfennell: "some of my best friends are chainsmoking homosexual illegal islamic arts patrons" #qanda<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

with 39 and a whopping 96 retweets, respectively. It might be worth noting that in these tweets, we\u2019re dealing with a different kind of joke, compared to the major retweets we saw during Gillard\u2019s Q&A<\/em> experience: the ones above are inherently directed at Abbott, by inference painting him as homophobic and laughing at<\/em> him, while significant retweets from Gillard\u2019s night such as<\/p>\n

\n

\u2018How big a tool is Mark Latham?\u2019 \u2018There are some things that can\u2019t be measured?\u2019 #qanda<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

are laughing with<\/em> Gillard (and at<\/em> Latham), and <\/p>\n

\n

RT @safran_john: Idea for Refugee advocates: humanise boat people by calling them boat peeps. #qanda<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

is, if anything, criticising both candidates in equal measure.<\/p>\n

Similarly, that \u2018Mr Rabbit\u2019 narrowly beat \u2018Mr Abbott\u2019 surely points to the fact that a substantial portion of the Q&A <\/em>audience has stopped taking Tony Abbott seriously. Sure, it\u2019s not as easy to meaningfully mispronounce \u2018Gillard\u2019 as it is \u2018Abbott\u2019 \u2013 but at any rate, the \u2018Rabbit\u2019 tag has stuck.<\/p>\n

The story doesn\u2019t get much better for Abbott further down the order, either. \u2018Stop the\u2019 (boats, of course) ranks so highly because of another one of those equal-opportunity comedy tweets, this time from comedian Corinne Grant:<\/p>\n

\n

RT @corinne_grant: Over 50000 people overstay their tourist visas every year. Bugger stopping the boats stop the backpackers! #qanda<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Not to be outdone, John Safran gets another shot in, too: <\/p>\n

\n

RT @safran_john: People smugglers: Appeal to Tony\u2019s Christian side by dressing boat people as two of each animal #qanda<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But Abbott\u2019s reference to picking up the phone to speak to the commander of any navy ship dealing with people smugglers turned the derision squarely on to him. You might have noticed that strange phrase \u2018na na na na\u2019 just outside the top ten \u2013 so let\u2019s expand it to its full glory:<\/p>\n

\n

RT @crazyjane13: You know what would be BRILLIANT? If the #qanda audience spontaneously broke into a chant of ‘Na na na na na na na na BOATPHONE!’<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

(Indeed, the hashtag #boatphone which resulted from this exchange turned into a short-lived Twitter<\/em> meme of its own during the following day\u2026)<\/p>\n

Quite a few tweets were also directed at Abbott\u2019s apparently contradictory positions on same-sex marriage and the role of religious beliefs in political decisions:<\/p>\n

\n

RT @barrybonanza: SO WHY DON’T YOU SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE if you don’t let religion influence your work #qanda<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

and<\/p>\n

\n

RT @downesy: "I have never made a decision based on a religious value." So what’s the grounds for opposing gay marriage? #qanda<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

were both retweeted a number of times. In the same context, we should also note that the phrase \u2018vote for\u2019 appears not mainly because of Twitter<\/em> users stating that they\u2019ll vote for Abbott (or not), but in response to a question by Q&A studio audience member Geoff Thomas<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

GEOFF THOMAS: Thank you. I am a Vietnam veteran, I have been a plumbing contractor for 37 years and I support, with a social conscience, the Liberal philosophy. I have a gay son. When I was confronted with that situation in a very short amount of time and with due consideration I accepted his position and I overcame my ignorance and my fear of gays and the idea of gay marriage. When will you, Mr Abbott, take up the same – when will you, sir, overcome your fear and ignorance of gay people and give them the dignity and respect that you’d happily give to all other Australians?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Typical reactions on by #qanda Twitterers:<\/p>\n

\n

RT @MoreOj: Geoff … my vote for Father of the Year #qanda<\/p>\n

RT @audreyapple: Vietnam Vet with the gay son gets my vote for Most Excellent Father Of The Year  #qanda<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Indeed, Tony Abbott\u2019s religious views appear in a few other places in the data, too, though not always very obviously. It\u2019s only when you explore the apparently commonplace phrases \u2018lack of\u2019 and \u2018based on\u2019 that you identify the substantial retweets they\u2019re occurring in:<\/p>\n

\n

RT @ashdonaldson: Athiests [sic<\/em>] have a lack of convictions because they don’t believe in a man in the sky pulling the strings? #ignorant #qanda<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

(a sentiment also appearing in a few other variations in many other tweets), and <\/p>\n

\n

RT @kedgie: "I have never made a decision based on my religion" RU486 RU486 RU486. Liar #qanda<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u2013 which also explains why \u2018RU\u2019 comes in at #13 on the keyword chart: it\u2019s not \u2018RU\u2019 as in \u2018r u serious\u2019, though that\u2019s a fair guess, but \u2018RU\u2019 as in the morning-after pill, RU486.<\/p>\n

All in all, and even remembering that we\u2019re missing a good chunk of tweets from the night (though there\u2019s no reason to suggest that those tweets should be significant more or less positive than the ones we do have), I think it\u2019s fair to say that this lot of #qanda tweets seems to be a lot more focussed on Abbott\u2019s negatives, compared with Gillard\u2019s appearance on the show: he\u2019s frequently called \u2018ignorant\u2019, a \u2018liar\u2019, pilloried as na\u00efve (the \u2018#boatphone\u2019 meme) and as a homophobe. <\/p>\n

By contrast, it seems to me that Gillard\u2019s audience was certainly critical (especially of her stance on same-sex marriage), but prepared to argue with her, while in Abbott\u2019s case, they\u2019re much more ready to dismiss his views as outdated and contradictory from the outset. Whether that attitude is in any way representative of the wider electorate \u2013 well, we\u2019ll see in a few days.<\/p>\n

Finally, just in case you were wondering – \u2018Kevin Rudd\u2019 appears prominently in the list mainly because of Twitter\u2019<\/em>s response to the Rudd impersonator in the audience:<\/p>\n

\n

RT @domknight: Could Bill Shorten and Mark Arbib please knife the Kevin Rudd impersonator immediately? #qanda<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

and \u2018Beauty and the Geek\u2019 is another reference to an audience member:<\/p>\n

\n

pleased to see xenogene from beauty and the geek on #qanda tonight<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Interestingly, though, this one truly is a case of like minds thinking alike: amongst the 174 tweets mentioning the resemblance, there are very<\/em> few retweets. Looks like there\u2019s a substantial crossover in audience between Q&A<\/em> and B&G<\/em>, in other words, if so many people noted the resemblance independently \u2013 who would have thought?<\/p>\n

And finally, though I\u2019m not sure it really tells us all that much, here\u2019s a quick map of the keywords and how they relate to one another (i.e. how they occur together in the corpus of tweets). I\u2019ll probably do these again properly some other time, so don\u2019t read too much into them, please\u2026<\/p>\n