↓ Skip to main content

Media Agenda Setting Regarding Gun Violence before and after a Mass Shooting

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Media Agenda Setting Regarding Gun Violence before and after a Mass Shooting
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00291
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jared Michael Jashinsky, Brianna Magnusson, Carl Hanson, Michael Barnes

Abstract

Gun violence is related to substantial morbidity and mortality with surrounding discussions framed and shaped by the media. This study's objective was to explore national news media's reporting of gun violence around a mass shooting. National news pieces were coded according to categories of gun violence, media frames, entities held responsible, responses, and reporting of the public heath approach. Individuals were held responsible for gun violence in 63% of pieces before and 32% after the shooting. Lawmakers were held responsible in 30% of pieces before and 66% after. Background checks were a proposed gun violence prevention method in 18% of pieces before and 55% after Sandy Hook, and lethality reduction of firearms was in 9% before and 57% after. Following a mass shooting, the media tended to hold government, not individuals, primarily responsible. The media often misrepresented the real picture of gun violence and key public health roles.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Student > Master 5 16%
Researcher 2 6%
Librarian 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 12 38%
Psychology 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,355,455
of 25,134,448 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,061
of 13,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,806
of 433,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#15
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,134,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 433,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.