Social Network Analysis: Theory

Since the early 20th century, journalists have focused their efforts on the types of work outlined by Walter Lippmann’s Public Opinion (1922). Lippmann argued that the role of a journalist is to mediate between government officials and the public:

An intelligence system has value, of course, as a source of general information, and as a check on the daily press. But that is secondary. Its real use is as an aid to representative government and administration both in politics and industry. The demand for the assistance of expert reporters in the shape of accountants, statisticians, secretariats, and the like, comes not from the public, but from men doing public business, who can no longer do it by rule of thumb. It is in origin and in ideal an instrument for doing public business better, rather than an instrument for knowing better how badly public business is done. (p. 399)

In this mode, journalists filter information disseminated by government officials, simplify that information, and then deliver it to the public. This is a simple description journalistic work, of course, but it isn’t simplistic. It implies that the point of journalism is two-fold: to hold officials accountable for their actions, and to inform the public.

More recent academic research shows that, as a rule, journalists play, or believe they play, this role in contemporary public life (Price, 1992; Stimson, 2004; Zaller, 1992). For instance, journalists typically understand a key part of their job to be holding officials accountable for the information they provide to the public (Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2001). In fact, the large majority of information in news stories comes from official sources (Gans, 1979; Lawrence, 2001). Moreover, journalists generally embed elite frames into the stories they tell with this information (Bennett, 1983). Finally, these frames strongly shape public opinion—at least at an aggregate level. According to Stimson (2004), in the aggregate, public opinion largely is determined by opinion shifts among “interested” people—people interested enough in politics to watch the news, but not so interested that they have developed firm political beliefs. And these interested people are strongly influenced by media frames. The picture built by this literature suggests that modern journalism functions alternately as a watchdog and a lapdog of official sources (Sparrow, 2002).

This model of journalism is evident in the way that reporters have used SNA. Dowdell (2005), for instance, argues that SNA is best used to investigate “contracts and bids,” “local government power, “ and “campaign contributions.” All of these uses speak to standard journalistic practices. “They Rule” (2004) and “Who runs Richmond” (2005) are prime examples of putting that practice into motion as they expose the power structures that we expect to be exposed by investigative journalism. “They Rule” detailed the relationships of corporations to government by revealing, in a visual fashion, the members of boards of directors of major corporations and their connections to government officials. Often, the links were the officials themselves. Cabinet positions and other appointed government positions were held by members of the boards of directors of financial institutions and major technology companies. “Who runs Richmond” gave readers a look at what the relationships were between local government officials and the owners of companies that received government contracts. It showed that often the winners of contracts had previous relationships with the people tasked with deciding who should be given the contracts.

As these examples show, SNA has been incorporated into the conventions of journalism, often to great effect. But its uses might be enhanced were journalists to think outside of their conventional roles and practices. There may be ways, for instance, of using SNA that not only hold officials accountable, but also provide other kinds of information that helps communities work better.

Seeing the value of this work means thinking about journalism in new ways. Fortunately, there are other models of journalism besides that depicted by Walter Lippmann. Responding directly to Lippmann, for instance, John Dewey (1927) argued that journalists should act more as facilitators than mediators of public life. Their role, he suggested, was to help citizens generate the capacity to act in their communities.

We have the physical tools of communication as never before. The thoughts and aspirations congruous with them are not communicated, and hence are not common. Without such communication the public will remain shadowy and formless, seeking spasmodically for itself, but seizing and holding its shadow rather than its substance. (p. 142)

From time to time this activity may involve holding officials accountable and simplifying complicated information for the consumption of a mass public. More typically, however, it requires journalists to help citizens both understand their communities and act on that understanding.

To us, the usefulness of SNA for achieving this journalistic purpose seems self-evident. Scholars have shown that social networks are key attributes of communities, and that healthy communities require healthy social networks (Watts, 2003). Further, social capital is a key element of healthy social networks (Lin & Smith, 2001). What is social capital? A simple definition is that it is a kind of social trust. As Fukayama (1999) writes, social capital involves virtues like “honesty, the keeping of commitments, reliable performance of duties, reciprocity, and the like” (p. 1). Communities with high levels of social capital are filled with people who trust one another, and therefore are more likely to work together on public problems, and to do so in efficient ways. I might, for example, be willing to pick up garbage in my community on a Saturday if I trusted that others would do the same the next Saturday.

Putnam (2000) identifies two forms of capital: bonding and bridging. Bonding capital glues people together. It gives them a sense that they know one another well enough to establish intimate ties. “Bonding social capital, “he writes, “is good for undergirding specific reciprocity and mobilizing solidarity” (p. 22). Bridging capital ensures that the act of bonding does not become exclusionary. No community will be healthy for long if loses external connections. Bridging capital—or what Granovetter (1973) calls “weak ties,” ensures that groups do not become so cohesive that they are cut off from the outside world. As Putnam (2000) writes, “Bridging networks are better for linkage to external assets and for information diffusion.” (p. 22) Healthy communities will exhibit high levels of both forms of capital.

By detecting social ties in a community, SNA promises to reveal something about the nature and extent of social capital flowing through a community. Following Dewey, we believe this is an essential journalistic exercise—no less important than tracing the ties that bind powerful groups.