Analysing TV Audience Engagement via Twitter: Incremental Segment-Level Opinion Mining of Second Screen Tweets

  • Gavin Katz
  • Bradford Heap
  • Wayne WobckeEmail author
  • Michael Bain
  • Sandeepa Kannangara
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11013)


To attract and retain a new demographic of viewers, television producers have aimed to engage audiences through the “second screen” via social media. This paper concerns the use of Twitter during live television broadcasts of a panel show, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s political and current affairs show Q&A, where the TV audience can post tweets, some of which appear in a tickertape on the TV screen and are broadcast to all viewers. We present a method for aggregating audience opinions expressed via Twitter that could be used for live feedback after each segment of the show. We investigate segment classification models in the incremental setting, and use a combination of domain-specific and general training data for sentiment analysis. The aggregated analysis can be used to determine polarizing and volatile panellists, controversial topics and bias in the selection of tweets for on-screen display.


Social TV Opinion mining Machine learning Social media 



Thanks to Data to Decisions Cooperative Research Centre for supporting this research and supplying full access to the Twitter data for this paper.


  1. 1.
    Diakopoulos, N., Shamma, D.A.: Characterizing debate performance via aggregated Twitter sentiment. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1195–1198 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Forman, G., Cohen, I.: Learning from Little: Comparison of classifiers given little training. In: Boulicaut, J.-F., Esposito, F., Giannotti, F., Pedreschi, D. (eds.): PKDD 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3202. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giglietto, F., Selva, D.: Second screen and participation: a content analysis on a full season dataset of tweets. J. Commun. 64, 260–277 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Joachims, T.: Text categorization with Support Vector Machines: learning with many relevant features. In: Nédellec, C., Rouveirol, C. (eds.) ECML 1998. LNCS, vol. 1398, pp. 137–142. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lin, Y.R., Keegan, B., Margolin, D., Lazer, D.: Rising tides or rising stars?: Dynamics of shared attention on Twitter during media events. PloS ONE 9(5), e94093 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCallum, A., Nigam, K.: A comparison of event models for Naive Bayes text classification. In: Sahami, M. (ed.) Learning for Text Categorization: Papers from the AAAI Workshop. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Proulx, M., Shepatin, S.: Social TV. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vaccari, C., Chadwick, A., O’Loughlin, B.: Dual screening the political: media events, social media, and citizen engagement. J. Commun. 65, 1041–1061 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gavin Katz
    • 1
  • Bradford Heap
    • 1
  • Wayne Wobcke
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Bain
    • 1
  • Sandeepa Kannangara
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations