Abstract
This article is a reply to the criticism raised by Luis Felipe Miguel in a recent piece against the use of the methodology of sentiment analysis (MSA) in media studies. According to this author, the MSA is flawed because (1) it confuses different levels of communication, chiefly emission with reception; (2) it reduces drastically the complexity of the communicative process; (3) it adopts unreflexively the normative ideal of journalistic neutrality; and (4) it is plagued with an excess of subjectivism. I intend to show that the points made by Miguel against the MSA are either equivocal or superficial. Against them I argue that the MSA (1) focuses on the content of emission but not reception, and that does not stop it from producing meaningful results; (2) reduces the complexity of its subject matter like all other scientific methodologies, and does it in a way that is appropriate to the nature of its subject matter; (3) does not depend on the premise of journalistic neutrality to be valid; and (4) is less subjected to the distortions introduced by the excess of subjective judgement calls than other concurring methodologies such as agenda setting and frame analysis, both advocated by Miguel.
Keywords:
sentiment analysis; media studies; election studies; objectivity; media bias