Understanding the framing of political issues is of paramount importance as it significantly shapes how individuals perceive, interpret, and engage with these matters. While prior research has independently explored framing within news media and by social media users, there remains a notable gap in our comprehension of the disparities in framing political issues between these two distinct groups. To address this gap, we conduct a comprehensive investigation, focusing on the nuanced distinctions both qualitatively and quantitatively in the framing of social media and traditional media outlets concerning a series of American Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action, student loans, and abortion rights. Our findings reveal that, while some overlap in framing exists between social media and traditional media outlets, substantial differences emerge both across various topics and within specific framing categories. Compared to traditional news media, social media platforms tend to present more polarized stances across all framing categories. Further, we observe significant polarization in the news media's treatment (i.e., Left vs. Right leaning media) of affirmative action and abortion rights, whereas the topic of student loans tends to exhibit a greater degree of consensus. The disparities in framing between traditional and social media platforms carry significant implications for the formation of public opinion, policy decision-making, and the broader political landscape.

翻译：理解政治议题的框架至关重要，因为它深刻影响个体如何感知、解读和参与这些议题。尽管先前的研究分别探讨了新闻媒体和社交媒体用户在框架政治议题方面的作用，但我们对这两类群体在框架政治议题上的差异理解仍存在显著空白。为填补这一空白，我们开展了一项全面的研究，聚焦于社交媒体与传统媒体在涉及美国最高法院关于平权行动、学生贷款和堕胎权一系列裁决时，框架上定性与定量的细微差异。我们的研究结果表明，尽管社交媒体与传统媒体在框架上存在一定重叠，但在不同议题和特定框架类别中出现了显著差异。与传统新闻媒体相比，社交媒体平台在所有框架类别中往往表现出更极化的立场。此外，我们观察到新闻媒体（即左倾与右倾媒体）在对待平权行动和堕胎权时存在显著极化，而学生贷款议题则倾向于呈现更高程度的一致性。传统媒体与社交媒体平台在框架上的差异对舆论形成、政策决策及更广泛的政治格局具有重要影响。