Where are the cutting edge scholars when you need them?

I have no idea about the credibility of this particular report, How Mainstream Media and Social Media Present COMPLETELY Different Views Of Syrian Immigrant Crisis from Sooper Mexican.

However, it does prompt the question, Has anyone done a study of the relative heteroscedacity of Mainstream media reporting (AKA advocacy journalism) and Twitter or Social Media representation?

Many lightning rod issues among the chattering classes, and about which the chattering class have overwhelming consistency of view (gun control, climate change, beneficence of multiculturalism, gay marriage, death penalty, etc.), are, at a national level, more knife edge or very tight margins of a majority. For example, the bien pensant have for decades viewed capital punishment as an archaic barbarity. In contrast, in most OECD countries, the electorate either supports it outright or is a material plurality. Most the citizenry wants personal security through more effective policing including broken windows policing. Most of the mainstream media view policing as at best a necessary evil and are more concerned about the possible disparate impact of policing than they are about the importance of personal security.

I can imagine there are many issues on which the range of views within the Mainstream Media (MSM) parallels that of the citizenry (as expressed through social media).

But what about all those issues for which there are many legitimate viewpoints (such as illegal immigration) but where the mainstream media seems to have adopted and present essentially a single viewpoint. In a case like that, I would imagine that there is a measurable variance between MSM reporting and trendings in Twitter and elsewhere in social media. But what are the issues where there is variance and just how wide is that variance?

That would be interesting to know.