Abstract:This article analyses the nature of debate on "below the line" comment fields at the UK's Guardian, and how, if at all, such debates are impacting journalism practice. The article combines a content analysis of 3792 comments across 85 articles that focused on the UN Climate Change Summit, with 10 interviews with journalists, 2 with affiliated commentators, plus the community manager. The results suggest a more positive picture than has been found by many existing studies: debates were often deliberative in nat… Show more
“…Consistent with framing theory, considerations of the politician personally instigating deception, relative to the journalist necessitating equivocation, were cued by comment sections. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first experiment to test framing effects from online comment sections, and our results are consistent with conjectures in prior research about the ability of comments to frame news beyond the issues explicitly raised in web news items (e.g., Clark et al, 2017;Douai & Nofal, 2012;Graham & Wright, 2015).…”
Section: Theoretical Implicationssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Journalists look to online affordances and modes of interactivity, such as comment sections, to bolster viewers’ attitudes toward the journalists’ work (Jahng & Littau, ). Commenters routinely weigh in on journalism practice and provide considerations of news reporting beyond a reporter’s or news subject’s intended emphasis (Graham & Wright, ). Accordingly, we predict: H3: People will have more favorable attitudes toward the politician than the journalist when comments implicate the media situation for triggering evasiveness.…”
Section: Theoretical Rationalementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Comment sections allow people to make attributions (Von Sikorski & Hänelt, 2016). Viewers can construct their own interpretations below web news videos (Clark et al, 2017), and comments frequently challenge the journalist's perspective (Graham & Wright, 2015).…”
People are often exposed to polarized viewpoints in web comment sections. Inspired by attribution theory and framing theory, this article tests the effects of comments that frame a politician or a journalist as triggering evasiveness in a media interview. We compare attributions ascribing deceptiveness to the politician versus external attributions implicating the media situation. In the first experiment, comment sections affect perceptions of evasiveness, credibility of the politician relative to the journalist, and people’s attitudes toward the politician and journalist. A second study replicates, and voters type comments which largely reflect the comments to which they were exposed. Also, perceptions of external control by the journalist affect perceptions of the politician. The article extends attribution theory and framing theory via commonly encountered online exposure which affects people’s perceptions of politicians as deceptive relative to their journalistic arbiters.
“…Consistent with framing theory, considerations of the politician personally instigating deception, relative to the journalist necessitating equivocation, were cued by comment sections. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first experiment to test framing effects from online comment sections, and our results are consistent with conjectures in prior research about the ability of comments to frame news beyond the issues explicitly raised in web news items (e.g., Clark et al, 2017;Douai & Nofal, 2012;Graham & Wright, 2015).…”
Section: Theoretical Implicationssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Journalists look to online affordances and modes of interactivity, such as comment sections, to bolster viewers’ attitudes toward the journalists’ work (Jahng & Littau, ). Commenters routinely weigh in on journalism practice and provide considerations of news reporting beyond a reporter’s or news subject’s intended emphasis (Graham & Wright, ). Accordingly, we predict: H3: People will have more favorable attitudes toward the politician than the journalist when comments implicate the media situation for triggering evasiveness.…”
Section: Theoretical Rationalementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Comment sections allow people to make attributions (Von Sikorski & Hänelt, 2016). Viewers can construct their own interpretations below web news videos (Clark et al, 2017), and comments frequently challenge the journalist's perspective (Graham & Wright, 2015).…”
People are often exposed to polarized viewpoints in web comment sections. Inspired by attribution theory and framing theory, this article tests the effects of comments that frame a politician or a journalist as triggering evasiveness in a media interview. We compare attributions ascribing deceptiveness to the politician versus external attributions implicating the media situation. In the first experiment, comment sections affect perceptions of evasiveness, credibility of the politician relative to the journalist, and people’s attitudes toward the politician and journalist. A second study replicates, and voters type comments which largely reflect the comments to which they were exposed. Also, perceptions of external control by the journalist affect perceptions of the politician. The article extends attribution theory and framing theory via commonly encountered online exposure which affects people’s perceptions of politicians as deceptive relative to their journalistic arbiters.
“…Similarly, a study of two British local newspaper websites by Canter (2013) found that journalists were conflicted in their opinions about the value of online comments, in particular with regard to the perceived risk of brand damage. Conversely, Graham and Wright (2015) found that journalists at the British newspaper The Guardian valued online comment fields quite positively. The result from this latter study might seem a bit odd, given that the bulk of research seems to indicate a certain degree of skepticism towards commenting among media professionals.…”
Section: Ambivalence Towards Comment Fieldsmentioning
This article investigates user experiences with editorial control in online newspaper comment fields following the public backlash against online comments after the 2011 terror attacks in Norway. We analyze data from a survey of online news consumers focusing on experiences and attitudes towards editorial control set against a spectrum between "interventionist" and "noninterventionist" positions. Results indicate that interventionist respondents rate the quality of online comments as poor, whereas noninterventionist respondents have most often experienced being the target of editorial control measures and feel that editorial control has intensified after the terror attacks. We conclude that newspapers should pay attention to the different needs of participants when devising strategies for editorial control. Media professionals should also consider changes to increase the transparency of moderation practices.
“…Comment sections then served the role of keeping reporters honest-they knew that factually inaccurate, lazy reporting would be met with quick rebuttals from the online community [29]. Graham and Wright also examine the Guardian and note that journalists spoke positively about the role of online forums in aiding their reporting [30].…”
Abstract:The Internet and social media afford individuals the opportunity to post their thoughts instantaneously and largely without filters. While this has tremendous democratic potential, it also raises questions about the quality of the discourse these technological changes portend. Online comment sections may be a particularly unique form of communication within social media to investigate because of their ubiquitous and often anonymous nature. A longitudinal examination of Pew Center data over the course of 4 years suggests that there are demographic differences between people who post and those who do not post to online comment sections. Specifically, in 2008 and 2010 regression analysis demonstrates there is an increased likelihood of posting among men, the unmarried, and the unemployed. However, the 2012 data tells a different story and suggests the possibility that the nature of comment sections might be changing. The findings have important implications for understanding the character of online discourse as well as the vitriol undergirding the political attitudes of disaffected citizens.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
