User Experiences with Editorial Control in Online Newspaper Comment Fields

Abstract

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.

Hostile emotions: An exploratory study of far-right online commenters and their emotional connection to traditional and alternative news media

“…A study of online commenters and their experiences of repercussions from participating in the debate, showed that the most common reason for reporting negative incidents was related to debating immigration. Many of the problematic experiences described by the online commenters revealed a feeling of being a marginalized group in a society dominated by a ‘politically correct’ and liberal elite (Løvlie et al, 2018b). Another study has also highlighted how those supporting stricter policies on immigration in Norway feel stigmatized as ‘evil’ by the ‘moral left-wing’ and that sharing such views has consequences for their social life (Thorbjørnsrud, 2017).…”

Hiding hate speech: political moderation on Facebook

“…Studies have also identified lack of transparency in how moderation is performed as a challenge. Løvlie et al’s (2018b) study highlighted how online commenters experience frustration over not knowing why or when they were being moderated and how they felt censored for no apparent reason. Boberg et al (2018: 66) reached a similar conclusion, arguing that ‘the fact that moderation decision-making processes are often not fully comprehensible might unintendedly fuel censorship-critique among readers, thus damaging the image of participatory journalistic media in the long run’.…”

‘Friends call me racist’: Experiences of repercussions from writing comments on newspaper websites

“…Studies have indicated that newspapers which facilitate online comments have spent much effort developing control mechanisms and moderation policies, balancing between questions of quality, economic interests and restrictions, technological possibilities, and legal and ethical considerations (Ihlebæk et al, 2013; Singer et al, 2011). A previous study carried out by the authors indicated that commenters differ in their experiences of editorial interventions depending on their attitude toward editorial control (Løvlie et al, 2018). The study identified that those users who supports a non-interventionist, laissez-faire model toward editorial control, more often reported having had their comments edited or deleted by moderators.…”

“…Arguably, the attacks created a situation in which issues that previously had been mainly discussed among scholars and media professionals now became common points of reference in the broader public debate, such as ‘cyberbalkanisation’ and ‘echo chambers’ as well as questions regarding editorial administration and responsibilities (cf. Ihlebæk et al, 2013; Løvlie et al, 2018; Singer et al, 2011). Furthermore, since the terrorist was inspired by extreme anti-Islamic ideology, the climate for discussing issues of immigration, multi-culturalism, and Islam was particular sensitive.…”