In an effort to encourage community dialogue while also building reader loyalty, online newspapers have offered a way for readers to become engaged in the news process, most popularly with online reader comment boards. It is here that readers post their opinion following an online news story, and however much community interaction taking place therein, one thing appears evident: sometimes the comments are civil; sometimes they are not. Indeed, one of the chief defining characteristics of these boards has become the rampant incivility*a dilemma many newspapers have struggled with as they seek to strengthen the value of the online dialogue. Many journalists and industry observers have pointed to a seemingly straightforward reason for the offensive comments: anonymity. Despite the claim, however, there is a striking dearth of empirical evidence in the academic literature of the effect that anonymity has on commenters' behavior. This research offers an examination of user comments of newspapers that allow anonymity (N 0450) and the user comments of newspapers that do not (N 0450) and compares the level of civility in both. In each group, comments follow news stories on immigration, a topic prevalent in the news in recent years and which is especially controversial and prone to debate. Results of this quantitative content analysis, useful for journalism practitioners and scholars, provide empirical evidence of the effect that anonymity has on the civility of user comments.

Reporters at the country's largest U. S. daily newspapers generally take a dim view of the online reader comments. Many are troubled by their content and express dismay over their newspaper's providing a forum for anonymous discussion where emotions can run high.

No abstract

An analysis of reader comments on the sites of three online newspapers in border states finds a much higher percentage of uncivil comments following stories about immigration than those following stories about the Tea Party.

The coronavirus pandemic dominated headlines at the same time that mainstream news organizations began adding more podcasts to their digital storytelling platforms. This popular form of audio journalism appears to be unrestricted by traditional journalism practices and constraints of deadlines and space. Few academic studies thus far have examined the characteristics of news podcasts (i.e., shows created by professional news organizations) and where they fit within the journalism landscape. Through a content analysis of 40 news podcast episodes related to the coronavirus pandemic, this study explores the extent to which narrative storytelling devices (voice, character development, scene setting, dialogue, dramatic tension), and other elements, such as opinion, were incorporated into the sample. Results show all but one episode utilized narrative storytelling elements, but the degree of editing and production varied widely. Results also demonstrate an overall shift away from journalistic norms of objectivity and toward interpretive reporting in this emerging format. Reporters and hosts often appear as both characters and experts in the episodes, and narrative elements serve to emphasize storytelling over content.