Anecdotal evidence suggests a link between online message boards and the rise of far-right movements, which have achieved growing electoral success globally. Press accounts and scholarship have suggested these message boards help to radicalize like-minded users through exposure to shared media insulated from cross-cutting viewpoints (e.g., Hine et al. 2017 ; Palmer 2019). To better understand what role online message boards might play for supporters of right-wing populist movements, we focus on the Spanish political party Vox and its supporters’ use of the message board ForoCoches, a fan site for car enthusiasts, which became an important platform for the party. Using more than 120,000 messages collected from threads mentioning the party between 2013–2019, we examine the URLs shared to show how mainstream news media events shape the conversation online and how users not only were exposed but deeply engaged with cross-cutting news sources. We argue that the use of sites such as ForoCoches should be viewed in the context of a broader increasingly hybrid political and media landscape where activity online and offline cannot be understood separate from one another. Moreover, our findings suggest that the online political discussions that take place in Vox-related threads on ForoCoches resemble normatively positive deliberative spaces—albeit in this case in support of illiberal political positions. In other words, our findings complicate conventional notions about the benefits of political talk, especially online, as a democratically desirable end in and of itself.

No abstract

This study examines journalists’ gatekeeping and audiences’ participation in The New York Times’ (NYT) comment sections. The concepts of affective publics and news gap informed a qualitative content analysis guided by the questions: (1) What are the characteristics of the comments selected for the NYT Picks section? (2) What are the characteristics of the comments selected for the Reader Picks section? (3) What is the overlap between the two types of comment sections depicted in these curated lists? The analysis was conducted on a sample of best comments according to the NYT (563) and its readers (400). Findings reveal that readers and journalists value comment sections differently, only coinciding 17.2% of the time (the comment gap). Both value comment sections as safe spaces for passionate comments. However, while readers reward confrontational, direct, aligned comments, journalists prefer conciliatory, articulate, and diverse ones. Implications for gatekeeping theory and boundary work are discussed.