Frequent Contributors Within U.S. Newspaper Comment Forums

Abstract

News organizations' online commenting tools have been touted as a boon for the deliberative process, yet only to the extent that they are used by a diverse group of participants who are civil and who provide information that enriches dialogue. The researchers in this study analyzed the degree to which posts in newspaper forums originated from frequent contributors and the civil and informational characteristics of those contributions. A content analysis of comments (N = 2,237) within forums adjacent to opinion articles on websites of 15 U.S. newspaper dailies was conducted to assess their civility (uncivil character attacks and uncivil language) and informational attributes. Frequent contributors-people who post often on a forum in a short period-were less likely to be civil and informational.

Linking News Value Theory With Online Deliberation: How News Factors and Illustration Factors in News Articles Affect the Deliberative Quality of User Discussions in SNS’ Comment Sections

“…Although some studies focus on the share of voice to investigate the potential domination by a few users (Stromer-Galley, 2007), others investigate the diversity of socioeconomic characteristics among participants, such as age, gender, or education (Monnoyer-Smith & Wojcik, 2012). Overall, these studies have found that the diversity in comment sections is low and comparatively few users write a high share of comments (Blom, Carpenter, Bowe, & Lange, 2014;Diakopoulos & Naaman, 2011). Beauvais and Bächtiger (2016), acknowledging that most discussions usually do not meet the high normative standards of inclusiveness, have proposed negotiating conflicting values against the background of different goals of deliberation.…”

From “thank god for helping this person” to “libtards really jumped the shark”: Opinion leaders and (in)civility in the wake of school shootings

“…This has implications for civility and democracy. While disinformation and polemics may stimulate a broader public conversation about social concerns such as gun violence, the relative incivility of these narratives which included insults such as “libtard” are unlikely to increase users’ tolerance to individuals’ championing opposing perspectives—which is an important precursor to consensus-building (Blom et al, 2014; Nisbet and Scheufele, 2004; Sunstein, 2017; Walsh, 2007). Conversely, fact-based narratives, particularly those discussing May’s mental health, could assist in consensus-building regarding health care in America.…”

“…In the case of school shootings, correct information could lead to conversation regarding what conditions created a crisis and what interventions might solve the problem. Mis-and-disinformation, in contrast, may simply fuel polemics and incivility on a forum (Blom et al, 2014). While narratives rooted in incorrect information may have utility insofar as they spark conversation about an important issue, they may undermine civility and constructive engagement (Borah, 2014).…”

“…Second, it puts the empirical focus on the relative accuracy of the information being disseminated by opinion leaders, and the effects of mis-and-disinformation on narrative construction and civility. Accuracy, particularly after a crisis, matters because the quality of information spread by opinion leaders could affect the opportunity among forum users to engage in an informed conversation about a social ill. Deliberative processes based on facts tend to be civil, while those based on misinformation tends to be uncivil (Blom et al, 2014; Mutz, 2006; Sunstein, 2017). Systematically assessing the quality of information circulated by opinion leaders sheds light on the role of mis-and-disinformation in narrative construction and (in)civility.…”

Angry and Alone: Demographic Characteristics of Those Who Post to Online Comment Sections

“…Frequent posters, according to Blom et al, are more likely to act in uncivil and less deliberative ways [19]. Additionally, this negativity can snowball, according to Rösner and Krämer, who posit that aggressive comments online only serve to change the understood ground rules of comment sections thus opening the door to a new, more vitriolic dialogue [20].…”