Rational-Critical User Discussions: How Argument Strength and the Conditions Set by News Organizations Are Linked to (Reasoned) Disagreement

Abstract

Due to their potential influence on the individual and societal formation of opinions, the quality of online discussions has been a subject of widespread interest. From a deliberative perspective, rational argumentation and critical reflection are central criteria for good discourse. Drawing on research on the perception of arguments and the conditions of disagreement, we ask how argument strength is linked to the likelihood of receiving (reasoned) disagreement and whether the discussion norms and technical features set by the news organizations moderate this effect. Based on a manual content analysis of 14.690 user comments on nine German news websites, we find that comments with a higher argument strength are more likely to receive disagreement in general and reasoned disagreement in particular. Further, the levels of (reasoned) disagreement are higher on platforms with strong discussion norms and supporting technical features. The results show that the quality of a discussion can be related to both users' argumentation and the decisions of the news organizations.

Salient deliberative norm types in comment sections on news sites

“…This is especially relevant on news sites, where the discussions are held in the direct environment of journalistic reporting. Civil and constructive debates can thus have beneficial effects for both the information process and the active engagement, because they can increase mutual respect and prevent the public debate from becoming fragmented (Graham, 2009;Marzinkowski and Engelmann, 2021). Future studies should extend this analysis to other deliberative norms (e.g.…”

“…The quality of the participation varies, but a substantive part of the users engages in civil, constructive and argumentative discussion (Coe et al, 2014; Freelon, 2015). Furthermore, the provision of good arguments can evoke disagreement and reduce the potential of fragmentation (Marzinkowski and Engelmann, 2021). These results have implications for journalism’s role in the public debate.…”

How Right-Wing Populist Comments Affect Online Deliberation on News Media Facebook Pages

“…Argumentation (𝛼 = .75, n = 234) was coded if the comment provided reasons for its claims (Friess et al, 2020). Sourcing (𝛼 = .90) was coded if the comment referred to hyperlinks or external sources of knowledge (Marzinkowski & Engelmann, 2022). Incivility (𝛼 = .71) was coded if a comment dehumanized others, used stereotypes, sexism, or racism, supported violence (Friess et al, 2020), or silenced others (Oz et al, 2018).…”

“…To answer the question regarding the effect of countering right-wing populism, we coded if the reply comment agreed, disagreed, or was neutral towards the parent comment (positioning 𝛼 = .74, n = 138; Marzinkowski & Engelmann, 2022). We then constructed a binary variable for countering populism, indicating for each reply whether any of the preceding replies disagreed with a people-centric or anti-elitist parent comment without using these discourses themselves.…”

Kommunikationsformen und Deliberationsdynamik

“…Besonders vielverspre chend scheint der Bereich der Deliberationsforschung, der nicht zwingend Konsens als Ergebnis von Deliberation erwartet, sondern Meinungen, die so strukturiert sind, dass sie Entscheidungsprozesse erleichtern (List et al, 2013;Niemeyer, 2004). Bisher wurde betont, dass Deliberationsprozesse nicht im luftleeren Raum stattfinden, sondern in Kontexte aus Institutionen, Kultur, Design und Thema eingebettet sind (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019;Esau et al, 2017;Esau et al, 2021;Marzinkowski & Engelmann, 2022;Mitozo & Mar ques, 2019) Jensen, 2003;Marzinkowski & Engelmann, 2022;Stromer-Galley, 2007). Ein zentrales Anliegen zukünftiger Deliberationsforschung sollte sein, einen stärkeren Fokus auf die Qualität geäußerter Argumente zu legen.…”