Frequent Contributors Within U.S. Newspaper Comment Forums

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.

[1]  Stephen Lacy,et al.  INTERNET COMPETITION AND US NEWSPAPER CITY GOVERNMENT COVERAGE , 2010 .

[2]  Descriptors Higher.  Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association , 1974 .

[3]  Tarik Sabry.  A New American Democracy , 2007 .

[4]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Conversation as Publishing: the Role of News Forums on the Web , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[5]  Michael McDevitt,et al.  Spiral of Moderation: Opinion Expression in Computer-Mediated Discussion , 2003 .

[6]  E. Noelle-Neumann.  The Spiral of Silence A Theory of Public Opinion , 1974 .

[7]  Blake M. McKimmie,et al.  On being loud and proud: non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms. , 2003, The British journal of social psychology.

[8]  K. Oren,et al.  The Party Line Online: An Oligarchy of Opinion on a Public Affairs Listserve , 2005 .

[9]  Jane B. Singer,et al.  Separate Spaces , 2009 .

[10]  J. Valacich,et al.  Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups , 1990 .

[11]  Carolyn E. Nielsen,et al.  Newspaper Journalists Support Online Comments , 2012 .

[12]  M. D. Carpini,et al.  Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature , 2004 .

[13]  K. A. Hill,et al.  Computer-Mediated Political Communication: The USENET and Political Communities , 1997 .

[14]  Paul Ferber,et al.  Community Networks and Public Participation: A Forum for Civic Engagement or a Platform for Ranting Irate Malcontents? , 2006 .

[15]  J. Singer,et al.  “Comment Is Free, but Facts Are Sacred”: User-generated Content and Ethical Constructs at the Guardian , 2009 .

[16]  William P. Eveland,et al.  Beyond Deliberation: New Directions for the Study of Informal Political Conversation from a Communication Perspective , 2011 .

[17]  Danyel Fisher,et al.  Picturing Usenet: Mapping Computer-Mediated Collective Action , 2005, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[18]  Ada Sonia Peter,et al.  The Elements of Journalism , 2013 .

[19]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  Work, Friendship, and Media Use for Information Exchange in a Networked Organization , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[20]  Jaana Hujanen,et al.  Interactive Uses of Journalism: Crossing Between Technological Potential and Young People’s News-Using Practices , 2004, New Media Soc..

[21]  Xiang Zhou,et al.  DELIBERATIVENESS OF ONLINE POLITICAL DISCUSSION , 2008 .

[22]  Rob Anderson,et al.  The american newspaper as the public conversational commons , 1996 .

[23]  Shirley S. Ho,et al.  Social-Psychological Influences on Opinion Expression in Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication , 2008, Commun. Res..

[24]  Sue Robinson,et al.  Traditionalists vs. Convergers , 2010 .

[25]  Tracy E Sulkin,et al.  Habermas in the Lab: A Study of Deliberation in an Experimental Setting , 2001 .

[26]  Galina V. Sinekopova,et al.  Building the public sphere : Bases and biases , 2006 .

[27]  S. Wheatley.  Deliberative Democracy and Minorities , 2003 .

[28]  Samuel Freeman,et al.  Deliberative Democracy: A Sympathetic Comment , 2000 .

[29]  S. Ho.  Spiral of Silence , 2016 .

[30]  Ralph S. Brown join.  A Free and Responsible Press, A General Report on Mass Communication: Newspapers, Radio, Motion Pictures, Magazines and Books , 1948 .

[31]  S. Iyengar.  Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. , 1991 .

[32]  Eric S. Fredin.  The Web of Politics: The Internet's Impact on the American Political System , 1999 .

[33]  Danyel Fisher,et al.  Visualizing the Signatures of Social Roles in Online Discussion Groups , 2007, J. Soc. Struct..

[34]  J. Habermas,et al.  The structural transformation of the public sphere : an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society , 1989 .

[35]  Diana C. Mutz.  Cross-cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice , 2002, American Political Science Review.

[36]  Itai Himelboim,et al.  Discussion catalysts in online political discussions: Content importers and conversation starters , 2009, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[37]  Itai Himelboim,et al.  Political Discourse : The Network Structure of Unrestricted Discussions , 2010 .

[38]  Pablo J. Boczkowski,et al.  Between tradition and change , 2009 .

[39]  Edward G. Sargis,et al.  Moral conviction: another contributor to attitude strength or something more? , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[40]  Roberto J. Mejias,et al.  The Effects of National Culture and Anonymity on Flaming and Criticalness in GSS-Supported Discussions , 2004 .

[41]  H. Jansen,et al.  Pundits, Ideologues, and the Ranters: The British Columbia Election Online , 2006 .

[42]  Serena Carpenter,et al.  A study of content diversity in online citizen journalism and online newspaper articles , 2010, New Media Soc..

[43]  J. Habermas,et al.  The structural transformation of the public sphere : an inquiryinto a category of bourgeois society , 1991 .

[44]  Hallvard Moe.  Dissemination and dialogue in the public sphere: a case for public service media online , 2008 .

[45]  Philip N. Howard,et al.  Castells and the Media , 2011 .

[46]  Jennifer Stromer-Galley.  Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme , 2007, Regular Issue.

[47]  Deborah S. Chung,et al.  Interactive Features of Online Newspapers: Identifying Patterns and Predicting Use of Engaged Readers , 2008, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[48]  Stephen K. White,et al.  Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy@@@The Cambridge Companion to Habermas , 1997 .

[49]  John R. Hibbing,et al.  Stealth Democracy: Americans' Beliefs About How Government Should Work , 2002 .

[50]  K. Karppinen.  Against naïve pluralism in media politics: on the implications of the radical-pluralist approach to the public sphere , 2007 .

[51]  Elihu Katz,et al.  News, Talk, Opinion, Participation: The Part Played by Conversation in Deliberative Democracy , 1999 .

[52]  Zizi Papacharissi,et al.  Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups , 2004, New Media Soc..

[53]  Tanjev Schultz,et al.  Mass media and the concept of interactivity: an exploratory study of online forums and reader email , 2000 .

[54]  Samer Faraj,et al.  Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice , 2005, MIS Q..

[55]  Jane B. Singer,et al.  Stepping Back from the Gate: Online Newspaper Editors and the Co-Production of Content in Campaign 2004 , 2006 .

[56]  Jennifer Stromer-Galley,et al.  New Voices in the Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis of Interpersonal and Online Political Talk , 2002 .

[57]  S. Schneider.  Creating a Democratic Public Sphere Through Political Discussion , 1996 .

[58]  H. Jansen,et al.  Political Blogs and Blogrolls in Canada , 2009 .

[59]  S. Rosenberg.  Reconstructing the Concept of Democratic Deliberation , 2004 .

[60]  Slavko Splichal.  In search of a strong European public sphere: some critical observations on conceptualizations of publicness and the (European) public sphere , 2006 .

[61]  Jurgita Matačinskaitė,et al.  The Internet as a “Public Sphere” , 2011 .

[62]  Dennis F. Thompson.  Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science , 2008 .