Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-8
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
Previous research suggests that distinct characteristics of news articles, such as their news factors, account for the different participation rates in comment sections as well as the degree of interactivity among the discussants. In this study, this assumption is tested in the Facebook environment and extended to the analysis of how news factors (i.e., event characteristics) and illustration factors (i.e., characteristics resulting from a specific journalistic editing) of news articles predict the inclusiveness of discussions, as well as the occurrence of civility, rationality, and deliberative interactivity in user comments. A content analysis of 619 news articles and 11,218 related user comments on nine nation-wide Facebook news pages reveals that the news factors controversy, latent conflict, contravention, obtrusiveness, and impact particularly account for specific discussion qualities. The results also show that the illustration factors emotional language/visualizations, slant, and conversational prompts affect the deliberative quality of the discussions.
AndersonA. A.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A.LadwigP. (2014). The “nasty effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 373-387. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009
2.
BächtigerA.NiemeyerS.NebloM.SteenbergenM. R.SteinerJ. (2010). Symposium: Toward more realistic Models of deliberative democracy. Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18, 32-63. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00342.x
3.
BadenC.SpringerN. (2014). Com(ple)menting the news on the financial crisis: The contribution of news users’ commentary to the diversity of viewpoints in the public debate. European Journal of Communication, 29, 529-548. doi:10.1177/0267323114538724
4.
BarberB. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
BeauvaisE.BächtigerA. (2016). Taking the goals of deliberation seriously: A differentiated view on equality and equity in deliberative designs and processes. Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(2), 1-18.
6.
BerkowitzD. (Ed.). (1997). Social meanings of news: A text-reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
7.
BlomR.CarpenterS.BoweB. J.LangeR. (2014). Frequent contributors within U.S. newspaper comment forums: An examination of their civility and information value. American Behavioral Scientist, 58, 1314-1328. doi:10.1177/0002764214527094
8.
ChengJ.BernsteinM.Danescu-Niculescu-MizilC.LeskovecJ. (2017). Anyone can become a troll: Causes of trolling behavior in online discussions. In CSCW ‘17 Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pp. 1217-1230. doi:10.1145/2998181.2998213
9.
CoeK.KenskiK.RainsS. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64, 658-679. doi:10.1111/jcom.12104
10.
DahlbergL. (2001). The internet and democratic discourse. Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4, 615-633. doi:10.1080/13691180110097030
11.
DiakopoulosN. A.NaamanM. (2011). Towards quality discourse in online news comments. In CSCW ‘11 Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work (pp. 133-142). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
12.
DuntemanG. H.HoM.-H. R. (2006). An introduction to generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
13.
EildersC. (2006). News factors and news decisions. Theoretical and methodological advances in Germany. Communications, 31, 5-24. doi:10.1515/COMMUN.2006.002
14.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
15.
FreelonD. G. (2015). Discourse architecture, ideology, and democratic norms in online political discussion. New Media & Society, 17, 772-791. doi:10.1177/1461444813513259
16.
FriessD.EildersC. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7, 319-339. doi:10.1002/poi3.95
17.
GaltungJ.RugeM. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research, 2, 64-91. doi:10.1177/002234336500200104
18.
Garton AshT. (2016). Free speech: Ten principles for a connected world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
Gonzalez-BailonS.KaltenbrunnerA.BanchsR. E. (2010). The structure of political discussion networks: A model for the analysis of online deliberation. Journal of Information Technology, 25, 230-243. doi:10.1057/jit.2010.2
20.
GrahamT.WitschgeT. (2003). In search of online deliberation: Towards a new method for examining the quality of online discussions. Communications, 28, 173-204. doi:10.1515/comm.2003.012
21.
GrahamT.WrightS. (2014). Discursive equality and everyday talk online: The impact of “superparticipants.”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 625-642. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12016
22.
GutmannA.ThompsonD. F. (2004). Why deliberative democracy?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
HabermasJ. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
HabermasJ. (1996). Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
HarberK. D.CohenD. J. (2005). The emotional broadcaster theory of social sharing. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 382-400. doi:10.1177/0261927X05281426
26.
HardinJ. W.HilbeJ. (2012). Generalized linear models and extensions (3rd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
27.
HoxJ. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
JohnsonB. T.EaglyA. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.290
29.
KalogeropoulosA.NegredoS.PiconeI.NielsenR. K. (2017). Who shares and comments on news? A cross-national comparative analysis of online and social media participation. Social Media & Society, 3(4), 1-12. doi:10.1177/2056305117735754
30.
KimJ.WyattR. O.KatzE. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16, 361-385. doi:10.1080/105846099198541
31.
KsiazekT. B. (2016). Commenting on the news. Journalism Studies, 19, 650-673. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1209977
32.
LasorsaD. L. (1991). Political outspokenness—Factors working against the spiral of silence. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 131-140. doi:10.1177/107769909106800114
33.
LeeE-J.JangY. J. (2010). What do others’ reactions to news on internet portal sites tell us? effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research, 37, 825-846. doi:10.1177/0093650210376189
34.
ManinB. (1987). On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political Theory, 15, 338-368. doi:10.1177/0090591787015003005
35.
ManosevitchE.WalkerD. M. (2009, April17-18). Reader comments to online opinion journalism: A space of public deliberation. Paper presented at the 10th International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX.
36.
Monnoyer–SmithL.WojcikS. (2012). Technology and the quality of public deliberation: a comparison between on and offline participation. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 5, 24-49. doi:10.1504/IJEG.2012.047443
37.
MutzD. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
NewmanN.FletcherR.KalogeropoulosA.LevyD. A. L.NielsenR. K. (2017). Reuters institute digital news report 2017. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk
39.
OegemaD.WangS.KleinnijenhuisJ. (2010, April26-27). Dynamics of online discussions about politics: A function of structural network properties, mass media attention or emotional utterances?Paper presented at the WSC 2010, Raleigh, NC.
40.
OlssonE.-K.NordL. W. (2014). Paving the way for crisis exploitation: The role of journalistic styles and standards. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, 16, 341-358. doi:10.1177/1464884913519032
41.
PapacharissiZ. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6, 259-283. doi:10.1177/1461444804041444
42.
PerseE. M. (1990). Involvement with local television news—Cognitive and emotional dimensions. Human Communication Research, 16, 556-581. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1990.tb00222.x
43.
Pew Research Center. (2017). News use across social media platforms 2017. Available from http://www.journalism.org
44.
ProchazkaF.WeberP.SchweigerW. (2018). Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies, 19, 62-78. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1161497
45.
QuiringO.SchweigerW. (2008). Interactivity—A review of the concept and a framework for analysis. Communications—The European Journal of Communication Research, 33, 147-167. doi:10.1515/COMMUN.2008.009
46.
RafaeliS.SudweeksF. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00201.x
47.
ReichZ. (2011). User comments: The transformation of participatory space. In SingerJ. B., et al. (Eds.), Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers (pp. 96-117). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
48.
RiméB. (2009). Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotion: Theory and empirical review. Emotion Review, 1, 60-85. doi:10.1177/1754073908097189
49.
RoweI. (2014). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 121-138. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365
50.
RoweI. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the deliberative quality of online news user comments across platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59, 539-555. doi:10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482
51.
RuizC.DomingoD.MicóJ. L.Díaz-NociJ.MesoK.MasipP. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22, 463-487. doi:10.1177/1940161211415849
52.
ShilsE. (1992). Civility and civil society. In BanfieldE. C. (Ed.), Civility and citizenship (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Professors World Peace Academy.
53.
ShoemakerP. J.CohenA. (2006). News around the world: Content, practitioners, and the public. New York, NY: Routledge.
54.
ShoemakerP. J.ReeseS. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
55.
SouthwellB. G.YzerM. (2009). When (and why) interpersonal talk matters for campaigns. Communication Theory, 19, 1-8. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01329.x
56.
SpringerN.EngelmannI.PfaffingerC. (2015). User comments: Motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 798-815. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.997268
57.
Stromer-GalleyJ. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3, 1-35.
58.
StroudN. J.ScaccoJ. M.MuddimanA.CurryA. L. (2015). Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 20, 188-203. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12104
TenenboimO.CohenA. (2015). What prompts users to click and comment: A longitudinal study of online news. Journalism, 16, 198-217. doi:10.1177/1464884913513996
61.
UrbanJ.SchweigerW. (2014). News quality from the recipients’ perspective. Journalism Studies, 15, 821-840. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2013.856670
62.
WaltherJ. B.JangJ-w. (2012). Communication processes in participatory websites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 2-15. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01592.x
63.
WeberP. (2014). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers’ reader comments. New Media & Society, 16, 941-957. doi:10.1177/1461444813495165
64.
WirthW. (2006). Involvement. In BryantJ.VordererP. (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 199-213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
65.
WojcieszakM. E.MutzD. C. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?Journal of Communication, 59, 40-56. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x
66.
WrightP. L. (1974). Analyzing Media Effects on Advertising Responses. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 38, 192–205. doi:10.1086/268151
67.
ZiegeleM. (2016). Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation. Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten [User comments as media stimulated interpersonal communication: Theory and qualitative analysis of the discussion value of online news]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
68.
ZiegeleM.SpringerN.JostP. B.WrightS. (2017). Online user comments across news and other content formats: Multidisciplinary perspectives, new directions. Studies in Communication and Media (SCM), 6, 315–332. doi:10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-315
69.
ZiegeleM.WeberM.QuiringO.BreinerT. (2018). The dynamics of online news discussions: Effects of news articles and reader comments on users’ involvement, willingness to participate, and the civility of their contributions. Information, Communication & Society, 21, 1419-1435. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2017.1324505
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
