This study content analyzed 1,050 online news articles, coming from five Greek online-only newspapers. Results indicate that hard content and news about global and political issues elicit more comments and replies. Readers share to their personal profiles on social networks more online articles about culture and articles that include videos and make more comments and replies on articles that contain hyperlinks. An in-depth analysis of articles about politics and global issues shows that articles about politics that contain infographics attract more comments and replies. The importance of interactivity for online news is highlighted.
AikatD. D. (1998). News on the Web: Usage trends of an on-line newspaper. Convergence, 4, 94-110.
2.
AppiahO. (2006). Rich media, poor media: The impact of audio/video vs. text/picture testimonial ads on browsers’ evaluations of commercial Web sites and online products. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 28(1), 73-86.
BarnesR. (2015). Understanding the affective investment produced through commenting on Australian alternative journalism website New Matilda. New Media & Society, 17, 810-826.
5.
BaumM. A. (2004). Circling the wagons: Soft news and isolationism in American public opinion. International Studies Quarterly, 48, 313-338.
6.
BeckettC. (2010). The value of networked journalism. London, UK: POLIS.
7.
BerryJ. (1999). The world according to e-Biz metrics. Internetweek, 38.
8.
BikhchandaniS.HirshleiferD.WelchI. (1998). Learning from the behavior of others: Conformity, fads, and informational cascades. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(3), 151-170.
9.
BlattbergR. C.DeightonJ. (1991). Interactive marketing: Exploiting the age of addressability. Sloan Management Review, 33(1), 5-14.
10.
BoczkowskiP. J. (2009). Rethinking hard and soft news production: From common ground to divergent paths. Journal of Communication, 59, 98-116.
11.
BoczkowskiP. J.PeerL. (2011). The choice gap: The divergent online news preferences of journalists and consumers. Journal of Communication, 61, 857-876.
12.
BordewijkJ.Van KammB. (2003). Towards a new classification of tele-information services. Intermedia, 14(1), 16-21.
13.
BosM. J. W.KoolstraC. M. (2005, November). Developing a new objective instrument to measure different levels of interactivity. Proceedings of the First European Communication Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
14.
BucyE. P. (2004). Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept. The Information Society, 20, 373-383.
15.
CalderB. J.MalthouseE. C.SchaedelU. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321-331.
16.
CarpenterS. (2010). A study of content diversity in online citizen journalism and online newspaper articles. New Media & Society, 12, 1064-1084.
17.
CassidyW. P. (2007). Online news credibility: An examination of the perceptions of newspaper journalists. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 478-498.
18.
ChenY.-H. H.CorkindaleD. (2008). Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use online news services: An exploratory study. Internet Research, 18, 286-312.
19.
ChoJ.ShahD. V.McLeodJ. M.McLeodD. M.SchollR. M.GotliebM. R. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19, 66-88.
20.
ChungD. S. (2007). Profits and perils: Online news producers’ perceptions of interactivity and uses of interactive features. Convergence, 13, 43-61.
21.
ChungD. S. (2008). Interactive features of online newspapers: Identifying patterns and predicting use of engaged readers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 658-679.
22.
Davis MerseyR.MalthouseE. C.CalderB. J. (2010). Engagement with online media. Journal of Media Business Studies, 7(2), 39-56.
23.
DelanyP.GilbertJ. K. (1991, March). HyperCard stacks for Fielding’s Joseph Andrews: Issues of design and context. In DelanyP.LandowG. P. (Eds.), Hypermedia and literary studies (pp. 287-297). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
DeuzeM. (2003). The Web and its journalisms: Considering the consequences of different types of newsmedia online. New Media & Society, 5, 203-230.
25.
DiakopoulosN.NaamanM. (2011). Towards quality discourse in online news comments. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 133-142). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
26.
DomingoD. (2008). Interactivity in the daily routines of online newsrooms: Dealing with an uncomfortable myth. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 680-704.
27.
DomingoD.QuandtT.HeinonenA.PaulussenS.SingerJ. B.VujnovicM. (2008). Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond: An international comparative study of initiatives in online newspapers. Journalism Practice, 2, 326-342.
28.
DownesE. J.McMillanS. J. (2000). Defining interactivity: A qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media & Society, 2, 157-179.
29.
DurlakJ. T. (1987). A typology for interactive med. Annals of the International Communication Association, 10, 743-757.
30.
EmmerM.VoweG.WollingJ. (2011). Bürger online: die Entwicklung der politischen Online-Kommunikation in Deutschland. UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.
31.
FortinD. R.DholakiaR. R. (2005). Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. Journal of Business Research, 58, 387-396.
32.
GahranA. (1998). Credibility in online media: Seven voices from the news business. Contentious Magazine, 1(3), 1-3.
33.
GrassmuckV. R. (2012). The sharing turn: Why we are generally nice and have a good chance to cooperate our way out of the mess we have gotten ourselves into. In Media, Knowledge and Education: Cultures and Ethics of Sharing. Innsbruck University Press.
34.
GuskinE.MitchellA. (2011). The state of the news media. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center Project for Excellence in Journalism.
HaneefaM. (2015). Web 2.0 applications in online newspapers: A content analysis. Annals of Library and Information Studies (ALIS), 61, 307-319.
37.
HargittaiE.WalejkoG. (2008). The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society, 11, 239-256.
38.
HeeterC. (1989). Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication. In SalvaggioJ. L.BryantJ. (Eds.), Media use in the information age: Emerging patterns of adoption and consumer use (pp. 217-235). New York, NY: Routledge.
39.
HsuC. L.LinJ. C. C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & Management, 45, 65-74.
40.
HujanenJ.PietikainenS. (2004). Interactive uses of journalism: Crossing between technological potential and young people’s news-using practices. New Media & Society, 6, 383-401.
41.
JenkinsH. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.
42.
JensenJ. F. (1998). Interactivity—Tracking a new concept in media and communication studies. Nordicom Review, 19, 185-204.
43.
JohnN. A.SützlW. (2015). The rise of “sharing” in communication and media studies. Information, Communication & Society, 19, 437-441.
44.
KalogeropoulosA.PanagiotouN.DimitrakopoulouD. (2016). Έρευνα Για Τις Ψηφιακές Ειδήσεις 2016 [Digital News Report-Greece 2016]. In The 5th annual Digital News Report of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism of the University of Oxford. Oxford, UK: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism of the University of Oxford.
45.
KaplanA. M.HaenleinM. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
46.
KatrougalosG., (2012) The Crisis and its Solution [in Greek]. Athens, Greece: Livani.
47.
KiernanV.LevyM. R. (1999). Competition among broadcast-related web sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 271-279.
48.
KiousisS. (2002). Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media & Society, 4, 355-383.
49.
KoH.ChoC. H.RobertsM. S. (2005). Internet uses and gratifications: A structural equation model of interactive advertising. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 57-70.
50.
KsiazekT. B.PeerL.LessardK. (2016). User engagement with online news: Conceptualizing interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news videos and user comments. New Media & Society, 18, 502-520.
51.
LapavitsasC. (2010). The Greek crisis–Politics, economics, ethics: A debate held at the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, Birkbeck College, University of London, 5May2010. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 28(2), 293-310.
52.
LarssonA. O. (2012). Interactivity on Swedish newspaper websites: What kind, how much and why?Convergence, 18, 195-213.
53.
LeeC. S.MaL. (2012). News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human behavior, 28(2), 331-339.
54.
LeeE. J.KimY. W. (2016). Effects of infographics on news elaboration, acquisition, and evaluation: Prior knowledge and issue involvement as moderators. New Media & Society, 18, 1579-1598.
55.
LeeJ. S. (2000, August). Interactivity: A new approach. Paper submitted to the Communication Technology & Policy Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication annual meeting, Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved from http://list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa
56.
Lehman-WilzigS. N.SeletzkyM. (2010). Hard news, soft news, ‘general’news: The necessity and utility of an intermediate classification. Journalism, 11(1), 37-56.
57.
LiuQ.ZhouM.ZhaoX. (2015). Understanding News 2.0: A framework for explaining the number of comments from readers on online news. Information & Management, 52, 764-776.
58.
LópezM. T.NogueiraA. G. (2017). Infographics as a Mnemonic structure: Analysis of the informative and identity components of infographic online compositions in Iberic newspaper. Comunicación Y Sociedad, 30, 147-164.
59.
MasseyB. L.LevyM. R. (1999). Interactivity, online journalism, and English-language Web newspapers in Asia. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(1), 138-151.
60.
McMillanS. J. (2000). Interactivity is in the eye of the beholder: Function, perception, involvement, and attitude toward the web site. In Proceedings of the Conference-American Academy of Advertising (pp. 71-78). Pullman, WA: American Academy of Advertising.
61.
McMillanS. J. (2002). Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: Users, documents, and systems. Handbook of New Media, 2, 205-229.
62.
McMillanS. J.HwangJ.-S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29-42.
63.
McMillanS. J.HwangJ. S.LeeG. (2003). Effects of structural and perceptual factors on attitudes toward the website. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(4), 400-409.
64.
McQuailD. (2010). Mass communication theory (6th ed.). London, England: SAGE.
65.
MitchelsteinE.BoczkowskiP. J. (2009). Between tradition and change: A review of recent research on online news production. Journalism, 10, 562-586.
66.
MitchelsteinE.BoczkowskiP. J. (2010). Online news consumption research: An assessment of past work and an agenda for the future. New Media & Society, 12, 1085-1102.
67.
NapoliP. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
NapoliP. M. (2016). The audience as product, consumer, and producer in the contemporary media marketplace. In Managing media firms and industries (pp. 261-275). Springer, Cham.
70.
NewhagenJ. E.CordesJ. W.LevyM. R. (1995). Nightly@ nbc.com: Audience scope and the perception of interactivity in viewer mail on the Internet. Journal of Communication, 45, 164-175.
OblakT. (2005). The lack of interactivity and hypertextuality in online media. International Communication Gazette, 67, 87-106.
73.
OhJ.BellurS.SundarS. S. (2010, June22). A conceptual model of user engagement with media. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Suntec City, Singapore. Retrieved from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p404830_index.html
OutingS. (1998). What exactly is interactivity?. Editor & Publisher, 131(52), 7-7.
76.
PattersonT. E. (2000). Doing well and doing good: How soft news and critical journalism are shrinking the news audience and weakening democracy—and what news outlets can do about it. Cambridge, MA: Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
77.
PattersonT. E. (2003). The search for a standard: Markets and media. Political Communication, 20, 139-143.
78.
PaulussenS. (2004). Online news production in Flanders: How Flemish online journalists perceive and explore the Internet’s potential. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(4).
79.
Pew Research Center. (2010, September12). Americans spending more time following the news. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/652.pdf
80.
PicardR. G. (2010). Value creation and the future of news organizations: Why and how journalism must change to remain relevant in the twenty-first century. Lisbon, Lisbon: Formalpress.
81.
PurcellK.RainieL.MitchellA.RosenstielT.OlmsteadK. (2010). Understanding the participatory news consumer. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
82.
QuiringO. (2009). What do users associate with ‘interactivity’? A qualitative study on user schemata. New Media & Society, 11(6), 899-920.
83.
RafaeliS. (1988). From new media to communication. Sage Annual Review of Communication Research: Advancing Communication Science, 16, 110-134.
Readership Institute. (2001). The power to grow readership: Research from the impact study of newspaper research. Evanston, IL: Readership Institute, Media Management Center, Northwestern University.
86.
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.
87.
ReinemannC.StanyerJ.ScherrS.LegnanteG. (2012). Hard and soft news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13, 221-239.
88.
RogersE. M. (1986). Communication technology: The new media in society. New York, NY: The Free Press.
89.
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.
90.
SantanaA. D. (2011). Online readers’ comments represent new opinion pipeline. Newspaper Research Journal, 32(3), 66-81.
91.
SchoenbachK. (2000). Factors of newspaper success Does quality count? A Study of German newspapers. In PicardR. G. (Ed.), Measuring media content, quality, and diversity: Approaches and issues in content research (pp. 85-96). Turku, Finland: Media Group, Business Research & Development Centre.
92.
SeverinW. J. (1967). Pictures as relevant cues in multi-channel communication. Journalism Quarterly, 44(1), 17-52.
93.
ShahD. V.ChoJ.EvelandW. P.Jr.KwakN. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32, 531-565.
94.
ShahD. V.ChoJ.NahS.GotliebM. R.HwangH.LeeN.-J.McLeodD. M. (2007). Campaign ads, online messaging, and participation: Extending the communication mediation model. Journal of Communication, 57, 676-703.
95.
SiaperaE.PapadopoulouL.ArchontakisF. (2015). Post-crisis journalism: Critique and renewal in Greek journalism. Journalism Studies, 16, 449-465.
96.
SongJ. H.ZinkhanG. M. (2008). Determinants of perceived web site interactivity. Journal of Marketing, 72, 99-113.
97.
SouthwellB. G.TorresA. (2006). Connecting interpersonal and mass communication: Science news exposure, perceived ability to understand science, and conversation. Communication Monographs, 73, 334-350.
98.
SpringerN.EngelmannI.PfaffingerC. (2015). User comments: Motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 798-815.
99.
SpyridouP. L.VeglisA. (2008). Exploring structural interactivity in online newspapers: A look at the Greek Web landscape. First Monday, 13(5). Retrieved from https://firstmonday.org/article/view/2164/1960
100.
SteensenS. (2010). Back to the feature: Online journalism as innovation, transformation and practice (Doctoral dissertation). University of Oslo, Norway.
StreetR. L.ManningT. (1997). Information environments for breast cancer education. In StreetR. L.GoldW. R.ManningT. (Eds.), Health promotion and interactive technology: Theoretical applications and future directions (pp. 121-139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
103.
Stromer-GalleyJ. (2000). On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50, 111-132.
104.
Stromer-GalleyJ. (2004). Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. The Information Society, 20, 391-394.
105.
StroudN. J.ScaccoJ. M.MuddimanA.CurryA. L. (2015). Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, 188-203.
106.
SundarS. (2000). The Internet—Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 480-499.
107.
TewksburyD. (2003). What do Americans really want to know? Tracking the behavior of news readers on the Internet. Journal of Communication, 53, 694-710.
108.
TremayneM.DunwoodyS. (2001). Interactivity, information processing, and learning on the World Wide Web. Science Communication, 23, 111-134.
109.
TuchmanG. (1972). Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen’s notions of objectivity. American Journal of Sociology, 77, 660-679.
110.
Van der WurffR.SchoenbachK. (2014). Civic and citizen demands of news media and journalists: What does the audience expect from good journalism?Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91, 433-451.
111.
VasalouA.JoinsonA. N.CourvoisierD. (2010). Cultural differences, experience with social networks and the nature of “true commitment” in Facebook. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68, 719-728.
112.
WaltherJ. B.JangJ.-W. (2012). Communication processes in participatory websites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(1), 2-15.
113.
WeberP. (2014). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers’ reader comments. New Media & Society, 16, 941-957.
114.
WillisJ. (2003). The human journalist: Reporters, perspectives, and emotions. Westport, CT: Praeger.
115.
WuG. (1999, March). Perceived interactivity and attitude toward websites. In RobertsM. S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 254-262). Gainesville: University of Florida.
116.
YangY.CoffeyA. J. (2014). Audience valuation in the new media era: Interactivity, online engagement, and electronic word-of-mouth value. International Journal on Media Management, 16, 77-103.
117.
YooC. Y. (2011). Modeling audience interactivity as the gratification-seeking process in online newspapers. Communication Theory, 21, 67-89.
118.
ZallerJ. (2003). A new standard of news quality: Burglar alarms for the monitorial citizen. Political Communication, 20, 109-130.
119.
ZiegeleM.BreinerT.QuiringO. (2014). What creates interactivity in online news discussions? An exploratory analysis of discussion factors in user comments on news Items. Journal of Communication, 64, 1111-1138.
120.
ZwingerS.ZeillerM. (2016, November). Interactive infographics in German online newspapers. In Forum Media Technology. St. Pölten University of Applied Sciences, Institute of CreativenMedia/Technologies.
