Are Newspapers’ Online Discussion Boards Democratic Tools or Conspiracy Theories’ Engines? A Case Study on an Eastern European “Media War”

Abstract

This article analyzes quantitatively and qualitatively 1,583 comments by national newspapers’ online readers in Bulgaria. It investigates readers’ reactions to articles discussing the media war between the biggest press groups—one owned by a Member of Parliament known as “the Murdoch of the East.” The study explores how these stories influence the relationship between newspapers and their readers, and whether they enhance the democratic potential of online discussion. The results show a higher level of reader engagement than in established democracies or nondemocracies. The online space provides an arena for democratic conversations and it is also used as an engine for conspiracy theories.

Keywords

agenda setting deliberative democracy Eastern Europe journalism online comments

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beissinger

M. R.

(2012). Russian civil societies: Conventional and “virtual.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 8(2), 1-14.

Berelson

(1952). Content analysis in communication research. New York, NY: Free Press.

Cohen

(1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Dahlberg

(2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(1).

Dahlgren

(2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22, 147-162.

EurActiv. (2014, April 28). EU liberals distance themselves from Bulgarian MEP candidate. EurActiv.com. Retrieved from http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/eu-liberals-distance-themselves-bulgarian-mep-candidate-301782

European Union Center of Excellence. (n.d.). European Union participation in developing civil society: The cases of Hungary and Bulgaria. European Union Center of North Carolina. Retrieved from http://europe.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Brief2_EU_civil_society_web.pdf

Eveland

W. P.

Morey

A. C.

Hutchens

M. J.

(2011). Beyond deliberation: New directions for the study of informal political conversation from a communication perspective. Journal of Communication, 61, 1082-1103.

Fielding

(2001). Ethnography. In Gilbert

(Ed.), Researching social life (pp. 145-164). London, England: SAGE.

10.

Freedom House. (2014). Bulgaria: Freedom of the press 2013. Retrieved from http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2013/bulgaria#.U7J3yxbxU00

11.

Freelon

D. G.

(2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12, 1172-1190.

12.

Howard

M. M.

(2003). The weakness of civil society in post-communist Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Hume

(2011, January 20). Caught in the middle: Central and Eastern European journalism at a crossroads. Center for International Media Assistance. Retrieved from http://nieman.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/pod-assets/Image/microsites/post-comm/CIMA-Central_and_Eastern_Europe-Report_3.pdfs

14.

Jakubowics

(2012). Democracy and new media in Central and Eastern Europe. Central European Journal of Communication, 1. Retrieved from http://ptks.pl/cejc/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/CEJC_Vol5_No1_Jakubowicz.pdf

15.

Кариерата на Делян Пеевски – Депутат и Медиен Магнат [Delyan Peevski’s career—MP and media Tycoon]. (2011, April 8). 24 Chasa. Retrieved from http://www.24chasa.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=849290

16.

Langley

(2013, August 14). When tycoons own the media. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved from http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/euro_tycoon_media_ownership.php?page=all#sthash.MOMGXzC2.dpufowners

17.

Marsh

(2012, October 16). Digital age rewrites the role of journalism. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainability/sustainability-report-2012-people-nuj

18.

Papacharissi

(2002). The virtual sphere. New Media & Society, 4, 9-27.

19.

Papacharissi

(2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6, 259-283.

20.

Richardson

J. E.

(2008). Readers’ letters. In Franklin

(Ed.), Pulling newspapers apart: Analysing print journalism (pp. 56-66). London, England: Routledge.

21.

Richardson

J. E.

Stanyer

(2011). Reader opinion in the digital age: Tabloid and broadsheet newspaper websites and the exercise of political voice. Journalism, 12, 983-1003.

22.

Rogers

Dearing

(1988). Agenda setting research: Where has it been and where is it going? In Anderson

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 11 (pp. 555-594). New York, NY: Routledge.

23.

Ruiz

Domingo

Micó

J. L.

Díaz-Noci

Masip

Meso

(2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 463-487.

24.

Santana

A. D.

(2014). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18-33.

25.

Štětka

(2012, December 18). There and back again? Media freedom and autonomy in Central and Eastern Europe. openDemocracy. Retrieved from http://www.opendemocracy.net/václav-Štětka/there-and-back-again-media-freedom-and-autonomy-in-central-and-eastern-europe

26.

Tabakova

(2014). Media landscapes: Bulgaria. European Journalism Centre. Retrieved from http://ejc.net/media_landscapes/bulgaria

27.

Wahl-Jorgensen

(2002). Understanding the conditions for public discourse: Four rules for selecting letters to the editor. Journalism Studies, 3(1), 69-82.

28.

Zhou

Chan

Y.-Y.

Peng

Z.-M.

(2008). Deliberativeness of online political discussion. Journalism Studies, 9, 759-770.

29.

Ziegele

Quiring

(2013). Conceptualizing online discussion value: A multidimensional framework for analyzing user comments on mass-media websites. In Cohen

E. L.

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 37 (pp. 127-154). New York, NY: Routledge.