The Democratic Value of Strategic Game Reporting and Uncivil Talk: A Computational Analysis of Facebook Conversations During U.S. Primary Debates

Abstract

Arabic

Spanish

French

Chinese

This study explores discourse features on Facebook pages of news organizations during the 2020 U.S. primary debates using a state-of-the-art machine-learning model. Informing the scholarly debate about the implications of strategic game reporting in online spaces, we find that it is not necessarily linked to uncivil discourse, yet it might deter from relevant conversations. Second, addressing fears about the undesired outcomes of uncivil talk, our data suggest that incivility can coexist with rational discourse in user comments, although this relationship is not pervasive. Implications of these results are discussed in the context of the role of hybrid media for political engagement during electoral campaigns.

Keywords

political debates incivility online discourse strategic reporting horserace computational methods

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aalberg

Strömbäck

de Vreese

C. H.

(2012). The framing of politics as strategy and game: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 162–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911427799

Anderson

A. A.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

Ladwig

(2014). The “nasty effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12009

Asbury-Kimmel

Chang

K-C.

McCabe

K. T.

Munger

Ventura

(2021). The effect of streaming chat on perceptions of political debates. Journal of Communication, 71(6), 947–974. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab041

Benoit

W. L.

(2013). Political election debates: Informing voters about policy and character. Lexington Books.

Berry

J. M.

Sobieraj

(2016). The outrage industry: Political opinion media and the new incivility. Oxford University Press.

Bickford

(2011). Emotion talk and political judgment. The Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1025–1037. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1017/S0022381611000740

Bormann

Tranow

Vowe

Ziegele

(2022). Incivility as a violation of communication norms: A typology based on normative expectations toward political communication. Communication Theory, 32(3), 332–362. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtab018

Bucy

E. P.

Foley

J. M.

Lukito

Doroshenko

Shah

D. V.

Pevehouse

J. C.

Wells

(2020). Performing populism: Trump’s transgressive debate style and the dynamics of Twitter response. New Media & Society, 22(4), 634–658.

Camaj

(2021). Real time political deliberation on social media: Can televised debates lead to rational and civil discussions on broadcasters’ Facebook pages? Information, Communication & Society, 24(13), 1907–1924. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1749695

10.

Camaj

Northup

(2019). Dual-screening the candidate image during Presidential debates: The moderating role of Twitter and need to evaluate for the effects on candidate perceptions. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2019.1574117

11.

Cappella

J. N.

Jamieson

K. H.

(1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. Oxford University Press.

12.

Chadwick

O’Loughlin

Vaccari

(2017). Why people dual screen political debates and why it matters for democratic engagement. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(2), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2017.1309415

13.

Chen

G. M.

(2017). Online incivility and public debate: Nasty talk. Palgrave Macmillan.

14.

Cho

Choy

S. P.

(2011). From podium to living room: Elite debates as an emotional catalyst for citizen communicative engagements. Communication Research, 38(6), 778–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210378518

15.

Coe

Kenski

Rains

S. A.

(2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679.

16.

Dahlgren

, (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22, 147–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160

17.

Dahlberg

(2011). Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four “positions.” New Media & Society, 13(6), 855–872. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810389569

18.

Edyvane

(2020). Incivility as dissent. Political Studies, 68(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0032321719831983

19.

Esser

Strömbäck

(2012). Comparing news on national elections. In Esser

Hanitzsch

(Eds.), Handbook of comparative communication research (pp. 308–326). Routledge.

20.

Fishkin

J. S.

(2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford University Press.

21.

Fleiss

J. L.

(1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). John Wiley.

22.

Fraser

(1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In Calhoun

(Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). MIT Press.

23.

Freelon

Karpf

(2015). Of big birds and bayonets: Hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 presidential debates. Information, Communication & Society, 18(4), 390–406.

24.

Friess

Eilders

(2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95

25.

Gonçalves

Pereira

Torres

Silva

(2022). How to report on elections? The effects of game, issue and negative coverage on reader engagement and incivility. Journalism, 23(6), 1266–1284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920958367

26.

Goyal

Ott

Anantharaman

Conneau

(2021). Larger-scale transformers for multi lingual masked language modeling. CoRR, abs/2105.00572. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.00572

27.

Gross

Porter

Wood

T. J.

(2019). Identifying media effects through low-cost, multiwave field experiments. Political Communication, 36(2), 272–287.

28.

Heck

R. H.

Thomas

S. L.

Tabata

L. N.

(2013). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with IBM SPSS: Quantitative methodology series (2nd ed.). Routledge.

29.

Iyengar

Norpoth

Hahn

K. S.

(2004). Consumer demand for election news: The horserace sells. The Journal of Politics, 66(1), 157–175. https://doi.10.1046/j.1468-2508.2004.00146.x

30.

Jaidka

Zhou

Lelkes

(2019). Brevity is the soul of Twitter: The constraint affordance and political discussion. Journal of Communication, 69(4), 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz023

31.

Jennings

F. J.

Bramlett

J. C.

McKinney

M. S.

Hardy

M. M.

(2020). Tweeting along partisan lines: Identity-motivated elaboration and presidential debates. Social Media and Society, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120965518

32.

Jennings

F. J.

Wicks

R. H.

McKinney

M. S.

Kenski

(2022). Closing the knowledge gap: How issue priming before presidential debate viewing encourages learning and opinion articulation. American Behavioral Scientist, 66(3), 292–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642211000398

33.

Kim

J. W.

Guess

Nyhan

Reifler

(2021). The distorting prism of social media: How self-selection and exposure to incivility fuel online comment toxicity. Journal of Communication, 71(6), 922–946. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab034

34.

Klinger

Svensson

(2015). The emergence of network media logic in politi calcommunication: A theoretical approach. New Media& Society, 17(8), 1241–1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814522

35.

Landis

J. R.

Koch

G. G.

(1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

36.

Liu

Chen

Gao

(2019). Improving multi-task deep neural networks via knowledge distillation for natural language understanding. arXiv: 1904.09482. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09482

37.

Maia

R. C. M.

Danila

Bargas

J. K. R.

Oliveira

V. V.

Rossini

P. G. C.

Sampaio

R. C.

(2017). Authority and deliberative moments: Assessing equality and inequality in deeply divided groups. Journal of Public Deliberation, 13(2), Article 7.

38.

McGregor

S. C.

Mourão

R. R.

(2017). Second screening Donald Trump: Conditional indirect effects on political participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(2), 264–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2017.1309418

39.

McKinney

M. S.

Houston

J. B.

Hawthorne

(2013). Social watching a 2012 republican presidential primary debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 58, 556–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213506211

40.

McKinney

M. S.

Warner

B. R.

(2013). Do presidential debates matter? Examining a decade of campaign debate effects. Argumentation & Advocacy, 49(4), 238–258.

41.

Muddiman

(2017). Personal and public levels of political incivility. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3182–3202. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6137

42.

Mutz

D. C.

(2015). In-your-face politics: The consequences of uncivil media. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400865871

43.

Papacharissi

(2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444804041444

44.

Pew Research. (2021). Partisan divides in media trust widen, driven by a decline among Republicans. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/30/partisan-divides-in-media-trust-widen-driven-by-a-decline-among-republicans/

45.

Reimer

Häring

Loosen

Maalej

Merten

(2023). Content analyses of user comments in journalism: A systematic literature review spanning communication studies and computer science. Digital Journalism, 11, 1328–1352. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1882868

46.

Robertson

C. T.

Dutton

W. H.

Ackland

Peng

T.-Q.

(2019). The democratic role of social media in political debates: The use of Twitter in the first televised US presidential debate of 2016. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 16(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2019.1590283

47.

Rossini

(2022). Beyond incivility: Understanding patterns of uncivil and intolerant discourse in online political talk. Communication Research, 49(3), 399–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220921314

48.

Rossini

Sturm-Wikerson

Johnson

T. J.

(2021). A wall of incivility? Public discourse and immigration in the 2016 U.S. Primaries. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 18(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2020.1858218

49.

Rowe

(2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the deliberative quality of online news user comments across platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482

50.

Sim

Wright

C. C.

(2005). The Kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy, 85(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/85.3.257

51.

Steenbergen

M. R.

Bächtiger

Spörndli

Steiner

(2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002

52.

Tremayne

Minooie

(2015). Using social media to analyze candidate performance during televised political debates. Electronic News, 9(3), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243115593321

53.

Trussler

Soroka

(2014). Consumer demand for cynical and negative news frames. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(3), 360–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161214524832

54.

Van Aelst

Sheafer

Stanyer

. (2012). The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911427802

55.

Van‘tRiet

VanStekelenburg

(2021). The effects of political incivility on political trust and political participation: A meta-analysis of experimental research. Human Communication Research, 48(2). https://doi. org/10.1093/hcr/hqab022

56.

Ventura

Munger

McCabe

Chang

K. C.

(2021). Connective effervescence and streaming chat during political debates. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, 1, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2021.001

57.

Ziegele

Quiring

Esau

Friess

(2020). 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. Communication Research, 47(6), 860–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884

58.

Zoizner

(2021). The Consequences of strategic news coverage for democracy: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 48(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218808691

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.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB