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.
AalbergT.StrömbäckJ.de VreeseC. 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
2.
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(3), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12009
3.
Asbury-KimmelV.ChangK-C.McCabeK. T.MungerK.VenturaT. (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
4.
BenoitW. L. (2013). Political election debates: Informing voters about policy and character. Lexington Books.
5.
BerryJ. M.SobierajS. (2016). The outrage industry: Political opinion media and the new incivility. Oxford University Press.
6.
BickfordS. (2011). Emotion talk and political judgment. The Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1025–1037. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1017/S0022381611000740
7.
BormannM.TranowU.VoweG.ZiegeleM. (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
8.
BucyE. P.FoleyJ. M.LukitoJ.DoroshenkoL.ShahD. V.PevehouseJ. C.WellsC. (2020). Performing populism: Trump’s transgressive debate style and the dynamics of Twitter response. New Media & Society, 22(4), 634–658.
9.
CamajL. (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.
CamajL.NorthupT. (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.
CappellaJ. N.JamiesonK. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. Oxford University Press.
12.
ChadwickA.O’LoughlinB.VaccariC. (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.
ChenG. M. (2017). Online incivility and public debate: Nasty talk. Palgrave Macmillan.
14.
ChoJ.ChoyS. 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.
CoeK.KenskiK.RainsS. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679.
16.
DahlgrenP., (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22, 147–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160
17.
DahlbergL. (2011). Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four “positions.”New Media & Society, 13(6), 855–872. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810389569
EsserF.StrömbäckJ. (2012). Comparing news on national elections. In EsserF.HanitzschT. (Eds.), Handbook of comparative communication research (pp. 308–326). Routledge.
20.
FishkinJ. S. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford University Press.
21.
FleissJ. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). John Wiley.
22.
FraserN. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In CalhounC. (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). MIT Press.
23.
FreelonD.KarpfD. (2015). Of big birds and bayonets: Hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 presidential debates. Information, Communication & Society, 18(4), 390–406.
24.
FriessD.EildersC. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95
25.
GonçalvesJ.PereiraS.TorresdaSilvaM. (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.
GoyalN.DuJ.OttM.AnantharamanG.ConneauA. (2021). Larger-scale transformers for multi lingual masked language modeling. CoRR, abs/2105.00572. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.00572
27.
GrossK.PorterE.WoodT. J. (2019). Identifying media effects through low-cost, multiwave field experiments. Political Communication, 36(2), 272–287.
28.
HeckR. H.ThomasS. L.TabataL. N. (2013). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with IBM SPSS: Quantitative methodology series (2nd ed.). Routledge.
29.
IyengarS.NorpothH.HahnK. 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.
JaidkaK.ZhouA.LelkesY. (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.
JenningsF. J.BramlettJ. C.McKinneyM. S.HardyM. 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.
JenningsF. J.WicksR. H.McKinneyM. S.KenskiK. (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.
KimJ. W.GuessA.NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (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.
KlingerU.SvenssonJ. (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.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
36.
LiuX.HeP.ChenW.GaoJ. (2019). Improving multi-task deep neural networks via knowledge distillation for natural language understanding. arXiv: 1904.09482. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09482
37.
MaiaR. C. M.DanilaC.BargasJ. K. R.OliveiraV. V.RossiniP. G. C.SampaioR. C. (2017). Authority and deliberative moments: Assessing equality and inequality in deeply divided groups. Journal of Public Deliberation, 13(2), Article 7.
38.
McGregorS. C.MourãoR. 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.
McKinneyM. S.HoustonJ. B.HawthorneJ. (2013). Social watching a 2012 republican presidential primary debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 58, 556–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213506211
40.
McKinneyM. S.WarnerB. R. (2013). Do presidential debates matter? Examining a decade of campaign debate effects. Argumentation & Advocacy, 49(4), 238–258.
PapacharissiZ. (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
ReimerJ.HäringM.LoosenW.MaalejW.MertenL. (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.
RobertsonC. T.DuttonW. H.AcklandR.PengT.-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.
RossiniP. (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.
RossiniP.Sturm-WikersonH.JohnsonT. 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.
RoweI. (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.
SimJ.WrightC. 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.
SteenbergenM. R.BächtigerA.SpörndliM.SteinerJ. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002
52.
TremayneM.MinooieM. (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.
TrusslerM.SorokaS. (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 AelstP.SheaferT.StanyerJ. (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‘tRietJ.VanStekelenburgA. (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.
VenturaT.MungerK.McCabeK.ChangK. 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.
ZiegeleM.QuiringO.EsauK.FriessD. (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.
ZoiznerA. (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.
