Social media and its embedded user commentary are playing increasingly influential roles in the news process. However, researchers’ understanding of the social media commenting environment remains limited, despite rising concerns over uncivil comments. Accordingly, this study used a supervised machine learning–based method of content analysis to examine the extent and patterns of incivility in the comment sections of 42 US news outlets’ Facebook pages over an 18-month period in 2015–2016. These outlets were selected as being broadly representative of national, local, conservative, and liberal-news media. The findings provide the first empirical evidence that both the level and the targets of incivility in the comments posted on news outlets’ Facebook pages vary greatly according to such entities’ general type and ideological stance.
AndersonAABrossardDScheufeleDAet al. (2014) The “nasty effect”: online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(3): 373–387.
2.
AnderssonLMPearsonCM (1999) Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review24(3): 452–471.
3.
AnsolabehereSIyengarS (1995) Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink & Polarize the Electorate. New York: Free Press.
4.
BaumMAGroelingT (2008) New media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication25(4): 345–365.
5.
BensonR (2006) News media as a “journalistic field”: what Bourdieu adds to new institutionalism, and vice versa. Political Communication23(2): 187–202.
6.
BrunsA (2005) Gatewatching: Collaborative Online News Production. New York: Peter Lang.
7.
CanterL (2013) The misconception of online comment threads: content and control on local newspaper websites. Journalism Practice7(5): 604–619.
8.
CeronACuriniLIacusSMet al. (2014) Every tweet counts? How sentiment analysis of social media can improve our knowledge of citizens’ political preferences with an application to Italy and France. New Media & Society16(2): 340–358.
9.
CoeKKenskiKRainsSA (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication64(4): 658–679.
10.
Dori-HacohenG (2013) “Rush, I love you”: interactional fandom on U.S. political talk radio. International Journal of Communication7: 2697–2719.
11.
EllisJ (2015) What Happened after 7 News Sites Got Rid of Reader Comments. Cambridge, MA: Nieman Journalism Lab.
12.
FiskeST (1980) Attention and weight in person perception: the impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology38(6): 889–906.
13.
GervaisBT (2014) Following the news? Reception of uncivil partisan media and the use of incivility in political expression. Political Communication31(4): 564–583.
14.
HaidtJGrahamJ (2007) When morality opposes justice: conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research20(1): 98–116.
HeiderDMcCombsMPoindexterPM (2005) What the public expects of local news: views on public and traditional journalism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly82(4): 952–967.
17.
HerbstS (2010) Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
18.
HimelboimILimorY (2011) Media institutions, news organizations, and the journalistic social role worldwide: a cross-national and cross-organizational study of codes of ethics. Mass Communication and Society14(1): 71–92.
19.
HopkinsDJKingG (2010) A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. American Journal of Political Science54(1): 229–247.
20.
HumprechtEBüchelF (2013) More of the same or marketplace of opinions? A cross-national comparison of diversity in online news reporting. The International Journal of Press/Politics18: 436–481.
21.
IyengarSHahnKS (2009) Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication59(1): 19–39.
22.
JacobsonSMyungEJohnsonSL (2016) Open media or echo chamber: the use of links in audience discussions on the Facebook pages of partisan news organizations. Information, Communication & Society19(7): 875–891.
23.
JamalAAKeohaneRORomneyDet al. (2015) Anti-Americanism and anti-interventionism in Arabic Twitter discourses. American Political Science Association13(1): 55–73.
24.
JamiesonKHHardyBRomerD (2007) The effectiveness of the press in serving the needs of American democracy. In: JamiesonKH (ed.) A Republic Divided: The Annenberg Democracy Project. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–51.
25.
LakoffG (1996) Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
26.
LevenduskyMS (2013) Why do partisan media polarize viewers?American Journal of Political Science57(3): 611–623.
27.
MassaroTMStrykerR (2012) Freedom of speech, liberal democracy, and emerging evidence on civility and effective democratic engagement. Arizona Law Review54(2): 375–411
28.
McLaughlinCVitakJ (2011) Norm evolution and violation on Facebook. New Media & Society14(2): 299–315.
29.
McColloughK.CrowellJ. K.NapoliP. M. (2017). Portrait of the online local news audience. Digital Journalism, 5(1), 100–118.
30.
MutzDCReevesB (2005) The new videomalaise: effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review99(1): 1–15.
31.
NgEWJDetenberBH (2005) The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication10(3).
32.
PapacharissiZ (2004) Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society6(2): 259–283.
33.
Pew Research Center (2011a) Twitter and the Campaign. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
34.
Pew Research Center (2011b) Cain’s Bad Stretch—A Campaign Coverage Update: How Elite Media and Press Overall Compare. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
35.
Pew Research Center (2012) 72% of Americans Follow Local News Closely. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
36.
Pew Research Center (2014a) Online Harrassment. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
37.
Pew Research Center (2014b) Political Polarization & Media Habits. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
38.
Pew Research Center (2014c) Newspapers: Top 25 U.S. Daily Newspapers with Digital Editions. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
39.
Pew Research Center (2014d) Newspapers: Top 25 U.S. Sunday Newspapers with Digital Editions. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
40.
Pew Research Center (2015a) The Evolving Role of News on Twitter and Facebook. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
41.
Pew Research Center (2015b) Methodology: As Greeks Head to the Polls, the Twitter Conversation Differs by Language. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
42.
ReichZ (2011) User comments: the transformaiton of participatory space. In: SingerJBDomingoDHeinonenAet al. (eds) Participatory Journalism. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 96–117.
43.
RoweI (2014) Civility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society18(2): 121–138.
44.
SantanaAD (2013) Virtuous or vitriolic: the effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice8(1): 18–33.
45.
SchwartzMLFooteJBMacafeeTet al. (2011) Perceptions of incivility on YouTube: a typology of content and context dimensions of uncivil behavior in California’s same-sex marriage debate. Paper presented at the Midwest Association for Public Opinion Research Chicago, IL, 18–19 November.
46.
SobierajSBerryJM (2011) From incivility to outrage: political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable News. Political Communication28(1): 19–41.
47.
Stromer-GalleyJ. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: a coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1). Article 12.
SuLY-FCacciatoreMALiangXet al. (2017a) Analyzing public sentiments online: combining human- and computer-based content analysis. Information, Communication & Society20(3): 406–427.
50.
SuLY-FScheufeleDABellLet al. (2017b) Information-sharing and community-building: exploring the use of Twitter in science public relations. Science Communication39(5): 569–597.
51.
TiltonS (2016) “Steve Jobs is dead”: iReport and the ethos of citizen journalism. In: DavissonABoothP (eds) Controversies in Digital Ethics. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 138–152.
52.
TomaCLHancockJTEllisonNB (2008) Separating fact from fiction: an examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin34(8): 1023–1036.
53.
WaltherJBParksMR (2002) Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: computer-mediated communication and relationships. In: KnappMLDalyJA (eds) Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 529–563.
WeaverDHBeamRABrownleeBJet al. (2007) The American Journalist in the 21st Century: U.S. News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium. New York: Routledge.
