This study examined the relationship between two mechanisms of online participation – clicking and commenting – as well as the characteristics of heavily clicked versus highly commented-upon news items. Based on 15,431 items from a popular Israeli website, correlations between clicking and commenting were calculated for 12 separately analysed months from 2006 to 2011. In addition, overlap rates were determined, showing that 40–59% of the heavily clicked items in any given month were different from the highly commented-upon items. A subsequent content analysis indicated that while sensational topics and curiosity-arousing elements were more prominent among the heavily clicked items than among the highly commented-upon items, political/social topics and controversial elements were more prominent among the highly commented-upon items. The study contributes to deepening our understanding of the role of user comments in constructing social/group identity and offers a new perspective on a prolonged controversy surrounding audiences’ news preferences.
Abdul-MageedMM (2008) Online news sites and journalism 2.0: Reader comments on Al Jazeera Arabic. tripleC, 6(2): 59–76.
2.
AdamsWC (1978) Local public affairs content of TV news. Journalism Quarterly, 55(4): 690–695.
3.
AndersonCW (2011) Between creative and quantified audiences: Web metrics and changing patterns of newswork in local US newsrooms. Journalism, 12(5): 550–566.
4.
BarnesR (2013) The “ecology of participation”: A study of audience engagement on alternative journalism websites. In: International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR) Conference, Dublin, 25–29 June.
5.
BergstromA (2008) The reluctant audience: Online participation in the Swedish journalistic context. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 5(2): 60–80.
6.
BergstromA (2009) The scope of user-generated content: User contributions within the journalistic online context. In: Future of Journalism Conference, Cardiff, Wales, 9–10 September.
7.
BoczkowskiPJ (2010) The consumption of increasingly less diverse news content. In News at Work: Imitation in an Age of Information Abundance. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 141–170.
8.
BoczkowskiPJMitchelsteinE (2012) How users take advantage of different forms of interactivity on online news sites: Clicking, e-mailing and commenting. Human Communication Research, 38(1): 1–22.
9.
BoczkowskiPJMitchelsteinEWalterM (2011) Convergence across divergence: Understanding the gap in the online news choices of journalists and consumers in Western Europe and Latin America. Communication Research, 38(3): 376–396.
10.
ChristiansCGGlasserTLMcQuailD. (2009) Normative theories of the media: Journalism in democratic societies. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
11.
CurtainPADougallEMerseyRD (2007) Study compares Yahoo! news story preferences. Newspaper Research Journal28(4): 22–35.
12.
DahlgrenP (1988) Crime news: The fascination of the mundane. European Journal of Communication3(2): 189–206.
13.
DeuzeM (2003) The web and its journalisms: Considering the consequences of different types of newsmedia online. New Media & Society5(2): 203–230.
14.
DomingoDThorstenQHeinonenA. (2008) Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond: An international comparative study of initiatives in online newspapers. Journalism Practice2(3): 326–342.
15.
DorD (2003) On newspaper headlines as relevance optimizers. Journal of Pragmatics35(5): 695–721.
GalilyY (2008) The (re)shaping of the Israeli sport media: the case of talk-back. International Journal of Sport Communication1(3): 273–285.
18.
GansHJ (1979) Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time. New York: Vintage Books.
19.
GrabeMEZhouSBarnettB (2001) Explicating sensationalism in television news: Content and the bells and whistles of form. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media45(4): 635–655.
20.
HanitzschTGoodrumAQuandtT. (2013) Interest in Foreign News. In: CohenAA (ed). Foreign News on Television: Where in the World is the Global Village?New York: Peter Lang Publishing, pp. 171–190.
21.
HechtJ (2003) The fight for online content’s hegemony: The case of the TalkBack. Internet Association Magazine. Available at: http://www.isoc.org.il/magazine/magazine4_3.html [Hebrew] (accessed 19 September 2012).
22.
HermidaA (2011) Mechanisms of participation: How audience options shape the conversations. In SingerJBHermidaADomingoDetal. (eds) Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 13–32.
23.
HermidaAThurmanN (2008) A clash of cultures: The integration of user-generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at British newspaper web sites. Journalism Practice2(3): 343–356.
24.
KabalyonG (2009) “Ilan King of Israel”: Identification with the criminal on the internet. In ShoamSGTimorU (eds.). Penology Issues in Israel. Kiryat Bialik, Israel: Ach Publishers [Hebrew] pp. 381–400.
25.
KatzJ (1987) What makes crime “news”?Media, Culture and Society9(1): 47–75.
26.
KimJWHerEJ (2008) Inducting journalistic values from grass-root level discourse on journalism: An explorative analysis of user comment replies posted on online news articles. In: Conference of International Association for Media and Communication Research, Stockholm, Sweden, 20–25July.
27.
KohnANeigerM (2007) To talk and TalkBack: Analyzing the rhetoric of talkbacks in online journalism. In: Swartz-AltshulerT. (ed.). Online Newspapers in Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Democracy Institute [Hebrew] pp. 321–350.
28.
LitmanJA (2005) Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition and Emotion19(6): 793–814.
29.
MacGregorP (2007) Tracking the online audience. Journalism Studies8(2): 280–298.
30.
ManosevitchEWalkerD (2009) Reader comments to online opinion journalism: A space of public deliberation. In: 10th International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX, 17–18 April.
31.
MelamedO (2006) The Talkback in Israel: A reflecting and intensifying mirror or a pendulum which balances and corrects the journalistic discourse?MA thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.
32.
NagarN (2011) The loud public: The case of user comments in online news media. Doctoral dissertation, SUNY Albany, New York.
33.
ReichZ (2011) User comments: The transformation of participatory space. In: SingerJBHermidaADomingoDetal. (eds) Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 96–117.
ShoemakerPJCohenAA (2006) News Around the World: Content, Practitioners and the Public. New York: Routledge.
36.
SikronFBaron-EpelOLinnS (2008) The voice of lay experts: Content analysis of traffic accident “talk-backs”. Transportation Research Part F:Traffic Psychology and Behavior11(1): 24–36.
37.
SmoohaS (1993) Class, ethnic and national cleavages in Israel. In: RamU (ed) Israeli Society: Critical Perspectives. Tel Aviv: Breirot Publishers [Hebrew], pp. 172–202.
TewksburyD (2003) What do Americans really want to know? Tracking the behavior of news readers on the internet. Journal of Communication53(4): 694–710.
40.
ThurmanNHermidaA (2010) Gotcha: How newsroom norms are shaping participatory journalism online. In MonaghanGTunneyS (eds) Web Journalism: A New Form of Citizenship. Eastbourne, UK: Sussex Academic Press, pp. 46–62.
41.
Wahl-JorgensenK (2002) Understanding the conditions for public discourse: Four rules for selecting letters to the editor. Journalism Studies3(1): 69–81.
42.
WhiteTH (1978) In Search of History: A Personal Adventure. New York: Harper & Row.
43.
ZuckermanMLitleP (1985) Personality and curiosity about morbid and sexual events. Personality and Individual Differences7(1): 49–56.
