Comments in online news could be the contemporary enactment of the eighteenth-century cafés that founded public sphere. This article assesses to what extent do these forms of digital discussion fit in Habermas’ principles for democratic debate, using his discursive ethics as a demanding normative benchmark. The sample of more than 15,000 comments was selected from the online versions of five national newspapers of record from different political and journalistic contexts: The Guardian (United Kingdom), Le Monde (France), The New York Times (United States), El País (Spain), and La Repubblica (Italy). The ethical guidelines and legal frameworks set up by the newspapers as well as their moderation strategies were considered to understand the different settings of the conversations. Two models of audience participation emerge from the analysis, one where communities of debate are formed based on mostly respectful discussions between diverse points of view and another of homogenous communities, in which expressing feelings about current events dominates the contributions and there is less of an argumentative debate.
BakkerPietPenttiMarvi. 2009. “Beyond News: User-Generated Content on Dutch Media Websites.” Paper Presented at the Future of Journalism conference, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, September.
2.
BarberB.2006. “How Democratic Are the New Telecommunication Technologies?,” IDP: Revista de los Estudios de Derecho y Ciencia Política de la UOCV. 3. http://www.uoc.edu/idp/3/dt/esp/barber.html, p. 6
BrunsAxel. 2005. Gatewatching: Collaborative Online News Production. New York: Peter Lang.
5.
ChungDeborah S.2007. “Profits and Perils: Online News Producers’ Perceptions of Interactivity and Uses of Interactive Features.” Convergence13(1):43–61.
6.
CohenJacob. 1960. “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales.” Educational and Psychological Measurement20(1): 37–46.
7.
CraveriBenedetta. 2005. The Age of Conversation. New York: News York Review Books.
8.
DahlbergLincoln. 2001. “Democracy via Cyberspace: Mapping the Rhetorics and Practices of Three Prominent Camps.” New Media and Society3(2):157–77.
9.
DeweyJohn. 1991. The Public and Its Problems. Athens: Swallow Press.
10.
DomingoDavid. 2011. “Managing Audience Participation: Practices, Workflows and Strategies.” In Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates in Online Newspapers, ed. SingerJane B.. et al. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
11.
FerraraK.BrunnerH.WhittemoreG.1991. “Interactive Written Discourse as an Emergent Register.” Written Communication8(1):8–34.
12.
FumaroliMarc. 1998. L’École du silence. Paris: Flammarion.
13.
GossBrian M.2007. “Online ‘Looney Tunes’: An Analysis of Reader-Composed Comment Threads in The Nation.” Journalism Studies8(3):365–81.
14.
HabermasJürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon.
15.
HabermasJürgen. 1992. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
16.
HallinDaniel C.ManciniPaolo. 2004. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HellerÁgnes. 1987. Beyond Justice. New York: Blackwell.
18.
HermidaAlfredThurmanNeil. 2008. “A Clash of Cultures: The Integration of User-Generated Content within Professional Journalistic Frameworks at British Newspaper Websites.” Journalism Practice2(3):343–56.
19.
NeubergerC.NuernbergkC.2010. Competition, Complimentarity or Integration? The relationship between professional and participatory media. Journalism Practice4(3):319–32.
Pérez-SabaterCarmenPeña-MartínezGemmaTurneyEdMontero-FletaBegoña. 2008. “A Spoken Genre Gets Written: Online Football Commentaries in English, French and Spanish.” Written Communication25(2):235–61.
22.
ReichZvi. 2011. “User Comments and the Transformation of Participatory Space.” In Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates in Online Newspapers, ed. SingerJane B.. et al. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
RortyRichard. 1985. “Habermas and Lyotard on Post-Modernity.” In Habermas and Modernity, ed. BernsteinR.Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 161–75.
25.
RuizCarlosMasipPereMicóJosep LluísDíaz-NociJavierDomingoDavid. 2010. “Conversación 2.0. y democracia. Análisis de los comentarios de los lectores en la prensa digital catalana” Comunicación y Sociedad23(2):7–39.
26.
SartoriGiovanni. 2003. Videopolítica. Medios, información y democracia de sondeo. Madrid: Fondo de Cultura Económica de España.
27.
SteinerGeorge. 2005. The Idea of Europe. Amsterdam: Nexus Institute.
28.
SingerJane B.HermidaAlfredDomingoDavidHeinonenAriPaulussenSteveQuandtThorstenReichZviVujnovicMarina. 2011. Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates in Online Newspapers. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
29.
SunsteinCass R.2002. Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
TaylorCharles. 1991. “Language and Society.” In Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action, ed. HönnethA.JoasH.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
ThomsonElizabeth A.WhitePeter R. R.KitleyPhilip. 2008. “Objectivity and Hard New Reporting Across Cultures.” Journalism Studies9(2):161–77.
32.
VujnovicMarinaSingerJane B.PaulussenSteveHeinonenAriReichZviQuandtThorstenHermidaAlfredDomingoDavid. 2010. “Exploring the Political-Economical Factors of Participatory Journalism: A First Look into Self Reports by Online Journalists and Editors in Ten Countries.” Journalism Studies4(3):285–96.
33.
WellmerAlbrecht. 1986. Ethik und Dialog: Elemente des moralischen Urteils bei Kant und in der Diskursethik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
34.
WilliamsAndrewWardleClaireWahl-JorgensenKarin. 2010. “Have They Got News for Us? Audience Revolution or Business as Usual?” Journalism Practice. Ifirst article.
35.
XiangZhouYuen-YingChanZhen-MeiPeng. 2008. “Deliberativeness of Online Political Discussion: A Content Analysis of the Guangzhou Daily Website.” Journalism Studies9(5):759–70.
36.
YatesS. J.1996. “Oral and Written Linguistic Aspects of Computer Conferencing: A Corpus Based Study.” In Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives, ed. HerringS. C.Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 29–46.
