Comparing News Discussions on Mass-Media Websites and Social Network Sites

5. Mai 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele, Oliver Quiring & Timo Breiner | 1
Comparing News Discussions on Mass-Media
Websites and Social Network Sites
Presentation at the 11th Cyberspace Conference, Brno,
November 22-23

1 | Introduction: Online User Comments on News Websites…

1 | … and on Social Network Sites

1 | Introduction: Why Study Online User Comments?
 Tradition: Stimulating interpersonal conversations can be seen as a function of
mass communication (Kim et al., 1999; Scheufele, 2000)
 Change: By commenting on news items, users have obtained a more visible role
in the “interpretation stage” of the journalistic news production (Domingo, 2008; Reich,
2011; Thurman, 2008)
 Effects: User comments can influence how a large proportion of a news website’s
audience uses mass-media content, for example with regards to individual
opinion formation (Anderson et al., 2013; Lee & Jang, 2010; Walther et al. , 2010)
 Participation: Opinion expression and interactivity in user comments could
contribute to shaping a democratically valuable discourse on topics of public
interest (Boczkowski & Mitchelstein, 2012; Freelon, 2010; Ruiz et al., 2010)

2 | Introduction: Research Interest
How do users discuss news items on the websites of news media
outlets and on their Facebook sites?

3 | Theoretical Background
 Significantly more postings were
coded as „replies“ in online
discussion fora than in usenet
discussions (Wright & Street, 2007)
 Restrictive journalistic moderation
rules and registration barriers
reduce the average amount of user
comments posted to a news article
(Weber, 2012)
 The design of CMC settings can significantly influence the structures, contents, and outcomes
of public-interpersonal online discussions (Jones & Rafaeli, 2000; Wright & Street, 2007; Weber, 2012)
 „A space’s design choices can powerfully influence the nature of its users’ engagement”
(Freelon, 2010)
 This is also true for user discussions within the
comments sections of mass-media websites
The Influence of the CMC design on discussions
Examples

 Significantly more postings were
coded as „replies“ in online
discussion fora than in usenet
discussions (Wright & Street, 2007)
 Restrictive journalistic moderation
rules and registration barriers
reduce the average amount of user
comments posted to a news article
(Weber, 2012)
 The design of CMC settings can significantly influence the structures, contents, and outcomes
of public-interpersonal online discussions (Jones & Rafaeli, 2000; Wright & Street, 2007; Weber, 2012)
 „A space’s design choices can powerfully influence the nature of its users’ engagement”
(Freelon, 2010)
 This is also true for user discussions within the
comments sections of mass-media websites
The Influence of the CMC design on discussions
Examples

 Preece (2001) diversifies influences of the design of CMC settings into influences
of a) usability and b) sociability
 Sociability „is concerned with developing software, policies and practices to
support social interaction online“ (Preece, 2001)  Focus on user-to-user interactions
through technology
 Usability „is concerned with how intuitive and easy it is for individuals to learn to
use and interact with a product“ (Preece, 2001)  Focus on user-to-system
interactions
The Usability and Sociability Framework

 Qualitative interviews were conducted with 25 users who comment on online
news items
 Amongst others, the users were asked about the advantages and disadvantages
of different online commenting spaces
 Users particularly referred to differences between the usability and sociability of
traditional news websites and their respective Facebook sites
Qualitative pre-study (Ziegele & Quiring, 2012)

 Notifications can foster user-to-user-interactivity [Cit. 1]
 Low effort can increase the willingness to participate [Cit. 2]
 Clarity can increase the amount of comments users consider before writing a
comment [Cit. 3]
Usability
[Cit. 1] “On Facebook, you get notified when there are new comments. (…) In
contrast, when I post something in a forum, then I don’t realize, maybe, that
there is an answer to my last response and then the whole thing gets
disrupted.“(m, 24y, reg.)
4 | Insights from Qualitative Research (Ziegele & Quiring, 2012)

comment [Cit. 3]
Usability
[Cit. 2] it is important that […] when I have to register once more, then I won’t
write a comment (f, 23y, reg.)

comment [Cit. 3]
Usability
[Cit. 2] it is important that […] when I have to register once more, then I won’t
write a comment (f, 23y, reg.)
[Cit. 3] When there are only two comments displayed by default, then many
people don‘t bother reading any more comments (m, 52y, reg.)

 Anonymity can trigger more controversial comments [Cit. 1]
 Moderation rules can help ensuring high-quality discussions [Cit. 2]
 The perceived purpose of a community can determine the kind of comments
users post [Cit. 3]
Sociability
[Cit. 1] “I think, if I wanted to comment on something controversial, then I would
do that rather on the websites, where… the profile is not visible.“ (f, 21, occ.)

users post [Cit. 3]
Sociability
[Cit. 2] In my opinion, a moderator could help to improve the quality of the
comments by calming down some users and keeping them focused on the
discussion. (m, 24y, reg.)

users post [Cit. 3]
Sociability
[Cit. 2] In my opinion, a moderator could help to improve the quality of the
comments by calming down some users and keeping them focused on the
discussion. (m, 24y, reg.)
[Cit. 3] It depends on where you comment on the news. For example, when I
comment on the Facebook site from Tagesschau, I don’t expect to get involved
into a discussion but to get an impression of the different opinions on that topic
(m, 47y, reg.)

How do user comments on newspaper websites differ from
user comments on Facebook sites?
Research question
 20 randomly selected political discussions on two mass-
media websites and their respective Facebook sites 
n=1,688 comments
 Websites analyzed: Spiegel Online, Bild.de (two of the
most popular news websites in Germany)
 Based on the results from qualitative research, each
comment was examined for references to other
comments and for 21 “quality factors”
» Content factors
» Formal factors
» Rhetorical factors
Method: Content analysis
5 | Research Question & Methods

WWW
Facebook
5 | Research Question & Methods

0
50
100
150
200
250
WWW Facebook
Average number of comments
M = 200.90
SD = 166.82
M = 187.50
SD = 180.80
F(1, 18) = .03, n.s.
6 | Results

Average duration of the discussions (days)
WWW
Facebook
1.9
F(1, 18) = 1.37, n.s.
1.5
6 | Results

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
WWW Facebook
Average comment length
M = 53.36
SD = 58.59
M = 26.51
SD = 46.12
F(1, 1,686) = 108.94, p < .001
6 | Results

How interactive are the discussions?
n = 861
Χ² = 23.9, df = 1, p < .001, V = .119
23%
14%
77%
86%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
WWW Facebook
Non-interactive
Interactive
n = 827
6 | Results

Usability and user-to-user interactivity
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Beginning Middle End
WWW
FB
Percentageofinteractivecomments
6 | Results
Relative position of the comment

-2
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
WWW Facebook
What is the average tone of the discussions?
M = -.97
SD = 1.13
M = -1.06
SD = 1.04
F(1, 1,686) = 2.94, n.s.
6 | Results

2%
5%
4%
1%
3%
1%
2%
1%
6%
3%
1%
1%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Insults (other
users)
Insults (news
actors)
Stereotypes Extremism Accusations of
incompetence
Threats of
violence
Other
provocations
WWW Facebook
How uncivil are the discussions?
*
* p < .05
6 | Results

26%
11% 11%
23%
20%
7%
16%
7%
12%
16%
15%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Examples Questions Identification Additional
Information
Demand /
Suggestion
Drift from Article
WWW Facebook
How elaborate are the discussions?
* p < .05, *** p < .001
***
***
*
***
***
6 | Results

15% 13% 11%
44%
20%
9%
25%
33%
12%
4%
13%
10%
31%
12%
9%
14%
36%
28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
WWW Facebook
How rhetorically sophisticated are the discussions?
***
*** p < .001
***
***
******
6 | Results

 Taking Facebook and traditional news
websites as prototypes for different
implementations of sociability and
usability, these aspects can alter the
processes and contents of news
discussions.
 Compared to website comments,
Facebook comments are shorter, less
interactive, less elaborate, and less
rhetorically sophisticated
 Generally low share of incivility 
effective moderation rules?
 More than website comments,
Facebook comments resemble
traditional informal conversations
about the news rather than
deliberations
Summary & Discussion
7 | Summary & Discussion

 Limited generalizability of results: Only two media outlets and a small number of
articles were analyzed
 More “quality” categories should be included (e.g., share of arguments,
indignation, relevance etc.)
 Different technologies or different people? Differences in the comment
structures might also (partly) be explained by the different audiences of the two
platforms
 User comments are a “moving target” due to the dynamic changes in discourse
architectures
Limitations
8 | Limitations

Thank you for your interest!
Dipl.-Medienwirt Marc Ziegele
Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz
Department of Communication
ziegele@uni-mainz.de
Parts of this project were supported by:
DFG Project QU 215/3-1 „Vom Nachrichtenwert zum Diskussionswert:
Ursachen, Bedingungen und Folgen von Anschlusskommunikation auf
massenmedialen Websites“

Comparing News Discussions on Mass-Media Websites and Social Network Sites

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Comparing News Discussions on Mass-Media Websites and Social Network Sites

Similar to Comparing News Discussions on Mass-Media Websites and Social Network Sites (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Comparing News Discussions on Mass-Media Websites and Social Network Sites