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 ofmass 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 werecoded as „replies“ in online discussion fora than in usenetdiscussions (Wright & Street, 2007)

Restrictive journalistic moderationrules and registration barriersreduce the average amount of usercomments posted to a news article(Weber, 2012)

The design of CMC settings can significantly influence the structures, contents, and outcomesof 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 thecomments sections of mass-media websites

The Influence of the CMC design on discussions

Examples



Significantly more postings werecoded as „replies“ in online discussion fora than in usenetdiscussions (Wright & Street, 2007)

Restrictive journalistic moderationrules and registration barriersreduce the average amount of usercomments posted to a news article(Weber, 2012)

The design of CMC settings can significantly influence the structures, contents, and outcomesof 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 thecomments 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 influencesof 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 interactionsthrough 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.)

[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 manypeople don‘t bother reading any more comments (m, 52y, reg.)

4 | Insights from Qualitative Research (Ziegele & Quiring, 2012)


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.)

[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.)

4 | Insights from Qualitative Research (Ziegele & Quiring, 2012)


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


WW

W

Face

bo

ok

5 | Research Question & Methods


0

50

100

150

200

250

WWW Facebook

Average number of comments

M = 200.90SD = 166.82

M = 187.50SD = 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 = 53.36SD = 58.59

M = 26.51SD = 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

Perc

enta

geo

fin

tera

ctiv

eco

mm

ents

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 = -.97SD = 1.13

M = -1.06SD = 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 (otherusers)

Insults (newsactors)

Stereotypes Extremism Accusations ofincompetence

Threats ofviolence

Otherprovocations

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 AdditionalInformation

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


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

[email protected]

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“

mailto:[email protected]

Science

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