Discourse integration in positional online news reader comments: Patterns of responsiveness across types of democracy, digital platforms, and perspective camps

New Media & Society Pub Date : 2023-07-12 DOI:10.1177/14614448231183704

Julia Jakob, Chung-hong Chan, Timo Dobbrick, Hartmut Wessler

{"title":"Discourse integration in positional online news reader comments: Patterns of responsiveness across types of democracy, digital platforms, and perspective camps","authors":"Julia Jakob, Chung-hong Chan, Timo Dobbrick, Hartmut Wessler","doi":"10.1177/14614448231183704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Online discourse integration, or the degree to which online user comments are responsive, that is, address or refer to other debate participants, is a normatively valued yet neglected quality dimension of online discussions. This preregistered study features the first cross-country/cross-platform investigation of online discourse integration, using manual and computational content analysis ( N = 9835 and N = 30,753 positional news reader comments). Unexpectedly, about one quarter of the comments was responsive in both majoritarian and consensus-oriented democracies (Australia/United States vs Germany/Switzerland) and on platforms that separate or mix public and private contexts (websites vs Facebook pages of mainstream media), even though other deliberative quality criteria were previously shown to vary by country and platform. Comments that are responsive to fellow commenters in the opposing perspective camp were more likely to contain negative evaluations of those addressed, whereas comments responsive within the same perspective camp were more likely to contain positive evaluations.","PeriodicalId":443328,"journal":{"name":"New Media & Society","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Media & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231183704","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Online discourse integration, or the degree to which online user comments are responsive, that is, address or refer to other debate participants, is a normatively valued yet neglected quality dimension of online discussions. This preregistered study features the first cross-country/cross-platform investigation of online discourse integration, using manual and computational content analysis ( N = 9835 and N = 30,753 positional news reader comments). Unexpectedly, about one quarter of the comments was responsive in both majoritarian and consensus-oriented democracies (Australia/United States vs Germany/Switzerland) and on platforms that separate or mix public and private contexts (websites vs Facebook pages of mainstream media), even though other deliberative quality criteria were previously shown to vary by country and platform. Comments that are responsive to fellow commenters in the opposing perspective camp were more likely to contain negative evaluations of those addressed, whereas comments responsive within the same perspective camp were more likely to contain positive evaluations.

查看原文本刊更多论文

定位在线新闻读者评论中的话语整合:跨民主类型、数字平台和观点阵营的响应模式

在线话语整合，或在线用户评论的响应程度，即针对或参考其他辩论参与者，是在线讨论中被规范重视但被忽视的质量维度。这项预注册研究的特点是首次对在线话语整合进行跨国/跨平台调查，使用人工和计算内容分析(N = 9835和N = 30,753位新闻读者评论)。出乎意料的是，在多数民主国家和以共识为导向的民主国家(澳大利亚/美国vs德国/瑞士)以及将公共和私人环境分开或混合的平台(网站vs主流媒体的Facebook页面)中，约有四分之一的评论是回应的，尽管其他审议质量标准先前显示因国家和平台而异。回应反对观点阵营的评论更有可能包含负面评价，而回应相同观点阵营的评论更有可能包含积极评价。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

New Media & Society

自引率

0.00%

发文量