American Behavioral Scientist 2014 Blom 1314 28

Americanhttp://abs.sagepub.
com/
Behavioral Scientist
Frequent Contributors Within U.S. Newspaper Comment Forums: An

Examination of Their Civility and Information Value
Robin Blom, Serena Carpenter, Brian J. Bowe and Ryan Lange
American Behavioral Scientist 2014 58: 1314 originally published online 28 March 2014
DOI: 10.1177/0002764214527094
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/58/10/1314
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for American Behavioral Scientist can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/58/10/1314.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Aug 7, 2014

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 28, 2014
What is This?
Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on November 14, 2014
527094
research-article2014
ABSXXX10.1177/0002764214527094American Behavioral ScientistBlom et al.
Article
Frequent Contributors
Within U.S. Newspaper
Comment Forums: An
Examination of Their
Civility and Information
Value
American Behavioral Scientist

2014, Vol. 58(10) 13141328
2014 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0002764214527094
abs.sagepub.com
Robin Blom1, Serena Carpenter2, Brian J. Bowe2,

and Ryan Lange3
Abstract
News organizations online commenting tools have been touted as a boon for the
deliberative process, yet only to the extent that they are used by a diverse group of
participants who are civil and who provide information that enriches dialogue. The
researchers in this study analyzed the degree to which posts in newspaper forums
originated from frequent contributors and the civil and informational characteristics
of those contributions. A content analysis of comments (N = 2,237) within forums
adjacent to opinion articles on websites of 15 U.S. newspaper dailies was conducted
to assess their civility (uncivil character attacks and uncivil language) and informational
attributes. Frequent contributorspeople who post often on a forum in a short
periodwere less likely to be civil and informational.
Keywords
comment forums, frequent contributors, online discussion, diversity, civility, journalism,
public sphere, news
1Ball
State University, Muncie, IN, USA

State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
3Alvernia University, Reading, PA, USA
2Michigan
Corresponding Author:
Robin Blom, Department of Journalism, Ball State University, Art and Journalism Building (AJ), Room
300, Muncie, IN 47306, USA.
Email: rblom@bsu.edu
1315
Blom et al.
The open exchange of ideas among people with varying perspectives is a longstanding feature of democratic political thought (Freeman, 2000; Papacharissi, 2002).
The Internet enables citizens to engage in discussions to share their viewpoints (Chae,
2009; Chung, 2008; Delli Carpini, Cook, & Jacobs, 2004; Himelboim, 2010; Jansen &
Koop, 2005; Light & Rogers, 1999; Schneider, 1996; Singer, 2009), and research has
found that people are attracted to source diversity in online forums (Stromer-Galley,
2002). Ideally, a diversity of participants on newspaper websites would share information with each other to get a better understanding of public affairs, yet the presence of
intolerance toward conflicting perspectives has also been observed (e.g., Hill &
Hughes, 2001; Koop & Jansen, 2009). News organizations and researchers have
expressed concerns related to the impact of uncivil comments on source participation
and the usefulness of the information (Nielsen, 2012).
Frequent contributors could have a profound influence on perceived credibility,
opinion climate, and openness of discussions on online forums (Koop & Jansen, 2009;
Singer & Ashman, 2009). Back-and-forth discussions are highly valued in the deliberative model, which is the ideal communication environment to promote rational discussion among citizens (Wheatley, 2003). Yet there are drawbacks when a forum turns
into a more or less closed private community rather than open public community of
discussion (Chae, 2009, p. 18). Similarly, Thompson (2008) maintained that a discussion does not count as deliberation at all, if one or just a few people dominate the
discussions (p. 501). Schild and Oren (2005) speculated that frequent contributors on
political listservs might have exerted an oligarchy of opinion that may have curtailed participation from others in their study.
To begin to address these concerns, we assessed the content contributions of frequent contributors and compared them to less frequent posters. Scholars have begun to
identify the social roles of individuals within online communities. Some roles identified
include answer people, questioners, trolls, conversationalists, spammers, and flame
warriors (Himelboim, Gleave, & Smith, 2009; Turner, Smith, Fisher, & Welser, 2005;
Welser, Gleave, Fisher, & Smith, 2007). It has yet to be fully examined how content
contributions vary from frequent and infrequent forum posters. Frequent posters as a
collective may influence the direction of discussions within forums. To understand
whether behaviors of frequent and infrequent forum posters differ, newspaper comment
forums were assessed through a quantitative content analysis. The investigation
involved recording the extent to which a few comment participants populated the comment forums adjacent to letters to the editor and editorial articles (N = 2,237) on 15 U.S.
newspaper websites. This study compared post types (informational, uncivil character
attacks, and uncivil language) of frequent contributors (posts 7) with infrequent ones.
Literature Review
Public Sphere
The public sphere is a concept of normative, theoretical, and empirical consequence
(Mutz, 2002; Splichal, 2006). Howard (2011) defined the public sphere as increasingly
1316
American Behavioral Scientist 58(10)
a digitally mediated space . . . in which people discuss cultural values, compose solutions
to shared problems, and implement collective projects (p. 40). It has proven to be popular for researchers to engage questions surrounding user-generated content on news sites
and its attendant impact on the polity (Mitchelstein & Boczkowski, 2009).
The public sphere is a sounding board for all affected members of society to discuss
and influence solutions to problems (Habermas, 1989, 1998). It retains its emancipatory potential because of its thrust toward encouraging individuals to have an equitable
opportunity to take part in deliberations (Sinekopova, 2006). Modern democracies
make the claim that political power ultimately resides with citizens, making the rights
of free expression of paramount importance. Forums for free expressions are necessary because without access to information and opinion, it is difficult to form authentic
political views (Sparks, 1989).
But is it possible for a community to be both socially cohesive and diverse, without
leadership? Karppinen (2007) critiqued the nave pluralism of public sphere discourse,
questioning whether overemphasis on pluralism may ultimately result in unhealthy
dissonance because participation does not equal to deliberation. Such a thing may be
possible only if the community is both relatively small and homogenous. As Sulkin
and Simon (2001) summarized, Deliberative situations must be carefully structured
in order to achieve the collective benefits described by the theorists (p. 812). Thus,
the identification of the roles that naturally evolve within these mediated spaces can
help researchers assess whether diversity and discussion can coexist.
Online Forums as Public Spheres

While face-to-face interactions remain important, political conversations and socialization increasingly take place within electronic networks (Howard, 2011). The
Internet shows particular promise for public dialogue because researchers have found
that users may be more willing to express themselves online than they are face-to-face
(Ho & McLeod, 2008; McDevitt, Kiouis, & Wahl-Jorgensen, 2003; Moe, 2008). Yet,
most people who participate in forums on non-issue-specific websites are strangers,
which may mean that hostility is more likely to be present because they are less concerned with relationship maintenance, identity development, and goal outcomes
(Eveland, Morey, & Hutchens, 2011; Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 1998; StromerGalley, 2007). It is also difficult to build community when traditional news media
websites feature episodic content, in which stories are framed as examples of discrete,
disconnected events and topics (Iyengar, 1994).
The press has historically provoked political conversations and opinion formation,
because it is believed that a diversity of voices participating in deliberations is considered a necessary condition for a healthy democracy (Anderson, Dardenne, &
Killenberg, 1996; Carpenter & Blom, 2012; Ciofalo & Traverso, 1994; Commission
on Freedom of the Press, 1947; Howley, 2007; Hujanen & Pietikinen, 2004; Kim,
Wyatt, & Katz, 1999; Wahl-Jorgensen, 1999). Today, discussion forums on newspaper
websites provide opportunities for partisan groups to learn and talk about arguments,
viewpoints, and philosophies that they may not have encountered before (Shah, Cho,
1317
Blom et al.
Eveland, & Kwak, 2005). As long as Internet forum users follow comment policies,
they can post as much as they want and react to numerous people involved in the
deliberations.
However, journalists have expressed concern regarding the incivility and dominance of a few (Nielsen, 2012; Singer & Ashman, 2009) and uncertainty about the role
of news organizations in reader spaces (Robinson, 2010). Kovach and Rosenstiel
(2007) noted that online news today is more like an open-mic conversation rather than
the historical one-way directional form of communication between journalists and
their publics. In addition, news organizations must grapple with this amplified audience voice. They can cue comment members of the behavioral expectations, or they
can play no leadership role. Newsroom commenting policies reflect disagreements on
whether an organizations role is simply to facilitate conversation or to help build community (Singer, 2006).
Frequent Contributors
Increased access does not mean that discourse will accurately reflect the public as a
whole. The likelihood that people read and participate may be hindered if representations within mediated spaces are reflective of a vocal few. Previous research has shown
the number of people engaged in online discussions is relatively small (Chae, 2009;
Chung, 2008; Himelboim, 2010; Jansen & Koop, 2005; Light & Rogers, 1999;
Schneider, 1996; Singer, 2009; Zhou, Chan, & Peng, 2008). Delli Carpini et al. (2004)
found only 4% of Americans engaged in discussions in online discussion groups and
24% emailed or instant messaged people about policy issues several times a month.
Zhou et al. (2008) found 43% of discussion threads featured only two to five writers
related to their examination of public affair forums on one news website. Jansen and
Koops (2005) research found inequality in posts showing that four users posted the
majority of the comments on one forum. In Stromer-Galleys (2002) analysis of a
sample of U.S. citizens, she found 21% said that they had engaged in online dialogue
related to politics. Pew Internet and American Life Project (2002) research showed
that approximately 20% of U.S. adults posted comments in forums. Chaes (2009)
analysis of the online newspaper public forums found only one third of forums have
more than 10 users leaving messages on the board, while 41% of forums had no more
than 5 users having posted their messages on the forum.
Frequent contributors often are not labeled in research because they are typically
not the focus of a study, but they have been referred to as active participants, leaders,
discussion catalysts, and heavy posters (Hill & Hughes, 2001; Himelboim et al., 2009;
Jansen & Koop, 2005; Turner et al., 2005). For the purposes of this study, discussion
participants are separated into groups only based on their frequency of commenting.
People that comment often (posts 7) are referred to as frequent contributors. Research
has yet to fully assess the behavior of frequent posters. The goal of this study is to
measure the extent to which frequent contributors proportionately appear within the
comment forums on newspaper websites and to analyze the types of posts they contribute in comparison to infrequent contributors.
1318
Forum Perceptions
The perception of ones environment can affect the extent to which one contributes
information socially, according to the spiral of silence theory. The theory states that
people constantly monitor their environment to understand how to behave socially. A
challenge to ones convictions can create self-inconsistency, which can lead to interpersonal conflict. To restore ones self-image, research has shown that people will
distance themselves from attitudinally dissimilar persons or react aggressively toward
people who do not align with their moral beliefs (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, 1993;
Skitka, Bauman, & Sargis, 2005). People with strong convictions are less likely to
conform to group pressures (Hornsey, Majkut, Terry, & McKimmie, 2003). The willingness to speak out in the face of opposition is related to whether they perceive the
other side as good or bad (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, 1993). A reduction in cues related
to the identity of a source leads people to question the competence of the online anonymous contributor, which fuels the exchange of critical and stereotyped reactions
(Connolly, Jessup, & Valacich, 1990). And thus, the investigation of social roles can
help identify in which situations uncivil communication takes place. In this study,
frequent contributors are examined to determine whether their behavior is truly different from other posters. Frequent contributors may influence the behavior of other contributors and potential participants. Research shows people feel intimidated to post
within forums (Light & Rogers, 1999). Scholars have raised concerns that some participants are overshadowing other contributors to such an extent that many people are
turned away from participating in discussions. Schultz (2000) illustrated this with a
reaction from a disillusioned former user of an online comment section: I have used
the Forum less and less, mainly because there is a hard core of individuals who apparently have little else to do, and appear, at length, on almost every forum I have taken a
look at (p. 215).
Incivility
It may not only be the sheer frequency of other peoples interactions within discussions that turns people off; it could also be that the negative tone of those comments is
considered inappropriate and counterproductive for deliberation of social issues.
Hibbings and Theisse-Morse (2002) concluded that imperfect deliberation might be
more problematic than no deliberation.
Some people who post comments in online spaces enjoy expressing their opinion
and hearing the opinions of others in a constructive and practical way (Hill & Hughes,
2001; Light & Rogers, 1999; Stromer-Galley, 2002, 2007). Otherseven when it is a
small minority of all forum userscan exhibit uncivil reactions that try to humiliate,
threaten, or annihilate other forum members, because they may be intolerant of criticism directed at their own opinions, which can lead to name calling and flaming.
Flaming consists of verbal attacks intended to offend either people or organizations.
They are often in the form of profanity or personal attacks (Ferber, Foltz, & Pugliese,
2006; Reinig & Megias, 2004). These communication acts could have negative
1319
Blom et al.
consequences for the participation and perceptions of all forum users (Papacharissi,
2004; Rosenberg, 2004).
While online discourse can be filled with disagreements, research shows that such
interactions have been found to be mostly civil. Characteristics of uncivil posts could
include hostility, aggression, intimidation, insults, offensive language, uninhibited
behavior, sarcasm, or an unfriendly tone. An uncivil post was defined as a post that
featured a character criticism or offensive language. Koop and Jansen (2009) examined political forums and noticed unconstructive engagement. And Hill and Hughes
(2001) found 18% of Usenet messages within ideologically consonant groups were
flames and 32% of posts in ideologically opposite groups were flames, yet Papacharissi
(2004) found discussion in political newsgroups was largely civil.
To date, researchers have not examined how frequent and infrequent contributors of
online discussion spaces differ in their communication behavior. Such a study is warranted because of the possibility that frequent contributors are more uncivil in their
reactions to other discussants. Based on the spiral of silence theory, it is speculated that
more frequent contributors will post more uncivil posts because people who tend to
comment tend to be more vocally defiant (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, 1993). To assess
their behavior, two forms of incivility (uncivil character attacks and uncivil language)
were further explored. First, an uncivil post was operationalized as attacking the character of participants, news media, or the writer of an article, rather than the content
(viewpoints) of others. Second, uncivil language was assessed by measuring how
often posts contained content such as profanity, racial slurs, or shouting.
Based on the literature review, it is expected that frequent contributors will use both
tactics more than infrequent contributors. Therefore, it is hypothesized,
Hypothesis 1: Frequent contributors will post more uncivil attacks than infrequent
contributors in comment forums adjacent to opinion articles on U.S. newspaper
websites.
Hypothesis 2: Frequent contributors will post more uncivil language than infrequent contributors in comment forums adjacent to opinion articles on U.S. newspaper websites.
Information
It is also important to examine whether frequent contributors support the public sphere
by sharing information in a positive manner. Such large involvement in public discussions could be beneficial when information is shared in a civil manner, but there has
been more attention to potential negative consequences (e.g., Koop & Jansen, 2009;
Light & Rogers, 1999). For deliberation, it is helpful when discussants provide information from trusted sources to bolster their claims or dispute claims by others.
Informational posts can include personal experiences, news media, books, government sources, speeches, and so on (Carpenter, 2010; Davis, 1999; Stromer-Galley,
2007). For instance, users can add other news media reports or data from other sources
by linking to content. Himelboim et al. (2009) discovered that sharing information was
1320
key to encouraging engagement among other posters, however the practice was rare.
People who posted factual information received more replies in comparison to other
posters. Therefore, the last hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 3: Frequent contributors will post more information in comment
forums adjacent to opinion articles on U.S. newspaper websites than infrequent
contributors.
Method
Sampling Procedure
The data came from 15 U.S. daily newspapers during a constructed week during a
month-long period (April 7 to May 4, 2009). The comment post was the unit of analysis.
Each night, between 8:00 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. American Eastern Standard Time, two
coders downloaded all opinion articles from the newspaper websites. The download
order of the newspapers was randomly adjusted for each night of the constructed week.
A total of 80 newspapers from a list of 190 dailies from the Audit Bureau of
Circulations were used. Newspaper outlets from the three largest metropolitan areas
were removed (Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York) because those news media markets are atypical in audience size and competition level. Of the newspapers, 20 were
excluded because they did not have comments during the examined time period, leaving 60 dailies.
To make the project more manageable, three more steps were taken to reduce the
number of opinion articles and comments analyzed. First, the newspapers were divided
into categories based on circulation size: (a) more than 170,000 (large), (b) 50,001 to
170,000 (medium), and (c) 50,000 or less (small; St. Cyr, Carpenter, & Lacy, 2010).
Second, newspapers were selected that had both staff editorials and letters to the editor
within the sampled period. Third, newspapers were chosen based on their geographical diversity. Each state was limited to one newspaper, and all four U.S. regions were
represented: Northeast (3), Midwest (3), West (5), and South (4). This approach produced 15 U.S. online newspapers representing 15 different states (Norwich, CT; Des
Moines, IA; Casper, WY; Lima, OH; Rochester, NY; Lakeland, FL; Boise City, ID;
Vallejo, CA; Lebanon, PA; Detroit, MI; Spokane, WA; Greenville, NC; Nashville, TN;
Boulder, CO; and Elizabethtown, KY).
This sampling procedure resulted in 2,237 comments that were adjacent to 215 letters to the editor and editorials. The number of comments per newspaper ranged from
12 to 652. The mean number of comments per article was 37.5, with a standard deviation of 40.7 comments. If a conversation was already in progress, the discussion participants were able to post a new comment to the discussion, as well as react directly
to a previous comment. Consequently, the latest post would be added to the conversation, but would feature the initial comment first (in most cases in italics and/or different color) followed by the reaction. Thus, participants were able to communicate
directly to each other within the large discussion, if they desired to.
1321
Blom et al.
Coding Categories
Frequent contributors. No operational definition exists to act as a guide on how to
categorize and identify frequent contributors. For the purpose of this study, the top
10% of users with the most comments were considered frequent members for their
higher participation in comparison to other forum contributors. The coders identified the names of individuals and determined which users posted seven or more
times. For each comment, the user name was put in a database. There were no
identical user names across newspapers. This created a group of 75 people. This
unit was compared to the other forum users who commented fewer than seven
times.
Uncivil attack posts. Posts were classified under this category if they featured attacks of
the participants character, news media, or the writer of an article. Three different types
of attacks were coded: expressing negative character attacks toward article opinion
writer (e.g., This editorial is written by a complete idiot.), negative character attacks
toward news media (e.g., The Free Press does not know what it is talking about, as
usual.), and negative character attacks toward other contributors (e.g., This comment shows you are dumb and clueless.). A comment that contained at least one of
those attacks was labeled as an uncivil attack post.
Uncivil language posts. This variable is concerned with the tone of the post, which
could include profanity, racial slurs, and shouting. Comments were analyzed to see
if they contained profanity, expletives, or letters followed by dashes (e.g., I just
dont have time for this @&#$%! right now!), words in all caps that were used
to mimic shouting (e.g., can you give me a break?), and racially negative
comments.
Informational posts. Comments were coded as to whether information was present or
absent. For example, forum users can cite documents (One recent study showed that
if you eat genetically modified. . . .), refer to personal sources (Contact this number
to find . . . : XXX-XXX-XXXX.), describe experiences from self or others (Please
be careful. My cousin tried to get obtain a marriage license in New York and was
turned down.), or provide clarification (Lipitor is a drug that is used to lower cholesterol.). Informational posts also could include hyperlinks.
Intercoder reliability. Two graduate student coders coded 9.5% (n = 213) of the comments to establish intercoder reliability. Scotts pi computation was selected for the
nominal-level variables. Intercoder reliability ranged from .86 to 1.0 for the variables
mentioned above.
Analysis.A chi-square test of independence compared the rates of uncivil attack,
uncivil language, and information posts for the frequent and infrequent commenter
groups.
1322
Results
The 2,237 analyzed comments were linked to 776 unique forum users, for an average
of 2.9 posts per person (SD = 4.4). The median was one post per person. Frequent
contributors (9.7% of all participants) were responsible for a large share of all posts
(46.8%). The data also indicated that 47.8% of the last 10 comments of all articles
were from those frequent contributors. This means that this group continued to be
active at the end of comment discussions.
One of the most frequent usersone with the nickname angry on Tennessean websiteposted 46 times in the constructed week. To put that in perspective, with that
number of replies he or she would be on pace for 2,392 comments per year. Another
12 forums users, including Abatha (Des Moines Register), saltshaker (Detroit Free
Press), and Ithinkonmyown (Tennessean), commented more than 20 times. In fact,
together with angry, they were responsible for 15.2% of all responses, while representing a mere 1.6% of all contributors within the constructed week.
Hypothesis 1 posited that frequent contributors would post more uncivil character
attacks than infrequent contributors in comment forums adjacent to opinion articles on
U.S. newspaper websites. Frequent contributors provided more uncivil attacks (18.0%)
than infrequent discussion participants (16.7%); however, there was not a statistically
significant difference, 2(1, N = 2,237) = 0.65. One item measuring uncivil character
attacks showed that frequent contributors (13.9%) contained more uncivil attacks toward
comment posters than infrequent contributors (9.2%). Thus, frequent contributors were
significantly more likely to engage other comment posters in an uncivil manner.
Hypothesis 2 posited that frequent contributors would post more uncivil language
than infrequent contributors in comment forums adjacent to opinion articles on U.S.
newspaper websites. Frequent contributors did not post more uncivil language (17.0%)
than infrequent contributors (17.5%) in comments, 2(1, N = 2,237) = 0.13. Of items
measuring uncivil language, the use of all caps to mimic shouting was the most common way to express incivility; frequent members (13.8%) used all caps only slightly
more than did infrequent members (13.0%). All differences were not statistically
significant.
Hypothesis 3 reflected the prediction that frequent contributors would post more
informational comments than infrequent ones. The hypothesis was not supported. The
data indicate that of the 1,047 comment posts by frequent contributors, they posted
statistically significant fewer informational posts (13.2%) than of the 1,190 posts created by infrequent contributors (19.6%), 2(1, N = 2,237) = 16.64, p < .001. Additional
analysis showed only 1.9% of the comments contained an informational hyperlink to
another site within the constructed week: 17 links were to traditional news media sites
and 3 were to blogs.
Discussion
This research mirrors the desire to understand whether news forums reflect the ideals of
the public sphere. Online discussions are considered healthy and functioning when they
1323
Blom et al.
are civil and informational. The results indicate that an overwhelming majority of the
participants avoid uncivil language and character attacks, but at the same time comments
that provide supplementary information were relatively sparse. This finding is in line
with the previous research in this area that found a relatively small percentage of uncivil
posts (e.g., Hill & Hughes, 2001; Koop & Jansen, 2009; Papacharissi, 2004) and a small
presence of information within forums (Zhou et al., 2008). It is important to note, however, that even if a forum contains a small percentage of informational-type posts, such
posts can still be very valuable to all parties involved because they can educate other
forum participants on the issue or refer to other sources with additional information
about the topic. For instance in this research, Des Moines Registers reader sanityindesmoines wrote, Well said, Sir. I highly recommend a piece on Huffintonpost.com today
by Drew Westen, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University
(April 17, 2009, 3:26 p.m.). This is a good example of how a poster provided additional
information linking to an external source. Such information could allow for continuation
of the discussion, which gives participants additional opportunities to understand different viewpoints on important public affairs topicsand also may help newspapers to
secure more loyal readers who spend more time on their websites.
When frequent and infrequent posters were compared, there was no significant difference in the use of uncivil language. However, frequent posters were significantly
less likely to share information within forums. Furthermore, frequent posters were
more prone to engage their fellow commentators rather than the newspaper or the
article writer specifically. This suggests that frequent posters may treat the online
forum as a community in and of itself.
Newspapers have professional and financial reasons for attracting frequent posters
because of the media organizations desire to increase page views. Yet the frequent
posters did not foster an environment in which they welcome meaningful engagement
from other people. Therefore, one of the implications of this research is that people
who post often could possibly not be readers whom news organizations want to cultivate, because frequent contributors attack other users more often. Instead, newspapers
may want to look for a way to make it more appealing for (current) infrequent posters
to become more engaged in online discussions.
The challenge of news organizations is to identify people or experts who can nourish an environment that represents the public necessity of truth and understanding.
Providing information requires more knowledge and effort on the part of participants.
To encourage such contributions, posters could be rewarded through public acknowledgments awarded by a news organization that hosts a forum or by other posters
through virtual badges (or other visual markers). As some previous research has
shown, people may contribute information more often when they perceive that it
enhances their social standing (e.g., McLure-Wasko & Faraj, 2005).
Conclusion
This study had some important limitations that should be considered in interpreting its
results. For instance, the newspaper sample was relatively small compared to the
1324
overall circulation of newspapers in the United States, although an effort was made to
include newspapers that varied in (print) circulation and location. The analysis covered only a short period, which may not have been representative of the overall picture
of newspaper commenting over a longer period. Finally, the studys focus on opinion
articles leaves a question as to whether comments on news stories display different
informational and civility characteristics.
While online comment forums were touted as carrying the potential of bolstering
the public sphere as envisioned by Habermas and others, the results of this research
raise questions as to the real-world potential of these forums. This study examined two
types of users: frequent and infrequent contributors. Frequent contributors seem to
treat the online forum as a space for social networking, but their contributions are less
informational relatively in comparison to infrequent contributors. As a result, the frequent contributors may discourage participation by those who are less interested in
online community-building aspects of the forum and more interested in discussing
issues under examination.
It would be of interest for future researchers to survey frequent and infrequent contributors of news forums to assess the variations in their motivations. Based on our
sample, it does not appear that news forum users engage often with one another. If the
appeal of forums is socially rooted, news organizations need to identify the leaders
who can assist in the creation and maintenance of an online community of readers and
commentators.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Anderson, R., Dardenne, R., & Killenberg, G. M. (1996). The American newspaper as the public conversational commons. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 11, 159-165.
Carpenter, S. (2010). U.S. online newspaper and online citizen journalism publications: A comparison of content diversity. New Media & Society, 12, 1064-1084.
Carpenter, S., & Blom, R. (2012). Morality, the news media, and the public: An examination
of comment forums on U.S. daily newspaper websites. In B. St. John & K. A. Johnson
(Eds.), News with a view: Journalism beyond objectivity (pp. 116-132). Jefferson, NC:
McFarland.
Chae, Y. G. (2009, May). An aspect of the culture of the public sphere in U.S.: The analysis of
online public forums in local online newspapers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the International Communication Association, New York, NY.
Chung, D. S. (2008). Interactive features of online newspapers: Identifying patterns and predicting use of engaged readers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 658-697.
1325
Blom et al.
Ciofalo, A., & Traverso, K. (1994). Does the op-ed page have a chance to become a public
forum? Newspaper Research Journal, 15, 51-63.
Commission on Freedom of the Press. (1947). A free and responsible press: A general report on
mass communication: newspapers, radio, motion pictures, magazines, and books. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Connolly, T., Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone
on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36, 689-703.
Davis, R. (1999). The web of politics: The Internets impact on the American political system.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Delli Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of
Political Science, 7, 315-344.
Eveland, W. P., Morey, A. C., & Hutchens, M. J. (2011). Beyond deliberation: New directions
for the study of informal political conversation from a communication perspective. Journal
of Communication, 61, 1082-1103.
Ferber, P., Foltz, F., & Pugliese, R. (2006). Community networks and public participation: A
forum for civic engagement or a platform for ranting irate malcontent? Bulletin of Science
Technology & Society, 26(5), 388-397.
Freeman, S. (2000). Deliberative democracy: A sympathetic comment. Philosophy and Public
Affairs, 29, 371-418.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1998). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and
democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1998). Work, friendship, and media use for information exchange in a networked organization. Journal of American Society for Information
Science, 49(12), 1101-1114.
Hibbings, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans beliefs about how
government should work. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. A. (2001). Computer-mediated political communication: The USENET
and political communities. Political Communication, 14(1), 3-27.
Himelboim, I. (2010). Civil society and online political discourse: The network structure of
unrestricted discussions. Communication Research, 38(5), 634-659.
Himelboim, I., Gleave, E., & Smith, M. (2009). Discussion catalysts in online political discussions: Content importers and conversation starters. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 14, 771-789.
Ho, S. S., & McLeod, D. M. (2008). Social-psychological influences on opinion expression
in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 35(2),
190-207.
Hornsey, M. J., Majkut, L., Terry, D. J., & McKimmie, B. M. (2003). On being loud and
proud: Non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 42, 319-335.
Howard, P. (2011). Castells and the media. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Howley, K. (2007, May). Community media and the public sphere. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
Hujanen, J., & Pietikinen, S. (2004). Interactive uses of journalism: Crossing between technological potential and you peoples news-using practices. New Media & Society, 6,
383-401.
1326
Iyengar, S. (1994). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Jansen, H. J., & Koop, R. (2005). Pundits, ideologues, and ranters: The British Columbia election online. Canadian Journal of Communication, 30(4). Retrieved from http://www.cjconline.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1483/1601
Karppinen, K. (2007). Against naive pluralism in media politics: On the implications of the
radical-pluralist approach to the public sphere. Media, Culture & Society, 29, 495-508.
Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, and participation: The part played
by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16(4), 361-385.
Koop, R., & Jansen, H. J. (2009). Political blogs and blogrolls in Canada: Forums for democratic deliberation? Social Science Computer Review, 27(2), 155-173.
Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2007). The elements of journalism. New York, NY: Three Rivers
Press.
Light, A., & Rogers, Y. (1999). Conversation as publishing: The role of news forums on the
web. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieved from http://jcmc.
indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/light.html
McDevitt, M., Kiouis, S., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2003). Spiral of moderation: Opinion expression in computer-mediated discussion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research,
15(4), 454-470.
McLure-Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and
knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35-57.
Mitchelstein, E., & Boczkowski, P. J. (2009). Between tradition and change: A review of recent
research on online news production. Journalism, 10(5), 562-586.
Moe, H. (2008). Dissemination and dialogue in the public sphere: A case for public service
media online. Media, Culture & Society, 30, 319-336.
Mutz, D. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American
Political Science Review, 96(2), 111-126.
Nielsen, C. (2012). Newspaper journalists support online comments. Newspaper Research
Journal, 33(1), 86-100.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of
Communication, 24(2), 43-51.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1993). The spiral of silence. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media &
Society, 4, 9-27.
Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of
online political discussion group. New Media & Society, 6, 259-283.
Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2002). Internet activities. Retrieved from http://www.
pewinternet.org/reports/chart.asp?img=Internet_Activities.jpg
Reinig, B. A., & Megias, R. J. (2004). The effects of national culture and anonymity on flaming and criticalness in GSS-supported discussions. Small Group Research, 35(4), 698-723.
Robinson, S. (2010). Traditionalists vs. convergers: Textual privilege, boundary work, and
the journalist-audience relationship in the commenting policies of online news sites.
Convergence, 16, 125-143.
Rosenberg, S. W. (2004). Reconstructing the concept of democratic deliberation (working
paper). Retrieved from the Center for the Study of Democracy, UC Irvine, website: http://
escholarship.org/uc/item/2rd8m486#page-2
Schild, S., & Oren, K. (2005). The party line online: An oligarchy of opinion on a public affairs
listserv. Journalism & Communication Monographs, 7(1), 5-47.
1327
Blom et al.
Schneider, S. M. (1996). Creating a democratic public sphere through political discussion: A

case study of abortion conversation on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 14,
373-393.
Schultz, T. (2000). Mass media and the concept of interactivity: An exploratory study of online
forums and reader email. Media, Culture & Society, 22(2), 205-221.
Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in
a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research,
32(5), 531-565.
Sinekopova, G. V. (2006). Building the public sphere: Bases and biases. Journal of
Communication, 56(3), 505-522.
Singer, J. B. (2006). Stepping back from the gate: Online newspaper editors and the coproduction of content in campaign 2004. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
83(2), 265-280.
Singer, J. B. (2009). Separate spaces: Discourse about the 2007 Scottish elections on a national
newspaper web site. International Journal of Press/Politics, 14, 477-496.
Singer, J. B., & Ashman, I. (2009). Comment is free, but facts are sacred: User-generated
content and ethical constructs at the Guardian. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 24, 3-21.
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Sargis, E. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to
attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6),
895-917.
Sparks, C. (1989). Editorial. Media, Culture & Society, 11, 131-134.
Splichal, S. (2006). In search of a strong European public sphere: Some critical observations
on conceptualizations of publicness and the (European) public sphere. Media, Culture &
Society, 28, 695-714.
St. Cyr, C., Carpenter, S., & Lacy, S. (2010). Internet competition and U.S. newspaper city
government coverage: Testing the Lowrey and Mackay model of occupational competition.
Journalism Practice, 4(4), 507-522.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2002). New voices in the public sphere: A comparative analysis of interpersonal and online political talk. Public, 9(2), 23-42.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberations content: A coding scheme. Journal of
Public Deliberation, 3(1), 1-35.
Sulkin, T., & Simon, F. (2001). Habermas in the lab: A study of deliberation in an experimental
setting. Political Psychology, 22, 809-826.
Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual
Review of Political Science, 11, 497-520.
Turner, C. T., Smith, M. A., Fisher, D., & Welser, H. T. (2005). Picturing Usenet: Mapping
computer-mediated collective action. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
10(4). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/turner.html
Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (1999). Ensuring richness and diversity of representation in the public sphere: Mass media as forums for democratic debate. Journal of the Northwest
Communication Association, 27, 24-52.
Welser, H. T., Gleave, E., Fisher, D., & Smith, M. (2007). Visualizing the signatures of social
roles in online discussion groups. Journal of Social Science, 8. Retrieved from http://www.
cmu.edu/joss/content/articles/volume8/Welser/
Wheatley, S. (2003). Deliberative democracy and minorities. European Journal of International
Law, 14(3), 507-527.
Zhou, X., Chan, Y., & Peng, Z. (2008). Deliberativeness of the Guangzhou Daily website.
Journalism Studies, 9(5), 759-770.
1328
Author Biographies
Robin Blom teaches news reporting, law, ethics, and media theory courses at Ball State
University as an assistant professor of journalism. He has been a reporter for regional and
national daily newspapers in The Netherlands.
Serena Carpenter is a Michigan State University Professor of Journalism Innovations. She
researches in the areas of media sociology, social and digital media, news quality, content analysis, and survey methods.
Brian J. Bowe is a PhD candidate in Michigan State Universitys Media and Information
Studies program, where he teaches in the School of Journalism. His research focuses on media
framing and news coverage of Islam.
Ryan Lange is an assistant professor of communication at Alvernia University. His research
examines how new media technologies affect human cognition.

American Behavioral Scientist 2014 Blom 1314 28

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

American Behavioral Scientist 2014 Blom 1314 28

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Americanhttp://abs.sagepub.

Frequent Contributors Within U.S. Newspaper Comment Forums: An

>> Version of Record - Aug 7, 2014

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at UNIV WASHINGTON LIBRARIES on November 14, 2014

ABSXXX10.1177/0002764214527094American Behavioral ScientistBlom et al.