IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/meanco/v8y2020i2p86-97.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Behind the Comments Section: The Ethics of Digital Native News Discussions

Author

Listed:
  • Orge Castellano Parra

    (Department of Journalism II, University of the Basque Country, Spain)

  • Koldobika Meso Ayerdi

    (Department of Journalism II, University of the Basque Country, Spain)

  • Simón Peña Fernández

    (Department of Journalism II, University of the Basque Country, Spain)

Abstract

Initially offered as a digital public sphere forum, comments sections became the preferred democratic arena for gatekeepers to encourage their readers to engage in constructive dialogue about relevant issues. However, news sites require commenters to remain civil in their interactions, which led users to seek alternative ways of commenting on the news. This article explores in-depth the contents of a sample of 98,426 user-comments collected between February–March 2019 from three major Spanish digital native newspapers: ElDiario.es, ElEspañol.com, and ElConfidencial.com. The main goals were to analyze whether comments in news outlets are deliberative, to assess the quality of the debate that takes place in them, and to describe their specific features. Discourse ethics were explored to determine the discussions’ impact, the language used, the acceptance of arguments, and the recognition and civility of participants. Findings reveal that comments sections in news outlets do not have a dialogic nature and that the debates have a low-quality profile. Nonetheless, the degree of mutual respect in interaction is acceptable, with slightly observed levels of incivility. Finally, the data suggest that the focused comments are higher on social media and that memes and emojis represent a new form of digital discourse.

Suggested Citation

  • Orge Castellano Parra & Koldobika Meso Ayerdi & Simón Peña Fernández, 2020. "Behind the Comments Section: The Ethics of Digital Native News Discussions," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 86-97.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:8:y:2020:i:2:p:86-97
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/2724
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deborah Jordan Brooks & John G. Geer, 2007. "Beyond Negativity: The Effects of Incivility on the Electorate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 1-16, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vincenzo Galasso & Tommaso Nannicini, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5868, CESifo.
    2. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2013. "Men Vote in Mars, Women Vote in Venus: A Survey Experiment in the Field," CEPR Discussion Papers 9547, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CEPR Discussion Papers 11238, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Alessandro Nai & Mike Medeiros & Michaela Maier & Jürgen Maier, 2022. "Euroscepticism and the use of negative, uncivil and emotional campaigns in the 2019 European Parliament election: A winning combination," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(1), pages 21-42, March.
    5. Anthony Dudo & John C Besley, 2016. "Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, February.
    6. William A. Boettcher III & Michael D. Cobb, 2009. "“Don’t Let Them Die in Vainâ€," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(5), pages 677-697, October.
    7. Yannis Theocharis & Pablo Barberá & Zoltán Fazekas & Sebastian Adrian Popa, 2020. "The Dynamics of Political Incivility on Twitter," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:8:y:2020:i:2:p:86-97. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.