Tone Of Comments Affects Perception Of Online Article's Content
from the who-are-you-calling-names? dept
One of the defining characteristics of online journalism is the possibility for readers to respond immediately, and to debate with each other in the comments -- something that was much harder and slower in pre-digital days. Generally, that has been regarded as welcome, since it means that authors can engage more easily with their readers, and the latter become active participants rather than simply passive recipients.
However, some research in the field of science journalism suggests that there might be a serious downside to this ability of the readers to express their views freely:
about 2,000 people were asked to read a balanced news report about nanotechnology followed by a group of invented comments. All saw the same report but some read a group of comments that were uncivil, including name-calling. Others saw more civil comments.
Although the research was about science articles, it would be reasonable to assume a similar effect occurs for most kinds of online journalism, with "uncivil" comments leading to skewed perceptions of the matter being discussed. Good thing Techdirt readers never resort to name calling...
"Disturbingly, readers' interpretations of potential risks associated with the technology described in the news article differed significantly depending only on the tone of the manipulated reader comments posted with the story," wrote authors Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele.
"In other words, just the tone of the comments . . . can significantly alter how audiences think about the technology itself."
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: comments, perception, tone
Reader Comments
The First Word
“IT'S FINALLY HAPPENED
*gathers canned goods and sharpened sticks and prepares for the apocalypse.*
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Name calling? Never!
Also, your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Name calling? Never!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Name calling? Never!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Name calling? Never!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Name calling? Never!
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Name calling? Never!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Name calling? Never!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But... we are all trolls... I mean they, I mean ME & YOU will be coming back for more because that is just human nature.
The very definition of a troll is just someone who holds a position (sincerely or not) that is willing to fight you over it. Kinda makes us all trolls... since you do have an opinion and all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No ...
That is a TROLL!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No ...
A masterful troll can bait for a response while posting his honest, sincere opinion. It's the way the troll writes that matters: he wants to incite a response, and that the response will also incite another response, and so on, until the whole forum is consumed by flames.
This is my honest, sincere opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No ...
I wanted to draw a parallel between people calling people trolls just because they did not like what they said, in the same vein that people eventually devolve to calling people Hitler when they feel they are losing the argument.
I am aware that there is a real meaning to the word, but people don't bother with such things. That is why we are all trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No ...
That sounds like something Hitler would say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well done Captain Obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well done Captain Obvious
This is about a specific way they are influenced, not whether they're influenced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its possible...
the one thing i can pick apart without knowing what the particulars are, is how do they know that one of the 'nasty' comments didn't have the germ of some reasonable objection which swayed the reader when presented 'nastily', but went otherwise unnoticed when presented 'neutrally' ? ? ?
in other words, i find it difficult to believe they can -in fact- 'neutrally' portray comments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other news, water is wet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IT'S FINALLY HAPPENED
*gathers canned goods and sharpened sticks and prepares for the apocalypse.*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can provide Pringles and Coke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(I did enjoy the tone of comments in the [tellingly old] source article though.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exhibit A
The comment sections of those articles have been the most vitriolic sections I've ever seen on Ars. The majority of the comments immediately condemn Eich as a hateful anti-gay bigot and/or Mozilla as hypocritical for appointing him CEO.
Now every time I see a new article about the subject, my mind goes 'oh great, how is Ars going to vilify Mozilla's new CEO this time?' even though the site's just reporting the mess and not actually publicly shaming Eich for his views.
So yeah, this research seems right on the money, at least as far as this topic goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exhibit A
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Exhibit A
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Exhibit A
Just for starters, he was one of the main engineers on the original Netscape browser project, and the inventor of JavaScript. I'm not gonna pull out any old memes that would be as silly about him as about Al Gore, but it's safe to say that the World Wide Web as we know it, including the very activism sites driving this campaign of anti-bigotry bigotry, would not exist today without him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Exhibit A
(neither the Eich story, nor the Ars comments).
Head over to Ars and check it out, yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Exhibit A
Especially considering that there is plenty of reason to heap scorn on him for the greater sin of inventing JavaScript.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Exhibit A
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Exhibit A
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I wrote online articles, I imagine there would be many days where I wouldn't read the comments for my own articles, because I wouldn't want to let obnoxious trolls criticizing my work and ruin my mood.
I seriously hope people are able to form their own opinion and view independently. If they can't, then that's the problem science journalism, should have been focusing on.
People unable to form their own opinions and views, is a much more serious issue than trolls in the comment section.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, have 'The Monsters of the ID' have been recognized as fact?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same as physical articles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"pointy headed scientists, 99% of whom are socialists and communists", "Practically all journalists are scientific illiterates" and so on.
It's hard to tell the sarcasm from the devout over there. Not like here.
But both articles (this and the linked) fail to include any reference to the original research. I rest my case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
brought to you by: M.I.S.P.W.O.S.O.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: brought to you by: M.I.S.P.W.O.S.O.
Interestingly, scientists run experiments about things rather than assuming that the obvious is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every time I see out_of_the_blue post, I want to punch someone, but mostly him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To paraphrase one of my favorite SNL skits...
Don't you know that this is just more liberal dribble-drabble; meant to inflame the sensibilities of the uprightly indignant. This smacks of whore-mongering and unrequited humor. I simply won't stand by while you attempt to stifle my mean spirited commentary, just because your "science" says it might make others less receptive to your writings.
< /hyperbole >
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can't abide authoritarianism, whatever flag they're waving.
In any case, you've answered your own question, AC @7:56am. The writer is free to write as he sees fit and the commenters are free to write as they see fit, with neither asking permission of the other as to the tone or the setting thereof. It is up to the readers to decide whether or not to be influenced by either the articles or the comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]