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.

"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."

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...

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: comments, perception, tone

DailyDirt: More Than Words, Is All I Have To Say...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The meaning of words change all the time, and they may be changing faster than ever before. It's hard for traditional dictionaries to really keep up with new words, but linguists are trying to record and categorize all the sounds they're observing. It ain't easy, but it's interesting to keep track of all the ways our language changes as people around the world are increasingly connected. Here are just a few examples.

• Teenagers communicate in weird ways sometimes, making sounds that aren't words (but still have meaning). There's a difference between "duhhh" and "duhhyy" -- and you should be insulted by the latter. [url]
• Many terms of endearment are almost universal, like "baby" -- understandable in several different languages, but some cute names are not. Japanese women are commonly referred to as "an egg with eyes" as a compliment, but that doesn't quite translate well in English.... [url]
• According to some linguists, young women are the leaders of language fads that spread into everyday conversations. For example, Webster's New World College Dictionary (Fourth Edition) includes the use of "like" as a way to add emphasis -- as in "It's, like, hot." [url]
• Verbal profanities are stored in a different part of your brain than where most of your language skills reside, and cursing has been part of our language for centuries (if not longer). Some of the worst obscenities in Latin focus on body parts and sex, so it seems like the subject matter of curse words hasn't changed that much in a while. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: communication, cursing, dictionary, language, latin, linguistics, profanities, teenagers, terms, tone, verbal, words