Advertisement

User-Generated (Dis)Content

Eine Literatursynopse zur Nutzung der Kommentarfunktion auf Nachrichtensites im Internet
  • Nina SpringerEmail author
  • Anna Sophie Kümpel
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Nutzerkommentare machen Publikumsreaktionen auf und Anschlusskommunikation über journalistische Inhalte öffentlich und gelten als eine der am häufigsten genutzten Formen von Leserbeteiligung am Journalismus. Aufgrund ihrer Popularität, ihrer kontroversen Natur und den Herausforderungen, die mit der Implementierung einer Kommentarfunktion auf Nachrichtensites im Internet entstehen, werden Nutzerkommentare inzwischen von vielen Forscherinnen und Forschern untersucht. Der Beitrag liefert einen systematischen Überblick über Studien im Bereich der Journalismusforschung, der Nutzer- und Nutzungsforschung sowie der Medieninhalts- und Medienwirkungsforschung. Durch diesen integrativen Überblick soll der Gegenstand systematisch durchleuchtet und ein großer Teil des verfügbaren Literaturkorpus synthetisiert werden, um Diskussionen in Wissenschaft und Medienöffentlichkeit ein theoretisches und empirisches Fundament zu geben, Forschungslücken zu identifizieren und künftige Projekte in diesem Bereich anzustoßen.

Schlüsselwörter

Onlinejournalismus Nutzerbeteiligung am Journalismus User-Generated Content Nutzerkommentare Literatursynopse 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Abdul-Mageed, M. M. (2008). Online news sites and journalism 2.0: Reader comments on Al Jazeera Arabic. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 6(2), 59–76.Google Scholar
  2. Aharony, N. (2012). WikiLeaks comments: A study of responses to articles. Online Information Review, 36(6), 828–845.  https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521211287927
  3. Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2014). The “nasty effect:” Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373–387.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12009
  4. Bachmann, I., & Harlow, S. (2012). Opening the gates: Interactive and multimedia elements of newspaper websites in Latin America. Journalism Practice, 6(2), 217–232.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2011.622165
  5. Baden, C., & Springer, N. (2014). Com(ple)menting the news on the financial crisis: The contribution of news users’ commentary to the diversity of viewpoints in the public debate. European Journal of Communication, 29(5), 529–548.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114538724
  6. Barnes, R. (2015). Understanding the affective investment produced through commenting on Australian alternative journalism website New Matilda. New Media & Society, 17(5), 810–826.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813511039
  7. Benson, R., & Hallin, D. C. (2007). How states, markets and globalization shape the news: The French and US National press, 1965–97. European Journal of Communication, 22(1), 27–48.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323107073746
  8. Bergström, A. (2008). The reluctant audience: Online participation in the Swedish journalistic context. Westminster Papers in Communication & Culture, 5(2), 60–79.  https://doi.org/10.16997/wpcc.67
  9. Bergström, A., & Wadbring, I. (2015). Beneficial yet crappy: Journalists and audiences on obstacles and opportunities in reader comments. European Journal of Communication, 30(2), 137–151.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114559378
  10. Blom, R., Carpenter, S., Bowe, B. J., & Lange, R. (2014). Frequent contributors within U.S. newspaper comment forums: An examination of their civility and information value. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(10), 1314–1328.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214527094
  11. Boczkowski, P. J. (2004). The processes of adopting multimedia and interactivity in three online newsrooms. Journal of Communication, 54(2), 197–213.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02624.x
  12. Boczkowski, P. J., & Mitchelstein, E. (2012). How users take advantage of different forms of interactivity on online news sites: Clicking, e-mailing, and commenting. Human Communication Research, 38(1), 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01418.x
  13. Bowman, S., & Willis, C. (2003). We media: How audiences are shaping the future of news and information. (J. D. Lasica, Ed.). http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/download/we_media.pdf. Zugegriffen: 12. September 2017.
  14. Brown, J. D., Bybee, C. R., Wearden, S. T., & Straughan, D. M. (1987). Invisible power: Newspaper news sources and the limits of diversity. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 64(1), 45–54.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908706400106
  15. Bruns, A. (2005). Gatewatching: Collaborative online news production. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  16. Caers, R., De Feyter, T., De Couck, M., Stough, T., Vigna, C., & Du Bois, C. (2013). Facebook: A literature review. New Media & Society, 15(6), 982–1002.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813488061
  17. Canter, L. (2013). The misconception of online comment threads: Content and control on local newspaper websites. Journalism Practice, 7(5), 604–619.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2012.740172
  18. Carpenter, S. (2010). A study of content diversity in online citizen journalism and online newspaper articles. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1064–1084.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809348772
  19. Chen, G. M., & Ng, Y. M. M. (2016). Third-person perception of online comments: Civil ones persuade you more than me. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 736–742.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.014
  20. Cho, D., & Kwon, K. H. (2015). The impacts of identity verification and disclosure of social cues on flaming in online user comments. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 363–372.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.046
  21. Chung, D. S. (2008). Interactive features of online newspapers: Identifying patterns and predicting use of engaged readers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(3), 658–679.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00414.x
  22. Chung, D. S., & Yoo, C. Y. (2008). Audience motivations for using interactive features: Distinguishing use of different types of interactivity on an online newspaper. Mass Communication and Society, 11(4), 375–397.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430701791048
  23. Chung, M., Munno, G. J., & Moritz, B. (2015). Triggering participation: Exploring the effects of third-person and hostile media perceptions on online participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 452–461.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.037
  24. Cleary, J., & Bloom, T. (2011). Gatekeeping at the portal: An analysis of local television websites’ user-generated content. Electronic News, 5(2), 93–111.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243111408389
  25. Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104
  26. Cooper, C., Knotts, H. G., & Haspel, M. (2009). The content of political participation: Letters to the editor and the people who write them. PS: Political Science & Politics, 42(1), 131–137.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s104909650909009x
  27. Day, A. G., & Golan, G. (2005). Source and content diversity in op-ed pages: Assessing editorial strategies in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Journalism Studies, 6(1), 61–71.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670052000328212
  28. De Keyser, J., & Sehl, A. (2011). May they come in? A comparison of German and Flemish efforts to welcome public participation in the news media. First Monday, 16(10).  https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i10.3457
  29. Deuze, M. (2008). Professional identity in a participatory media culture. In T. Quandt & W. Schweiger (Hrsg.), Journalismus online – Partizipation oder Profession (S. 251–261). Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  30. Diakopoulos, N., & Naaman, M. (2011a). Topicality, time, and sentiment in online news comments. http://www.nickdiakopoulos.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/copap_final_revised.pdf. Zugegriffen: 12. September 2017.
  31. Diakopoulos, N., & Naaman, M. (2011b). Towards quality discourse in online news comments. Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work, 133–142.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1958824.1958844
  32. Domingo, D. (2008). Interactivity in the daily routines of online newsrooms: Dealing with an uncomfortable myth. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(3), 680–704.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00415.x
  33. Domingo, D. (2011). Managing audience participation: Practices, workflows and strategies. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, … M. Vujnovic (Hrsg.), Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers (S. 76–95). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Domingo, D., Quandt, T., Heinonen, A., Paulussen, S., Singer, J. B., & Vujnovic, M. (2008). Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond: An international comparative study of initiatives in online newspapers. Journalism Practice, 2(3), 326–342.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17512780802281065
  35. Douai, A., & Nofal, H. K. (2012). Commenting in the online Arab public sphere: Debating the Swiss minaret ban and the “ground zero mosque” online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 266–282.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01573.x
  36. Fredheim R., Moore, A., & Naughton, J. (2015). Anonymity and online commenting: The broken windows effect and the end of drive-by commenting. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2786459&dl=ACM&coll=DL&CFID=806545239&CFTOKEN=66893422. Zugegriffen: 7. September 2017.
  37. Friemel, T. N., & Dötsch, M. (2015). Online reader comments as indicator for perceived public opinion. In M. Emmer & C. Strippel (Hrsg.), Kommunikationspolitik für die digitale Gesellschaft (Digital Communication Research, Bd. 1) (S. 151–172).  https://doi.org/10.17174/dcr.v1.8
  38. Gardiner, B., Mansfield, M., Anderson, I., Holder, J., Louter, D., & Ulmanu, M. (2016). The dark side of Guardian comments. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments. Zugegriffen: 12. September 2017.
  39. Ginosar, A., & Konovalov, I. (2015). Patriotism on the internet: Journalists’ behavior and user comments. Media, War & Conflict, 8(3), 368–383.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1750635215607813
  40. Graham, T., & Wright, S. (2015). A tale of two stories from “below the line”: Comment fields at the Guardian. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 20(3), 317–338.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161215581926
  41. Habermas, J. (1990). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  42. Heinonen, A. (2011). The journalist’s relationship with users: New dimensions to conventional roles. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, … M. Vujnovic (Hrsg.), Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers (S. 34–55). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Heise, N., Loosen, W., Reimer, J., & Schmidt, J.-H. (2014). Including the audience: Comparing the attitudes and expectations of journalists and users towards participation in German TV news journalism. Journalism Studies, 15(4), 411–430.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670x.2013.831232
  44. Herbst, S. (2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Hermida, A., & Thurman, N. (2008). A clash of cultures: The integration of user-generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at British newspaper websites. Journalism Practice, 2(3), 343–356.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17512780802054538
  46. Hille, S., & Bakker, P. (2014). Engaging the social news user: Comments on news sites and facebook. Journalism Practice 8(5), 563–572.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2014.899758
  47. Holton, A., Lee, N., & Coleman, R. (2014). Commenting on health: A framing analysis of user comments in response to health articles online. Journal of Health Communication, 19(7), 825–837.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.837554
  48. Houston, J. B., Hansen, G. J., & Nisbett, G. S. (2011). Influence of user comments on perceptions of media bias and third-person effect in online news. Electronic News, 5(2), 79–92.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243111407618
  49. Hsueh, M., Yogeeswaran, K., & Malinen, S. (2015). “Leave your comment below”: Can biased online comments influence our own prejudicial attitudes and behaviors? Human Communication Research, 41(4), 557–576.  https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12059
  50. Jakobs, I. (2014). Diskutieren für mehr Demokratie? Zum deliberativen Potenzial von Leser-Kommentaren zu journalistischen Texten im Internet. In: W. Loosen & M. Dohle (Hrsg.), Journalismus und (sein) Publikum: Schnittstellen zwischen Journalismusforschung und Rezeptions- und Wirkungsforschung (S. 191–210). Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  51. Jönsson, A. M., & Örnebring, H. (2011). User-generated content and the news: Empowerment of citizens or interactive illusion? Journalism Practice, 5(2), 127–144.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2010.501155
  52. Karlsson, M. (2011). Flourishing but restrained: The evolution of participatory journalism in Swedish online news, 2005–2009. Journalism Practice, 5(1), 68–84.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2010.486605
  53. Karlsson, M., Bergström, A., Clerwall, C., & Fast, K. (2015). Participatory journalism – the (r)evolution that wasn’t: Content and user behavior in Sweden 2007–2013. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 20(3), 295–311.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12115
  54. Kilner, P. G., & Hoadley, C. M. (2005). Anonymity options and professional participation in an online community of practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer support for collaborative learning, Taipei, Taiwan. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1149328. Zugegriffen: 7. September 2017.
  55. Köcher, R. (2016a). AWA 2016: Flüchtlingszustrom: Auswirkungen eines gesellschaftlichen Aufregungszyklus auf politisches Interesse und Mediennutzung. http://www.ifd-allensbach.de/fileadmin/AWA/AWA_Praesentationen/2016/AWA_2016_Koecher_Fluechtlingskrise_Medien.pdf. Zugegriffen: 12. September 2017.
  56. Köcher, R. (2016b, November). Vertrauenskrise der Medien? Vortrag auf dem VDZ Publishers’ Summit, Berlin. http://publishers-summit.vdz.de/fileadmin/zt_de/user_upload/downloads/vortraege2016/VDZPS16_Renate-K%C3%B6cher_Allensbach-Studie_Vertrauenskrise-der-Medien_20161108.pdf. Zugegriffen: 7. September 2017.
  57. Koteyko, N., Jaspal, R., & Nerlich, B. (2013). Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments: A mixed methods study. The Geographical Journal, 179(1), 74–86.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2012.00479.x
  58. Ksiazek, T. B. (2015). Civil interactivity: How news organizations’ commenting policies explain civility and hostility in user comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 556–573.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093487
  59. Ksiazek, T. B., Peer, L., & Zivic, A. (2015). Discussing the news: Civility and hostility in user comments. Digital Journalism, 3(6), 850–870,  https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.972079
  60. Kwon, K. H., & Cho, D. (2017). Swearing effects on citizen-to-citizen commenting online: A large-scale exploration of political versus nonpolitical online news sites. Social Science Computer Review, 35(1), 84–102.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315602664
  61. Landert, D., & Jucker, A. H. (2011). Private and public in mass media communication: From letters to the editor to online commentaries. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1422–1434.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.016
  62. Larsson, A. O. (2011). Interactive to me – interactive to you? A study of use and appreciation of interactivity on Swedish newspaper websites. New Media & Society, 13(7), 1180–1197.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811401254
  63. Larsson, A. O. (2012). Interactivity on Swedish newspaper websites: What kind, how much and why? Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 18(2), 195–213.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856511430184
  64. Laslo, E., Baram-Tsabari, A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2011). A growth medium for the message: Online science journalism affordances for exploring public discourse of science and ethics. Journalism, 12(7), 847–870.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911412709
  65. Lee, E.-J. (2012). That’s not the way it is: How user-generated comments on the news affect perceived media bias. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(1), 32–45.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01597.x
  66. Lee, E.-J., & Jang, Y. J. (2010). What do others’ reactions to news on internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research, 37(6), 825–846.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210376189
  67. Leung, L. (2009). User-generated content on the internet: An examination of gratifications, civic engagement and psychological empowerment. New Media & Society, 11(8), 1327–1347.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341264
  68. Lilienthal, V., Weichert, S., Reineck, D., Sehl, A., & Worm, S. (2014). Digitaler Journalismus: Dynamik – Teilhabe – Technik (Schriftenreihe Medienforschung der Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen, Bd. 74). Leipzig: Vistas.Google Scholar
  69. Löblich, M. (2007). German Publizistikwissenschaft and its shift from a humanistic to an empirical social scientific discipline: Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, Emil Dovifat and the Publizistik debate. European Journal of Communication, 22(1), 69–88.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323107073748
  70. Löblich, M. (2008). Ein Weg zur Kommunikationsgeschichte: Kategoriengeleitetes Vorgehen am Beispiel Fachgeschichte. In K. Arnold, M. Behmer, & B. Semrad (Hrsg.), Kommunikationsgeschichte: Positionen und Werkzeuge: Ein diskursives Hand- und Lehrbuch (S. 433–454). Berlin: Lit.Google Scholar
  71. Loke, J. (2012). Old turf, new neighbors: Journalists’ perspectives on their new shared space. Journalism Practice, 6(2), 233–249.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2011.616649
  72. Loosen, W., Pörksen, B., & Scholl, A. (2008). Paradoxien des Journalismus: Einführung und Begriffsklärung. In B. Pörksen, W. Loosen, & A. Scholl (Hrsg.), Paradoxien des Journalismus: Theorie – Empirie – Praxis: Festschrift für Siegfried Weischenberg (S. 17–33). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  73. McCluskey, M., & Hmielowski, J. (2011). Opinion expression during social conflict: Comparing online reader comments and letters to the editor. Journalism, 13(3), 303–319.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911421696
  74. McElroy, K. (2013). Where old (gatekeepers) meets new (media): Herding reader comments into print. Journalism Practice, 7(6), 755–771.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.774117
  75. Meltzer, K. (2015). Journalistic concern about uncivil political talk in digital news media: Responsibility, credibility, and academic influence. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 20(1), 85–107.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161214558748
  76. Meyer, H. K., & Carey, M. C. (2014). In moderation: Examining how journalists’ attitudes toward online comments affect the creation of community. Journalism Practice, 8(2), 213–228.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.859838
  77. Neurauter-Kessels, M. (2011). Im/polite reader responses on British online news sites. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture, 7(2), 187–214.  https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2011.010
  78. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (2016). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2016. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital-News-Report-2016.pdf. Zugegriffen: 29. August 2017.
  79. Nielsen, C. E. (2012). Newspaper journalists support online comments. Newspaper Research Journal, 33(1), 86–100.  https://doi.org/10.1177/073953291203300107
  80. Nielsen, C. E. (2014). Coproduction or cohabitation: Are anonymous online comments on newspaper websites shaping news content? New Media & Society, 16(3), 470–487.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487958
  81. Nonnecke, B., Andrews, D., & Preece, J. (2006). Non-public and public online community participation: Needs, attitudes and behavior. Electronic Commerce Research, 6(1), 7–20.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-006-5985-x
  82. Örnebring, H. (2008). The consumer as producer – of what? User-generated tabloid content in the Sun (UK) and Aftonbladet (Sweden). Journalism Studies, 9(5), 771–785.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700802207789
  83. Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444
  84. Paulussen, S. (2011). Inside the newsroom: Journalists’ motivations and organizational structures. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, … M. Vujnovic (Hrsg.), Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers (S. 57–75). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  85. Paulussen, S., & Ugille, P. (2008). User generated content in the newsroom: Professional and organisational constraints on participatory journalism. Westminster Papers in Communication & Culture, 5(2), 24–41.  https://doi.org/10.16997/wpcc.63
  86. Prochazka, F., Weber, P., & Schweiger, W. (2016). Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670x.2016.1161497
  87. Reader, B. (2012). Free press vs. free speech? The rhetoric of “civility” in regard to anonymous online comments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(3), 495–513.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699012447923
  88. Reich, Z. (2011). User comments: The transformation of participatory space. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, … M. Vujnovic (Hrsg.), Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers (S. 96–117). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  89. Richardson, J. E., & Stanyer, J. (2011). Reader opinion in the digital age: Tabloid and broadsheet newspaper websites and the exercise of political voice. Journalism, 12(8), 983–1003.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911415974
  90. Robinson, S. (2010). Traditionalists vs. convergers: Textual privilege, boundary work, and the journalist–audience relationship in the commenting policies of online news sites. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 16(1), 125–143.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856509347719
  91. Rowe, I. (2015a). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121–138.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2014.940365
  92. Rowe, I. (2015b). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the deliberative quality of online news user comments across platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 539–555.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482
  93. Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K., & Masip, P. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 463–487.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211415849
  94. Santana, A. D. (2011). Online readers’ comments represent new opinion pipeline. Newspaper Research Journal, 32(3), 66–81.  https://doi.org/10.1177/073953291103200306
  95. Santana, A. D. (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18–33.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1751 2786.2013.813194
  96. Savigny, H. (2002). Public opinion, political communication and the internet. Politics, 22(1), 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.00152
  97. Secko, D. M., Tlalka, S., Dunlop, M., Kingdon, A., & Amend, E. (2011). The unfinished science story: Journalist–audience interactions from the Globe and Mail’s online health and science sections. Journalism, 12(7), 814–831.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911412704
  98. Siegert, S. (2016). Nahezu jede zweite Zeitungsredaktion schränkt Online-Kommentare ein. http://www.journalist.de/aktuelles/meldungen/journalist-umfrage-nahezu-jede-2-zeitungsredaktion-schraenkt-onlinekommentare-ein.html. Zugegriffen: 9. Juli 2016.
  99. Singer, J. B. (2009). Separate spaces: Discourse about the 2007 Scottish elections on a national newspaper web site. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(4), 477–496.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161209336659
  100. Singer, J. B. (2011). Taking responsibility: Legal and ethical issues in participatory journalism. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, … M. Vujnovic (Hrsg.), Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers (S. 119–138). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  101. 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(1), 3–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08900520802644345
  102. Singer, J. B., Hermida, A., Domingo, D., Heinonen, A., Paulussen, S., Quandt, T., … Vujnovic, M. (Hrsg.). (2011). Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  103. Slavtcheva-Petkova, V. (2016). Are newspapers’ online discussion boards democratic tools or conspiracy theories’ engines? A case study on an Eastern European “media war”. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(4), 1115–1134.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015610880
  104. Song, F., Parekh, S., Hooper, L., Loke, Y. K., Ryder, J., Sutton, A. J., … Harvey, I. (2010). Dissemination and publication of research findings: An updated review of related biases. Health Technology Assessment, 14(8), 1–193.  https://doi.org/10.3310/hta14080
  105. Springer, N. (2014). Beschmutzte Öffentlichkeit? Warum Menschen die Kommentarfunktion auf Onlinenachrichtenseiten als öffentliche Toilettenwand benutzen, warum Besucher ihre Hinterlassenschaften trotzdem lesen, und wie die Wände im Anschluss aussehen. Berlin: LIT.Google Scholar
  106. Springer, N., Engelmann, I., & Pfaffinger, C. (2015). User comments: Motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication & Society, 18(7), 798–815.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2014.997268
  107. Springer, N., & Nuernbergk, C. (2016, Juni). Commenting user networks: Two case studies on interactions and behavioral self-regulation in comments sections. Gehalten auf der 66. Jahrestagung der International Communication Association (ICA), Fukuoka, Japan.Google Scholar
  108. Springer, N., & Pfaffinger, C. (2012, Mai). Why users comment online news and why they don’t. Gehalten auf der 62. Jahrestagung der International Communication Association (ICA), Phoenix, AZ, USA.Google Scholar
  109. Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1). http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol3/iss1/art12. Zugegriffen: 12. September 2017.
  110. Stroud, N. J., van Duyn, E., & Peacock, C. (2016). Survey of commenters and comment readers. https://engagingnewsproject.org/research/survey-of-commenters-and-comment-readers/. Zugegriffen: 12. September 2017.
  111. Suau, J., & Masip, P. (2014). Exploring participatory journalism in Mediterranean countries: Political systems and national differences. Journalism Practice, 8(6), 670–687.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.865964
  112. Suran, M., Holton, A. E., & Coleman, R. (2014). Topical punch: Health topics as drivers of idiosyncratic reader responses to online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(4), 725–739.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699014550093
  113. Taddicken, M., & Bund, K. (2010). Ich kommentiere, also bin ich: Community Research am Beispiel des Diskussionsforums der Zeit Online. In M. Welker & C. Wünsch (Hrsg.), Die Online-Inhaltsanalyse: Forschungsobjekt Internet (Neue Schriften zur Online-Forschung, Bd. 8) (S. 167–190). Köln: von Halem.Google Scholar
  114. Tenenboim, O., & Cohen, A. A. (2015). What prompts users to click and comment: A longitudinal study of online news. Journalism, 16(2), 198–217.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884913513996
  115. Thorson, K., Vraga, E., & Ekdale, B. (2010). Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 13(3), 289–313.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430903225571
  116. Thurman, N. (2008). Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user generated content initiatives by online news media. New Media & Society, 10(1), 139–157.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807085325
  117. Toepfl, F., & Piwoni, E. (2015). Public spheres in interaction: Comment sections of news websites as counterpublic spaces. Journal of Communication, 65(3), 465–488.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12156
  118. von Sikorski, C. & Hänelt, M. (2016). Scandal 2.0: How valenced reader comments affect recipients’ perception of scandalized individuals and the journalistic quality of online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(3), 551–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016628822
  119. Wallsten, K., & Tarsi, M. (2016). Persuasion from below? An experimental assessment of the impact of anonymous comments sections. Journalism Practice, 10(8), 1019–1040.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2015.1102607
  120. Walther, J. B., DeAndrea, D., Kim, J., & Anthony, J. C. (2010). The influence of online comments on perceptions of antimarijuana public service announcements on YouTube. Human Communication Research, 36(4), 469–492.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01384.x
  121. Wardle, C., & Williams, A. J. (2010). Beyond user-generated content: A production study examining the ways in which UGC is used at the BBC. Media, Culture & Society, 32(5), 781–799.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443710373953
  122. Weber, P. (2014). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers’ reader comments. New Media & Society, 16(6), 941–957.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813495165
  123. Weischenberg, S., Malik, M., & Scholl, A. (2006). Die Souffleure der Mediengesellschaft: Report über die Journalisten in Deutschland. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  124. Williams, A., Wardle, C., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2011). “Have they got news for us?”: Audience revolution or business as usual at the BBC? Journalism Practice, 5(1), 85–99.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17512781003670031
  125. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/_atlantic_monthly-broken_windows.pdf. Zugegriffen: 12. September 2017.
  126. Winter S., Brückner, C., & Krämer, N. C. (2015). They came, they liked, they commented: Social influence on facebook news channels. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(8), 431–436.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0005.
  127. Yoo, C. Y. (2011). Modeling audience interactivity as the gratification-seeking process in online newspapers. Communication Theory, 21(1), 67–89.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01376.x
  128. Ziegele, M. (2016). Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  129. Ziegele, M. & Jost, P. B. (2016). Not funny?! The effects of factual versus sarcastic journalistic responses to uncivil user comments. Communication Research.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216671854
  130. Ziegele, M., & Quiring, O. (2013). Conceptualizing online discussion value: A multidimensional framework for analyzing user comments on mass-media websites. In E. L. Cohen (Hrsg.), Communication Yearbook 37 (S. 125–153). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  131. Ziegele, M., Breiner, T., & Quiring, O. (2014). What creates interactivity in online news discussions? An exploratory analysis of discussion factors in user comments on news items. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1111–1138.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12123
  132. Ziegele, M., Johnen, M., Bickler, A., Jakobs, I., Setzer, T., & Schnauber, A. (2013). Männlich, rüstig, kommentiert? Einflussfaktoren auf die Aktivität kommentierender Nutzer von Online-Nachrichtenseiten. Studies in Communication | Media (SCM), 2(1), 67–114.  https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2013-1

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft und MedienforschungLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMünchenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations