This article was downloaded by: [Iowa State University]On: 17 December 2014, At: 17:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Journalism PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjop20

In ModerationHans K. Meyer & Michael Clay CareyPublished online: 04 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Hans K. Meyer & Michael Clay Carey (2014) In Moderation, Journalism Practice,8:2, 213-228, DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2013.859838

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.859838

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

IN MODERATIONExamining how journalists’ attitudes towardonline comments affect the creation ofcommunity

Hans K. Meyer and Michael Clay Carey

Journalism has a vital role in fostering communities by providing a forum for public criticism and

compromise. The internet has markedly changed news organizations’ abilities to fulfill this role.

Through two surveys—one of more than 100 online newspaper editors and one nationwide

survey of more than 1000 internet users—this study extends community journalism online by

examining what role, if any, journalists have in online community formation. Specifically, the

study focuses on comments at the end of news stories and suggests that the more comments a

newspaper receives on a daily basis negatively affects how journalists see their audiences and

could discourage their participation in online community formation. On the other hand, the

second study suggests that encouragement from journalists might be a key factor in whether

people will comment. Whether participants noticed moderation in comments was a significant

predictor in how frequently they posted. The key predictor of participation, however, was whether

participants felt a virtual sense of community with the news organization. The study suggests that

journalists need to be involved in online comment forums to build virtual communities and

achieve the ideals of community journalism.

KEYWORDS comments; community; community journalism; online; participation

Introduction

One of Kovach and Rosenstiel’s (2007) key elements of journalism is that it mustprovide a forum for public criticism and compromise. That role is vital for the creation ofcommunities that can use the information journalism provides to make informeddemocratic decisions. The way in which journalists have used the internet has markedlychanged news organizations’ ability to fulfill that role. The Web makes comments instant,feedback immediate, and discussion archiving complete. This evolution mandates achange in journalists’ relationships with their audiences (Robinson 2010) and is especiallyrelevant for community reporters whose very mission is to nurture connection betweencitizens and the stories of their towns (see Robinson’s [2013] Introduction to this specialissue). But how is that relationship evolving exactly, and more importantly, how cancommunity journalists facilitate that engagement in the digital age? This researchattempts to provide one answer to these questions.

Audience feedback forms such as letters to the editor have been part of the USnews media for centuries (Reader 2012b). The Hutchins Commission identified forums forreader participation as one way in which the press can provide diverse information, offer arange of opinions and viewpoints, and encourage civic engagement in community matters

Journalism Practice, 2014Vol. 8, No. 2, 213–228, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.859838© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

(Commission on Freedom of the Press 1947; Bunton 1998; Lowrey, Brozana, and Mackay2008). That engagement with broader society and with other people is vital to theestablishment and maintenance of effective communities (Habermas 1989). Historically,the process for media consumers to “have their say” required opinions to filter throughone or more editors. Online forums, even those operated by news companies, largelyeliminate the gatekeeping function that dominated letters to the editor, and the gapbetween journalists and their audience has narrowed (Domingo 2008).

This change, in principle, should be (and often is) embraced as a valuable part of thejournalistic process: “After all, journalism is … (ideally) fueled by public participation” (Loke2012, 234). However, several studies of online journalism suggest few journalismorganizations are taking advantage of the interactivity the Web offers (Barnhurst 2002).Only 35 percent of national journalists and 36 percent of local journalists said they have apositive view of citizens posting news content on news organizations’ websites (Rosenstiel2009). Even fewer said they take the time to read the comments and submissions theyreceive.

Online participation that rises to a level that fosters democratic ideals andconstructive community building requires commitment and motivation on the user’send, to be sure. However, structural features and attitudes on the news producer’s end canalso influence the amount of participation that occurs in online forums at the end of newsarticles. Encouraging this participation online helps create the kind of forum Kovach andRosenstiel (2007) envisioned, while also helping define community journalism in themodern, technological age.

This study combines a nationwide survey of internet users with a similar study ofonline editors at North American newspapers to ask what factors lead people to contributecomments at the end of news stories and what effect journalist’s attitudes towardcomments can have. The analysis is guided by the concept of interactivity, suggesting thataudiences will more likely be engaged if they can connect with others, especiallyjournalists. The study finds that the more comments a news website receives, the morenegative attitudes the journalists who work at those sites have toward the value and utilityof comments. Those negative attitudes could be a detriment to community journalism,this study suggests, because creating a sense of virtual community is the most importantpredictor of how frequently someone will post comments at the end of a news story.

Review of Literature

Interactivity and Community Journalism

The current digital culture is one in which readers expect to be able to becomeparticipants (Lewis 2012; Loke 2012; Rosen 2006). Comment threads at the ends of newsstories are dominated not by journalists, but by readers and viewers. Comments allowpeople to express themselves in collaborative ways not previously seen (Reich 2011).Those expressions take place because readers-turned-contributors want to expresspersonal opinions, interact with one another, act as entertainers, or express intenseemotional reactions (Canter 2012; Diakopoulos and Naaman 2011). Beuchot and Bullen(2005, 83) suggested that “meaningful interpersonal connections” are one key to thedevelopment of successful virtual communities where participants engage one another.

Whether those online interactions constitute meaningful “interactivity,” however, hasbeen debated (Ha and James 1998; Kiousis 2002; Pavlik 1998; Rafaeli and Sudweeks 1997).

214 HANS K. MEYER AND MICHAEL CLAY CAREY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Many definitions of interactivity hinge on what Kiousis (2002, 359) called “third-orderdependency,” the notion that a message is interactive when it relates to previous messagesexchanged between the two parties (see also Rafaeli 1988). Computer-mediated interaction,whether it occurs in the comment section of a news story or elsewhere on the Web, hasbeen associated with a number of social and business benefits. It can enhance the user’sability to get new information (Ang and Cummings 1994; Ha and James 1998) and laterrecall that information (Schaffer and Hannafin 1986). Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997) suggestedthat interactivity in online environments can lead to social engagement and create roots forcommunities online.

For media consumers, online comment forums present fewer barriers to participa-tion than traditional forms of reader–media interaction such as newspaper letters to theeditor (Reader 2012a; McCluskey and Hmielowski 2011). However, journalists haveattached little value to the online interactions present in the comments sections at theend of stories. Niekamp (2007) found that television stations’ blogs did little to foster a“conversation” between the community viewer and the station, as only 31 percent of theblogs included ways for viewers or readers to comment. More than half of the members ofthe Online News Association surveyed in 2008 said they see user-generated content as “anessential ingredient for the website of the future” (Rosenstiel 2009), but one journaliststrongly disagreed saying, “so-called citizen journalism is a failure.”

These conversations, however, could play a large role in fostering communityjournalism online. For years, researchers have urged especially local journalists to take anactive role in fostering vibrant communities within their readership areas (Janowitz 1967;Christians, Ferre, and Fackler 1993; Stamm, Emig, and Hesse 1997). Meyer and Daniels(2011) urged these same researchers to apply community journalism principles to onlinevirtual communities because “the online environment may be a viable realm in whichprofessional journalists can create and build connections to the communities in whichthey live.”

Participation and Community Journalism

The individual and group-level benefits of online interactivity should encouragejournalists to recognize the factors that may lead to forum participation and howparticipation may be encouraged. There is limited research on what leads individuals topost in online forums (Himelboim and McCreery 2012). Rates of participation in onlinenews groups also vary greatly from site to site. Some studies suggest that roughly half thevisitors to an online forum read but do not post, while others put participation rates at10 percent or less (Katz 1998; Nonnecke and Preece 2000, 2001). Over time, participationin online forums can lead users to view those forums as communities and develoployalties that increase the frequency of site use (Lin 2008).

While the particular antecedents of community development in the online world aredifferent, many share common traits: regular interaction, an appreciation of virtual normsthat govern behavior, and the ability to express opinions and react to opinions. Whenindividuals who operate in online spaces begin to see those spaces as communities, users(and those who operate the online spaces) may reap several benefits: increased socialcapital (Tomai et al. 2010; Mathwick, Wiertz, and Ruyter 2008); greater levels of trust(Blanchard, Welbourne, and Boughton 2011) and support (Blanchard and Markum 2004);and increased loyalty to the site itself (Lin 2008).

JOURNALISTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD ONLINE COMMENTS 215

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

However, not all online spaces become “communities.” Blanchard (2007, 827) foundthat individuals who consider their online collectives to be communities experience“feelings of membership, identity, belonging, and attachment” that others may notexperience. Communal feelings can vary among different virtual environments (Blanchardand Markum 2004). Parks (2011) included the ability to engage in collective action. Parks,therefore, suggests that virtual communities can have real-world impacts, which couldinfluence community journalists interested in taking advantage of the benefits virtualparticipation affords.

Norms/protocols of Interactivity, Participation in Community JournalismOnline

Online groups experience different sets of norms that dictate how individuals inthose groups are expected to behave. Those norms can influence participants’ willingnessto interact (i.e. Kiesler et al. 2011; Honeycutt 2005; Blanchard 2004). Some norms developthrough group interactions, while others are dictated by standing website policies (Kiesleret al. 2011; Honeycut 2005). Structural elements may also contribute to understandings ofnorms. Blanchard, Welbourne, and Boughton (2011) suggested that, in groups whereposters were not allowed to participate anonymously, participants understand groupnorms better and are more likely to adhere. Wise, Hamman, and Thorson (2006) suggestedthat moderation made readers more comfortable with the idea of participating in onlineforums.

Moderation, policies on anonymity, and other structural normative features are oftenemployed to address “uncivil” behavior on message boards. In online communities, activemoderation or systems that “prescreen, degrade, label, move, or remove inappropriatemessages” can limit the damaging effects of “trolling,” as can other design features, suchas means of highlighting preferred behavior (Kiesler et al. 2011, 132). Some havesuggested hostility in a comment thread can discourage participation to the point thatit kills the thread (Hewitt 2005), although research on civility and its effects on willingnessto participate in online forums have resulted in mixed findings (i.e. Borah 2012; Ng andDetenber 2005; Preece, Nonnecke, and Andrews 2004). The wide variety of findings onflaming, trolling, and disruptive online behavior (i.e. Kiesler et al. 2011; Hardaker 2010;Chua 2009; Blanchard 2004; O’Sullivan and Flanagin 2003) speaks to the complexity ofaddressing “bad behavior” on the internet through site moderation.

Journalist Participation

Reporters and editors have different opinions on the appropriateness of issues suchas moderation and requiring registration prior to commenting on stories (Reich 2011;Robinson 2010). In one newsroom ethnography, Robinson (2010) found that olderreporters and editors tended to take “traditionalist” views that called for a moreauthoritative approach to online commenting, while younger journalists with more onlineexperience were “convergers” who opposed mandatory registration and encouragedjournalists to interact with readers in online forums. Those journalists saw participation instory comment sections as opportunities to add additional context (such as hyperlinks) orto clarify points (Robinson 2010). Journalists have expressed concerns about trust,credibility, and legal liability (Hermida and Thurman 2008) and control over content(Lewis 2012; Loke 2012; Chung 2007). Some reporters in Secko and colleagues’ study said

216 HANS K. MEYER AND MICHAEL CLAY CAREY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

that while they were “happy to correct errors pointed out in the commentary section” ofnews stories, the presence of negative commentary “in the form of irrational arguments,misinterpretations of facts presented, and direct accusations, made them hesitant aboutthe merits of online commentary” (Secko et al. 2011, 825). Other journalists have expressedconcerns that derogatory comment threads could damage their news organization’s brand(Canter 2012). Despite their reservations, journalists in Canter’s (2012) study said they didnot believe the comments sections should be eliminated. Meyer also found through anonline experiment that presenting user-generated content through a traditional mediaorganization’s brand did not decrease its organizational credibility, even if readers did notfind individual stories as credible as staff-written ones (Meyer 2009).

Many studies of journalists’ perceptions of online comment quality return toanonymity and the value of moderation. Several journalists in Loke’s (2012) study saidthey favored moderation and censorship of negative comments as a way to make sure thatothers felt comfortable commenting in the space. They feared readers would leave ifnegative comments went unchecked (Canter 2012; Hermida and Thurman 2008). Otherjournalists recognized that allowing anonymous posting fostered greater participation butexpressed concern that people would let people “take shots anonymously” (Loke 2012, 240).At the same time, reporters acknowledge that anonymity is part of the “ecology” of theinternet (Loke 2012, 241; see also Ekstrand 2003). In the end, journalists said while theysupported active engagement, they “do not view readers’ comments section as a part oftheir civic duty for their audience, instead viewing it as a benefit for journalists” (Loke 2012,244, emphasis in original).

All of this is especially relevant when we turn our attention to the practice ofcommunity journalism, which is built on the notion of a close relationship betweenjournalists and their readers (Hume 2012; Janowitz 1967; Lauterer 2006; Reader 2006,2012b). Community journalists and their readers often inhabit the same social space.Community news outlets represent the voice of the rights and values of the communitiesthey serve, and in the process, they help build social cohesion within those communities(Janowitz 1967; Lowrey, Brozana, and Mackay 2008). Lauterer (2006, 52) suggests acommunity’s “emotional and philosophical ownership” of its community newspaper isperhaps the defining difference between a community news outlet and larger newsorganizations. Because of its relationship with its readers, the community news outlet mustbalance conflicting roles as “fair and balanced reporter of the news while also serving asan advocate for all that it finds good and worthwhile in the community—a consistentlypositive force for community building and appropriate growth” (261). As a result,community journalists have reported feeling more connected to their communities thantheir counterparts at larger news organizations, and research suggests they often are likelyto find community values more important than journalistic values (Lauterer 2006;Reader 2006).

Research Questions

The literature suggests the conflict of the community journalist in the real worldmay now be occurring online as well. First, research suggests that journalists can create aclose relationship with their readers by facilitating online discussion, but it does notspecify how. In addition, it suggests that it is unclear what role those norms, and by

JOURNALISTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD ONLINE COMMENTS 217

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

extension journalists, play in creating a sense of virtual community. Therefore, this studywill examine the following research questions:

RQ1: What are journalists’ attitudes toward online comments and how do theseattitudes relate to their ideas of community?

RQ2: What effect does the number of comments a news organization receives in a dayhave on journalists’ attitudes toward online community?

RQ3: To what extent do the ways in which journalists facilitate comments (i.e.moderation, allowing anonymity, encouraging civility) influence how often anaudience member posts?

RQ4: Finally, what role do the interactions between journalists and audience membersthrough comments have in creating communities? How might local journalistspractice community journalism online?

Methods

This study combines surveys of journalists responsible for comments and audiencemembers who submit them to try to answer if community formation can happen onlinearound journalism websites. The researchers examined first whether journalists embracedthe possibility that comments can help form communities online. The researchersconducted an online survey of more than 660 journalists who had identified themselvesas either online or Web editors at newspaper companies in the United States and Canada.They obtained a list of email addresses from Editor and Publisher’s and Bacon’s mediadirectories. The survey focused on online and Web editors because they have the mostexperience with and educated opinions on comments. The survey asked them to estimatehow many comments audience members posted on a typical day.

One hundred and seven journalists completed the entire study for a response rate of16 percent. Only 77, or 72 percent, said their newspaper website published comments atthe end of stories. Analyses examine only those 77 respondents. Fifteen said their websitereceived fewer than five comments a day. Three said they received between 6 and10 comments, while 12 said they received between 11 and 20. The largest number, 46,said their websites received more than 20 comments each day. For analysis, theresearchers created two groups: news websites with fewer than 20 comments (31) andthose with more (46).

To measure attitudes, the survey asked editors to rate their level of agreement, fromstrongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) with the following statements: Allowingcomments adds value to the news; Editors should read each submission before it ispublished; Readers don’t understand news in the same way as I do; The internet hasimproved how I interact with the audience; I’m confident the audience will get the factsright; I’m confident the audience can judge what’s news; I’m confident the majority of theaudience will submit something the audience will find important; and I’m confident theposter will act ethically in getting the story.

Next, to determine what effect a journalists’ attitude can have on participation, weconducted a second study that utilized a nationwide panel operated by ClearVoice.The panel includes more than 12 million people across the United States who sign up totake surveys for small incentives. The survey went to more than 1 million panel membersacross the country and were stratified racially based on the 2010 US census. We received1042 completed surveys. Respondents rated on a scale from never (1) to very often

218 HANS K. MEYER AND MICHAEL CLAY CAREY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

(5) how often they submitted comments at the end of news stories. Nearly 18 percent saidthey never submitted comments, while 25 percent said they submitted them rarely. Morethan 30 percent reported they sometimes submitted comments while 15 percent said theyoften did, and 9 percent said they posted very often. The overall mean score was 2.72 outof 5. To simplify group analysis, we categorized comment participation three ways:42 percent posted seldom or not at all, 30 percent posted sometimes, and 25 percentposted often or very often. To predict participation, however, the researchers relied uponthe continuous measure as a whole.

The researchers compared these groups on a number of measures includingattitudes toward moderation, anonymity, and civility in comment forums. They also askedparticipants to rate their internet self-efficacy with a single question: How confident areyou in your ability to use the internet? The overall mean score was 4.27, with more than76 percent reporting they were very confident and 21 percent reporting they weresomewhat confident. This measure was used only as a covariate.

To determine the importance of virtual sense of community, the researchersadapted Blanchard’s (2007) measure by asking respondents to think of a news groupthey participated in and rate it on 18 statements, including “I think this group is a goodplace for me to be a member,” “I feel at home in this group,” “I care about what othergroup members think of my actions,” and “I get a lot out of being in this group.” All18 questions worked together to measure a single concept, according to principlecomponents factor analysis, and had a Cronbach’s alpha reliability score of 0.93. Theresearchers combined these questions into a single measure called sense of virtualcommunity by creating a mean average.

We also asked basic demographic questions at the end of the study. Ages rangedfrom 18 to 65, while income ranged from less than $25,000 annually to more than$100,000 annually. More than 32 percent of respondents reported having a collegedegree, while 27 percent completed at least some college, 24 percent said completed highschool only, and 14 percent had an advanced degree.

Results

To answer RQ1, we examined questions that directly asked journalists to report theirattitude toward comments (Table 1).

The majority of the editors who responded had a favorable view of comments andexpressed confidence in their audiences’ ability to understand what is news and get thefacts right. To answer RQ2, we tested the effect the number of comments received in aday had on these attitudes through independent samples t-tests with equal variancesassumed. We compared newspaper websites that received more than 20 comments a dayto those that received less (Table 2).

There were statistically significant differences at the p < 0.05 level for two attitudestatements: “Allowing comments from readers at the end of staff-written stories addsnothing to the news” and “The content readers submit does not usually qualify as news.”In both cases, the group that received more than 20 comments a day was more likely toagree with the statement. The sample size led the researchers to also consider statisticalsignificance at the p < 0.10 level. For the statements “I’m confident the audience will beable to judge what is news” and “I’m confident the audience will be able to act ethically ingetting the story,” those who received more comments a day were less confident in their

JOURNALISTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD ONLINE COMMENTS 219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

audience’s abilities. What these results suggest is the number of comments a newspaperwebsite receives in a day negatively affects the journalists’ attitudes toward thosecomments and the audience.

TABLE 1Percentage of online editors who disagreed or agreed with the following attitude statements

QuestionStronglydisagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Stronglyagree Mean

Allowing comments from readers atthe end of staff-written storiesadds nothing to the news

31.11 45.56 12.22 6.67 4.44 2.08

An editor or staff writer should readeach submission before it ispublished

3.33 14.44 11.11 28.89 42.22 3.92

Readers don’t understand what isnews the same way I do

10.00 26.67 31.11 25.56 6.67 2.92

The internet has improved how Iinteract with the newspaper’saudience

0.00 1.11 10.00 45.56 43.33 4.31

I’m confident in the audience’sability to get the facts right

0.00 27.78 44.44 22.22 5.56 3.06

I’m confident in the audience’sability to judge whatconstitutes news

0.00 26.67 40.00 28.89 4.44 3.11

I’m confident in the audience’sability to submit something themajority of the audience will findimportant

0.00 32.33 33.33 31.11 3.33 3.06

I’m confident in the audience’sability to act ethically in gettingthe story

2.22 26.67 41.11 26.67 3.33 3.02

TABLE 2Independent samples t-tests comparing number of comments received in a day withjournalists’ attitudes toward audience comments

Attitude

Mean number (SD) ofcomments a day

t

df (equalvariancesassumed)

Less than20 (N= 31)

More than20 (N= 46)

Allowing comments from readers at theend of staff-written stories adds nothingto the news

1.61 (0.667) 2.43 (1.074) −2.31** 72

The content readers submit does notusually qualify as news

2.55 (0.850) 3.07 (0.985) −2.38** 72

I’m confident the audience will be able tojudge what is news

3.29 (0.938) 2.93 (0.704) 1.888* 72

I’m confident the audience will be able toact ethically in getting the story

3.23 (0.920) 2.86 (0.833) 1.781* 72

*p < 0.10, **p < 0.05.

220 HANS K. MEYER AND MICHAEL CLAY CAREY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

To answer RQ3, we turned to the second study to examine what effect the elementof the online forum journalists could control had on participation. Mean scores for allparticipants was 3.26 (out of 5) for moderation importance, 3.10 for the importance ofcivility in online forums, 2.82 for the importance of being able to post anonymously, 2.81for importance of feeling a sense of community, and 2.44 for the virtual sense ofcommunity based on Blanchard’s (2007) scale.

ANCOVA or analysis of covariance tests were established with the three participationgroups as the fixed factor in the analysis; moderation, civility, anonymity and sense ofvirtual community as the dependent variables; and age and internet efficacy as covariates,meaning their influence on the dependent variable was factored out to underscore thesignificance of participation frequency. Statistically significant differences among the threegroups existed for three of the four variables: moderation importance, anonymity, andsense of virtual community.

Only the importance of civility was not statistically significant.For moderation importance, there was a significant main effect for efficacy [F(1, 981)

= 6.18, p < 0.05, and a significant main effect after factoring out age and efficacy [F(2, 980)= 17.05, p < 001]. Adjusted mean scores were 2.05 for rarely, 2.17 for sometimes, and 2.44for often. For anonymity importance, there was a significant main effect for age [F(1, 981)= 14.56, p < 0.01] and a significant main effect after factoring out age and efficacy[F(2, 980) = 4.84, p < 0.01]. Adjusted mean scores were 1.84 for rarely, 1.89 for sometimes,and 2.00 for often. For civility, there was a significant main effect for efficacy [F(1, 981) =6.66, p < 0.01] and no significant main effect after factoring out age and efficacy. Adjustedmean scores were 2.02 for rarely, 1.96 for sometimes, and 2.16 for often. For sense ofvirtual community, there was a significant main effect for efficacy [F(1, 981) = 13.70,p < 0.01] and age [F(1, 981) = 15.90, p < 0.01], and a significant main effect after factoringout age and efficacy [F(2, 980) = 129.33, p < 0.01]. Adjusted mean scores were 2.02 forrarely, 2.56 for sometimes, and 3.03 for often.

To create a model of the relative weight of each of these variables on participation,the study used hierarchical linear regression to predict how often a person wouldparticipate. The analysis used the five-point continuous scale of how often participantssaid they submitted comments at the end of news stories. Demographic variables such asage, education, and voting were entered in the first step, while efficacy was the second.Group norms journalists can control, such as moderation, anonymity, and civility were thethird step, while a sense of virtual community was the final step. The idea was to see howsignificant each variable was in predicting participation and whether other variablesmediated some of the impact (Table 3).

The final model, which included all variables, suggested that sense of virtualcommunity was the most important predictor of participation. That variable by itselfadded more than 15 points to the percentage of variance explained. Demographicsaccounted for less than 10 percent, while efficacy and group norms added 1 and 3percent, respectively. The regression suggests that a sense of virtual community mediatesthe influence of group norms and efficacy, as none of these variables was statisticallysignificant in the final model, while mediating some of the influence of age and most ofthe influence of income, which were the only other significant predictors in the finalmodel. Before adding sense of virtual community, two group norms that journalists cancontrol—moderation and anonymity—were statistically significant, along with efficacyand voting behavior, but none of these was significant in the final model. These variables

JOURNALISTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD ONLINE COMMENTS 221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

TABLE 3Hierarchical Linear Regression predicting how often participants comment at the end of news articles

VariableModel 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

B β B β B β B β

Step 1: DemographicsAge −0.02 −0.28** −0.01 −0.25** −0.01 −0.25** −0.01 −0.14**Income 0.040 0.077* 0.034 0.066* 0.036 0.071* 0.034 0.067*Education 0.044 0.058 0.035 0.046 0.026 0.034 0.004 0.005Residency 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.006 0.000 −0.005How would you describe your political opinions? −0.00 −0.003 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.009How often do you vote? 0.073 0.117** 0.066 0.105** 0.051 0.081* 0.026 0.041Step 2: Efficacy 0.220 0.114** 0.198 0.103** 0.104 0.054Step 3: Group normsModeration importance 0.171 0.159** 0.039 0.036Anonymity importance 0.061 0.063* 0.033 0.034Civility −0.04 −0.04 −0.03 −0.031Step 4: Virtual community 0.425 0.435**R2 0.091 0.102 0.130 0.281R2 change 0.091 0.012 0.028 0.151

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

222HANSK.MEY

ERAND

MICHAEL

CLA

YCAREY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

help to create a sense of virtual community, which provides a partial answer to RQ4, howjournalists can create community online.

Discussion

This study’s goal was to help define community journalism online by examiningwhat role journalists play in online communities. This research combined studies of anationwide sample of journalists and internet users to underscore the need for both newsproducers and consumers to collaborate in the community journalism process online. Thisstudy suggests that even though journalists may have negative attitudes towardcomments, they can have a vital role in ensuring the norms exist online for virtualcommunity formation. Having an active moderating presence in comment forums at theend of news stories and allowing participants to comment anonymously will have thegreatest impact in predicting a sense of virtual community, which is the best predictor offrequent participation. Maintaining civility was not a significant predictor. This findingdisputes literature that suggests a civil atmosphere is a major determinant in onlinecommunity participation. This study differed from many of those studies, however, byemphasizing participation in general and not focusing on one site or discussion forum.

While the norms journalists can control are important, this study found the mainpredictor of news comment participation was whether participants experienced a virtualsense of community online. The 18-question measure was not specific to news orcomment forums, but it suggests how important feeling a part of community is to postinga comment at the end of a news story. A sense of virtual community mediated theinfluence of nearly every other variable besides age and income. The sense of virtualcommunity measure defines whether participants feel they belong, derive support, havefriends, and expect to stay a long time in the group. These may seem beyond a journalist’scontrol. However, this study suggests that journalists can control two elements of a newscomment forum that can lead to this sense of belonging: allowing people to postanonymously is one; having an active moderating presence in the forums is another (butthis does not mean ensuring that all commenters play nice). Even when participantsnoticed that online comment forums are characterized by rude or poorly writtencomments, they were still more likely to participate if they felt a sense of virtualcommunity. For journalists, this means more than editing or eliminating offensivecomments. It means more than grabbing a source or two for the print story. It meansgetting involved, interacting with the audience about more than their last comment. Thestudy suggests journalists should have a noticeable presence in comment forums, whichcould be part of the interactivity that Kiousis suggests.

However, the first part of this study underscores other troubling findings aboutwhether journalists are ready or willing to assume that role. One significant finding of thisstudy is that the more comments journalists said they receive in a day, the more likely theyare to have a negative attitude about their value. The more comments a news websitereceives, the more likely the journalist is to have a negative opinion of his audiences’ability to get the facts right or act ethically. This may be one of the biggest reasonsjournalists fail to even read the comments they receive. Attitudes such as these could puta damper on creating the sense of virtual community this study suggests is required for acommunity newspaper website to serve as a forum for public criticism and compromise.

JOURNALISTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD ONLINE COMMENTS 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

This study demonstrates that one way to create the vibrant virtual communities is toapply principles of community journalism that worked in geographic locales. The sense ofvirtual community survey participants said they experienced online matches many of thegoals of community journalism, especially considering having a sense of belonging orconnecting. This study strongly suggests the need for journalists to get involved, at least inthe comments at the end of their stories, if not in other ways to engage with theiraudience. As more and more of journalism’s core audience moves online for news, newsprofessionals will have to move with them.

Thus, to fulfill its democratic and public deliberative functions and to bring peopletogether in comprise, journalism must extend to the virtual sphere many of the programsthey initiated in geographic ones. Many journalists have already found that comments donot merely fulfill the civic duty that Kovach and Rosenstiel (2007) mention but alsoenhance journalism. Comments at the end of stories represent a way to continue theconversation about important community topics. They can help journalists see that thestory does not end once it is published. Comments can suggest new avenues forexamination and new perspectives to include, but none of this will occur if journalists donot have a visible presence online.

A sense of belonging or feeling an important member of a group is not createdwhen one’s contributions are minimized. Participants will not stay in a group if the group’smoderator does not express confidence in their ability to determine what is important forother members or what other members will find educational. One of the simplest waysthis study suggests that news professionals can create community online is by givingpeople the freedom to post what they want and how they want, even if that meansanonymity, while also maintaining an active moderating presence in the process.

More research is needed into journalists’ attitudes toward comments as this studyrelied on a limited number of online editors. The low response rate did not allow theresearchers to determine if the size of the news organization or the geographiccommunity in which it was based had any effect on either the number of commentsreceived or the attitudes of journalists toward them. That information could helpdetermine if it is easier to create a virtual community around a tight-knit geographicone. It could also examine more closely what journalists can do to create the group normsthat will lead to a sense of virtual community.

On the audience side, however, this study is one of the few that looks atparticipation in general rather than at one specific site. This procedure limits the study’sability to explain exactly what forum elements contribute most to a sense of virtualcommunity, but it enhances the study’s capacity to build a theory around what an overall,self-reported sense of virtual community means. It suggests that while sense of virtualcommunity is created differently by individual sites, the overall concept helps explainparticipation in online forums. Sense of virtual community becomes a key element increating a theory of participation online and a key factor in online community journalism.This concept could help researchers and journalists understand what people hope to gainfrom online participation and how they hope their online experience will translate tooffline experiences. More importantly, it could help journalists understand how to applycommunity journalism principles online, especially as more and more of their audienceturns away from traditional media.

224 HANS K. MEYER AND MICHAEL CLAY CAREY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Conclusion

This presence also helps journalists connect with their audiences online andestablish the close relationship that is a hallmark of community journalism. It is one wayin which they can take “emotional and physical ownership” of the online environmentsthey control by getting involved in the comments at the end of their stories. This, in turn,can help develop a strong sense of virtual community, which can effectively have thesame effect for democracy and real-world community building as the public forum forcompromise and criticism that Kovach and Rosenstiel’s (2007) envisioned. The goals ofcommunity journalism revolve around fostering a cohesive group of people who can takereasoned action together. Even though comments at the end of news stories seeminconsequential, even though they seem like afterthoughts to journalism, they provide away journalists can provide a voice to community members’ rights and values and buildsocial cohesion among journalists and the communities they serve.

REFERENCES

Ang, Soon, and Larry L. Cummings. 1994. “Panel Analysis of Feedback-Seeking Patterns in Face-to-Face, Computer-Mediated, and Computer-Generated Communication Environments.”Perceptual and Motor Skills 79 (1): 67–73. doi:10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.67.

Barnhurst, Kevin G. 2002. “News Geography and Monopoly: the Form of Reports on U.S.Newspaper Internet Sites.” Journalism Studies 3 (4): 477–489. doi:10.1080/1461670022000019218.

Beuchot, Albert, and Mark Bullen. 2005. “Interaction and Interpersonality in Online DiscussionForums.” Distance Education 26 (1): 67–87. doi:10.1080/01587910500081285.

Blanchard, Anita L. 2007. “Developing a Sense of Virtual Community Measure.” CyberPsychology& Behavior 10 (6): 827–830. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.9946.

Blanchard, Anita L. 2004. “Virtual Behavior Settings: An Application of Behavior Setting Theoriesto Virtual Communities.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 9 (2): 00.

Blanchard, Anita L., and M. Lynne Markum. 2004. “The Experienced ‘Sense’ of a VirtualCommunity: Characteristics and Processes.” ACM SIGMIS Database 35 (1): 65–79.doi:10.1145/968464.968470.

Blanchard, Anita L., Jennifer L. Welbourne, and Marla D. Boughton. 2011. “A Model of OnlineTrust: The Mediating Role of Norms and Sense of Virtual Community.” Information,Communication & Society 14 (1): 76–106. doi:10.1080/13691181003739633.

Borah, Porismita. 2012. “Does it Matter Where You Read the News Story? Interaction of Incivilityand News Frames in the Political Blogosphere.” Communication Research. Publishedonline June 14, 2012. doi:10.1177/0093650212449353.

Bunton, Kristie. 1998. “Social Responsibility in Covering Community: A Narrative CaseAnalysis.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 13 (4): 232–246. doi:10.1207/s15327728jmme1304_3.

Canter, Lilly. 2012. “The Misconception of Online Comment Threads.” Journalism Practice 7 (5):604–619. doi:10.1080/17512786.2012.740127.

Christians, Clifford G., John P. Ferre, and P. Mark Fackler. 1993. Good News: Social Ethics and thePress.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chua, Cecil Eng Huang. 2009. “Why Do Virtual Communities Regulate Speech?” CommunicationMonographs 76 (2): 234–261. doi:10.1080/03637750902828420.

JOURNALISTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD ONLINE COMMENTS 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Chung, Deborah. 2007. “Profits and Perils: Online News Producers’ Perceptions of Interactivityand Use of Interactive Features.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research intoNew Media Technologies 13 (1): 43–61. doi:10.1177/1354856507072856.

Commission on Freedom of the Press. 1947. A Free and Responsible Press. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Diakopoulos, Nicholas, and Mor Naaman. 2011. “Towards Quality Discourse in Online NewsComments.” Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported CooperativeWork, 133–142.

Domingo, David. 2008. “Interactivity in the Daily Routines of Online Newsrooms: Dealing Withan Uncomfortable Myth.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13: 680–704.doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00415.x.

Ekstrand, Victoria S. 2003. “Unmasking Jane and John Doe: Online Anonymity and the FirstAmendment.” Communication Law and Policy 8: 405–27. doi:10.1207/S15326926CLP0804_02.

Ha, Louisa, and E. Lincoln James. 1998. “Interactivity Reexamined: A Baseline Analysis of EarlyBusiness Web Sites.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 42 (4): 457–474.doi:10.1080/08838159809364462.

Hardaker, Claire. 2010. “Trolling in Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication: FromUser Discussions to Academic Definitions.” Journal of Politeness Research 6: 215–242.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into aCategory of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hermida, Alfred, and Neil Thurman. 2008. “A Clash of Cultures: The Integration of User-Generated Content within Professional Journalistic Frameworks at British NewspaperWebsites.” Journalism Practice 2 (3): 343–356. doi:10.1080/17512780802054538.

Hewitt, Jim. 2005. “Toward an Understanding of How Threads Die in Asynchronous ComputerConferences.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences 14 (4): 567–589. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4.

Himelboim, Itai, and Stephen McCreery. 2012. “Free Interactions, Hierarchical Structure: FactorsExplaining Replies Attraction in Online Discussions.” First Monday 17 (3). doi:10.5210/fm.v17i3.3533.

Honeycutt, Courtenay. 2005. “Hazing as a Process of Boundary Maintenance in an OnlineCommunity.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10 (2): 00. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00240.x.

Hume, Janice. 2012. “Community Journalism and Community History.” In Foundations ofCommunity Journalism, edited by Bill Reader and John Hatcher, 65–82. London: Sage.

Janowitz, Morris. 1967. The Community Press in an Urban Setting: The Social Elements ofUrbanism. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Katz, Jon. 1998. “Luring the Lurkers.” Slashdot. Accessed December 29. http://news/shalsdot.org/story/98/12/28/1745252/luring-the-lurkers.

Kiesler, Sara, Robert E. Kraut, Paul Resnick, and Aniket Kittur. 2011. “Regulating Behavior inOnline Communities.” In Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based SocialDesign, edited by Robert Kraut and Paul Resnick, 125–178. Cambridge, MA: MassachusettsInstitute of Technology.

Kiousis, Spiro. 2002. “Interactivity: A Concept Explication.” New Media & Society 4 (3): 355–383.Kovach, Bill, and Tom Rosenstiel. 2007. The Elements of Journalism. New York: Three Rivers Press.Lauterer, Jock. 2006. Community Journalism: Relentlessly Local. Chapel Hill: University of North

Carolina Press.

226 HANS K. MEYER AND MICHAEL CLAY CAREY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Lewis, Seth C. 2012. “The Tension between Professional Control and Open Participation.”Information, Communication & Society 15 (6): 836–866. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.674150.

Lin, Hsiu-Fen. 2008. “Determinants of Successful Virtual Communities: Contributions fromSystem Characteristics and Social Factors.” Information & Management 45 (8): 522–527.doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.08.002.

Loke, Jaime. 2012. “Old Turf, New Neighbors.” Journalism Practice 6 (2): 233–249. doi:10.1080/17512786.2011.616649.

Lowrey, Wilson, Amanda Brozana, and Jenn B. Mackay. 2008. “Toward a Measure of CommunityJournalism.” Mass Communication and Society 11: 275–299. doi:10.1080/15205430701668105.

Mathwick, Charla, Caroline Wiertz, and Ko de Ruyter. 2008. “Social Capital Production in a VirtualP3 Community.” Journal of Consumer Research 34 (6): 832–849. doi:10.1086/523291.

McCluskey, Michael, and Jay Hmielowski. 2011. “Opinion Expression during Social Conflict:Comparing Online Reader Comments and Letters to the Editor.” Journalism 13 (3):303–319. doi:10.1177/1464884911421696.

Meyer, Hans K. 2009. “The User-Generated Dilemma: Can the Ways in Which MediaOrganizations Publish Audience Contributions Affect the Way the Audience Feels aboutthe Site and Their Intention to Contribute.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri.Accessed January 15, 2013. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/9671.

Meyer, Hans K., and George L. Daniels. 2011. “Community Journalism in an Online World’” InFoundations of Community Journalism, edited by Bill Reader and John A. Hatcher.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Niekamp, Ray. 2007. “Opportunity Lost: Blogs on Local TV Station Web Sites?” Electronic News 1(3): 149–164. doi:10.1080/19312430701455091.

Ng, Elaine W. J., and Benjamin H. Detenber. 2005. “The Impact of Synchronicity and Civility inOnline Political Discussions on Perceptions and Intentions to Participate.” Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication 10 (3): 00. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00252.x.

Nonnecke, Blair, and Jenny Preece. 2000. “Lurker Demographics: Counting the Silent.” CHILetters 2 (1): 73–80.

Nonnecke, Blair, and Jenny Preece. 2001. “Why Lurkers Lurk.” Americas Conference onInformation Systems, Boston.

O’Sullivan, Patrick B., and Andrew J. Flanagin. 2003. “Reconceptualizing ‘Flaming’ and OtherProblematic Messages.” New Media & Society 5 (1): 69–94. doi:10.1177/1461444803005001908.

Parks, Malcolm R. 2011. “Social Network Sites as Virtual Communities.” In A Networked Self:Identity, Community and Culture on Social Network Sites, edited by Zizi Papacharissi,105–123. New York: Routledge.

Pavlik, John. 1998. New Media Technology: Cultural and Commercial Perspectives. 2nd ed.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Preece, Jenny, Blair Nonnecke, and Dorine Andrews. 2004. “The Top Five Reasons for Lurking:Improving Community Experiences for Everyone.” Computers in Human Behavior 20 (2):201–223. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.015.

Rafaeli, Sheizaf. 1988. “Interactivity: From New Media to Communication.” In AdvancingCommunication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes, edited by Robert P.Hawkins, John M. Wiemann, and Suzanne Pingree, 110–34. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rafaeli, Sheizaf, and Fay Sudweeks. 1997. “Networked Interactivity.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2 (4):00. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00201.x.

JOURNALISTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD ONLINE COMMENTS 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Reader, Bill. 2006. “Distinctions that Matter: Ethical Differences at Large and Small Newspapers.Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 83 (4): 851–864. doi:10.1177/107769900608300408.

Reader, Bill. 2012a. “Free Press vs. Free Speech? The Rhetoric of ‘Civility’ in Regard toAnonymous Online Comments.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 89 (3):495–513. doi:10.1177/1077699012447923.

Reader, Bill. 2012b. “Community Journalism: A Concept of Connectedness.” In Foundations ofCommunity Journalism, edited by Bill Reader and John Hatcher, 3–20. London: Sage.

Reich, Zvi. 2011. “User Comments: The Transformation of Participatory Space.” In ParticipatoryJournalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers, edited by Jane B. Singer, AlfredHermida, David Domingo, Ari Heinonen, Steve Paulussen, Thorsten Quandt, Zvi Reich,and Marina Vujnovic, 96–117. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Robinson, Sue. 2010. “Traditionalists vs. Convergers: Textual Privilege, Boundary Work, and theJournalist – Audience Relationship in the Commenting Policies of Online NewsSites.”Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 16 (1):125–143. doi:10.1177/1354856509347719.

Robinson, Sue. 2013. “Introduction: Community Journalism Midst Media Revolution.” JournalismPractice.

Rosen, Jay. 2006. “The People Formerly Known as the Audience.” NYU Journalism Institute, October5. http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html.

Rosenstiel, Tom. 2009. “Online Journalist Survey, a Special Report of the 2010 State of the NewsMedia.” Journalism.org, January 15. http://stateofthemedia.org/2009/online-journalist-survey-intro/.

Schaffer, Lemuel C., and Michael J. Hannafin. 1986. “The Effects of Progressive Interactivity onLearning from Interactive Video.” ETR&D—Educational Technology Research and Develop-ment 34 (2): 89–96.

Secko, David M., Stephany Tlalka, Ami Kingdon, and Elyse Amend. 2011. “The UnfinishedScience Story: Journalist-Audience Interactions from the Globe and Mail’s Online Healthand Science Section.” Journalism 12 (7): 814–831. doi:10.1177/1464884911412704.

Stamm, Keith R., Arthur G. Emig, and Michael B. Hesse. 1997. “The Contribution of Local Mediato Community Involvement.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 76 (1): 97–107. doi:10.1177/107769909707400108.

Tomai, Manuela, Veronica Rosa, Minou EllaMebane, Alessia D’Acunti, Maura Benedetti, andDonata Francescato. 2010. “Virtual Communities in Schools as Tools to Promote SocialCapital.” Computers & Education 54 (1): 265–274. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.009.

Wise, Kevin, Brian Hamman, and Kjerstin Thorson. 2006. “Moderation, Response Rate, andMessage Interactivity: Features of Online Communities and Their Effects on Intent toParticipate.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12 (1): 24–41. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00313.x.

Hans K. Meyer (author to whom correspondence should be addressed) E.W. Scripps Schoolof Journalism, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA. E-mail: meyerh@Ohio.edu. Web:http://ohio.academia.edu/Hansmeyer.com.

Michael Clay Carey, E.W. Scripps School of Journalism, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA.E-mail: Claycarey7@gmail.com. Web: http://ohio.academia.edu/ClayCarey

228 HANS K. MEYER AND MICHAEL CLAY CAREY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:50

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14