Do Comment Indicators on News Media Websites Influence Reader Behavior? By Jennifer Toomer-Cook Abstract Most news websites today offer online commenting forums placed directly on news stories to encourage public discussion of the day’s news and the free exchange of ideas. Comment boards allow readers to communicate directly with the reporter and other readers. They also serve as social recommendation systems, similar to those seen on e-commerce sites. The more comments posted on news articles, the more attractive those articles become to readers. These recommendation systems are helpful to news organizations and their quest for website revenues, largely based on repeat clicks and the length of time readers stay on the site. But they also present challenges for the news industry, including the deprofessionalization of journalism and preservation of journalistic product. Several studies have been conducted on the nature of user-generated content and its effect on readers’ perceptions and understanding of the basic information presented in news articles. However, research has not been conducted about the visual behavior of readers when they observe that an article has received comments from other users. If readers are flagged to the fact that a story is getting a lot of traffic in terms of user-generated comments, do they read the comments or the story first? Are readers more inclined to read news stories with a large number of user comments than stories with few or no comments? Does the absence of comment indicators mean fewer readers will visit the comment sections? Do comment readers spend less time on articles than readers who ignore the comment sections? These are questions tested through an eye-tracking study. Variations of two news websites were shown to 40 participants while their eye behavior was measured. Participants also responded to a survey to provide deeper insight into online news behaviors and comment board perceptions. The study provides a quantitative analysis of participants’ eye behavior and self-reported online news habits, engagement, and perceptions of online news comment forums. Literature Review Shortly after their first Internet appearance in 1995 (Paskin, 2010), online newspapers have been mining for revenues by enhancing readers’ experiences. First in a string of reader-engagement tools are newspapers’ online commenting forums, placed directly on news stories to encourage public discussion of the day’s news and the free exchange of ideas. Comment boards allow readers to communicate directly with the reporter and other readers, and to contribute their own original content and news tips to round out a newspaper’s coverage of issues. Newspapers that offered commenting systems were winning journalistic innovation awards by 2004 (Sundar & Constantin, 2004), and almost all online newspapers offer commenting forums today (Kirkland, 2014). By 2014, comment boards had evolved into a form of social recommendation system, similar to that seen on e-commerce sites, where consumers can speak honestly about and rate their experiences for other customers, and potential customers, to see. The more comments posted on news articles, the more attractive those articles become to readers (Knobloch-Westerwick, Sharma, Hansen, & Alter, 2005; International Communication Association, 2012b). These recommendation systems are helpful to news organizations and their quest for website revenues, largely based on repeat clicks and the length of time readers stay on the site (Benkoil, 2013). But they also present challenges for the news industry, including the deprofessionalization of journalism (Shirky, 2008), and preservation of the news products that journalists produce. Several studies have been conducted on the nature of user-generated content and its effect on reader perception and understanding of the basic information presented in news articles. But research has not been conducted about the way readers behave when they learn that an article has received comments from other users. If readers are flagged to the fact that a story is getting a lot of traffic in terms of user-generated comments, do they read the comments or the story first? Are readers more inclined to select stories with high numbers of comments? Comment Boards as Journalism In 2008, U.S. News & World Report editor Brian Kelly introduced an online commenting system as an extension of his magazine’s letters to the editor section, and a way for readers to talk back to journalists and begin discussions about issues portrayed in articles (International Communication Association, 2012b). Comment forums since have flourished as a convenient way to participate in public discussion via real-time exchanges of ideas on most articles contained on most newspaper’s websites, and with anyone who wishes to participate, regardless of geographical or socio-economic boundaries. By 2014, each of the 50 top news sites in the United States employed some type of commenting system, though the New York Times, Fox News, BBC, The Guardian, and CBS News have limited commentary by providing comment sections on some, but not all, articles (Kirkland, 2014). Of Internet users surveyed in a Pew study (Purcell, Rainie, Mitchell, Rosenstiel, & Olmstead, 2010), 25% said they have commented in an online forum about news they read. Commenting systems are different from their traditional predecessors. Letters to the editor are vetted by editorial staff to verify a person’s identity and to ensure commentary is not libelous, for example. But online comment systems most commonly allow a user to post comments unfiltered (Reader, 2012) and in content areas other than the opinion pages. Interactivity is in high demand by online news users. The ability to comment on a news story was cited as an important feature by 37% of all respondents to a Pew Research Center survey, and 51% of users ages 18-29 (Purcell et al., 2010). Nearly 1 in 10 U.S. adults get their news through Twitter, and 30% of all Americans get their news on Facebook (Matsa, 2014). Of Facebook news users, 8 in 10 said they stumble upon news when on Facebook, yet only about one-third actually have “liked” a news organization or individual journalist on Facebook (Matsa, 2014). This suggests that the news seen by the majority of Facebook users comes in the form of social recommendations, not the original journalistic source. In this climate of recommendation-driven dissemination, news websites frequently show the number of “tweets” on Twitter, or “shares” or “likes” on Facebook. Numbers of tweets, shares and likes are embedded in or near social media brand icons, which typically are placed near the headline or first paragraph of online news articles to attract reader attention. Each of the world’s top 15 online news sites (Olmstead, Mitchell, & Rosenstiel, 2011) use social media recommendation systems. Other recommendation systems on news sites include lists of “most popular” and “most commented” stories, with the concept of recommendations similar to those found on e-commerce sites (Knobloch-Westerwick et al., 2005). Numbers displayed inside or near social media icons provide the reader with information about popularity and social norms (Shi, Messaris, & Cappella, 2014). Such recommendations not only help readers bridge the gap between information overload and their own ability to consume it, they have also been found to affect online news consumer selections (International Communication Association, 2012b). These number recommendations may shape readers’ choices based on bandwagon theory, in which people choose a behavior largely because other people are doing it – a phenomenon commonly seen in politics and consumer behavior. Social recommendations rising from networked publics, or groups that rely on networked technologies to come together in meaningful, imagined communities and social worlds (boyd, 2014), are an integral part of disseminating news products. In some ways, networked publics have become the paper boys of the 21st century. In this competitive world of information, news organizations must work within networked publics to target and reach news consumers. They must harness networked publics to drive more users to their websites, keep them there for maximum page clicks, and encourage them to share content with others to turn clicks into advertising revenue and business stability (Benkoil, 2013). Those that don’t, suffer. A leaked New York Times internal memo states that the nation’s newspaper of record has struggled to use digital platforms to promote its work, resulting in a 50% drop in online page views since 2012 (Benton, 2014). Such a drop ostensibly affects revenues, no longer chiefly supplied by print advertising and classified ad sales in printed newspapers. The world’s top news media websites are making it simple for users to share, and therefore, recommend, what they’ve read in social media channels. All of the top 15 online news sites (Olmstead et. al, 2011) urge readers to share the articles they’ve read in social media spaces such as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Google+, LinkedIn, Pinterest, and others. The Los Angeles Times (2014) also includes links to what it calls “sharelines,” which are pre-written sentences, in 140 characters or less to ensure they fit the space requirements of a tweet, for users to share on Twitter with a simple mouse click, with no writing necessary. Online newspapers for the most part lack traditional news cues, like a traditional front page of a printed newspaper, to signal to audiences which stories editors think are most important (International Communication Association, 2012b). In the online space, user-generated recommendations are replacing traditional newspaper editors’ recommendations for what’s important, and therefore are powerful in terms of a newspaper’s ability to reach an audience. Researchers Hermida, Fletcher, Korell and Logan (2012) found that users prefer it that way. “Once you get your story on somebody’s Twitter account that has 10,000 followers, that has a big impact on your exposure,” says Matthew Brown, editor of the new Deseret News National Edition, a product created based on the paper’s digital analytics. “You cannot survive in this environment by doing the same old thing” (personal interview, June 12, 2014). The Promises, and Challenges, of User-Generated Content User-generated content is becoming an integral part of journalism. News of the “Arab Spring” protests were delivered to Americans in a way that Middle Eastern affairs had never before been presented (Omidyar, 2014). Images and narratives were captured not only by mainstream news media, but by participants who posted their experiences, photographs, opinions, hopes for and fears about the protests on social media. The result was a multi-faceted, humanistic narrative largely unseen in American news coverage about issues unfolding in the Middle East (Omidyar, 2014). In the United States, the 2012 Wisconsin protests appeared to be positioned to achieve a similar richness in narratives shaped by news coverage. The Wisconsin protests, led by college students and unions representing public employees and teachers, were ignited by a bill introduced to the Legislature to cut pensions and dismantle collective bargaining for public workers. The events were reported by news media and by protesters themselves in social media, blogs, and comment boards of mainstream news media sites (Robinson, Knisely, & Schwartz, 2013). Yet the aftermath was not that of an enriched storyline shaped by news narratives, as news media scholars had anticipated (Robinson et al., 2013). Instead, on the one-year anniversary of the protests, Wisconsin residents could not agree on what had happened, and there was no collective memory of events, contrary to what typically is seen following massive public events (Robinson et al., 2013). Robinson (2013) attributes this to a clash of user-generated and journalistic contributions about the events. Other complications have played out in comment boards. Users who post comments on professional news sites are not bound by rules of professional journalistic ethics (Paskin, 2010). Instead, comments typically are governed by rules of engagement posted by news organizations. Rules include admonishments that readers keep their posts honest, civil, relevant, legal, and obscenities-free (The Salt Lake Tribune, 2014; Napier-Pearce, March 2014). Many employ the use of flagging systems, in which readers are able call offending readers’ comments to the attention of the comment board moderator. The moderator then determines whether or not to remove the comments from the site (Napier-Pearce, March 2014). While some of the removed comments conceivably could be libelous, the federal Communications Decency Act (Cornell University Law Review, 2014) generally protects news organizations against claims that may arise from content posted by third-parties (LoMonte, 2009). While libel is a concern in terms of journalistic practice, and decency or fairness a matter of journalistic ethics, it’s not a serious threat to news organizations if libelous material comes from user-generated posts. Still, the idea of potentially libelous or unethical commentary appearing on a news organization’s website presents a clash of values for the organization’s identity and brand (Napier-Pearce, March 2014), and a blurring of the line between ethics and law. Online news users who post commentary to news websites don’t always play nice, largely because they can post anonymously or under pseudonyms largely unchecked. However, some posters have run into trouble for deceptive practices. In 2007, the Federal Trade Commission found that John Mackey, then the chief executive of Whole Foods Market, used a fictional identity on Yahoo! message boards for nearly eight years to assail his competition and promote Whole Foods stock (Stone & Richtel, 2007). In 2006, Los Angeles Times Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Michael A. Hiltzik was pulled from his blog because he feuded with readers on comment boards under an assumed name, and New Republic magazine suspended culture critic Lee Siegel after determining he’d defended himself on a New Republic blog under a pseudonym (Stone & Richtel, 2007). Such deceptive practices are termed “sock-puppeting,” or the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend, or create the illusion of support for oneself, one’s allies or company (Stone & Richtel, 2007). Such practices are frowned upon by communications industry associations, including the Society of Professional Journalists (2014) and the Public Relations Society of America (2008). These organizations require honesty in communications and self-representations unless, for journalists, the public good served by the news gathered by deceptive means (i.e., undercover journalism) outweighs the reputational harm of misrepresentation (PRSA, October 2008; SPJ, 2014). Online comment forums can be characterized by participants who frequently post anonymously (meaning that the forum administrator does not know the true identity of the user) or under screen names. In this online space, anonymity can become a powerful tool for users who hold minority opinions or who hesitate to voice their ideas in a traditional public forum for fear of retribution. Famous anonymous sources such as Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal, or the Federalist Papers published under the pseudonym “Publius” (Froomkin, 1999; Reader, 2012) help illustrate this concept. Anonymity in online public forums also can enhance the quality of speech and debate with heterogeneity, and level the playing field, which in face-to-face conversations frequently is adjusted for appearance, race, disability, and socioeconomic status (Froomkin, 1999). Yet the comments that unfolded on one of The New York Times’ comment boards following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon spotlighted the downsides of anonymity in the online public forum (Bressers, April 2003). The Times, on its website NYTimes.com, had designated a message board solely for those wishing to talk about the catastrophic events as they unfolded. While users frequently posted messages conveying shock and disbelief, some users, cloaked in anonymity, used the forum for hateful, vitriolic opinions (Bressers, April 2003). NYTimes.com administrators responded in a manner unprecedented in the online publication’s history (Bressers, April 2003). They assigned professionals to strictly monitor the September 11 comment board, and for two months did not allow anyone to post in the moderator’s absence. The comment board essentially shut down each evening and reopened each morning in New York, as if it was a physical public space rather than an online forum. The Times reported its monitors deleted about 3% of the content in the first few days of the board’s existence (Bressers, April 2003). More recently, The Salt Lake Tribune shut down its sltrib.com comment board on an article about a woman who allegedly murdered six infants she birthed over a 10-year span (Carricaburu, 2014). In that instance, more than 350 comments had been flagged by offended readers, and from those that were flagged, moderators deleted hundreds (Carricaburu, 2014). Tribune Managing Editor Lisa Carricaburu wrote a column about the extraordinary step, and chastised readers for their behavior, stating: “Let’s hope we don’t have to take such action again” (2014). Some publications are curbing anonymous commenting in hopes of returning the online spaces to their original ideals of productive, civil discourse. Issues associated with managing on online comment section were cited as a reason why the BBC discontinued the “Have Your Say” feature on stories, intended to engage readers in debating issues, and now relies on encouraging social media sharing for its user engagement offerings (Gubbay, 2011). The Huffington Post was one of several online news media organizations that in 2013 ended, to varying degrees, anonymous commentary on its websites, though the Huffington Post still allows commenters to shield their public identities by selecting screen names. YouTube in 2013 announced it would require commenters to log in with their Google+ accounts, essentially identifying commenters, in hopes that meaningful conversations would replace vicious commentary. ESPN.com (2013) requires commenters to log in with their Facebook accounts, which identifies commenters. Popular Science eliminated comment boards altogether on its own website, which is devoted to championing science (LaBarre, 2013), citing a “politically motivated war” on expertise that has eroded consensus on scientifically validated topics from evolution to climate change. The National Journal in 2014 also opted to eliminate comment forums on most articles (Felder, 2014) – an action that proved to be a good business move. While some commenters responded with threats to boycott the site due to a lack of public commenting space, user engagement in the National Journal actually increased in the aftermath (Felder, 2014). Page views per visit went up more than 10%, page views per unique visitor rose 14%, and return visits increased by more than 20% (Felder, 2014). While single-page visits dropped, visits to two or more web pages rose by nearly 20% (Felder, 2014). The Allure of Naysayers As indicated by Popular Science, user-generated comments have contributed to a massive change in the news itself. Personal opinions that were left out of a story because they did not meet basic journalistic standards are now freely expressed in comment sections. In a 2010 study, Paskin found that user-generated comments on news websites seldom contribute to future news coverage or public discussion. Paskin et al. found that 86% of comments posted on news websites were comprised solely of readers’ opinions, and more than one-third were found to be unrelated to the story, essentially distracting readers from the news coverage rather than contributing to it (Paskin et al., 2010). Additionally, 69% of comments posted to news media comment boards were categorized as negative (Paskin et al., 2010). This finding is significant because of the way such commentary has been found to affect the reader. In what is called “the nasty effect,” rude sentiments posted on comment boards change readers’ perception of the issue discussed in an article (Anderson, Brossard, Scheufele, Xenos, & Ladwig, 2013). Reading negative comments that accompany news stories also has been found to affect readers’ perceptions of the article’s quality, which has serious implications for news organizations (Felder 2014) – especially those of high reputation (Winters & Liang, 2012). Winters and Laing (2012) found that user-generated commentary has even greater influence on readers when the commentary appears on highly reputable news site, compared to when the commentary appears on sites of low reputation. Lee and Jang (2010) also found that less-analytic thinkers are more easily swayed by user-generated comments than analytic thinkers are. User-generated comments — especially uncivil ones — affect readers’ attitudes about smoking cessation. Shi et al. (2014) found that smokers perceived antismoking PSAs as more effective when the PSAs contained user-generated comments that supported the PSA’s messages. Conversely, smokers perceived the PSAs to be less effective when the PSAs contained user-generated comments that contradicted the PSA messages. When the contradictory messages were expressed in an uncivil manner, smokers reported a more negative attitude toward quitting and a lower level of perceived smoking risk than those who read contrary comments that were expressed in a civil manner. Interestingly, incivility made no difference in the smokers’ responses when the comments were supportive of the PSA’s message. These findings (Shi et al., 2014) suggest that user-generated uncivil, contradictory commentary is king of sway, especially if readers identify with the contrary comments. Shi et al. (2014) suggest that this is because uncivil, contrary comments distract from the original message, and therefore, reduced smokers’ engagement in the original message and turned positive comments into a vehicle for counterargument. Similar results emerged in a study gauging the effectiveness of an anti-marijuana PSA (Walther, DeAndrea, Kim & Anthony, 2010). This study found that the more PSA viewers agreed with commenters, the more likely they were to rate the PSA in accordance with the commenters’ positions, indicating that user-generated comments serve to solidify readers’ points of view (Walther et al, 2010). Additional studies have found that contrary user-generated comments influence readers’ perceptions of social issues. For example, study participants who read online comments that toned down the threats of Internet pornography perceived a lesser influence on how Internet pornography would affect moral values of others and themselves (International Communication Association, 2011a). These online comments also had an indirect effect on participants’ intentions to support restrictions on Internet pornography. In another study, user-generated comments that were contrary to an article’s main points were found to influence readers’ perception of media bias (International Communication Association, 2011b) — unless readers happened to agree with the views expressed in the comment boards (Lee, 2012). When readers’ views are supported by user-generated commentary, readers actually perceived less media bias, and greater public support for the issues contained in the news story. This could be because readers are misattributing user-generated comments as part of the news presentation itself (Lee, 2012), blurring the lines between user-generated and professionally produced content. Why would the opinions of anonymous commenters have so much sway over readers and their perceptions of news? The social identification/deindividuation (SIDE) model of computer-mediated communication effects, helps provide a theoretical approach to understanding this phenomenon (Walther et al., 2010). Under the SIDE model, anonymity discourages electronic forum users from discerning interpersonal differences, and encourages them to relate to others in the forum based on in-group/out-group dynamics (Walther et al., 2010). In other words, people in computer-generated groups perceive themselves and others as representative of social groups, and subsequently become more susceptible to group influence (Walther et al., 2010). People want to be part of the in-group, and therefore are more likely to conform to what the in-group is saying or doing. Those in who perceive themselves to be in the out-group may refrain from participating at all in the online forums. Pew Research Internet Project (2014) notes the Spiral of Silence theory — the tendency of people to not speak up about controversial matters in public, or even among family, friends, and colleagues, when they believe their own point of view is not widely shared — applies more in spaces governed by user-generated commentary than face-to-face interactions. The Pew survey (2014) found that people were less willing to discuss a controversial issue in social media (42%) than they were in person (86%). Those who felt their coworkers agreed with their opinion were three times more likely to join a workplace conversation about a controversial issue and were twice as likely to join a Facebook discussion if they felt those in their network agreed with their stance. Moy and Gastil (2006) found that even people who have a diverse social network and high education were less inclined to engage in deliberative conversation on polarizing issues. Pew’s findings (2014) are even more significant because the articles most likely to receive user-generated comments are those depicting news of deeper social importance, such as those pertaining to elections (Boczkowski & Mitchelstein, 2011), or that which impacts social groups or portrays conflict, either in ideas or violence (Weber 2014). It’s also known that online commentary is the domain of the most outspoken (Lee & Jang, 2010) and comprises about 2.5% of online news readers, indicating that the opinions of the very few may potentially influence a disproportionately high number of readers. For these reasons, it’s important to study how factors related to user-generated comment forums, such as social cues contained in comment indicators, may influence readers. Do High Numbers of Comments Affect Readers’ Behaviors? The number of comments and recommendations associated with news headlines has been found to impact news selection, perceived credibility, and newsworthiness among frequent online news readers (International Communication Association, 2012b). Knobloch- Westerwick et al. (2005) found readers were more likely to select articles featuring explicit recommendations from other readers, and spend more time with those articles. They also found similar results for articles with very low explicit recommendations, possibly because the latter were viewed to be more newly posted or a “rare gem,” and spotting them first could add to readers’ self-uniqueness experiences. Yet another study reported by the International Communication Association (2012b) found that the number of comments or recommendations contained on a news story do not, in and of themselves, influence news selection or perception of news items. However, the study did find that the number of comments and recommendations interact with each other by affecting the perceived likelihood readers would click on the story. Headlines with a high number of reader recommendations in the form of a “thumbs up,” for example, coupled with a moderate number of comments, would most likely result in a user clicking on the story (International Communication Association, 2012b). On the other hand, a story indicating medium numbers of recommendations and low numbers of comments most likely would be ignored by frequent online news users (International Communication Association, 2012b). Additionally, Lee and Jang (2010) found that while higher numbers of comments were more likely to attract readers to click on the article, recommendations in the form of approval ratings (thumbs up or thumbs down, for example) didn’t seem to affect readers’ behaviors, even when the approval ratings were oversized and placed in highly visible areas to readers. Indeed, eye-tracking researchers have found that content location is important in determining whether a viewer will notice content (Poynter, 2003). They have found that readers’ eyes typically fixate first in the upper-left side of a page (Leckner, 2012), then go from left to right (Poynter, 2003), which is the pattern in which English-speaking readers read printed texts. Larger headlines attract more viewer attention than small headlines do, and ads placed near popular editorial content help attract eyes to the ads (Poynter, 2003). The Top 15 news websites (Olmstead et al., 2011) appear to account for this in their designs, which typically include social recommendations, including the number of comments posted to an article, at the top of the articles, either underneath the reporter’s byline or near the graphic element (video, photo, or image). While studies have examined the effect of the number comments on article selection, they have not examined whether comment numbers influence readers to read comment sections, to skip the articles and go directly to the comment sections, or to read the comment sections before reading the articles. Eye-tracking systems can provide insight into how comment indicators influence readers’ behaviors. In simple terms, eye-tracking systems record what a website user is looking at. Computer systems capture eye fixations, which are responsible for perception and considered a reflection of readers’ cognitive strategy (Josephson, 2010) and selection process (Bucher & Schumacher, 2006). This study uses quantitative analyses of data gathered via an eye-tracking system, as well as analyses of data gathered in a participant survey, to answer the following research questions: R1: Do comment indicators placed on news articles entice users to read comment sections before reading an article? R2: Does the number contained in a comment indicator entice users to read comment sections before reading an article? R3: Does the absence of comment indicators make a difference in whether users visit the comment sections? R4: How much time do comment readers spend on news articles versus readers who ignore the comment sections? R5: Does the number contained in a comment icon influence a user’s story selection? Methods Website Design A fictitious news site called The Mix (Appendix A) was created for the purposes of this study using a weebly.com template. To ensure the most realistic news site possible, The Mix included 16 non-breaking news articles, used with permission from The Salt Lake Tribune (Appendix B). The articles were selected from the Tribune’s top 25 articles of 2013 and the top 25 articles of 2014, as determined by the number of times readers clicked on the articles. These lists were provided by the Tribune upon request. Articles were selected to represent hard news, features and entertainment. High-profile articles that were part of ongoing news coverage were eliminated to prevent reader recognition, which could affect participants’ article selection and the amount of time they spend on the articles. Additionally, to reduce the presence of confounding variables, no photographs or graphics were used. Articles selected for the study were placed on two web pages containing eight articles each. The first set of articles included the following headlines: Obama preparing monuments land grab?; School fired blogger over ‘homophonia’; Professor’s final odyssey to the great beyond; Low lake water reveals ghosts of the past; Riverton home among HGTV’s ‘outrageous’; U. student gored in Pamplona bull run; Inside the MTC: Boot camp for Mormons; Shatner, West make history at Comic Con. The second set of articles included the following headlines: Police killings outpace deaths by drugs, gangs; Referee dies week after being punched; A look inside FLDS house, odd construction; Home valued at $13 million sells at auction; Dad sick of Utah women digs overseas dating; Mom: Let 12-year-old daughter into 1st grade; Man wants cop who killed his dog fired; ‘Sandlot’ director caps reunion with proposal. Each headline served as a hyperlink to the full article. Under each headline appeared a 3-line sentence from the article, followed by the call to action, “Read Story,” which also served as a hyperlink to the article. Article placement on the two websites remained static for all experimental groups. Articles were shortened for the study, and ranged from 30 to 70 lines each. At the end of articles appeared a “Comments” icon box, a paragraph containing rules for comment participation that was patterned after the rules that appeared on sltrib.com, and the comment sections that appeared with the original articles. Comment sections were edited to remove mention of The Salt Lake Tribune, and were limited to 50 per page to avoid sudden failure on the weebly.com web hosting service. Each of the 16 articles was assigned a high number of comments and a low number of comments. The high number was the original number of comments each article received on sltrib.com (these numbers ranged from 10 to 2,103). The low number was a randomly-generated number between 0 and 9. One of the articles received just 10 comments when it appeared on sltrib.com, so its low comments number was assigned as 0. To maintain comment thread authenticity, comments were included in chronological order, starting with the first comment of the first comment thread. Each of the 16 articles was presented on the websites in four ways (Opgenhaffen & d’Haenens, 2010): low comments with comment indicator; low comments with no comment indicator; high comments with comment indicator; and high comments with no comment indicator. To accomplish this, eight websites were created for the study, with eight articles per site. Each website contained four high-comment articles and four low-comment articles. Experimental Study Design Each participant saw two websites: One with comment indicators, and one without. On websites with comment indicators, the comment numbers appeared as a hyperlink next to “Read Story” on the home page and as a hyperlink at the top of the full articles. On websites without comment indicators, nothing additional was placed on the home pages, but a hyperlinked “Comments Below” indicator was placed at the top of the full articles to alert readers to the presence, but not quantity, of comments. The order in which participants saw the pages also was reversed. So, some participants saw webpage 1 then webpage 2; others in the group saw webpage 2 then webpage 1. Participants Study participants were recruited through the Department of Communication at Weber State University and via the researcher’s personal contacts and social media accounts. Some Weber State professors advertised the opportunity to undergraduate and graduate students; others offered extra credit for participation, with alternative extra credit offered to students who did not wish to participate in the study. Participants ranged in age from 20 to 62 years, and included 19 females and 21 males. Of them, 55% said in a survey that they read news articles online at least once a day; another 10% said they read news articles online 4-6 times per week, and 12.5% said they read news articles online 1-3 times per week. Additionally, 22% said they post comments on articles. In all, 44 participants intended to complete this study; however, usable eye-tracking data was obtained from 40. Apparatus The Gazepoint GP3 Eye Tracker System uses a video camera, set up next to the participant’s computer screen, and a VESA screen mount, which is about 1-inch wide and 12 inches long and placed just below the computer monitor. The VESA screen mount aims infrared light into the participant’s eyes to track what he or she is looking at. In the study, participants were able to move their heads and hands freely as they read and scrolled on the study websites. A digital-image processor tracked both the center of the participant’s pupils and the reflection from the surface of the cornea – an approach that allows changes in the participant’s gaze to be discriminated from head movements (Josephson, 2010). The eye-tracking system recorded data including fixation chronology, or a hierarchal mapping of what the participant looked at first, second, and so forth, as well as fixation times. Procedure The experiment was conducted in the eye-tracking research laboratory created by Dr. Sheree Josephson at Weber State University. The research team of Jennifer Toomer-Cook and Dr. Josephson were present during the experiment. The research was conducted over three days. Participants were asked to read and sign an informed consent form (Appendix C). Participants then were seated in front of a Gazepoint GP3 Eye Tracker System, and participated in a brief calibration procedure in which they were asked to fixate on targets positioned in the center, upper left, lower left, upper right and lower right portions of their field of view. Once the system was calibrated, participants received instructions about how to access the study website, scroll article pages, and return to the homepage. They also were asked to hold their head as still as they would while concentrating on reading content on a computer screen, and to read through the news site as they normally would. Participants were informed that they would be reading actual news articles, and to read as long as they wanted to. This instruction is designed to provide participants with a more authentic user experience, and to ensure that the data collected was based on authentic reader choices. Participants were told to verbally indicate that they were finished when they were done reading the content that interested them. Then, they were told to click on a specific site to begin the study. Each participant was placed in one of four experiment groups and instructed to use the following sites: • Group 1: Site 1 (with comment indicators) and Site 2 (without comment indicators) • Group 2: Site 3 (with comment indicators) and Site 4 (without comment indicators) • Group 3: Site 5 (with comment indicators) and Site 6 (without comment indicators) • Group 4: Site 7 (with comment indicators) and Site 8 (without comment indicators) Within these groups, the first site each participant visited was alternated. Survey After the experiment, participants were asked to complete a survey to gather demographic data and information about their online news habits (International Communication Association, 2012a). The survey began by asking the participants their gender and age (open-ended), and to provide answers to statements regarding online news habits on a 5- point Likert Scale containing the following responses: “Maybe a few times a year,” “a few times per month,” “1-3 times per week,” “4-6 times per week,” “at least once a day.” The questions were: • I read news articles online. • I read comments posted on news articles. Participants then were asked a yes/no question as to whether they post comments on news articles. If they answered yes, participants were asked to indicate, on the same Likert scale, their posting frequency. Participants then were asked to answer the following statements about online news engagement, using a 5-point Likert Scale containing the following responses: “Strongly Disagree,” “Disagree,” Undecided, “Agree,” “Strongly Agree”: • I like being able to post comments on news sites. • I prefer news sites that do not allow readers to post comments. • I’m more likely to read an article that contains more than 100 comments. • I’m more likely to read the comments if there are more than 100 posted. • I’m more likely to post a comment if there are more than 100 posted. • I’m more likely to post a comment if there are fewer than 10 comments posted. • The number of comments posted on an article makes no difference in whether I read that article. • I avoid reading comments on news sites. • I prefer to read an article first, and the comments second. • I prefer to read the comments first, and the article second. • I prefer to read only articles, and no comments. • I prefer to read the comments instead of the articles. Next, participants were asked to respond, using the same Likert scale, to statements regarding their perceptions of news media comment boards: • Comments are entertaining. • Comments are uncivil. • Comments help me to broaden my understanding of important issues. • Comments help other people to broaden their understanding of important issues. • Comments help me to form an opinion about an issue. • Comments help other people to form an opinion about an issue. • Comments have caused me to change my opinion about people or ideas contained in an article. • Comments cause other people to change their opinions about people or ideas contained in an article. • Comments do not help readers. Lastly, participants were asked to provide responses to two open-ended prompts: • Indicate why you do or do not participate in online news comment boards. • How do comments affect news credibility? Once they were finished, participants were thanked for their time and offered a treat and a drink. Data Gathering Each participant’s eye fixations, as recorded by the Gazepoint GP3 Eye Tracker System, were analyzed to determine participants’ reading order (i.e., articles or comments first), whether the participant scanned for the comments indicator in making article selections, and the amount of time the participant spent on articles and comments. Participants were considered to have read comment sections if they spent more than 2 seconds in those sections. This is because participants who spent less than 2 seconds in the comment sections displayed vertical eye-scanning patterns rather than horizontal, left to right patterns that would indicate the participant is reading. The data from the Gazepoint system was analyzed with the data gathered in the survey in attempts to understand participant behavior. Results Eye-Tracking Results Participants’ gazes and website clicks were analyzed to answer the first three research questions — R1: Do comment indicators placed on news articles entice users to read comment sections before reading an article? R2: Does the number contained in a comment indicator entice users to read comment sections before reading an article? and R3: Does the absence of comment indicators make a difference in whether users visit the comment sections? While 88% of participants gazed at comment indicators on the homepages, and 48% gazed at them on articles, none of the participants read the comment sections before reading the articles. In fact, 18% of participants didn’t read comment sections at all. Interestingly, participants more often gazed at the “Comments Below” hyperlink on articles without comment indicators. In those cases, 62% of participants gazed at the “Comments Below” hyperlink on at least one article they clicked. Just one participant actually clicked on “Comments Below” to read the comment section, but only after reading the article. As for R3, participants accessed comments on 50.4% of articles without comment indicators, and 49.2% of articles with comment indicators. On sites with comment indicators, participants clicked on and read 130 articles and 64 comment sections. On sites without comment indicators, participants clicked on and read 133 articles and 67 comment sections. To determine R4 — How much time do comment readers spend on news articles versus readers who ignore the comment sections? — time spent gazing at articles and at comment sections was measured for two groups of participants: Those found to have read comments on every story clicked (N=10) and those found to have read none of the comment sections (N=7). Comment-readers were found to spend an average 1:37 on each article (including those with and without comment indicators) during the study. By comparison, article-only readers spent an average 1:05 per article. Additionally, comment-readers spent an average 0:38 on the comment sections. This translates into an average 2:15 that comment readers spend per article page, which is more than double the 1:05 average time spent by those who did not read comment sections. It’s important to note that comment readers spent more time reading comments than articles on 23% of the articles they selected. In 90% of these cases, the comment indicator was visible, and in 80% of these cases, the comment levels were high. This suggests that comment indicators and higher comment levels may make a difference in the time a user spends reading comments versus time spent reading articles. To determine R5 — Does the number contained in a comment icon influence a user’s story selection? — articles were grouped into the following four comment levels: Low, Medium, High and Very High. The low range included 0-9 comments. The medium range included 10-99 comments, the high range included 100-999 comments, and the very high range included articles with 1,000 comments or more. The percentages of the articles available to participants was compared to the percentages of articles selected by participants. Low-comment level articles accounted for 50% of the articles available to participants, and participants selected those articles 50.4% of the time. Medium-comment level articles accounted for 13% of available articles and were selected 12% of the time. High comment-level articles accounted for 28% of available articles and were selected 29% of the time. Very high comment articles, which accounted for 9% of available articles, were selected 8.5% of the time. There were, however, article selection differences among participants who always read comment sections and those who never read comments. Comment-readers selected very high comment articles 11% of the time (versus 9% of articles available) and low comment articles 53% of the time (versus 50% of articles available). This phenomenon is consistent with findings by Westerwick et al. (2005), in which articles with very low or very high comment levels are more likely to be selected by engaged users. Conversely, article-only readers clicked on low comment articles 45% of the time (compared to 50% of articles available), and medium-comment articles 22% of the time (compared to 13% of articles available). Survey Results Participants’ survey responses did not always reflect their actions in the study. For example, 85% of respondents agreed that the number of comments posted on an article makes no difference in whether they read an article. This was consistent with eye-tracking patterns recorded in the study. However, just 83% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I prefer to read an article first, and the comments second,” whereas all participants read the articles first. Participants’ perceptions of comment sections differ. For example, 53% of participants said they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I like the ability to post comments on news sites comment sections.” Participants also indicated they believe comments help readers, as just 15% agreed or strongly agreed with a statement to the contrary. Yet it’s not clear just how participants believe comments can be helpful to readers. Just 48% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Comments help me to broaden my understanding of important issues” and 42% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Comments help other people broaden their understanding of important issues,” a question about which 25% of participants were undecided. While 48% agreed with the statement, “Comments help me to form an opinion about an issue,” 55% agreed that comments help other people form an opinion about an issue. Additionally, 35% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Comments have caused me to change my opinion about people or ideas contained in an article,” and 48% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Comments cause other people to change their opinions about people or ideas contained in an article,” a statement about which 30% were undecided. Participants showed much stronger consensus on the nature of comment sections, with 65% agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statements, “Comments are entertaining,” and “Comments are uncivil.” To provide greater understanding of participants’ views, the survey provided two open-ended response prompts: “Indicate why you do or do not participate in online news comment boards” and “How do comments affect news credibility?” Nearly 33% of respondents’ answers indicated that they didn’t participate in online news comment boards because the comment boards are too negative, or contain irrelevant information or uninformed opinions. Another 13% said comment sections were pointless or a waste of time. Wrote one respondent: “I think of it as a battleground where there is no winning but plenty of carnage. People who leave comments already have there (sic) mind made up to the point of not changing. I do not participate when I know I will not be heard.” Others said they did not participate because of privacy concerns, because they didn’t want to set up multiple accounts, or because it takes too long to log in. But 28% of respondents said they liked reading or participating in comment boards. Wrote one respondent: “I occasionally do when the subject is not my expertise and I’d like regular data. I do stress that well over 90% of comments are a waste of time. But there are some with a different POV, new facts, a more logical way of interpretation that can give insight to things the article has not touched on or didn’t want to touch on.” Another 15% of respondents said they participate in comment boards to share their knowledge and opinions on issues that are important to them; 5% said they enjoy the debate and civil discussion on local issues; and 8% said they enjoy read comment sections for entertainment. Regarding the prompt, “How do comments affect news credibility?” 52% responded that comments don’t affect news credibility at all. Eight percent said comments can damage news credibility, and 5% said they can damage credibility only if the sites lack moderators. Conversely, 8% said comments make a news organization more credible, and 5% said they keep journalists honest and accurate by allowing the public a venue in which to highlight journalists’ missteps. To that point, 13% of respondents said user-generated comments can affect the credibility of journalistic product if comments highlighting journalistic inaccuracies are indeed correct. Wrote one respondent: “If any portion of the article or sources or whatever is not credible in any way, the commenters will be the first to make everyone else aware. The comments may change people’s perceptions on credibility.” Discussion Data from this study show that comment indicators do not entice readers to skip articles to instead read the comment sections, even when they know a comment section is popular enough to have more than 2,000 comments posted. Additionally, a lack of comment indicators wasn’t shown to make a difference in whether participants visited the comment sections. If comment indicators don’t influence readers’ behaviors, it’s uncertain what does entice participants to read comments posted by other readers. But what is certain is that comment-readers spent more time on articles and more time on the news websites than participants who did not read comments. It’s also not clear whether participants are aware of their reading habits, or whether their actions differed from their responses on the survey because of some other factor. For example, while 100% of participants read articles before comments (if they read comments at all), just 83% indicated such was their habit. While 53% indicated they like being able to post comments to news sites — a higher response than the 37% who said the ability to comment on a news story was important in a Pew Research Center survey (Purcell et al., 2010) — there was no consensus on what the value of the comment sections are to readers. Participants responses were divided on how comment sections help readers to understand issues, or to form or change opinions about issues. However, two-thirds agreed that comments were uncivil and at the same time, entertaining, indicating that entertainment value may be a key attribute that draws them to the comment sections. It’s interesting to note that 35% of respondents indicated the comments have caused them to change their views of issues or people in the news, indicating comment sections have more meaning than simple entertainment value. This finding supports those of Felder (2014), who found reading negative comments that accompany news stories affect readers’ perceptions of the article’s quality, and Winters & Laing’s findings (2012), in which readers’ perceptions are even more changed by negative comments found on news sites of high reputation. In this study, 13% of responses to open-ended prompts indicated user-generated comments can show that journalists failed in their newsgathering duties. These responses, however, beg the question: How do readers know that the user-generated comment is more credible than a journalist’s product? Three respondents provide insight about this question, and the downsides of commenter anonymity: o “They (comments) are a necessary evil in the digital age, but to allow anyone to say anything, which seems to be the case among most news outlets, ends up muddying a publication’s reputation.” o “I don’t listen to what comments say at all. They’re people opinions on a matter and for all we know, a 12-year old could be commenting on there.” o “It can have a big affect (sic), especially if someone says that they are a doctor or something and state a fact, then people might believe tem (sic) even though they don’t know if they are telling the truth.” Limitations The placement of the comment sections may have affected results in terms of the number of comment sections visited and in turn, the time that users spent reading the comment sections. In this study, the comment sections were available to readers by simply continuing to scroll at the bottom of each article. While a participant could click on a comment indicator hyperlink to skip to the comment section, they didn’t have to click on a hyperlink when they finished reading an article to reveal the comments. While the gaze of a few readers indicated they were scanning for the comment sections while reading an article, it’s difficult to determine whether the majority of readers looked at comment sections because of an active decision, or because there was simply more content to scroll on the page. Requiring readers to click a comments icon at the end of the story to fully reveal the comment sections would provide a better indication of their determination in a future study. Additionally, while the length of the articles used in this study were cut for consistency, there were wide variations of length, ranging from 30 to 70 lines, which could have affected whether readers continued to scroll to the comments. For example, shorter articles required less scrolling to view the comment sections than longer articles. Gender balance also may be considered a limitation in this study. While 21 males and 19 females participated in the study, the gender of participants within each of the participant groups was not balanced. The gender of participants within each group is as follows: - Group 1 – Females: 3 Males: 7 - Group 2 – Females: 4 Males: 6 - Group 3 – Females: 5 Males: 5 - Group 4 – Females: 7 Males: 3 Also, site viewing order was balanced among participants in all groups except for Group 2, in which seven participants viewed Site 3 and then Site 4, and three participants viewed Site 4 and then 3. This occurred because not all data for all participants was usable for the study analysis. It’s uncertain whether this, or the gender imbalance, might have skewed results, as gender analyses were not performed in this study. Conclusion Neither the presence of comment indicators, nor the number of comments revealed in a comment indicator, have been demonstrated to influence a user’s reading order (i.e., comment sections before articles), or decision to read comment sections. This could be considered a positive outcome for news organizations, as it could be construed that the journalistic product is overwhelmingly more attractive to readers than user-generated commentary. But that is not to say that comment boards are not useful to news organizations. On the contrary, even users who don’t read comment sections indicate that the ability to comment about the news in such forums is important to their experience as news consumers. Additionally, users who habitually read comment sections spend twice as much time on article pages, and about 50% more time reading articles than users who read only news articles and none of the comments. This information can be useful for news organizations in their quest to attract advertisers to purchase space on their sites and article pages. However, it’s important for news organizations to also note that habitual comment readers are more likely to spend longer periods of time reading user-generated comments than articles when the articles indicate high levels of comments, and that the content of comment sections may skew readers’ perceptions of the news product. Some participants said they viewed comment sections as a valuable forum to challenge professional journalists’ work, and indicated that they placed credibility in largely anonymous commenters. This should serve as a caution to news organizations, as commenters’ unseen biases may lessen the impact of their professional products. References ABC News Digital Network (2014, October 11). Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/ Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2013, February 19). The “Nasty Effect:” Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12009 Angouri, J., & Tseliga, T. (2010). “You Have No Idea What You are Talking About!” From e-disagreement to e-impoliteness in two online fora. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture, 6(1), 57-82. doi: 10.1515/JPLR.2010.004 AOL News (2014, October 11). Retrieved from http://www.aol.com BBC (2014, October 11). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/ Bell, M. (2014, April 28). “Three weeks of Vox.” Vox.com. Retrieved from http://www.vox.com/2014/4/28/5659728/three-weeks-of-vox-tell-us-what-you- think#comments boyd, d. (2014) It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens (pp. 1-53; pp. 199- 213). New Haven: Yale University Press Benkoil, D. (2013, November 26). In Digital Media, New Ethical Considerations for the Business Side, Too. MediaShift: Your Guide to the Digital Media Revolution. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2013/11/new-media-new-ethical-considerations- for-the-buisness-side-too/ Benton, J. (2014, May 15). The leaked New York Times innovation report is one of the key documents of this media age. The Nieman Journalism Lab, Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.niemanlab.org/2014/05/the-leaked-new-york-times-innovation- report-is-one-of-the-key-documents-of-this-media-age/ Boczkowski, P. J., & Mitchelstein, E. (2011). How Users Take Advantage of Different Forms of Interactivity on Online News Sites: Clicking, E-Mailing, and Commenting. Human Communication Research, 38. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01418.x Borah, P. (2014). Does It Matter Where You Read the News Story? Interaction of Incivility and News Frames in the Political Blogosphere. Communication Research, 41(6), 809- 827. doi: 10.1177/0093650212449353 Bressers, B. (2003, March). Civic journalism goes online. Quill Magazine, 91(2), 25 Bressers, B. (2003, April). What’s acceptable on message boards? Quill Magazine, 91(3), 16- 19. Bucher, H., & Schumacher, P. (2006). The relevance of attention for selecting news content. An eye-tracking study on attention patterns in the reception of print and online media. Communications, 31, p. 347-368. doi: 10.1515/COMMUN.2006.022 Carricaburu, L. (2014, April 15). “Salt Lake Tribune shuts down comments on infant murder story.” Sltrib.com. Retrieved from http://archive.sltrib.com/printfriendly.php?id=30629075&itype=storyID CBS News Network (2014, October 11). Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/ CNN Digital Network (2014, October 11). Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com Legal Information Institute (2014). 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Cuniff, M. (2012, July 24). Blog Commenter Reveals Identity; Post sparked suit from GOP official. The Spokesman-Review. Retrieved from http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/jul/24/blog-commenter-reveals-identity/ Diakopoulos, N., & Naaman, M. (2011). Towards Quality Discourse in Online News Comments. School of Communication and Information, Rutgers University. Retrieved from http://www.nickdiakopoulos.com/wp-content/ uploads/2007/05/pr220-diakopoulos.pdf. Donath, J. MIT Media Lab (1998). Prepared for Killock, P., & Smith M. (Eds.). Communities in Cyberspace, London: Routledge. Retrieved from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html Farhi, P. (2014, June 19). Washington Post, New York Times and Mozilla team up for new Web site comment system. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/washington-post-new-york-times- and-mozilla-team-up-for-new-web-site-comment-system/ 2014/06/19/fa836e90-f71e-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html Felder, Adam (2014, June 5). How Comments Shape Perceptions of Sites’ Quality – and Affect Traffic. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2014/06/internet-comments-and- perceptions-of-quality/371862/ Fishbein, M. (2008, November 17). A Reasoned Action Approach to Health Promotion. Medical Decision Making. Retrieved from http://mdm.sagepub.com/content/28/6/834 Fox News Digital Network (2014, October 11). Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/ Froomkin, A. M. (1999, April – June). Legal Issues in Anonymity and Pseudonymity. Information Society, 15(2), 113-127. doi: 10.1080/019722499128574 Gazepoint (Producer). (2015). GP3 VESA Screen Mount Assembly [image: screen capture]. Available from http://www.gazept.com/faq-items/gp3-vesa-screen-mount-assembly/ Graham, S. L. (2007, April). Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 742-759. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017 Google News (2014, October 11). About Google News. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/about_google_news.html Gubbay, A. (2011, March 18). Comments and making our coverage more social. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/theeditors/2011/03/comments_and_ma king_our_covera.html Hampton, K., Rainie, L., Lu, W., Dwyer, M., Shin, I., & Purcell, K. (2014, August 26). Social Media and the “Spiral of Silence.” Pew Research Internet Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence/ Hermida, A., Fletcher, F., Korell, D. & Logan, D. (2012, October). Share, Like, Recommend. Journalism Studies, v13, 5-6, pp. 815-824. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1481366/Share_Like_Recommend_Decoding_the_S ocial_Media_News_Consumer The Huffington Post (2014, October 11). Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ International Communication Association (2011a). Influence of online comments on the perceptual and behavioral component of the third-person effect. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 2011 Annual Meeting, 1-36. Retrieved from http://content.ebscohost.com.hal.weber.edu:2200/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P =AN&K=79595527&S=R&D=ufh&EbscoContent=dGJyMMvl7ESep7E4zdnyOLCmr0y eqLFSs6y4SK6WxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGuskq1rLNIuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA International Communication Association (2011b). Influence of User Comments on Perceptions of Media Bias and Third-Person Effect in Online News. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 2011 Annual Meeting, 1-20. Retrieved from http://content.ebscohost.com.hal.weber.edu:2200/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P =AN&K=79595105&S=R&D=ufh&EbscoContent=dGJyMMvl7ESep7E4zdnyOLCmr0y eqLFSs6q4TK6WxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGuskq1rLNIuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA International Communication Association (2012a). Frequent Online Newsreaders Affected by the Number of Comments and Recommendation. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 2012 Annual Meeting, 1-25. Retrieved from http://content.ebscohost.com.hal.weber.edu:2200/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P =AN&K=85900385&S=R&D=ufh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLe80Seqa44zdnyOLCmr0y epq9Ss6q4SbCWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGuskq1rLNIuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA International Communication Association (2012b). A New Site for Participatory Democracy? Journalists’ Perceptions of Online Comment Sections. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 2012 Annual Meeting, 1-29. Retrieved from http://content.ebscohost.com.hal.weber.edu:2200/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P =AN&K=85900727&S=R&D=ufh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLe80Seqa44zdnyOLCmr0y epq9Ss6y4S7eWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGuskq1rLNIuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA Jenkins, H., Ford, S. & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture (pp. 1-84; pp. 195-228). New York, N.Y.: New York University Press Josephson, S. (2004). Eye Tracking Methodology and the Internet. In Smith, K. L., Moriarty, S., Kenney, K., & Barbatsis (Eds.), Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media (pp. 63-80). New York, N.Y.: Routledge. Viewed online at http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Visual-Communication-Methods- Routledge/dp/0805841792/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414648800&sr= 1-1&keywords=Handbook+of+Visual+Communication Josephson, S. (2010). Using Eye Tracking to See How Viewers Process Visual Information in Cyberspace. In Josephson, S., Barnes, S. B., & Lipton, M. (Eds.), Visualizing the Web: Evaluating Online Design from a Visual Communication Perspective (pp. 99-121). New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Kirkland, S. (2013, November 6; updated 2014, August 5). Despite complaints, comments broadly allowed on many news sites. Poynter. Retrieved from http://www.poynter.org/how-tos/community-engagement/228584/despite-complaints- comments-broadly-allowed-on-many-news-sites/ Knoblock-Westerwick, S., Sharma, N., Hansen, D. L., & Alter, S. (2005, September). Impact of Popularity Indications on Readers‘ Selective Exposure to Online News. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(3), 296-313. Ksiazek, T. B., Peer, L., & Lessard, K. (2014, August 11). User engagement with online news: Conceptualizing interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news videos and user comments. New Media & Society. doi: 10.1177/1461444814545073 LaBarre, S. (2013, September 24). Why We’re Shutting Off Our Comments. Popular Science. Retrieved from http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting- our-comments Leckner, S. (2012). Presentation factors affecting reading behavior in readers of newspaper media: an eye-tracking perspective. Visual Communication, 11(2), 163-184. doi: 10.1177/1470357211434029 Lee, E., & 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. doi: 10.1177/0093650210376189 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(2012), 32-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01597.x LoMonte, Frank (2009, July 30). MySpace not liable for assaults committed by network’s users. Student Press Law Center. Retrieved from http://www.splc.org/blog/splc/2009/07/myspace-not-liable-for-assaults-committed- by-networks-users Lopez, G. (2014, September 28). Report: Police officer shot in Ferguson Saturday night. Vox.com. Retrieved from http://www.vox.com/2014/9/27/6855821/a-police-officer- was-shot-in-ferguson-tonight Los Angeles Times (2014, October 11). Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/ MacKinnon, R. (2012, May 3). Collateral damage: news organizations, free speech, and the Internet. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved from http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/collateral_damage_news_organiz.php?p age=all&print=true. Manjoo, F. (2013, June 6). You Won’t Finish This Article. Why people online don’t read to the end. Slate.com. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/06/how_people _read_online_why_you_won_t_finish_this_article.html Manson, P. (2014, April 23). U. of Utah nurse resigns over offensive online comment about Tongans. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from http://archive.sltri.com/printfriendly.php?id=30715284&itype=storyID Matsa, K. & Mitchell, A. (2014, March 26). 8 Key Takeaways about Social Media and News. Pew Research Journalism Project. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/8-key-takeaways-about-social-media- and-news/ Moy, P., & Gastil, J. (2006). Predicting Deliberative Conversation: The Impact of Discussion Networks, Media Use, and Political Cognitions. Political Communication, 23(4), 443- 460. Retrieved from http://content.ebscohost.com.hal.weber.edu:2200/pdf18_21/pdf/2006/POU/ 01Oct06/23093584.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=23093584&S=R&D=ufh&EbscoContent=dG JyMNHr7ESeprA4yOvsOLCmr0ueprdSrqi4SbaWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPG uskq1rLNIuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA MSNBC (2014, October 11). Retrieved from www.msnbc.com Napier-Pearce, J. (2014, March 10). Trib Talk: Online comment boards. sltrib.com. Retrieved from http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=30183645&itype=storyID New York Daily News (2014, October 11). Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/ The New York Times (2014, October 11). Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com Omidyar, P. (2014, February 27). Social Media: Enemy of the State or Power to the People? Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pierre-omidyar/social-media-enemy- of-the_b_4867421.html Olmstead, K., Mitchell, A., and Rosenstiel, T. (2011). Navigating News Online: The Top 25. Pew Research Journalism Project. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2011/05/09/top-25/ Opgenhaffen, M., & d’Haenens, L. (2010). Beyond Factual Knowledge: The Impact of Online News Features on Self-Perceived Knowledge. Conference Papers – International Communication Association, 2010 Annual Meeting. P. 1-26. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.hal.weber.edu:2200/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer ?sid=3cc2b198-9577-4319-be51- 5020695b7c1e%40sessionmgr110&vid=6&hid=116. Paskin, D. (2010). Say what? Analysis of reader comments in bestselling American newspapers. The Journal of International Communication, 16(2), 67-83 The Poynter Institute (2003). Eyetrack III: Looking again at online readers (2003-2004). Eyetracking the News: A study of Print & Online Reading. Retrieved from http://www.poynter.org/extra/Eyetrack/previous.html Public Relations Society of America (October 2008). Deceptive Online Practices and Misrepresentation of Organizations and Individuals. Ethical Standards Advisory ESA-8. Retrieved from http://www.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/Ethics/documents/Ethical%20Standards% 20Advisory%20ESA%208.pdf Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Mitchell, A., Rosenstiel, T., & Olmstead, K. (2010, March 1). Understanding the participatory news consumer: How internet and cell phone users have turned news into a social experience. Internet & American Life Project & Project for Excellence in Journalism, Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Understan ding_the_Participatory_News_Consumer.pdf Reader, B. (2012, September). Free Press vs. Free Speech? The Rhetoric of Civility in Regard to Anonymous Online Comments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(3), 495-513. doi: 10.1177/1077699012447923 Rieder, R. (2014, June/July). No Comment. AJR. Retrieved from http://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=4878 Robinson, S., Knisely, S., & Schwartz, M. L. (2013, August 9). A News Negotiation of A State’s “History.” Journalism Studies, 15(4), 431-448. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2013.824207 Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006, February 10). Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market. Science, 311(5762), 854-856. doi: 10.1126/science.1121066 The Salt Lake Tribune (2014, October 21). New Tribune Website Goes Live. Retrieved from http://www.sltrib.com/news/1729985-155/tribune-goes-site-com-design-sltrib The Salt Lake Tribune (2014, November 9). About sltrib.com Comments. Retrieved from http://www.sltrib.com/info/aboutcomments Shi, R., Messaris, P., & Cappella, J. N. (2014). Effects of Online Comments on Smokers’ Perception of Antismoking Public Service Announcements. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 19, 974-990. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12057 Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations (pp. 55-80). The Penguin Group, New York, N.Y. Society of Professional Journalists. SPJ Code of Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp. Soni, J. (2013, August 26). The Reason the Huffington Post is Ending Anonymous Accounts. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimmy-soni/ why-is-huffpost-ending-an_b_3817979.html. Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21-48. Steffensmeier, T., & Schenck-Hamlin, W. (2008). Argument Quality in Public Deliberations. Argumentation and Advocacy, 45(1), 21-36 Stone, B., & Richtel, M. (16 July, 2007). The Hand that Controls the Sock Puppet Could Get Slapped. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/technology/16blog.html?pagewanted =all&_r=0 Sundar, S. S., & Bellur, S. (2009). This is Your Brain on Interactivity: Alpha-Blocking While Processing Online News. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 2009 Annual Meeting, 1- 6. http://content.ebscohost.com.hal.weber.edu:2200/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=A N&K=45286533&S=R&D=ufh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLe80Seqa44zdnyOLCmr0yep rBSr6q4SbaWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGuskq1rLNIuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA Sundar, S. S., & Constantin, C. (2004). Does interacting with media enhance news memory? Automatic vs. controlled processing of interactive news features. Conference Papers - - International Communication Association, 2009 Annual Meeting, p. 1- 41. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.hal.weber.edu:2200/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?si d=c75bdc0b-29b6-4570-b456-6161029f8b9f%40sessionmgr112&vid=1&hid=118 Upadhyay, S. R. (2010). Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture, 6(1), 105-127. doi: 10.1515/JPLR.2010.006 USA Today (2014, October 11). Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/ 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(2010), 469-492. doi: 10.1111/j.1468- 2958.2010.01384.x The Washington Post (2014, October 11). Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ 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. doi: 10.1177/1461444813495165 Winter, S., & Liang, Y. (2012). The Influence of Source Reputation and User Statements on the Perception of Online News Articles. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 2012 Annual Meeting, http://web.b.ebscohost.com.hal.weber.edu:2200/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfvie wer?sid=734f67a1-4ef4-4e54-b6e4- 51890a3ed1cb%40sessionmgr110&vid=1&hid=109 Yahoo! News (2014, October 11). Retrieved from http://www.news.yahoo.com Ziegele, M., & Quiring, O. (2013). Conceptualizing Online Discussion Value. Communication Yearbook, 37, 125-153. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=49mX-l9kpH8C& oi=fnd&pg=PA125&dq=conceptualizing+online+discussion+value+Ziegel e,+Marc&ots=6RXweBKbG0&sig=iBugpcH3E8aqXA8KdXvfxQD8IeU#v=onepage&q= conceptualizing%20online%20discussion%20value%20Ziegele%2C%20Marc&f=tr ue 4/25/2015 Gmail ­Master's Thesis Request for Comment Boards Eye­Tracking Study https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f866073853&view=pt&search=inbox&th=149d1095b69904dc&dsqt=1&siml=149d1095b69904dc&siml=14b12916c9… 1/22 Jen Cook <jentcook@gmail.com> Master's Thesis Request for Comment Boards Eye­Tracking Study 10 messages Jennifer Toomer­Cook <jentcook@gmail.com> Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:28 PM To: orme@sltrib.com, kmorriss@sltrib.com Mr. Orme and Mr. Morriss, I spoke with Wendy Ogata Thursday afternoon, and she recommended I contact you about the research I’m conducting for my thesis in the Master of Professional Communication program at Weber State University. I’ve read several articles in The Salt Lake Tribune and recently watched with great interest a Trib Talk segment regarding online comment boards. Comment boards on news media websites are the focus of my master’s thesis. Currently, I’m creating an eye­tracking research study that will seek to determine how comment board cues affect reader perception and behavior in the following ways: ‐ Does placement of the comments icon influence participants’ reading order (i.e., article before comments, or vice versa)? ‐ Does the number of comments contained in the icon influence participants’ reading order? ‐ Does reading order affect the participants’ perception of the article’s content? To answer these questions, I plan to conduct eye­tracking research to determine where a reader’s eyes fixate when reading online news. Participants will be asked to use a news website, which will be created for this study. Participants will be told that we are conducting an experiment to determine where their eyes go when reading news on a website. They will be given about three minutes to browse through the articles and be asked to read whatever they find interesting. Participants’ eye movements and fixations will be recorded. When finished, they will be asked to complete a survey designed to determine their recall of the news stories, as well as obtain information about their online news reading habits. To create the most authentic study conditions possible, I request your permission to use three articles that have appeared in The Salt Lake Tribune’s online editions and received high numbers of reader comments. The articles themselves would remain unchanged in the study. However, the number of reader comments attached to the articles would vary in ranges of low numbers (estimated fewer than 10), medium numbers (around 50 comments), and high numbers (around 200 or more). To preserve the authenticity of comment board exchanges, comments would be included in chronological order for each of the ranges (so, the first 10 comments, the first 50 comments, all 200 comments). 4/25/2015 Gmail ­Master's Thesis Request for Comment Boards Eye­Tracking Study https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f866073853&view=pt&search=inbox&th=149d1095b69904dc&dsqt=1&siml=149d1095b69904dc&siml=14b12916c9… 2/22 The number of comments appearing on the story is one of two variables in the study. The other is the placement of the icon cuing the reader as to how many comments the story has received. The icon indicating the number of comments on the story in one condition will be located near the byline or the end of the first paragraph; in the second condition the icon will appear at the bottom of the story. Should you grant approval, participants in the study would be told that the news content was copied from a Utah newspaper’s website, with permission, and uploaded to the test site for the sole purposes of this study. I also would be happy to share with you the data gathered in this study if it would be of interest to you. I hope to have the opportunity to speak with you further about this request, and answer any questions you might have. I’ll plan to follow up with a phone call on Friday. Or, if you’d prefer to contact me, I can be reached at 801­631­3484. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. Respectfully, Jennifer Toomer­Cook Full disclosure: I worked 13 years as a journalist at The Park Record (1995), The AP­Salt Lake City (1995­96) and Deseret News (1996­2008), and currently work as a spokeswoman for the Canyons School District. Kevin Morriss <kmorriss@mail.sltrib.com> Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:39 AM To: Jennifer Toomer­Cook <jentcook@gmail.com>, orme@sltrib.com, kmorriss@sltrib.com Jennifer ­­You have The Tribune's permission, but Tim Fitzpatrick just asks that you send us a copy of your final paper. ­­Kevin Morriss Kevin Morriss Digital director The Salt Lake Tribune sltrib.com ­­­­Original Message ­­­­From: "Jennifer Toomer­Cook" <jentcook@gmail.com> Sent: 11/20/2014 11:28:15 PM To: orme@sltrib.com, kmorriss@sltrib.com February 2015 IRB STUDY # 15-AH-01 WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY INFORMED CONSENT USER BEHAVIOR ON NEWS MEDIA WEBSITES You are invited to participate in a research study of user behavior on news media websites. You were selected as a possible subject because you are a student in the Department of Communication or other adult who opted to participate in this research study. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study. The study is being conducted by Dr. Sheree Josephson, Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication, AND Jennifer Toomer-Cook, a graduate student in the Master of Professional Communication Program. STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to employ eye-tracking devices to determine where participants’ eyes go when they use a news media website. NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: If you agree to participate, you will be one up to 50 subjects who will be participating in this research. PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY: If you agree to be in the study, you will do the following things: • You will be seated at a computer for about 20 minutes. • First, you will be fitted with a pupil-corneal tracking device. • You will participate in a brief calibration procedure. For this procedure, you will be asked to look at targets positioned in different places on the computer screen. • After the calibration procedure, you will be asked to view a total of two websites. Please engage in the websites as you normally would, including clicking on articles, clicking on comments, and reading whatever you find to be interesting. • After you read the websites, you will be asked to complete a survey about your habits and engagement in online news. • When you finish the survey, your participation is complete. RISKS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: You may experience discomfort in remaining seated for up to 25 minutes for the duration of the study. There also may be risk that is currently unforeseeable. BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY You will not receive payment for taking part in this study. February 2015 ALTERNATIVES TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: You have the option of not participating in this study. COSTS/ COMPENSATION FOR INJURY In the event of physical injury resulting from your participation in this research, necessary medical treatment will be provided to you and billed as part of your medical expenses. Costs not covered by your health care insurer will be your responsibility. Also, it is your responsibility to determine the extent of your health care coverage. There is no program in place for other monetary compensation for such injuries. However, you are not giving up any legal rights or benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you are participating in research which is not conducted at a medical facility, you will be responsible for seeking medical care and for the expenses associated with any care received. CONFIDENTIALITY Efforts will be made to keep your personal information confidential. We cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality. Your personal information may be disclosed if required by law. Your identity will be held in confidence in reports in which the study may be published and databases in which results may be stored. Organizations that may inspect and/or copy your research records for quality assurance and data analysis include groups such as the study investigator and his/her research associates, the Weber State University Institutional Review Board or its designees, and (as allowed by law) state or federal agencies, specifically the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [for FDA-regulated research and research involving positron-emission scanning], the National Cancer Institute (NCI) [for research funded or supported by NCI], the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [for research funded or supported by NIH], etc., who may need to access your medical and/or research records. CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS For questions about the study, contact the researcher, Dr. Sheree Josephson at 801-626-6164, or Jennifer Toomer-Cook at 801-631-3484. For questions about your rights as a research participant or to discuss problems, complaints or concerns about a research study, or to obtain information or offer input, contact the Chair of the IRB Committee IRB@weber.edu. VOLUNTARY NATURE OF STUDY Taking part in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to take part or may leave the study at any time. Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Your decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect your current or future relations with Weber State University. SUBJECT’S CONSENT In consideration of all of the above, I give my consent to participate in this research study. I will be given a copy of this informed consent document to keep for my records. I agree to take part in this study. Subject’s Printed Name: Subject’s Signature: Date: (must be dated by the subject) Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent: Signature of Person Obtaining Consent: Date: User Behavior on News Media Websites - Survey Results Survey Num StartDate What is your gender? How old are you? Please answer the following statements about your online news use. Do you post comments on news articles? If you responded "Yes" to Question 2: Please answer the following statements about online news engagement. Please answer the following statements about online news engagement. 􀀀 􀀀􀁒 Response Open-Ended Response I read news articles online. I read comments posted on news articles. Response How often do you post comments? I like being able to post comments on news sites. I prefer news sites that do not allow readers to post comments. I am more likely <strong>to read an article</strong> that contains more than 100 comments. I am more likely <strong>to read the comments</strong> if there are more than 100 posted. I am more likely <strong>to post a comment</strong> if there are more than 100 comments posted. I am more likely <strong>to post a comment</strong> if there are 9 or fewer comments posted. The number of comments posted on an article makes no difference in whether I read the article. I avoid reading comments on news sites. I prefer to read an article first, and the comments second. 1 03/05/2015 Male 21 4-6 times per week 4-6 times per week No Agree Disagree Agree Undecided Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree 2 03/05/2015 Female 23 A few times per month Maybe a few times a year No Agree Undecided Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Undecided 3 03/05/2015 Male 25 At least once a day Yes A few times per month Strongly Agree Disagree Undecided Undecided Undecided Undecided Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 4 03/05/2015 Male 23 1-3 times per week 1-3 times per week No Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 5 03/05/2015 Male 24 At least once a day 4-6 times per week No Undecided Disagree Agree Undecided Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree 6 03/05/2015 Male 33 At least once a day 4-6 times per week Yes 1-3 times per week Agree Undecided Undecided Undecided Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree 7 03/05/2015 Male 24 At least once a day 4-6 times per week Yes A few times a year Strongly Agree Undecided Undecided Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 8 03/06/2015 Male 24 At least once a day 4-6 times per week Yes A few times per month Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 9 03/06/2015 Female 25 At least once a day At least once a day No Undecided Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 10 03/06/2015 Female 34 At least once a day 1-3 times per week No Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Undecided 11 03/06/2015 Female 22 A few times per month Maybe a few times a year No Disagree Undecided Undecided Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 12 03/06/2015 Male 25 1-3 times per week 1-3 times per week No Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree 13 03/06/2015 Female 20 4-6 times per week A few times per month No Undecided Disagree Undecided Undecided Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree 14 03/06/2015 Female 22 At least once a day At least once a day Yes 1-3 times per week Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree 15 03/06/2015 Female 21 4-6 times per week A few times per month No Undecided Disagree Agree Undecided Undecided Undecided Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 16 03/06/2015 Female 21 A few times per month A few times per month No Undecided Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree 17 03/06/2015 Female 20 At least once a day 1-3 times per week No Undecided Disagree Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Agree Disagree Agree 18 03/06/2015 Male 49 At least once a day Maybe a few times a year No Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree 19 03/06/2015 Female 24 At least once a day 1-3 times per week No Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree 20 03/06/2015 Male 35 4-6 times per week A few times per month Yes A few times a year Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Undecided Strongly Agree 21 03/06/2015 Male 34 4-6 times per week No Agree Disagree Undecided Undecided Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Undecided Agree 22 03/06/2015 Female 25 A few times per month A few times per month No Undecided Undecided Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Undecided Agree 23 03/06/2015 Male 23 At least once a day 4-6 times per week No Undecided Disagree Undecided Undecided Undecided Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 24 03/06/2015 Male 28 1-3 times per week 1-3 times per week No Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 25 03/06/2015 Female 21 1-3 times per week No Undecided Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree 27 03/06/2015 Female 20 At least once a day 1-3 times per week No Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree 28 03/06/2015 Male 27 At least once a day 1-3 times per week No Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Undecided Strongly Agree Disagree Agree 29 03/06/2015 Male 62 At least once a day Maybe a few times a year No Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Undecided 31 03/07/2015 Male 21 A few times per month A few times per month No Undecided Disagree Agree Undecided Undecided Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree 34 03/07/2015 Female 47 At least once a day At least once a day No Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 35 03/07/2015 Male 22 1-3 times per week 1-3 times per week No Undecided Undecided Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 36 03/07/2015 Female 43 At least once a day At least once a day No Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 37 03/07/2015 Male 43 At least once a day At least once a day Yes At least once a day Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Undecided 38 03/07/2015 Female 41 At least once a day At least once a day No Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 39 03/07/2015 Male 46 At least once a day 1-3 times per week Yes A few times per month Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Undecided Undecided Undecided Undecided Undecided Disagree Strongly Agree 40 03/07/2015 Female 44 A few times per month A few times per month No Agree Undecided Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree 41 03/07/2015 Male 25 At least once a day 4-6 times per week No Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Undecided Strongly Agree 42 03/07/2015 Female 23 At least once a day At least once a day Yes A few times a year Undecided Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 43 03/07/2015 Male 25 Maybe a few times a year Maybe a few times a year No Undecided Undecided Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 44 03/07/2015 Female 21 Maybe a few times a year Maybe a few times a year No Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided Please answer the following statements about comments posted on news articles. Please answer the following statements about comments posted on news articles. I prefer to read the comments first, and the article second. I prefer to read only articles, and no comments. I prefer to read the comments instead of the articles. Comments are entertaining. Comments are uncivil. Comments help me to broaden my understanding of important issues. Comments help other people broaden their understanding of important issues. Comments help me to form an opinion about an issue. Comments help other people to form an opinion about an issue. Comments have caused me to change my opinion about people or ideas contained in an article. Comments cause other people to change their opinions about people or ideas contained in an article. Comments do not help readers. Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Undecided Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Undecided Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Undecided Undecided Disagree Agree Undecided Agree Undecided Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Undecided Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Undecided Disagree Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Agree Undecided Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Undecided Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Undecided Strongly Agree Undecided Undecided Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Undecided Undecided Disagree Agree Disagree Undecided Undecided Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Undecided Disagree Undecided Disagree Undecided Undecided Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Undecided Agree Undecided Undecided Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Undecided Strongly Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Agree Undecided Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Undecided Disagree Undecided Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Undecided Undecided Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Undecided Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Undecided Undecided Agree Agree Disagree Undecided Disagree Undecided Disagree Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Undecided Undecided Strongly Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Undecided Disagree Undecided Undecided Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Undecided Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Undecided Undecided Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Undecided Strongly Disagree Undecided Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Undecided Undecided Agree Agree Agree Agree Undecided Strongly Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Undecided Undecided Undecided Undecided Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Agree Undecided Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Undecided Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Undecided Agree Agree Disagree Undecided Disagree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Undecided Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Undecided Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Indicate why you do or do not participate in online news comment boards. How do comments affect news credibility? Open-Ended Response Open-Ended Response I never post comments when I am reading articles online. I enjoy reading other people's opinions in the comments, and usually just read through them to get a better understanding of the article. I don't think it affects the news credibility at all. It's basically people posting their opinions on the matter. Nobody's opinion is considered true or false. I am there to read the article. I prefer to not read others opinions on the topic and not to share my opinions. It can have a big affect, especially if someone says that they are a doctor or something and state a fact, then people might believe them even though they don't know if they are telling the truth. I occasionally do when the subject is not my expertise and I'd like regular data. I do stress that well over 90% of comments are a waste of time. But there are some with a different POV, new facts, a more logical way of interpretation that can give insight to things the article has not touched on or didn't want to touch on I personally don't think they do. The fact is the commenter isn't "known" like the writer. It's incredibly hard to make yourself credible enough. But occasionally, a commenter has made me open my eyes. Other times, they've been utter tools. i like to read what other people have to say, but i am not a person to talk about or post my feelings on a topic or in comments of the article. I like to keep to myself, that's just how i am, but i am extremely opinionated I don't think it effects the credibility of the news, but people can be harsh. peoples true colors come out online but who knows in person. i think that comments on the article do not effect the credibility but it effects the persons credibility who posted the comment. I don't like to share my opinion on important issues on the internet. They don't. People will talk regardless, the comment section just gives them an avenue to all speak together. Sometimes for the humor of posting, others to add facts I might know concerning the subject at hand. Depends on whether said comments can be shown to be factual or not. I participate if I have something to add. Usually I don't add anything because someone has already posted something that I would have said. So, I don't comment very often. I don't think comments affect the credibility of the news articles. Comment sections are for debate and for people to talk about what it is they read. Some people may say that the article is completely bogus, but it all depends on what site you are on and if you have read other articles by the same person. You can come up with your own conclusions based on what people write, not on the comments. I participate in comment boards if I have knowledge about the story and it is being misrepresented. To me the don't affect credibility, but for others I believe comments influence the perceived importance of a story. I generally just skim the comments. It seems that a lot of commenters are misinformed or lacking information about a subject and let their individual biases affect their comments. Commenters tend to be mean and judgmental when they usually have no right to be. I usually just take the comments at face value. I don't think they affect new credibility unless the moderators do not delete comments that are inappropriate or the violate the website's terms and conditions. I participate in online new because it is easily accessible to me. I enjoy reading online news and the majority of my social media is from news organizations. I find ideas and stories for my job from reading the news I receive from social media. I am not affected by the comments in news stories. I rarely comment on my friends social media, and I never comment on news stories. When getting news I just want the facts. I don't care to hear about biased opinions. Personally for me they don't. It's hard to know someones credibility through an anonymous comment box. I'm sure there are times when people can call out false information but I've never seen that happen. I d 't ll th d If I h i i b t thi I t ll h b d f i d I d 't th f th i i i t th Wh h it? Wh ? Th t i l d 't d t d h I f l h I t th t l i it d 't b fit th th it ld h b d f i d B h i th ht ith I don't kn ow tha t they d o. Just bec ause a b unc h of peopl e are comme ntin g on s om ethin g doe sn't m ake it a be tter st ory or a m ore impo rtant story. C ommen ts si mply show there was a disagreement of opinion. I like to indulge in civil discussions on issues with other people in y community, especially if the issue is a local one. If any portion of the article or sources or whatever is not credible in any way, the commenters will be the first to make everyone else aware. The comments may change people's perceptions on credibility. I do not participate because I don't care what other people think of my opinion. I'll share my opinion with people face to face when talking about an issue, but I don't care enough to follow up with an article and see what people say to me. I don't listen to what comments say at all. They're people opinions on a matter and for all we know, a 12 year-old could be commenting on there. I do not like all the negative comments people post. Everyone can have their own opinion but you should not bash on others. To me they do not really affect it. I think the people that comment usually are just the people that want to cause contention. I don't participate in online news comment boards because I just like to read what others have said. I am not a person that feels like others have to know my opinion. I believe that the more comments equals more interest and public interest which leads to more coverage with leads to credibility. I have personally been the subject of some very uncivil, hurtful, and untruthful remarks on comment boards (bordering on defamation) and really just have no respect for the comments that are made. I find that the comments are usually very uninformed and usually add nothing of substance to the issues covered in the article. I think they substantially damage the credibility of the news because the media outlets that allow them often do not police them (notwithstanding their statements to the contrary) for rude, profane, or defamatory content. They are also usually full of uninformed, extremely biased opinions that add nothing to the accuracy or objectivity of the stories at which they are directed. I personally don't post comments because its a waste of time. Some people are ignorant to some news and base their comments on that just to get reactions. Then there are arguments on comments that shouldn't of been there to start with. People should express their opinions but should keep the negative ones to themselves. I don't think that they do. Comments are just a place for people to say what they think about a certain issue. If you read the article or what it I think a reasonable person can come up with a conclusion on their own. The credibility of the news depends on what place people trust and believe to be true. i only comment if i feel very strongly about the news topic. I don't feel it really affects the credibility of the news article. Usually because I do not want to set up an account on every site that I visit. I feel that if everyone agrees with the opinion of the article, then only one person is doing the thinking and tallking. I feel that I do not need to make my opinion public regarding articles I read unless I feel strongly about it. I also feel that some readers tend to bash other readers opinions and can be closed minded about the topic of the article. I do not think comments affect news credibility because the comments made are usually by viewers and do not reflect the opinions of the company who wrote the article. I usually don't have much to add, and even if I do, I can't usually express it well in so short a form (and would prefer not to express it in a longer form). It depends on whether the author of the article participates in the comments I don't usually care what people comment on an article If it's insightful that's good; if it's derogatory or uncivil I ignore it (or make fun of it) Neither actually reflects on the news organization that posted the original article Two points: if the author can't leave criticism alone in the comments section that reflects badly on the news organization (or if they generally don't act well in the comments) Second if the news organization tolerates a high level of abusive language without banning accounts or moderating that reflects badly on the organization as well Otherwise I don't attribute much credibility in either direction based on the comment section I have found that thru social media outlets when you comment on things it can open you up to criticism and when reading a new article I do not see the point in expressing my opinion publicly and opening myself up to that criticism. I do not feel that they affect news credibility. the credibility comes from the sources of the article and the news agency who reports said news. Full of internet trolls. 1 out of 20 seem to be reasonable, the rest of them are a joke. Depending on the nature of the comments the news source could be seen as either a prejudice non-newsworthy place or have high ratings and seen as something that is a good place for correct information. I usually don't have a very strong opinion about what I read and even if I did I don't think anyone would care to hear it. I don't care what they say so why would they care what I say? A lot of people comment that the information in stories are wrong. That changes the readers opinion of the article/news sometimes Takes to long to login. Give people a voice and can help with edits. I don't because most seem to be snarky, promote their own opinions or they're attempts to be clever. Allowing anonymous comments just opens the door to every opinion, no matter how irrelevant. They are a necessary evil in the digital age, but to allow anyone to say anything, which seems to be the case among most news outlets ends up muddying a publication's reputation. People who read comments in a certain newspaper/publication tend to not differentiate between the news story and the comments. Because I don't care about stating my opinion. I do not like to put myself out there. Most of the comments are ridiculous and I don't like offensive language or ideas. I don't think that they affect the news credibility, because the article will stay the same. They may change the opinion of the reader on the subject. They have a tendency to take a negative spin rather quickly If the news is accurate I see the comments as just peoples opinions I just don't find the necessity of commenting on articles. If I have anything to comment about, then I'll comment with my wife or friends in real time. I just read the article and generate my own opinion from it. I don't believe they do. I don't take too much time to read the comments. I do not participate in online comment boards because they consist of people's opinions, not factual information. I do not feel comments affect the credibility of the news article unless they contain factual data that can support or offer a valid counterpoint to the information within the news article. I enjoy the comments that people write and comment. When there are outlandish claims made and debates begin. I do not believe they do. I think comments are opinionated but not effecting news credibility. I like comments and enjoy reading and writing them. Thank you. I do not participate in comment boards because I do not have time, and I do not appreciate the overall negativity of comments. Sometimes, it highlights information/questions that were not addressed in the news story. Often, comments are more readers' opinions than anything related to the facts of the article. That's usually when I stop reading. I comment to express my opinion They don't. I do not comment to avoid confrontation and sometimes people can be rude with built up negativity, I do not need this in my life so why stir the pot? Comments tend to be more like critiques, everyone giving their opinion and/or 2 cents, pointing out spelling errors and grammar or adding a funny meme. Again, I see it has mere entertainment and something to read to kill time. There are times when I see valid points, but this is rare. Most of the comment boards that I see are mostly negative. If it is a sports story then there are always people putting down the team's rival. Even though I have learned a good amount from comments, I don't feel that my opinion is needed. They don't. In my opinion, most comments stem from people that are really stubborn and only want people to see their angle of the story. I typically only participate if the article is directly related to me or if I feel quite passionately about a news topic. Otherwise, I prefer just to read the comments and find out a small representation of public opinion. I think it increases transparency in news articles, as a journalist can be 'called out,' so to speak, by a commenter. In that way, it increases the credibility of the news. I think of it as a battle ground where is is no winning but plenty of carnage. People who leave comments already have there mind made up to the point of not changing. I do not participate when I know I will not be heard. Very little. Because there is no point. People will either just agree or disagree with you. I would rather keep my opinion to myself. I personally don't think they do at all. People should know that a lot of people post comments just for the fun of it or to scare people sometimes. Did not read comments Survey N StartDate What is your gender? How old are you? Please answer the following statements about your online news use. Do you post comments on news articles? If you responded "Yes" to Question 2: Please answer the following statements about online news engagement. Please answer the following statements about online news engagement. Response Open-Ended Response I read news articles online. I d t t d Respo nse How often do you post comments? I like being able to post comments on news sites. I prefer news sites that do not allow readers to post comments. I am more likely <strong>to read an article</strong> that contains more than 100 comments. I am more likely <strong>to read the comments</strong> if there are more than 100 posted. I am more likely <strong>to post a comment</strong> if there are more than 100 comments posted. I am more likely <strong>to post a comment</strong> if there are 9 or fewer comments posted. The number of comments posted on an article makes no difference in whether I read the article. I avoid reading comments on news sites. I prefer to read an article first, and the comments second. 5 03/05/2015 Male 24 At least once a day 4-6 times per week No Undecided Disagree Agree Undecided Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree 7 03/05/2015 Male 24 At least once a day 4-6 times per week Yes A few times a year Strongly Agree Undecided Undecided Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 8 03/06/2015 Male 24 At least once a day 4-6 times per week Yes A few times per month Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 12 03/06/2015 Male 25 1-3 times per week 1-3 times per week No Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree 13 03/06/2015 Female 20 4-6 times per week A few times per month No Undecided Disagree Undecided Undecided Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree 19 03/06/2015 Female 24 At least once a day 1-3 times per week No Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree 22 03/06/2015 Female 25 A few times per month A few times per month No Undecided Undecided Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Undecided Agree 39 03/07/2015 Male 46 At least once a day 1-3 times per week Yes A few times per month Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Undecided Undecided Undecided Undecided Undecided Disagree Strongly Agree 40 03/07/2015 Female 44 A few times per month A few times per month No Agree Undecided Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree 44 03/07/2015 Female 21 Maybe a few times a year Maybe a few times a year No Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree (She read none of the stories with comments back Saw recs on both selected stories on front site St rongly Ag r ee Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided Please answer the following statements about comments posted on news articles. Please answer the following statements about comments posted on news articles. I prefer to read the comments first, and the article second. I prefer to read only articles, and no comments. I prefer to read the comments instead of the articles. Comments are entertaining. Comments are uncivil. Comments help me to broaden my understanding of important issues. Comments help other people broaden their understanding of important issues. Comments help me to form an opinion about an issue. Comments help other people to form an opinion about an issue. Comments have caused me to change my opinion about people or ideas contained in an article. Comments cause other people to change their opinions about people or ideas contained in an article. Comments do not help readers. Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Undecided Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Undecided Disagree Undecided Disagree Undecided Undecided Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Undecided Disagree Disagree Disagree Undecided Undecided Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Undecided Undecided Undecided Undecided Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Undecided Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Indicate why you do or do not participate in online news comment boards. How do comments affect news credibility? Open-Ended Response Open-Ended Response I don't like to share my opinion on important issues on the internet. They don't. People will talk regardless, the comment section just gives them an avenue to all speak together. I participate if I have something to add. Usually I don't add anything because someone has already posted something that I would have said. So, I don't comment very often. I don't think comments affect the credibility of the news articles. Comment sections are for debate and for people to talk about what it is they read. Some people may say that the article is completely bogus, but it all depends on what site you are on and if you have read other articles by the same person. You can come up with your own conclusions based on what people write, not on the comments. I participate in comment boards if I have knowledge about the story and it is being misrepresented. To me the don't affect credibility, but for others I believe comments influence the perceived importance of a story. I d 't ll th d If I h i i b t thi I t ll h b d f i d I d 't th f th i i i t th Wh h it? Wh ? Th t i l d 't d t d h I f l h I t th t l i it d 't b fit th th it ld h b d f i d B h i th ht ith I don't kn ow tha t they d o. Just bec ause a b unc h of peopl e are comme ntin g on s om ethin g doe sn't m ake it a be tter st ory or a m ore impo rtant story. C ommen ts si mply show there was a disagreement of opinion. I personally don't post comments because its a waste of time. Some people are ignorant to some news and base their comments on that just to get reactions. Then there are arguments on comments that shouldn't of been there to start with. People should express their opinions but should keep the negative ones to themselves. I don't think that they do. Comments are just a place for people to say what they think about a certain issue. If you read the article or what it I think a reasonable person can come up with a conclusion on their own. The credibility of the news depends on what place people trust and believe to be true. I feel that I do not need to make my opinion public regarding articles I read unless I feel strongly about it. I also feel that some readers tend to bash other readers opinions and can be closed minded about the topic of the article. I do not think comments affect news credibility because the comments made are usually by viewers and do not reflect the opinions of the company who wrote the article. I comment to express my opinion They don't. I do not comment to avoid confrontation and sometimes people can be rude with built up negativity, I do not need this in my life so why stir the pot? Comments tend to be more like critiques, everyone giving their opinion and/or 2 cents, pointing out spelling errors and grammar or adding a funny meme. Again, I see it has mere entertainment and something to read to kill time. There are times when I see valid points, but this is rare. Because there is no point. People will either just agree or disagree with you. I would rather keep my opinion to myself. I personally don't think they do at all. People should know that a lot of people post comments just for the fun of it or to scare people sometimes. Always Read Comments Survey N StartDate What is y H ow old P lease answer the following statements about your online news use. Do you post comments on news articles? If you responded "Yes" to Question 2: Please answer the following statements about online news engagement. Please answer the following statements about online news engagement. R O E I r ead news articles online. I read comments posted on news articles. Response How often do you post comments? I like being able to post comments on news sites. I prefer news sites that do not allow readers to post comments. I am more likely <strong>to read an article</strong> that contains more than 100 comments. I am more likely <strong>to read the comments</strong> if there are more than 100 posted. I am more likely <strong>to post a comment</strong> if there are more than 100 comments posted. I am more likely <strong>to post a comment</strong> if there are 9 or fewer comments posted. The number of comments posted on an article makes no difference in whether I read the article. I avoid reading comments on news sites. I prefer to read an article first, and the comments second. 10 03/06/2015 Female 34 At least once a day 1-3 times per week No Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Undecided 14 03/06/2015 Female 22 At least once a day At least once a day Yes 1-3 times per week Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree 20 03/06/2015 Male 35 4-6 times per week A few times per month Yes A few times a year Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Undecided Strongly Agree 23 03/06/2015 Male 23 At least once a day 4-6 times per week No Undecided Disagree Undecided Undecided Undecided Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 35 03/07/2015 Male 22 1-3 times per week 1-3 times per week No Undecided Undecided Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 36 03/07/2015 Female 43 At least once a day At least once a day No Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 43 03/07/2015 Male 25 Maybe a few times a year Maybe a few times a year No Undecided Undecided Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Please answer the following statements about comments posted on news articles. Please answer the following statements about comments posted on news articles. I prefer to read the comments first, and the article second. I prefer to read only articles, and no comments. I prefer to read the comments instead of the articles. Comments are entertaining. Comments are uncivil. Comments help me to broaden my understanding of important issues. Comments help other people broaden their understanding of important issues. Comments help me to form an opinion about an issue. Comments help other people to form an opinion about an issue. Comments have caused me to change my opinion about people or ideas contained in an article. Comments cause other people to change their opinions about people or ideas contained in an article. Comments do not help readers. Undecided Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Undecided Strongly Agree Undecided Undecided Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Agree Undecided Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Undecided Strongly Disagree Undecided Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Undecided Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Agree