Rethinking User-Generated Content. Conceptualization and Application of the Concept of...
-
Upload
marc-ziegele -
Category
Education
-
view
116 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Rethinking User-Generated Content. Conceptualization and Application of the Concept of...
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 1
Rethinking User-Generated ContentConceptualization and Application of the Concept of Media-Stimulated
Interpersonal Communication
Presentation at the COST Action Conference, Ljubljana
February 5-7, 2014
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 2
1 | Introduction: People talk about the news offline…
Interpersonal conversations about mass-media content are a permanent part of peoples’ everyday social interactions (McQuail, 2008; Katz, 1964)
» 85% of the participants of a quantitative survey had talked about mass-media content in the week before the interview (Gehrau & Goertz, 2010)
» In a participatory observation, 75% of the conversations analyzed referred to mass-media content (Kepplinger & Martin, 1986)
Many of these conversations refer to topical public issues in the news media
Conversations about mass-media content
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 3
1 | Introduction: People talk about the news offline…
News diffusion research: Consequences of mass-media exposure
Agenda setting: Intervening variable
Deliberation research: Process of collective decision making
Uses & Gratifications: Motivation to consume mass-media content
Cultural studies: Interactive negotiation or appropriation
Different theoretical approaches to such conversations
e.g., Sommer, 2010
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 4
1 | … and online
Sources: Dnevnik.si; Twitter.com; reddit.com; Manca Kosir
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 5
1 | … and online
SNS: Facebook
» One third of German SNS users discusses content from newspapers at least once a month (Busemann 2013)
» Facebook‘s „talking about this“
Microblogging: Twitter
» A considerable amount of tweets refers to news articles (Maireder, 2011; Kwak et al., 2010; Java et
al., 2007)
Social News Aggregators: Digg
» Between one third and half of the postings analyzed refer to content from news websites (Rölver, 2008; Thelwall, 2008; Pohorecki, 2012)
News site Subscribers „Talking about this“ Interaction rate
Spiegel Online 549.137 57.440 10.5%
Bild 1.296.388 204.804 15.8%
Tagesschau 219.625 17.509 7.9%
People talk about the news online
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 6
2 | The concept of media-stimulated interpersonal communication
Offline: „interpersonal communication about topics in the news“, „political conversation“, „conversations about the news“ (e.g., Lazarsfeld et al., 1965; de Boer & Velthuijsen; Kim et al., 1999)
Online: „user-generated content“, „participatory journalism“, „audience interactivity“ (Ruiz
et al., 2011; Singer et al., 2011; Yoo, 2011)
Shared social practice behind the different spheres: Talking about content from the news or mass-media, respectively
Media-Stimulated Interpersonal Communication (MSIC)
„media-stimulated“: Any type of mass-media content can serve as the inspiration and the primary subject of the communication
“interpersonal”: Emphasizes their social and potentially interactive character
Any communication can be conceptualized as MSIC as long as it was initiated by a particular mass-media stimulus and as long as this mass-media stimulus can be identified in the ongoing conversation or discussion
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 7
Public Online MSIC
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 8
2 | The concept of media-stimulated interpersonal communication
Institutionalized platform pages
Frag
men
ted
pu
blic
sp
her
es
Inte
grat
ed p
ub
lic s
ph
eres
Uncontrolled secondary diffusion
Part
ially
inte
grat
ed p
ub
lic s
ph
eres
Mass-media content on news websites
Co
ntr
olle
d
seco
nd
ary
dis
trib
uti
on
Forums and chats
Social news aggregators
Institutionalized Personal Publishing
Personal Publishing
SNS
Blogs MicrobloggingSNS Video platforms
Integrated services
Immediate discussion
Classification of Public Online MSIC: Different Spheres
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 9
2 | The concept of media-stimulated interpersonal communication
Classification of Public Online MSIC: Different Topics and Functions
Pri
mar
y fu
nct
ion
of
MSI
C:
Dis
cuss
ion
Pri
mar
y fu
nct
ion
of
MSI
C:
Dif
fusi
on
Focus: Topics of public interest
User comments on
news websites
Blogs
Micro-blogging
Focus: Topics of personal interest
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 10
3 | User Comments as public MSIC
Popularity: User comments as the most popular category of public MSIC (Singer et al.,
2011; Weber, 2013)
Change: By commenting on news items, users have obtained a more visible role in the “interpretation stage” of the journalistic news production (Domingo, 2008; Reich,
2011; Thurman, 2008)
Effects: User comments can influence how a large proportion of a news website’s audience uses mass-media content, for example with regards to individual opinion formation (Anderson et al., 2013; Lee & Jang, 2010; Walther et al. , 2010)
Participation: Opinion expression and interactivity in user comments could contribute to shaping a democratically valuable discourse on topics of public interest (Boczkowski & Mitchelstein, 2012; Freelon, 2010; Ruiz et al., 2010)
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 11
3 | User Comments as public MSIC
… they are visibly media-stimulated
… their publication criteria are inclusive
… they do not meet journalistic standards
… they are interactive
Reich, 2011; Ruiz et al., 2011; Singer, 2009; Ziegele & Quiring, 2013
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 12
4 | Comparing User Comments and offline MSIC
What are the similarities and differences between traditional conversations about the news and online comments?
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 13
4 | Comparing User Comments and offline MSIC
Different kinds of communication have already compared with regards to their processes, audiences, and structures
» Mass communication and interpersonal communication (e.g., Chaffee & Mutz, 1988;
Reardon & Rogers, 1988)
» Different manifestations of online communication (e.g., Walther, 1996; Neuberger,
2009)
The following analysis is based on an extensive literature review. For illustration purposes, citations from a qualitative study with 25 users who comment on the news are used.
Consider that such classifications can only consider “regular cases”
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 14
4 | Comparing User Comments and offline MSIC
Processes Offline MSIC User comments
Communication stageBefore, during, and after media
consumptionAfter media consumption
Publicity Private Integrated
Deliberateness Rather low Rather low
Persistence Low High
Asynchronity Low Rather high
Realized interactivity Rather high Low to average
When I discuss the news offline, I can reach five or ten people, maybe. But online, I’m
addressing a far bigger audience (…). (m, 24, reg.)
Many participants just want to deliver their opinion but they just do not want to get into
serious discussions. (m, 47, reg.)
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 15
4 | Comparing User Comments and offline MSIC
Audiences Offline MSIC User comments
Addressees Attendees Journalists, other users, “the
public”
Anonymity Low Moderate
Kind of interpersonal
community
Communities of common
bonds
Communities of common
interests
Audience diversity Rather homogenous Rather heterogeneous
How often do you ask your unfamiliar neighbor if he wants to discuss a political
topic? Rarely! Instead, this happens on the internet, thanks to anonymity (m, 22, reg.)
Online, I am confronted with opinions that I am not familiar with. And that’s different
when I discuss with my friends because we already know the positions and arguments
of each other (m, 26, occ.)
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 16
4 | Comparing User Comments and offline MSIC
Functions Offline MSIC User comments
Cognitive-based
• Bridging mass-media events with personal experiences
• Knowledge-building/-testing
• Bridging mass-media events with personal experiences
• Knowledge-building/-testing
• Public articulation, critic and control
Affective-based• Emotional and playful
appropriation of media content
• Emotional and playfulappropriation of media content
• Catharsis
Social- and identity-based
• Collectivization of the group
• Search for reciprocalaffirmation
• Focus on informational exchange
• Search for disagreement
One third of the participants really elaborates on the topic, another third can join the
conversation more or less successfully, and the last third tries to disturb the discussion. (m,
47, reg.)
Most importantly, I feel better after I commented because then I have “vomited”
my opinion. (m, 25, occ.)
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 17
5 | Summary and Discussion
“News audiences have transformed but the people remain the same.”
The processes and audiences of user comments have approached the characteristics of mass communication. But the content of the communication and specific functions resemble traditional conversations about the news.
Considering research about ‚traditional‘ MSIC in online research thus provides a better understanding of why people engage with news items online.
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 18
Thank you for your interest!
Marc Ziegele
Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz
Department of Communication
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 19
References (I)
Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2013). The "Nasty Effect:" Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, online first. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12009.
Boczkowski, P. J., & Mitchelstein, E. (2012). How Users Take Advantage of Different Forms of Interactivity on Online News Sites: Clicking, E-
Mailing, and Commenting. Human Communication Research, 38, 1–22.
Boer, C. de, & Velthuijsen, A. S. (2001). Participation in conversations about the news. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 13(2), 140–158.
Busemann, K., Fisch, M., & Frees, B. (2012). Dabei sein ist alles - zur Nutzung privater Communitys. Media Perspektiven, (5), 258.
Chaffee, S. H., & Mutz, D. C. (1988). Comparing mediated and interpersonal communication data. In R. P. Hawkins, Wiemann J. M., & Pingree S.
(Eds.), Sage annual reviews of communication research: Vol. 16. Advancing communication science. Merging mass and interpersonal processes
(pp. 19–43). Newbury Park: Sage.
Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. new media and society, 12(7), 1172–
1190. Retrieved from http://nms.sagepub.com/content/12/7/1172.full.pdf+html
Gehrau, V., & Goertz, L. (2010). Gespräche über Medien unter veränderten medialen Bedingungen. Publizistik, 55(2), 153–172.
Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. In ACM (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis (pp. 56–65). New York: ACM.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1964). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communication. New York: Free Press.
Kepplinger, H. M., & Martin, V. (1986). Die Funktion der Massenmedien in der Alltagskommunikation. Publizistik, 31, 118–128.
Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16, 361–385.
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a Social Network or a News Media? In ACM (Ed.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth International WWW conference (WWW2010), April 26-30, Raleigh, NC (pp. 591–600). ACM.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1965). The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Lee, E.-J., & Jang, Y. J. (2010). What Do Others' Reactions to News on Internet Portal Sites Tell Us? Effects of Presentation Format and Readers' Need for Cognition on Reality Perception. Communication Research, 37, 825–846.
Maireder, A. (2011). Links auf Twitter. Wie verweisen deutschsprachige Tweets auf Medieninhalte?
McQuail, D. (2008). McQuail's mass communication theory (5. ed.). London: Sage.
Neuberger, C. (2009). Internet, Journalismus und Öffentlichkeit. Analyse des Medienumbruchs. In C. Neuberger (Ed.), Journalismus im Internet. Profession - Partizipation - Technisierung (pp. 19–105). Wiesbaden: VS.
Pohorecki, P., Sienkiewicz, J., Mitrovic, M., Paltoglou, G., & Holyst, J. A. (2012). Statistical Analysis of Emotions and Opinions at Digg Website:
arXiv:1201.5484. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.5484v2
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 20
References (II)
Reardon, K. K., & Rogers, E. M. (1988). Interpersonal versus Mass Media Communication.: A false Dichotomy. Human Communication Research, 15(2), 284–303.
Reich, Z. (2011). User Comments: The transformation of participatory space. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, … (Eds.), Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers (pp. 96–117). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K., & Masip, P. (2011). Public Sphere 2.0? The Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online
Newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22, 463–487.
Singer, J. B. (2009). Separate Spaces: Discourse About the 2007 Scottish Elections on a National Newspaper Web Site. The International Journal of
Press/Politics, 14, 477–496.
Singer, J. B., Hermida, A., Domingo, D., Heinonen, A., Paulussen, S., Quandt, T., …Vujnovic, M. (Eds.). (2011). Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open
Gates at Online Newspapers. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sommer, D. (2010). Nachrichten im Gespräch: Wesen und Wirkung von Anschlusskommunikation über Fernsehnachrichten. Reihe Rezeptionsforschung:
Vol. 20. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Thelwall, M. (2008). No place for news in social network web sites? Online Information Review, 32(6), 726–744.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Communication. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.
Walther, J. B., DeAndrea, D., Kim, J., & Anthony, J. C. (2010). The Influence of Online Comments on Perceptions of Antimarijuana Public Service
Announcements on YouTube. Human Communication Research, 36(4), 469–492.
Weber, P. (2013). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers' reader comments.
New Media & Society, online first.
Yoo, C. Y. (2011). Modeling Audience Interactivity as the Gratification-Seeking Process in Online Newspapers. Communication Theory, 21, 67–89.
Ziegele, M., & Quiring, O. (2013). Conceptualizing Online Discussion Value. A Multidimensional Framework for Analyzing User Comments on Mass-
Media Websites. In E. L. Cohen (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 37 (pp. 125–153). New York: Routledge.