Presentation at the COST Action Conference "The Future of Audience Research" in Ljubljana, February 5-7, 2014

1. Rethinking User-Generated Content
Conceptualization 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 | 1

2. 1 | Introduction: People talk about the news offline…
Conversations about mass-media content
 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
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 2

3. 1 | Introduction: People talk about the news offline…
Different theoretical approaches to such conversations





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
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 3
e.g., Sommer, 2010

4. 1 | … and online
Sources: Dnevnik.si; Twitter.com; reddit.com; Manca Kosir
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 4

5. 1 | … and online
People talk about the news 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“
News site
Spiegel Online
Bild
Tagesschau
Subscribers
549.137
1.296.388
219.625
„Talking about this“
57.440
204.804
17.509
Interaction rate
10.5%
15.8%
7.9%
 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)
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 5

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 | 6

7. Public Online MSIC
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 7

8. 2 | The concept of media-stimulated interpersonal communication
SNS
Mass-media content on news
websites
Integrated
services
Immediate
discussion
Uncontrolled
secondary diffusion
Controlled
secondary
distribution
Integrated public spheres
Partially integrated public spheres
Fragmented public spheres
Classification of Public Online MSIC: Different Spheres
Personal Publishing
Social news aggregators
Forums and chats
Institutionalized platform
pages
SNS
Video platforms
Institutionalized Personal
Publishing
Blogs
Microblogging
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 8

9. 2 | The concept of media-stimulated interpersonal communication
Classification of Public Online MSIC: Different Topics and Functions
Focus: Topics of public interest
Microblogging
Blogs
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität MainzFocus: Topics of& Oliver Quiring | 9
| Marc Ziegele personal interest
Primary function of MSIC: Diffusion
Primary function of MSIC: Discussion
User
comments on
news
websites

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 | 10

11. 3 | User Comments as public MSIC
… they are interactive
… they do not meet
journalistic standards
… their publication
criteria are inclusive
… they are visibly
media-stimulated
Reich, 2011; Ruiz et al., 2011; Singer, 2009;
Ziegele & Quiring, 2013
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 11

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 | 12

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 | 13

14. 4 | Comparing User Comments and offline MSIC
Processes
Communication stage
Publicity
Deliberateness
Persistence
Asynchronity
Realized interactivity
Offline MSIC
Before, during, and after media
consumption
Private
Rather low
Low
Low
Rather high
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.)
User comments
After media consumption
Integrated
Rather low
High
Rather high
Low to average
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 | 14

15. 4 | Comparing User Comments and offline MSIC
Audiences
Offline MSIC
User comments
Addressees
Attendees
Journalists, other users, “the
public”
Anonymity
Low
Moderate
Communities of common
bonds
Communities of common
interests
Rather homogenous
Rather heterogeneous
Kind of interpersonal
community
Audience diversity
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 | 15

16. 4 | Comparing User Comments and offline MSIC
Functions
Offline MSIC
•
Cognitive-based
Affective-based
Bridging mass-media events
with personal experiences
•
Knowledge-building/-testing
•
Emotional and playful
appropriation of media content
User comments
•
Bridging mass-media events
with personal experiences
•
Knowledge-building/-testing
•
Public articulation, critic and
control
Emotional and playful
appropriation of media content
•
•
Social- and identity-based
Collectivization of the group
•
•
•
Search for reciprocal
affirmation
•
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.)
Catharsis
Focus on informational
exchange
Search for disagreement
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 | 16

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 | 17

18. Thank you for your interest!
Marc Ziegele
Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz
Department of Communication
ziegele@uni-mainz.de
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 18

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, EMailing, 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 | 19

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 MassMedia Websites. In E. L. Cohen (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 37 (pp. 125–153). New York: Routledge.
February 4, 2014 | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | Marc Ziegele & Oliver Quiring | 20