Skip to content
1981
Volume 12, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 2001-0818
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine the quality of user comments on the Facebook posts of the Greek Public Broadcasting Corporation (ERT) with a view to acquiring an in-depth understanding of the way the users express themselves publicly. Moreover, the article has looked into which characteristics of the posts prompt the users to comment and whether post time is related to user comments. In all, 2547 user comments recorded on ERT digital platform have been analysed, the majority of which feature negative content. The posts that include a photo have a positive influence on users and result in increased interaction, while the relation between comments and post type is also ascertained.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/ajms_00067_1
2023-09-27
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Antonakopoulou, S. and Veglis, A. (2021), ‘How post time and post type affect the engagement on Facebook: The case of a national media organization’, Observatorio (OBS*), 15:4, pp. 118.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Auwal, A. M. (2018), ‘Social media and hate speech: Analysis of comments on Biafra agitations, Arewa youths’ ultimatum and their implications on peaceful coexistence in Nigeria’, Media and Communication Currents, 2:1, pp. 5474, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339500615_Social_Media_and_Hate_Speech_Analysis_of_Comments_on_Biafra_Agitations_Arewa_Youths’_Ultimatum_and_their_Implications_on_Peaceful_Coexistence_in_Nigeria/reference. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnett, S. (2006), ‘Public service broadcasting: A manifesto for survival in the multimedia age (a case study of the BBC’s new charter)’, RIPE Conference in Amsterdam, Amsterdam, November, pp. 124.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Boczkowski, P. J. and 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, pp. 122, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01418.x. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 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, pp. 80927, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212449353. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brooks, J. D. and Geer, J. G. (2007), ‘Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate’, American Journal of Political Science, 51:1, pp. 116, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00233.x. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Canter, L. (2013), ‘The misconception of online comment threads’, Journalism Practice, 7:5, pp. 60419, https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2012.740172. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen, G. M. and Lu, S. (2017), ‘Online political discourse: Exploring differences in effects of civil and uncivil disagreement in news website comments’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61:1, pp. 10825, https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1273922. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Coe, K., Kenski, K. and Rains, S. A. (2014), ‘Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments’, Journal of Communication, 64:4, pp. 65879, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cullinane, M. (2017), ‘Participatory cultures and democratic legitimation in public service media: Ireland and the RTÉ audience council’, Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 14:2, pp. 80113.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Diakopoulos, N. and Naaman, M. (2011), ‘Towards quality discourse in online news comments’, Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW 2011, Hangzhou, China, 19–23 March, https://doi.org/10.1145/1958824.1958844. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dobek-Ostrowska, B. (2019), ‘How the media systems work in Central and Eastern Europe’, in E. Połońska and C. Beckett (eds), Public Service Broadcasting and Media Systems in Troubled European Democracies, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02710-0_12. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Esser, F. and Umbricht, A. (2014), ‘The evolution of objective and interpretative journalism in the western press: Comparing six news systems since the 1960s’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 91:2, pp. 22949, https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699014527459. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fornacciari, P., Mordonini, M., Poggi, A., Sani, L. and Tomaiuolo, M. (2018), ‘A holistic system for troll detection on Twitter’, Computers in Human Behavior, 89, March, pp. 25868, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.008. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Freelon, D. (2015), ‘Discourse architecture, ideology, and democratic norms in online political discussion’, New Media & Society, 17:5, pp. 77291, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813513259. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fridkin, K. L. and Kenney, P. J. (2008), ‘The dimensions of negative messages’, American Politics Research, 36:5, pp. 694723, https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X08316448. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Go, E. and Bortree, D. S. (2017), ‘What and how to communicate CSR? The role of CSR fit, modality interactivity, and message interactivity on social networking sites’, Journal of Promotion Management, pp. 121, https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2017.1297983. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Graf, J., Erba, J. and Harn, R-W. (2017), ‘The role of civility and anonymity on perceptions of online comments’, Mass Communication and Society, 20:4, pp. 52649, https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1274763. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hanusch, F. and Tandoc, E. C. (2019), ‘Comments, analytics, and social media: The impact of audience feedback on journalists’ market orientation’, Journalism, 20:6, pp. 119, https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917720305. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Herbst, S. (2010), Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in Americans Politics, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hewitt, J. (2005), ‘Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14:4, pp. 56789, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hopp, T., Santana, A. and Barker, V. (2018), ‘Who finds value in news comment communities? An analysis of the influence of individual user, perceived news site quality, and site type factors’, Telematics and Informatics, 35:5, pp. 123748, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.02.006. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hwang, H., Borah, P., Namkoong, K. and Veenstra, A. S. (2008), ‘Does civility matter in the blogosphere? Examining the interaction effects of incivility and disagreement on citizen attitudes’, Annual Convention of the International Communication Association, Montreal, QC, 22–26 May, pp. 134, https://www.academia.edu/765718/Does_Civility_Matter_in_the_Blogosphere_Examining_the_Interaction_Effects_of_Incivility_and_Disagreement_on_Citizen_Attitudes. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Jenkins, M. and Dragojevic, M. (2013), ‘Explaining the process of resistance to persuasion: A politeness theory-based approach’, Communication Research, 40:4, pp. 55990, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211420136. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kemp, S. (2021), ‘Digital in Greece: All the statistics you need in 2021’, Data Reportal: Global Digital Insights, 11 February, https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-greece. Accessed 2 June 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. King, A. B. (2001), ‘Affective dimensions of internet culture’, Social Science Computer Review, 19:4, pp. 41430, https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930101900402. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ksiazek, T. B. (2018), ‘Commenting on the news: Explaining the degree and quality of user comments on news websites’, Journalism Studies, 19:5, pp. 65073, https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1209977. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ksiazek, T. B., Peer, L. and Lessard, K. (2014), ‘User engagement with online news: Conceptualizing interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news videos and user comments’, New Media & Society, 18:3, pp. 50220, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814545073. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Loosen, W., Häring, M., Kurtanović, Z., Reimer, J., van Roessel, L. and Maalej, W. (2017), ‘Making sense of user comments: Identifying journalists’ requirements for a comment analysis framework’, Studies in Communication and Media, 6:4, pp. 33364, https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2017-4-333. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mariani, M. M., Mura, M. and Di Felice, M. (2018), ‘The determinants of Facebook social engagement for national tourism organizations’ Facebook pages: A quantitative approach’, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 8, August, pp. 31225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.06.003. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Massaro, T. M. and Stryker, R. (2012), ‘Freedom of speech, liberal democracy, and emerging on civility and effective democratic engagement’, Arizona Law Review, 54:2, n.pag.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. McQuail, D. (1983), Mass Communication Theory: Αn Introduction, London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Meltzer, K. (2015), ‘Journalistic concern about uncivil political talk in digital news media: Responsibility, credibility, and academic influence’, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 20:1, pp. 85107, https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161214558748. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mitchelstein, E. (2011), ‘Catharsis and community: Divergent motivations for audience participation in online newspapers and blogs’, International Journal of Communication, 5:1, pp. 201434.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Mutz, D. C. (2007), ‘Effects of “in-your-face” television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition’, American Political Science Review, 101:4, pp. 62135, https://doi.org/10.1017.S000305540707044X. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mutz, D. C. and Reeves, B. (2011), ‘The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust’, American Political Science Review, 99:1, pp. 115, https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038915. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Ng, E. W. J. and Detenber, B. H. (2005), ‘The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10:3, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00252.x. Accessed 17 March 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Nielsen, C. E. (2014), ‘Coproduction or cohabitation: Are anonymous online comments on newspaper websites shaping news content?’, New Media & Society, 16:3, pp. 47087, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487958. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Papacharissi, Z. (2004), ‘Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups’, New Media & Society, 6:2, pp. 25983, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Paskin, D. (2010), ‘Say what? An analysis of reader comments in bestselling American newspapers’, Journal of International Communication, 16:2, pp. 6783, https://doi.org/10.1080/13216597.2010.9674769. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Pourkhani, A., Baher, B. and Moslehpour, M. (2019), ‘The impact of social media in business growth and performance: A scientometrics analysis’, International Journal of Data and Network Science, 3, January, pp. 22344, https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2019.2.003. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Preece, J., Nonnecke, B. and Andrews, D. (2004), ‘The top five reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone’, Computers in Human Behavior, 20:2, pp. 20123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.015. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Price, V., Nir, L. and Cappella, J. N. (2006), ‘Normative and information influences in online political discussions’, Communication Theory, 16:1, pp. 4774, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00005.x. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Reeves, B. and Nass, C. (1996), The Media Equation, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.1997.576013. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Reich, Z. (2011), ‘User comments: The transformation of participatory space’, in J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt and Z. Reich, Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers, pp. 96117, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444340747.ch6. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Rowe, I. (2014), ‘Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion’, Information, Communication & Society, 4462, July, pp. 118, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Mico, J. L., Diaz-Noci, J., Masip, P. and Meso, K. (2011), ‘Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers’, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16:4, pp. 46387, https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211415849. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Saridou, T. and Veglis, A. (2016), ‘Participatory journalism practices in newspapers’ websites in Greece’, Journal of Greek Media & Culture, 2:1, pp. 85101, https://doi.org/10.1386/jgmc.2.1.85_1. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Schulz, A., Levy, D. A. L. and Nielsen, R. K. (2019), Old, Educated, and Politically Diverse: The Audience of Public Service News, Oxford: Reuters Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Singer, J. B. (2009), ‘Separate spaces: Discourse about the 2007 Scottish elections on a national newspaper web site’, International Journal of Press/Politics, 14:4, pp. 47796 https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161209336659. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sobieraj, S. and Berry, J. M. (2011), ‘From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news’, Political Communication, 28:1, pp. 1941, https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Springer, N., Engelmann, I. and Pfaffinger, C. (2015), ‘User comments: Motives and inhibitors to write and read’, Information, Communication & Society, 18:7, pp. 798815, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.997268. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Steinfeld, N., Samuel-Azran, T. and Lev-On, A. (2016), ‘User comments and public opinion: Findings from an eye-tracking experiment’, Computers in Human Behavior, 61:1, pp. 6372, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.004. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Stroud, N. J., Duyn, E. Van and Peacock, C. (2016), News Commenters and News Comment Readers, Austin, TX: Engaging News Project, pp. 121.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Su, L. Y., Xenos, M. A., Rose, K. M., Wirz, C., Scheufele, D. A. and Brossard, D. (2018), ‘Uncivil and personal? Comparing patterns of incivility in comments on the Facebook pages of news outlets’, New Media & Society, 20:10, pp. 367899, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818757205. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Tandoc, E. C. (2014), ‘Journalism is twerking? How web analytics is changing the process of gatekeeping’, New Media & Society, 16:4, pp. 55975, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814530541. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Tandoc, E. C. and Vos, T. P. (2015), ‘The journalist is marketing the news: Social media in the gatekeeping process’, Journalism Practice, 10:8, pp. 95066, https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2015.1087811. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Villamediana, J., Küster, I. and Vila, N. (2019), ‘Destination engagement on Facebook: Time and seasonality’, Annals of Tourism Research, 79:1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102747. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Walther, J. B. and Jang, J. (2012), ‘Communication processes in participatory websites’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18:1, pp. 215, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01592.x. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Wang, X. and Liu, Z. (2019), ‘Online engagement in social media: A cross-cultural comparison’, Computers in Human Behavior, 97, March, pp. 13750, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.014. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Weber, P. (2014), ‘Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers’ reader comments’, New Media Society, 6:6, pp. 94157, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813495165. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Wendelin, M., Engelmann, I. and Neubarth, J. (2015), ‘User rankings and journalistic news selection: Comparing news values and topics’, Journalism Studies, 9699, May, pp. 119, https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2015.1040892. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Wessler, H. (2008), ‘Investigating deliberativeness comparatively’, Political Communication, 25:1, pp. 122, https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600701807752. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Wright, S., Jackson, D. and Graham, T. (2019), ‘When journalists go “below the line”: Comment spaces at The Guardian (2006–2017)’, Journalism Studies, 21:1, pp. 10726.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Ziegele, M. and Quiring, O. (2013), ‘Conceptualizing online discussion value: A multidimensional framework for analyzing user comments on mass-media websites’, Communication Yearbook, 37:2016, pp. 12553, https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679148. Accessed 13 August 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/ajms_00067_1
Loading
/content/journals/10.1386/ajms_00067_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test