Incivility and disrespectfulness in online political discussion
Reader’s comment columns on online political news pages are locations where political discussions between citizens can emerge and develop. The reader comment column is a standard feature of almost all media sites because of its ability to initiate discussion and promote a particular article or issues within the news site. Unfortunately, in its development, the online comment column’s discussion process is often filled by incivility and disrespectful expressions, such as sentences containing insults, condemnation, or expressions full of anger. Such sentences have the potential to undermine the discussion process and encourage pointless arguments, especially in articles that discuss political polarity. This study aims to determine the extent to which incivility and disrespectful expressions appear in readers’ comments columns of online news sites, especially on polarized political issues. This study uses content analysis techniques on 403 comments in political news on Detik.com, one of Indonesia’s main news portals. The results show that although the incivility expression shows a small number, the form of disrespectful shows a high number in the readers’ comments. The highest form of the expression of disrespectful is the expression tat contains name-calling (23%), followed by hyperbole (15.6%) and the use of sarcasm (6.2%). The high number of disrespectful expressions seems to be related to the comment column service feature that allows users to use anonymous identities.
Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, & Ladwig P (2013) The nasty effect: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (3):373-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12009.
Benson TW (1996) Rhetoric, civility, and community: Political debate on computer bulletin boards. Communication Quaterly 44 (3):359-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379609370023.
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.https://doi.org /10.1177/0093650212449353.
Brooks DJ & Geer JG (2007) Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science 51 (1):1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00233.x.
Eveland WPJ & Hively MH (2009) Political discussion frequency, network size, and heterogeneity of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication 59 (2):205-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x.
Gangadharbatla H (2008) Facebook me: Collective self-esteem, need to belong, and internet self-efficacy as predictors of the igeneration’s attitudes toward social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising 8 (2):5-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2008.10722138.
Halpern D & Gibbs JL (2013) Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computer in Human Behavior 29 (3):1159-1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008.
Hampton KN, Lee C, & Her EJ (2011) How new media affords network diversity: Direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social settings. New Media and Society 13 (7):1031-1049. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810390342.
Hardarker C (2010) Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated comunciation: From user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research 6 (2):215-242. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.011.
Hefner RW (2018) The religious field: Plural legacies and contemporary contestations. In: Hefner RW (ed). Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Indonesia. New York: Routledge.
Hermida BA & Thurman N (2007) Comments please: How the British news media are struggling with user-generated content. In:8th International Symposium on Online Journalism, 30-31 March, Austin. Austin: University of Texas, 1-28.
Hmielowski JD, Hutchens MJ, & Cicchirillo VJ (2014) Living in an age of online incivility: Examining the conditional indirect effects of online discussion on political flaming. Information, Communication & Society 17 (10):1196-1211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.899609.
Jones Q & Rafaeli SF (2000) Time to split, virtually: Discourse architecture and community building create vibrant virtual. Electronic Markets 10 (4):214-223.
Morgan R (2018) Detikcom & KOMPAS.com & Liputan 6 are Indonesia’s leading news websites. [Accessed 4 January 2020]. http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7622-top-10-indonesian-news-websites-march-2018-201806172227.
Mutz DC (2007) Effects of “In-Your-Face” television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review 101 (4):621-635. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540707044X.
Noelle-Neumann E (1984) The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion, Our Social Skin. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Papacharissi Z (2004) Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media and Society 6 (2):259-283. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1461444804041444.
Rowe I (2014) Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society 18 (2):121-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X. 2014.940365.
Ruiz C, Domingo D, Micó JL, 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 16 (4):463-487. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211415849.
Sapiro V & Soss JOE (2010) Spectacular politics, dramatic interpretations: Multiple meanings in the Thomas/Hill Hearings. Political Communication 16 (3):285-314. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/105846099198640.
Schaufele DA (2001) Democracy for some? How political talk both informs and polarizes the electorate. In: Hart RP & Shaw DR (eds). Communication in U.S. Elections: New Agendas. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. 19-32.
Singer JB, Domingo D, Heinonen A, Hermida A, Paulussen S, Quandt T, Reich Z, & Vujnovic M (2011) Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers. UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Taylor SE, Peplau LA, & Sears DO (2005) Social Psychology (12th ed). London: Pearson.
Temby Q, Burhani AN, & Irawanto B (2019) Indonesia’s 2019 elections: The key issues. Yusof Ishak Institute 30:1-8.
Ziegele M & Quiring O (2013) Conceptualizing online discussion value: A multidimensional framework for analyzing user comments on mass-media websites. Annals of the International Communication Association 37 (1):125-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11 79148.
Copyright of this journal is possession of Editorial Board and Journal Manager, by the knowledge of the author, while the moral right of the publication belongs to the author.
The formal legal aspect of journal publication accessibility refers to Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA), implies that publication can be used for non-commercial purposes in its original form (cannot be modified).
Every publication (printed/electronic) are open access for educational purposes, research, and library. Other than the aims mentioned above, the editorial board is not responsible for copyright violation.