1. Reader Comments to Online Opinion Journalism:
A Space of Public Deliberation
Edith Manosevitch and Dana Walker
Kettering Foundation

2. Opinion Journalism and Democracy
“Editorial writing is more than another way of making money. It is a profession
devoted to the public welfare and to public service. The chief duty of its
practitioners is to provide the information and guidance toward sound
judgments that are essential to the healthy functioning of a democracy...
....The editorial writer should realize that the public will appreciate more the
value of the First Amendment if others are accorded an opportunity for
expression. Therefore, voice should be given to diverse opinions, edited
faithfully to reflect stated views. Targets of criticism -- whether in a letter,
editorial cartoon or signed column -- especially deserve an opportunity to
respond....”
Basic Statement of Principles of the National Conference of Opinion Writers
(Adopted in Philadelphia, October 10, 1975)

3. Online Journalism
Potential for Civic Participation
• Interactivity for citizen participation: Surveys of the field
(Nip, 2006; Roseberry, 2005; Schultz, 1999)
• User Generated Content: Concerns (Hermida & Thurman,
2007; Thurman, 2006)
• Blogs in journalism contexts (Barlow, 2008; Reese et al., 2007).
• The content: Does it manifest productive participation?
• Reader comments
• Opinion journalism

4. Research Question
In what ways and to what extent can
reader comments to online journalistic
opinion content, embody a space of
public deliberation?

5. Defining Public Deliberation (Gastil, 2008)
Analytic Process
Information base:
Facts, experience
Values
Range of solutions
Weighing pros, cons,
tradeoffs (reasons)
Social Process
Equal access
Mutual comprehension
Consideration
Respect

6. Method
• Pilot study
• Data: Readers comments to issue-based
editorial/op-ed published Jan. 4-10/08 (n=9), in
TCPalm.com & DesMoinesRegister.com.
• Content analysis
• Unit of analysis: One comment (n=124)
• Coding: 9 deliberation criteria:
1 = comment includes criterion
0 = comment does not include criterion

7. Findings

8. Table 1: Mean Scores for Deliberation Items by Issue & Newspaper
Newspaper Issue
(n = )
Analytic Process
of Deliberation
Social Process
of Deliberation
Narrative Facts Source Values Positio
n
Reason Pose
questions
Address
Others
Address
Article
Total
deliberation
TCPalm Ethanol
(11)
0.1 0.7 0.3 0 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.1 3.4
School (8) 0 0.5 0.3 0 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.4 2.5
Gifted
(26)
0.1 0.6 0.3 0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.2 3
Des Moines Health
Insurance
(29)
0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 1.7
Math &
Science
(5)
0 0.6 0 0 1 0.6 0 0 0 2.2
HS
minutes
(5)
0.2 0.6 0 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2 0 0.2 3.4
Insure
Kids
(24)
0 0.3 0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.1 2.2
Science
(6)
0 0.7 0 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.2 3
Caucus
(10)
0 0.7 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0.4 0 1.8
Entire
Sample
n=124 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.2 2.4

9. Table 2: Factor Loadings for Dimensions of Deliberation
Factor Label Analytic Process Social Process
Deliberation Item
narrative 0.25 -0.35
facts 0.58 0.13
sources 0.11 0.62
value 0.4 -0.34
position 0.82 -0.08
reason 0.81 0.03
clarify 0.32 0.53
other -0.36 0.56
article 0.47 0.34
Eigen value 2.35 1.35
% variance 26.1 15
Extraction method: Principal component Analysis.

10. Discussion
• Deliberation: Social-analytic connection
Implications:
• Discussion threads
• The role of design (Wright & Street, 2007)
• Personal narratives and deliberation:
Implications:
• Reader comments -- resource for narratives
• Design features to encourage narratives
• Online journalism and citizen participation
• Normative-economic justification for reader comments
(Wahl-Jorgensen, 2002)

11. Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Kettering Foundation for
their support of this project, Emily Haas for her
diligent coding and insightful observations, and
Eddie Roth for fruitful discussions that helped
inspire this research.