qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
Hiding Behind the Small Screen:
Investigating Levels of Anonymity When Managing
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
Online Hostile Commentary
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
Kimberly Short
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz
xcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjk
April 26, 2012
By
COMM 744-001 Professor Pallavi Kumar
Short
COPYRIGHT
Kimberly Short
2012
1
Short
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Capstone project is a result of continued support from the amazing cheerleaders in my life.
Special thanks to Professor Kumar who made me a stronger writer and researcher through the
duration of the Public Communication Master of Arts program this year. I express very special
thank you’s to my parents and sister whose encouragement made me confident and to Amir
Francois, whose own passion for research made me a better thinker.
2
Short
ABSTRACT
The Internet has increased opportunities for civic engagement as online public forums
have become a common method for the public to comment on key relevant news and policy
issues. With increased opportunities for the public to communicate, come difficulties in
ensuring that effective and constructive public deliberation takes place. This capstone project
investigates the correlation between user levels of anonymity and the presence of hostile
commenting in three online public news forums through a content analysis, while evaluating
the presence of key components of effective public deliberation through qualitative case
studies. The content analysis proves the problematic existence of hostile commenting in its
varied forms and categories, yet no correlation with levels of anonymity. Simultaneously, the
case studies find no ideal model of facilitation of public deliberation in the three news sources,
but do uncover best practices and lessons for future implementations of online forums.
3
Short
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………….6
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Importance of Engaging in Public Discourse………………………………………………………..…11
Exploring Participatory Democracy through Public Deliberation…………………………………..13
Defining Effective Public Deliberation through Participatory Discourse………………………..15
Public Deliberation Going Digital………………………………………………………………………………….18
Problems with Anonymity within Online Communication…..………………………………………..20
What are the causes of online hostilities? ……………………………………………………………………22
Proposed Resolutions..…………………………………………………………………………………………………25
METHODOLOGY
Online Forum Case Study……………………………………………………………………………………………..29
Content Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..30
Research Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………………………...31
RESULTS
Effective Public Deliberation Case Study Evaluations……………………………………………………35
Content Analysis Results ……………………………………………………………………………………………..46
DISCUSSION
Interpreting Hostile Commentary and Anonymity………………………….…………………………….52
Developing Best Practices from Findings ………………………………………………….………………….55
Catalyst for Future Research………………………………………………………………………………………..58
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………61
4
Short
FIGURES AND TABLES
Table 1: Components of Effective Public Deliberation Evaluation for News Sources……………….35
Table 2: Count and Percentages of Hostile Comments in Each News Source…………………………..47
Table 3: Count and Percentages of Hostile Comets by Category……………………………………………..47
Figure 1: Specific “Troll” Code Count……………………………………………………………………………………….49
Figure 2: Specific “Misguided/ Negatively Biased” Code Count……………………………………………….49
Figure 3: Specific “Rage” Code Count………………………………………………………………………………………50
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: U.S Air Force Web Posting Response Assessment……………………………………………….63
APPENDIX B: Hostile Commenting Coding Sheet………………………………………………………………………64
APPENDIX C: Reliability Test and Results …………………………………………………………………………………65
APPENDIX D: Chi-Square Tests…………………………………………………………………………………………………70
APPENDIX D: The Wall Street Journal Hostile Comments and Codes………………………………………..71
APPENDIX E: CNN.com Hostile Comments and Codes………………………………………………………………76
APPENDIX F: USA Today Hostile Comments and Codes…………………………………………………………….80
APPENDIX G: Hostile Comment Code Counts and Percentages…. ……………………………………………85
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..86
5
Short
INTRODUCTION
“I wonder… when did it become an apparently accepted online norm to try to silence people by
insulting, intimidating and attacking them through aggressive online behavior? When did such
actions against individuals too frequently become the reaction of choice instead of engaging in
spirited debate and passionate dissent? And when exactly did the rest of us agree to stand by,
often turning a blind eye, and allow this to happen, instead of speaking out in vehement protest
and demanding a cultural change?”
-Dec. 20, 2009 post on “Greg Laden’s Blog,” a component of scienceblogs.com
In 2001, Dimaggio, a report by Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson titled “Social Implications
of the Internet,” provided a closely accurate prediction of the Internet’s effect on public
discourse. Although written years prior to the widespread use of social media and online public
forums, the report Identified the broadening of access between individuals and the expansion
of information sharing methods, Dimaggio (2001) writes,
“the Internet would democratize the flow of information, supplanting top down
dependence on traditional news and media organizations with bottom up sharing
among consumers themselves” (p. 325)
The Internet’s capacity for facilitating public deliberation, predicted by Dimaggio, is now
an implemented reality. Today’s communication extends beyond face to face contact, and the
traditional newspaper-generated public forums. The Internet has expanded the way that
society engages in discourse with one another whether through social media outlets, online
chat rooms, or commentary following online publications. The rules of engaging the Internet,
however, are much different. Users have the privilege, or disadvantage, depending on one’s
perspective, to hide behind a cloak of anonymity, sometimes shear and sometimes completely
opaque.
6
Short
With such an effective, widespread and economically practical outlet, it benefits our
society to engage with the contributions that the Internet has to offer in the pursuit of public
discourse. However, this fundamental function of our society based on free speech and
equality, should be managed responsibly and with a certain level of accountability among
online participants. Unfortunately, this is not always the case with offensive, slanderous and
bullying commentary. Hostile commenting, sometimes referred to as “trolling” has developed
a presence within online new source public forums, thus inserting negative and possibly hurtful,
disrespectful, or unethical commentary into opportunities for deliberation.
Today, various issues cultivate vitriol in online commentary: some heavy hitting political
issues and others mundane or simple pet peeves. Hot button issues that divide America are
becoming more and more prevalent. Every week, a new issue is debated, discussed and
dissected. For example, women’s access to birth control remains a regularly debated issue in
conversations surrounding healthcare reform. Local and federal governments continue to
dispute abortion and its legality through conversations that intersect science, health, and
religion.
In order to investigate online aggressive behavior, this paper will examine one particular
issue that continues to generate debate in American culture and politics: immigration policy.
Determining the best level of controlling and monitoring those that enter the country has
always been a complicated policy issue in this country. American society, historically comprised
of immigrants from all over the world, has been known as a “Melting Pot” of cultures,
ethnicities, and nationalities. Despite this cultural and societal characteristic, however, the
7
Short
legalities involved with managing immigration has spurred continuous debates influenced by
the economy, national employment rates, and race relations.
While immigration law is highly complex, in most recent years, issues have included
controlling illegal immigrants from shared borders like Mexico and in amending immigration
law to address terrorist concerns. More recently, Arizona Senate Bill 1070 also known as the
“Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” required immigrants to maintain
legal paper work at all times and authorized police to check for immigration status during lawful
stops if only based on appearance, officer assumption or intuition. This law passed in Arizona in
April 2010, raised concerns of racial profiling for some and for others, offered an efficient
means of managing illegal immigration in the state (FAIR, 2010). As the United States works to
control population and the economy, state immigration laws remain in deliberation in places
like Georgia and Alabama (Biskupic, 2011). The controversy of the Arizona law led to a Supreme
Court review, thus dominating the news in December of 2011 and making immigration a major
topic in this year’s 2012 Presidential Election. The Arizona law is just one example of how,
nationally, the issue of immigration remains a mainstay in our society’s major political and
personal concerns.
As news sources publish stories online and allow for online public forums, the public
has an opportunity to voice their perspectives. Incorporating the complexities of political
positions, national economic concerns, morality debates and personal connections to the issue,
any deliberation regarding immigration policy can spur emotionally and politically charged
discourse. Moreover, this conflicting and complex issue indicates the need for public
8
Short
deliberation venues as a means of invoking civic action towards the issue. The beneficial
service of public deliberation, however, can only be achieved through healthy exchanges of
thoughts, opinions and suggestions for action. Hostile commentary runs the risk of distracting
from effective solutions that are communicated and can even produce actions that are
counterproductive to proposed helpful actions.
With any incorporation of online media, an effective means of facilitating discourse that
highlights its features and benefits, while also engaging in productive deliberation is necessary.
As the following literature review will detail, past research has confirmed the need for public
deliberation, marked key components that denote its effectiveness, identified the presence of
anonymous hostile online commentary, suggested reasons for the existence of aggressive
online behavior and completed preliminary research in monitoring techniques to resolve the
problem. Resolutions to this problem are limited and some encourage such intense
monitoring, that the freedoms of public deliberation are compromised. Alternatively, this paper
will work to determine if controlling the profiled anonymity among participants in online
forums may foster responsible public deliberation and curb hostile commentary. It hopes to
determine if a correlation between levels of anonymity and participant accountability, the
number of hostile comments, and a forum’s abilities to facilitate engagement in effective public
deliberation.
The process of uncovering anonymity’s impact will include a content analysis of the
comments section of three news sources that enable users to comment in different ways: (1)
USA Today online, which requires users to sign into Facebook and thus discloses a large amount
9
Short
of identifying information (2) The Wall Street Journal online, which contains some identifiable
information where users develop their own usernames that must include a portion of their
names and the state and/or city that they are from; and (3) Huffington Post, which allows
usernames to be completely anonymous with no identifying information. Simultaneously, case
studies of each news source will analyze the process and quality of public discourse through
evaluations based on the key components of effective public deliberation. By analyzing and
categorizing the comments from these three sources and discussing the same immigration
news story, this paper can work to fill the research void in monitoring public deliberation in
online forums without limiting the freedoms of public discourse.
10
Short
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Importance of Engaging in Public Discourse
Management of online commentary cannot be assessed without first exploring existing
thought regarding the importance of public opinion. Generating public opinion is a key method
in how individuals regularly communicate with one another, learn, solve problems and develop
a deeper understanding.
Our democratic society prides itself in this freedom of speech and the power of
expressing thought and opinion through discursive participation. The impact of public
deliberation is more integral in civic change and action than many may realize, making the
importance for preserving this practice even more necessary. Jacobs, Cook and Carpini’s (2009)
Talking Together explores the beneficial effects of exchanging opinion in their chapter,
“Impacts of Discursive Participation.” This compilation of existing theory from multiple scholars
identifies five key effects of discursive participation on a spectrum from direct effects to
indirect effects. They include: policy, issue-specific engagement, general engagement, political
capital, and shared meanings (Jacobs et al., 2009).
To begin explaining these five effects more specifically, Jacobs et al., (2009) argue that
public discourse can directly help a group of people reach policy decisions that benefit and
consider the opinions of those affected. For example, through public discourse that would
usually take place in a formal setting, our government can reach decisions on legislation or
determine which issues are most pressing in a local government forum. Public discourse can
also develop issue specific engagement. In this case, also likely to be formal in structure,
11
Short
discursive participation can rally a group of people around a specific issue and encourage
volunteering, supporting, or voting towards that particular public concern.
While discursive participation can have a direct effect on producing policy and creating
issue specific engagement, it can have additional benefits with less direct results. This includes
producing general engagement regarding civic participation. Some research has proven a link
between engaging in public deliberation and therefore, becoming generally more engaged in
political issues. For example, in various studies (Carpini, 1997; Gastil, 2000), researchers found
that participating in public deliberation for one issue resulted in participants’ higher likelihood
of engaging in other political issues, donating money to charity, or volunteering in some
capacity (Jacobs et al., 2009). Also an indirect effect of public deliberation is its ability to
increase political capital. With this, Talking Together (Jacobs et al., 2009) shares that discursive
participation may also increase people’s “political and civic attributes” that will encourage their
engagement and participation in political actions and discussions. These attributes may include
their knowledge of political issues at hand, attention to politics in general, or motivation to be
participants in the political realm (Jacobs et al. 2009). Public discourse, therefore, can also
foster politically responsible and engaged citizens.
Finally, engaging in deliberation can create shared meaning and understanding among
participants. Although it may have the most indirect effect on policy, deliberation allows
participants to engage in new political knowledge, become more politically active, and inform
themselves of political processes. This in turn develops a connection between politics and
12
Short
people’s personal lives thus, encouraging further political exploration, discussion, and shared
understandings (Jacobs et al., 2009).
This shared meaning and understanding benefits not only the public and their peers, but
enables communication between people of different authority and governmental levels as well.
Essentially, “by heightening citizen participation, deliberation may improve the quality and
responsiveness of government” (Jacobs et al., 2009 p. 90). This effect of deliberation is the core
of grassroots campaigns that move people at a basic level of sharing meaning and
understanding and then grow to develop the potential to alter or reach government attention.
Not only does this link government officials more closely to the civic opinions, but, in a cyclical
fashion, “by increasing deliberators’ perception of their relevance and influence,” deliberation
can boost the public’s “motivation for political and civic participation” (Jacobs et al., 2009, p.
90).
Exploring Participatory Democracy through Public Deliberation
While Jacobs et al. identify the definition and impact of effective public discourse, Price
outlines the methods by which people can engage in exchanging public opinion. In the article,
“The Public and Public Opinion in Political Theories,” Price discusses competitive elitism,
pluralistic democracy, legal democracy, and participatory democracy as varying systems in
which the public can share public opinion. While many of these models are currently in use in
our society, the participatory model most closely implements the discursive participation that
Jacobs et al. define in Talking Together above. Furthermore, the participatory model most
closely aligns with the way in which messages are exchanged in an online public forum
13
Short
environment. Price (2008) summarizes the benefits of participatory democracy by arguing that
communicating in a public forum produces greater political autonomy. Other methods of
exchanging public opinion include processes like leadership democracy in which elite officials of
higher authority are in charge of exchanging opinions and messages. Leadership democracy is
based upon the assumption that the general public is not deemed competent enough to be
responsible for the exchange of opinion and subsequent decision making (Bernays, 1928).
Contrary to other models of exchanging public opinion like leadership democracy, however, the
participatory model develops “an autonomous deliberating body that discovers its own views
through conversation” (Price, 2008). In this environment, participants seek to be heard equally
and fairly. Each participant’s comment indicates their power to share and exchange their own
thoughts and opinions without the disruption of a third-party facilitator.
Carpini’s “Public Deliberations, Discursive Participation and Citizen Engagement: A
Review of the Empirical Literature” delves into deeper discussion of this participatory method
of gathering public opinion that Price outlines. While expanding on the political theory that
Price bases his discussion in, this article provides a comprehensive overview of public
deliberation by incorporating theory from a larger body of research including political science
and social psychology.
After considering multiple perspectives, Carpini discusses the nature of public
deliberation through the key characteristics of discursive participation, thus expounding upon
the participatory democracy that Price outlines. In this definition: (1) the deliberation occurs
amongst other citizens through “talking, discussing, debating and/or deliberating” (Carpini,
14
Short
2004); (2) it is a form of participation (whether civic or political); (3) it can occur formally or
informally; and (4) it centers on “local, national, or international issues of public concern”
(Carpini, 2004) The final characteristic, key to the purposes of this paper, is that (5) public
deliberation can take place within a variety of media. With this, Carpini acknowledges that the
Internet and online forums are a suitable medium to engage in public deliberation in addition
to face to face engagement, town hall meetings, and phone interaction.
Defining Effective Public Deliberation through Participatory Discourse
Scholars like Bernays, through his perspective of leadership democracy, doubt the
potential and capabilities of the general public to produce effective deliberation through
participatory discourse. Rather than adopting this perspective, however, Talking Together
identifies five core conditions essential to effective public deliberation and democratic
authenticity. Together through these elements, the public can effectively engage with one
another and “establish authentic democracy” (Jacobs et al., 2009, p.10). The five elements are
universalism, inclusivity, rationality, agreement and political efficacy.
Universalism
Through universalism, participation in public deliberation should be accessible to all
parties affected by the issue being discussed. It is particularly aimed at evening the access of
specific groups of different power or class levels. Universalism instead encourages equal
access, participation, and impact of each participant. This key component limits the power of
one group over another. It should be noted that online communications, which are researched
in this paper, have been criticized for not being accessible to people of all socioeconomic levels,
15
Short
(Knight, 2009) thus limiting its opportunity for universalism. However, as Internet access
widens and has become more readily available in community centers, libraries, and even
through mobile use, the concern of Internet limiting universalism is decreasing.
Inclusivity
While universalism embraces equal access to public deliberation, inclusivity focuses on
equal involvement of all participants in the process of public deliberation. This condition is also
sensitive to the altering effects of varying authority roles or class levels within public
deliberation. Based on a participant’s personality, authority level, or assumed power level, the
exchange of opinions can take on lop-sided viewpoints. Successful inclusivity would, therefore,
foster an environment in which all perspectives would be given equal value and representation
within the public discourse.
Rationality
Rationality refers to the content of the messages shared within public deliberation.
Here, Jacobs et al. indicate that opinions should be based in credible reasoning in which they
“[offer] evidence, [advance] claims grounded in logic and facts, and [listen] and [respond] to
counterarguments (Jacobs et al., 2009, p. 11).” Rationality ensures that information sharing is
at the forefront in idea sharing rather than a person’s emotionally or morally charged
perspectives.
16
Short
Agreement
Through universal access, inclusive involvement, and rational message sharing,
participants in effective public deliberations should become exposed to varying perspectives
that may or may not match their own. This discourse, should therefore, foster an environment
in which participants reflect on conflicting perspectives and strive to reconcile these
differences. It should be noted, that agreement is not about each participant agreeing on a
particular opinion. Rather, it is about being cognizant of differences in opinion, analyzing those
differences and understanding some level of common ground.
Political Efficacy
Finally, effective public discourse should encourage a connection between the discourse
and actions regarding government policy and civic engagement. An increased knowledge of
issues and perspectives through public deliberation should in turn manifest itself in a
participant’s political reflection, voting habits, and expectations from their government.
Political efficacy ensures that public deliberation does not only foster healthy discourse among
participants, but also empowers the public to contribute their acquired knowledge,
perspectives and practices back to the society on a whole. Examples would include voting as a
result of engaging in public deliberation or even becoming active in a campaign or advocating
for a specific policy.
These five conditions, detailed above, will be the basis for defining effective public
deliberation in this study and will play a key role in the case study research portion of this
paper.
17
Short
Public Deliberation Going Digital
While Carpini’s article makes evident the importance and presence of public
deliberation as a means of engagement in our society, it draws two conclusions, in particular,
that are integral to the investigations regarding online discourse.
First, Carpini argues that the result of public deliberation is dependent upon the context
it occurs in. With this, quality public deliberation only occurs with a perfect storm of all
variables including “the subject under discussion, who participates… the information provided,
prior beliefs, substantive outcomes, and real-world conditions” (2004). Carpini’s conclusion,
therefore, suggests that negative components like hostile commentary and online trolls could
affect and ultimately limit the effectiveness of public deliberation. Explaining the impact of
context, Carpini (2004) argues that failure to implement the appropriate conditions within a
public forum could make deliberation “ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst” (P.
336).
The second key conclusion that Carpini draws is in public deliberation’s potential when
taking place in an online forum. It identifies the Internet as a tool to further explore the effects
and impact of the Internet. Benefits identified include,
“lower costs, more long term deliberation, flexibility in when individuals
participate…Also noted were framing effects; opinion change among undecided
participants in the direction of dominant group arguments; increases in generalized
social trust; and increases in a variety of forms of participation, including community
engagement and voting” (Carpini, 2004, p.335)
Based on Carpini and Price’s optimistic discussion of public opinion and public deliberation, the
online forum is an ideal method of engaging the public. However, context issues like
18
Short
anonymous hostile commentary, that this paper will investigate, can affect and, ultimately
inhibit the quality of public deliberation.
With the popularity of Internet use and its extensive access to users, Price reviews the
effects of online deliberation (Price, 2009). He assesses some of the benefits and disadvantages
through discussion of existing literature and his own brief experimentation. There is existing
skepticism of the Internet as an effective medium for public deliberation. Price summarizes that
many researchers (2009) question the Internet’s ability to foster relationships that are not
superficial, particularly when compared to the perceived closer relationships found in face-toface engagement. Because of the Internet’s distant nature, it maintains a reputation of
developing limited relationships. Furthermore, those skeptical suggest that polarization may
occur as users with similar perspectives may be more likely to communicate with one another,
thus limiting the exchange of opposing or differing ideas, a key benefit in exchanging public
opinion (Price, 2009).
It should be noted, however, that issues like the former are not solely the blame of
online deliberation, but arise in other suggested methods of public deliberation. Much
literature identifies American society as becoming significantly more polarized as a result of,
not only online media, but also cable and other niche media outlets.
Countering existing apprehension, Price helps uncover many of the benefits that the
online medium can offer. This includes research that suggests that the Internet can develop
“reduce[d] patterns of social dominance,” (Price, 2009, p. 7) which could encourage users to
open up and exchange even more information in an online environment. Other research
19
Short
argues that people do maintain personal relationships online and are likely to ask questions and
not engage in the superficial and limited interactions that researchers fear. Price further
identifies the online medium as an advantage as the existence of archived text enables
participants to review, reflect, and become even more informed and engaged in the discussion
at hand.
Ultimately, while some skepticism still exists in the effectiveness of online deliberation,
most discussion including Price’s experiment, concedes its potential if facilitated properly.
Further, despite some areas of skepticism, the extent to which Internet plays a key role in the
Web 2.0 world confirms the staying power of online deliberation and the need to improve
existing methods of online communication rather than abandon their societal contributions. It
is because of this medium’s relevance, power and ease of use, as social media, blogs and online
news consumption become highly prevalent, that appropriate methods of facilitating public
deliberation should be investigated.
Problems with Anonymity within Online Communication
Although the Internet is an ideal forum for engaging in public deliberation, existing
skepticism and problems of utilizing the medium can only be remedied if existing problems with
the online medium are corrected. Much of the focus of this paper, hostile online commentary,
is one such issue that disrupts the public deliberation process. Hostile commentary,
sometimes, seems to arise no matter how big, small, politically charged, or trivial the topic may
be. Trolling takes place anywhere public participation occurs including social media sites like
Facebook and YouTube and within online news article forums and blog discussions.
20
Short
While there appear to be no formal studies identifying the increasing problem of hostile
online commentary, the many news articles and blog posts discussing the problems of trolling
indicate its prevalence in interrupting online public discourse. Greg Laden’s emotionally
charged blog post at the opening of this paper is just one of the many comments of concern
regarding online hostility. An entire organization, CiviliNation, was created to combat online
harassment and abuse, in which their mission is,
“to foster an online culture where every person can freely participate in a democratic,
open, rational and truth-based exchange of ideas and information, without fear or
threat of being the target of unwarranted abuse, harassment or lies” (CiviliNation).
This non-profit organization offers outreach, advocacy, education and research towards the
pursuit of civil digital discourse. Their work has been referenced in national publications
including Forbes and USA Today. Non-profit organizations are not the only ones that have
taken notice to the problem of online hostile comments. The news media have highlighted
continued issues of cyber bullying largely amongst young Internet users. Furthermore, articles
like “How the Internet created an age of rage” from The Guardian identify online hostility as an
unfortunate component of our Internet-influenced culture and lists psychological and social
reasons behind the aggressive behavior.
It is evident, based on existing activism, news articles, and online commentary that
news, blogs, and entire online communities see online hostilities as a problem. The discussion
about what causes online hostilities and how to reduce them, however, is considerably more
varied.
21
Short
What are the causes of online hostilities?
Research has identified various factors in explaining the cause of online hostile behavior.
“The Online Disinhibition Effect” by J. Suler, argues that participating in an online forum can
make online participants feel more relaxed, less inhibited, and in a position to “express
themselves more openly” (2004). While this can often produce a positive more open and
expressive communication interaction (referred to as benign disinhibition), the alternative is
negative, aggressive, and sometimes harassing participation. Suler’s online disinhibition effect
identifies multiple characteristics of the Internet that enable an environment where hostile
online commentary can flourish. As the detailed description of the online disinhibition effect
will show, many of these characteristics are the nature of the Internet as a medium. They
cannot, therefore, be altered or changed to lessen the disinhibition effect because these
characteristics come with the territory of using an online medium. This paper will therefore,
focus its research on anonymity, a key characteristic identified by Suler, which can be altered in
an online medium, and thus can have an effect on limiting online hostile comments.
Suler outlines six key conditions that encourage and enable this feeling of disinhibition,
thus causing the hostile trolling within, otherwise, opportunities of effective public deliberation.
The first two factors deal directly with being anonymous on the Internet. The first is dissociative
anonymity in which users see their anonymity online as a separation from their actual lives.
This produces less accountability for online activity as it is perceived as being dissociated from
their actual self. The second component is invisibility. Also related to anonymity, users feeling
invisible believe that their presence leaves no impact and is not detectable. There is a slight
22
Short
nuanced difference between invisibility and anonymity in that being anonymous assumes an
identity that is cloaked and unidentifiable, while invisibility does not assume the presence of
identity, but rather complete undetectability and to a certain extent, non-existence (Suler,
2004).
The last four factors blame the Internet’s format for producing this disinhibition effect.
For example, asynchronicity refers to the Internet’s inability to mimic live chronological time.
Instead, continuous conversations in online forums can include extensive gaps in time or
happen very immediately. This online clock that is not synchronized with real time is another
component separating Internet existences from reality, therefore producing additional
opportunities of disinhibition. Also a result of the Internet’s format, solipsistic introjection is
the instance where Internet users develop characters for those that they interact with, thus
simulating an imagined conversation in their minds with a fabricated character based on their
assumed perceptions of those they engage with (Suler, 2004). For example, when users
interact with one another in public forums, they have never actually met those that they
engage in conversation with. Social cues that people typically rely on to better understand one
another in person such as tone, gestures, personality, or past interactions are absent. Users
are, therefore, forced to imagine for themselves, solely based off of comments, what the other
participants are like and place themselves among these imagined characters. This discourse
produces a conversation in one’s head that is removed from reality due to the imagined
characters at play, thus creating an ideal environment for the disinhibition effect.
23
Short
Another factor, dissociative imagination, similar to solipsistic introjection, identifies
cyberspace as a separate space in which one can engage in these imagined worlds. Thus, the
activities that take place there have no bearing on one’s actual reality with their actual lives and
relationships. . For example, a user participating in a public forum may feel removed from the
conversation due to the Internet’s non-physical and non-present state. The conversation, could
therefore, seem imaginary and they may see themselves as simply a character in a dialogue
that they provide the script for. Here, the prospect of an imaginary conversation removes an
individual from the reality of the situation, could reduce the user’s responsibility of comments
and the disinhibition effect could produce more hostile commentary.
Finally, Suler discusses Internet’s ability to minimize authority. Because identity is
typically unknown, positions of leadership or authority have no bearing on the conversation
and all participants are on an even playing field. This enables users to engage more freely with
no power roles inhibiting participation. This can be beneficial in facilitating an environment of
inclusivity that Jacobs et al. (2009) identify as a key component of effective public discourse.
However, as Suler discusses, minimizing authority limits users’ inhibitions and can result in
hostile online commentary.
Collectively, Suler’s online disinhibition effect identifies key components that very likely
reduce inhibitions amongst users and could enable aggressive online participation that has
proven problematic in today’s public discourse arenas. For many of these factors, however, the
causes of disinhibition effect are structural and format concerns with the Internet as a medium
itself. Factors like asynchronicity and solipsistic introjection, which could also play a role in
24
Short
developing online hostile commentary, cannot be manipulated without completely altering the
essence and features of the Internet as a medium. For an online public forum facilitator,
anonymity is one of the more controllable variables listed in the disinhibition effect. This paper
will, therefore, focus on anonymity, a key factor found in a few of Suler’s components.
Further, supporting the concept of anonymity playing a vital role in producing online
hostile comments is various literature on deindividuation. Davis’s article “Understanding and
Decreasing Aversive Behavior in Online Social Contexts” defines deindividuation as a person
feeling that they have no identity or uniqueness. He argues that “when people are publicly selfaware, they are concerned about being evaluated by others and their status as a member of a
group or their social identity” (Davis, 2002). This does not happen when they are not selfaware. Very similar to Suler’s dissociative anonymity and invisibility factors, Davis’s discussion
of deindividuation confirms the role that anonymity can play in producing online hostilities.
By addressing how users identify themselves in terms of anonymity, public deliberation
can be managed in a way that develops accountability amongst users rather than limitations,
thus allowing users to still enrich the content of public deliberation online forums.
Proposed Resolutions
While vast research has explored the implications of the Internet and potential
problems that could result from using it as a place of public deliberation, the research regarding
those solutions are much more limited. Out of the literature that does exist, many encourage
methods of monitoring online forums in a way that inhibits the process of public deliberation.
For example, Hilavach and Freivogel’s “Ethical Implications of Anonymous Comments Posted to
25
Short
Online News Stories,” argues that only certain kinds of news stories should offer an anonymous
commentary section. It argues that more ethical, or non-hostile, behavior will result from news
sources limiting which articles can be commented on (2011). While this may limit the number
of hostile comments, limiting the availability of a forum for public discourse, inhibits the
effectiveness of online forums as a means of engaging in public deliberation. Furthermore, The
New York Times online website monitors online commenting through a system similar to that of
Letters to the Editor. Here, comments must be submitted and approved before published on
the online public forum. Again, this system, though eliminating the presence and negative
effects of hostile comments, ultimately also reduces the opportunity for engagement among
the public through the basic principles of effective public discourse.
Both of these proposals chip away at the key factors discussed previously as essential to
effective public discourse including universalism, inclusivity, and the process of agreement
(Jacobs et al., 2004). Public discourse is only implementing authentic democracy when these
factors are at play.
Communication scholarship proves the necessity of engaging in public deliberation, but
in today’s world, the manner in which society engages with one another is greatly changing.
Online communications have to be embraced, but with any new medium, challenges are in the
way that could inhibit effective public deliberation. In its harassing, negative and aggressive
manner, hostile online commentary is a key issue that scholars and the public alike believe
needs to be addressed. However, this must be done in a manner where people’s voices are not
limited and participants remain accountable and responsible. This paper will work to
26
Short
investigate if adjusting a user’s anonymity may be enough to encourage responsible online use
which can in turn, reduce online hostile comments and still maintain key elements of effective
public discourse. Further, to assess the full implementation of the key components of effective
public deliberation, it will evaluate the quality of discussions taking place in online forums. The
following study will investigate whether managing online users’ levels of anonymity will be the
key to striking a balance between online freedom and accountability while not comprising the
benefits of effective public deliberation. Furthermore, it will work to determine best practices
in facilitating online public forums whether they are in an effort to prevent hostile commenting
or encourage elements of effective public deliberation.
27
Short
METHODOLOGY
This study was comprised of two key sections: a qualitative case study and a
quantitative content analysis. This study investigated the correlation between an online forum
user’s level of anonymity and the presence of hostile comments alongside methods of effective
deliberation. The case study evaluated the public comments in three news sources based on
how well they implemented effective methods of public deliberation. The content analysis
investigated the public comments of the same three news sources in terms of how many hostile
comments were present and how they were categorized.
Sources of Investigation
Because anonymity was the study’s investigated variable, three news sources that
required different levels of online profile anonymity were investigated. They included USA
Today, The Wall Street Journal and CNN.com. USA Today required participants to sign in via
Facebook, therefore with nearly no anonymity. The Wall Street Journal required participants to
identify their partial identity through a first and last name and city and state of residence.
Finally, CNN.com contained public forums in which participants select their own usernames,
which could be as anonymous as desired. These three new sources covered a high level of
anonymity, mid-level of anonymity and finally a low level of anonymity.
Many issues evoke debate, deliberation, and sometimes hostility among the public.
Immigration policy in the United States is one such controversial topic that intersects debate
regarding racial tensions, economical concerns, and patriotism. To ensure some control
variables within this investigation, only one article from each source was chosen. Each article
covered the same topic of the Supreme Court ruling of the Arizona immigration law and was
28
Short
written in the same time frame between the dates of December 12, 2011 and December 13,
2011.
Furthermore, because this study sought to investigate examples of public discourse in
which public discourse is the least monitored by the website facilitator, each news source
chosen did not pre-monitor comments. It should be noted, however, that some sites including
CNN.com, did post-monitor comments and removed problematic comments per the request of
online forum participants.
Online Forum Case Study:
Alternatively, the case study provided an analysis to determine online forum best practices in
terms of facilitating effective public discourse. Here each online forum was evaluated on the
basis of the following criteria from Talking Together (Jacobs et. al, 2009):
1. Universalism – How accessible was the site to all members of the public?
2. Inclusivity – To what extent did each participant have an equal voice within the public
forum?
3. Rationality –To what extent did participants use additional information or sources to
supplement their argument?
4. Agreement – To what extent did participants collaborate with one another and
synthesize perspectives to reach their own opinions?
The fifth characteristic of effective public discourse, political efficacy, could not be
evaluated solely through an analysis of the three news sources. This was because political
efficacy deals directly with the actions that were a result of engaging in public deliberation. The
online public forums did not provide enough information to determine participants’ levels of
29
Short
political efficacy, but predictions regarding this category will be discussed in the conclusion of
this study.
Each news source’s online forum was evaluated on the basis of these four factors. This
qualitative data was collected by investigating the structure and content of each forum. In
many cases, to provide support for evaluations, example comments or content from the sites
were used to illustrate the analysis discussed.
Content Analysis
The case study developed a qualitative review of existing processes of facilitating
effective public deliberation. The content analysis, alternatively, analyzed the hostile
comments, specifically, and investigated if a correlation existed between levels of anonymity
and number or types of hostile comments.
Sample
CNN.com’s article contained 119 comments. Each comment in this source was reviewed
to evaluate hostile comments. Because USA Today and The Wall Street Journal had more
comments, a random sample selected every other comment until 119 comments were
reviewed from each source.
Coding Terms
The content analysis investigated the number and type of hostile comments within each
news source. A coding technique was used to identify further details about each hostile
comment. The United States Air Force Web Posting Response system was used as a skeletal
model of categorizing hostile comments ("Air Force Web Posting Response Assessment,"). Only
the categories pertaining to hostile commenting were used. These included “Trolls,” “Ragers,”
30
Short
and “Misguided” (See Appendix A). The terms and definitions of each category took into
account the Air Force model’s definitions, observations of online hostile comments, scholarly
definitions of hostile comments, and researcher discretion. Considering all of this, each hostile
comment was evaluated by the following categorical definitions:
Trolls:
1. Harsh name calling or off topic name calling
2. Blatant off topic negativity or insults
3. Mentioned violence towards someone
Ragers:
4. Insulted a person or group of people (within an on topic argument)
5. Negative Sarcasm
6. Textual Screaming – denoted by capitalized words, excessive exclamation marks, etc.
Misguided/ Negatively Biased:
7. Bases an argument on blatantly inaccurate information
8. Something racially, politically, or ethnically offensive
A comment was deemed hostile if it had any of the above characteristics. It was additionally
placed in one of the three categories, Rager, Trolling, or Misguided/ Negatively Biased, based
on the components that deemed it hostile (See Appendix B).
Reliability Testing
In order to verify that the researcher was completing the content analysis from an
unbiased and objective perspective, reliability testing was completed. Two volunteers were
given 20 comments to code on the basis of hostility and then categorize as a Troll, Rager, or
31
Short
Misguided/ Negatively Biased. Coding was considered reliable with a 70% match in coding or
better.
Limitations
Some design elements of this study may have limited the findings and results of this
research. For example, only one controversial topic was investigated due to project size
limitations and to maintain a control variable. Therefore, this study did not analyze the
presence of effective deliberation or hostile comments in the context of other hot button
issues. Further, 119 comments were reviewed for study due to sampling restrictions as
CNN.com had only 119 comments in total. The results of this study may have been expanded if
the researcher had access to more comments.
Each news source was chosen due to their distinctly varying level of anonymity. Further,
each source was carefully chosen to maintain a similar level of national appeal and relevance so
that each could be measured on similar terms. However, because these sources were real and
the public forums did not occur within a vacuum, other variables may have been present as
well. The audience segments in particular, varied slightly. The WSJ.com audience had an
average age of 45, was predominantly male (58.7%) and a majority of readers were college
graduates or more (58.3%). Twenty-eight percent of the readers were business decision
makers and 30.7% had a household income of $100,000 per year or more ("WSJ.com audience
profile," March 13, 2012).
32
Short
Alternatively, USA Today had a lower median age of 37, a median household income of
$47,500 and a more even split between males and females with 51% males and 49% females
("USA Today.com: Audience Overview," n.d.).
CNN.com had the largest portion of their audience (24%) between the age range of 3544 and a predominantly male audience (58%). Most of their readers (63%) had a household
income of more than $100,000 per year ("Cnn.com Traffic and Demographic Statistics by
Quantcast," n.d.). Based solely on demographic information, while all of the news sources
tended to be made up of fairly affluent and educated middle age audiences, the nuanced
differences still identified key variances in segmented audiences. The household income for
USA Today readers, for example, was much lower than that of WSJ.com and CNN.com. Further
differences between audiences might have been likely if psychographic audience information
was also considered.
Other underlying variables may have included varying access as WSJ.com required
commenters to be subscribers, and varying manners in which the immigration law was
reported. While the content analysis investigated correlation regarding the variable of
anonymity, the case studies considered some of the other aforementioned variables at play.
Finally, the study strived to promote processes of public deliberation in which
comments were not monitored in an effort to maintain an open and non-tampered public
forum. It would have further allowed for the collection of raw and authentic data. While none
of the sources pre-monitored comments posted on their websites, CNN.com and The Wall
Street Journal did include options to post-monitor comments. In this process, the online forum
facilitators had the capability to intervene and remove or edit comments should a member of
33
Short
the community flag it as inappropriate or offensive. Because the comments were collected for
study three months after their original posting, it was possible that some comments had been
removed or edited during the post monitoring process.
34
Short
RESULTS
Effective Public Deliberation Case Study Evaluations
The purpose of studying online hostile commenting is largely related to news sources
facilitating healthy and effective forums for public deliberations. Therefore, it was important to
evaluate each news source, not only through an analysis of hostile comments, but also through
an analysis of the structure and content of each online forum on a whole. The following
outlines a qualitative review of each news source to further identify methods of best practice in
facilitating an online public forum.
TABLE 1. Components of Effective Public Deliberation Evaluations for News Sources
Universalism
Inclusivity
Rationality
Agreement
CNN.com
High
High
Low
Mid Level
The Wall Street
Journal
USA Today
Low
High
High
High
Mid-Level
Low
Low
Mid-level
CNN.com:
High Universalism
CNN.com’s online public forum offered wide access to many users. Any online readers
that created profiles, which could be as anonymous as users preferred, had access to
commenting and participating in the public forum. The only limitations to access were to those
that lacked Internet access and those that did not have a desire to create an account and
participate.
35
Short
High Inclusivity
Within the online comments, there was no ranking or leadership among users, thus
producing a high evaluation in inclusivity for CNN.com. Each user, therefore, had an equal
opportunity to participate and an equal voice within the deliberation. Anonymity assisted in
this role as education levels, job titles, race, gender, or any other identifying characteristics that
could cause members to prejudge comments or participants were absent. Identifying
characteristics could only be located within the content of each comment. Additionally, the
comments, therefore, whether hostile or not, only referenced material discussed within the
forum.
Low Rationality
Few comments on CNN.com contained high levels of fact, data, or other resources to
support their arguments or claims. Largely, comments regarding immigration were based in
opinion, emotion, surface knowledge of immigration, and/ or personal experience. For
example, one user discussed their opinion about immigration from the perspective of their own
experiences and observations in America:
A very good family friend who worked in construction couldn't find a job [in] our
state mainly due to the influx of cheap illegals [that] got paid under the table. He
had to uproot his family and move over 100 miles away.
The government has broken its contract with citizens and [doesn’t] care about those
who elected them but only for rich interested in the US and foreign – who want to
drive US salaries down to 3rd world conditions.
Who cares about having a vibrant middle class when the 1% can hire nannies and
people to clean their toilets on the cheap[?]
("Supreme Court to Rule on Arizona Immigration Law [comment section]," 2011)
36
Short
This comment was an example of using personal opinion and personal experience to
develop a stance on the topic of immigration. Only two of the 119 comments in the
CNN.com forum used outside information or facts to support their claims.
Another example of using rationality was through a commenter that referenced past
policy to suggest new methods of managing immigration.
Our rule of law must prevail or we will soon have anarchy.
If America needs foreign labor to pick our produce then let us have laws that support
the legal residency of such labor.
In the 1940's, America had the Guest Worker Program that worked well to provide
much needed cheap labor. America, Mexico, businesses and the laborer all
benefited. Let's revive this program and if workers are in America illegally, then let
our justice be swift and objective.
("Supreme Court to Rule on Arizona Immigration Law [comment section]," 2011)
In both cases, no references were included to verify the commenters’ factually based claims. It
should, therefore, be noted that CNN’s low rating in rationality was due, not only to few
mentionings of factual support, but also few references to outside resources to make those
claims more credible.
Mid-Level Agreement
Commenters on CNN.com did show some evidence of collaborating with one
another. The structure of CNN’s online forum was likely the blame for the site’s limited
opportunities for agreement. There was no function that allowed for users to reply directly
to one another’s comments. Instead, the most common way that users did attempt to
address one another directly was by typing the “@” symbol and one’s username directly
within their comments.
Furthermore, many did not identify who or what they are
37
Short
referencing in their comments at all. This made it difficult to determine if users were
reading and engaging with one another’s comments or just reacting and commenting on
similar themes.
For example,
[Commenter 1]: Hopefully they will allow the law to be enforced. The U.S. does not
need more laws created, the ones on the books need to be enforced. There needs to
be a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to get rid of the anchor baby
possibility.
[Commenter 2]: @[Commenter 1] There needs to be a reinterpretation of the 14th
Amendment to get rid of the anchor baby possibility. Except the instant case can't
end in such a reinterpretation. At issue is the level of government that is responsible
for setting and enforcing immigration policy.
("Supreme Court to Rule on Arizona Immigration Law [comment section]," 2011)
After this interaction, Commenter 1 did not contribute to the forum for another 14 comments.
This follow up comment was:
Commenter 1: “Almost. I think there are a couple others that are trying to
implement similar laws. But not enough. If the federal government won't do their
job, someone has too, i.e. the individual states.”
("Supreme Court to Rule on Arizona Immigration Law [comment section]," 2011)
Because no user in particular was referenced and the specificity of the comment
was low, it was difficult to determine if Commenter 1 was continuing their dialogue with
Commenter 2 or responding to a later commenter. More importantly, there was little
evidence of users’ comments synthesizing, collaborating and producing new ideas or
stronger perspectives. CNN.com commenters exhibited an attempt to seek the beginning
processes of agreement, but user efforts and forum structure caused the deliberation to fall
short in achieving this goal.
38
Short
Wall Street Journal:
Low Universalism
The Wall Street Journal online public forum only allowed access to online subscribers of
the newspaper. This greatly limited access as online subscribers must pay $9.65 per week for
print and online access or $3.99 per week for solely digital access. ("Up to 8 weeks free, start by
choosing a subscription...," 2012). By limiting the conversation to subscribers, the online
forum indirectly limited participation to specific demographic s as well that might have
increased access to certain age groups, education levels, or income levels.
High Inclusivity
While access to the forum was limited to just subscribers, there appeared to be a high
amount of inclusivity among the users. Users had an equal opportunity for their comments to
be received without bias or favoritism. Users were not identified with certain levels of authority
or identifying characteristics that could impede another user’s ability to have their opinion
heard or to disrupt an equal level of attention towards all of the comments posted. While the
profiles on The Wall Street Journal did identify a user’s name and city and state, this limited
information was likely to not affect users’ levels of inclusivity when participating in the public
forum.
High Rationality
Wall Street Journal participants supported their arguments with a great amount of fact
and supporting detail. There were fewer personal experiences used to support viewpoints.
Instead, users referenced other news articles, policies, and other resources for factual data to
support their oftentimes passionate opinions. Additionally, comments appeared to be carefully
39
Short
crafted with special attention towards the structure of the argument. For example, the
following comment referenced statistics as the bulk of the content of its argument to articulate
their strong views regarding immigration:
Note that the majority of Hispanic American citizens are against illegal
immigration and support attrition of the existing illegal alien population through
aggressive enforcement of screening job applicants, as well as capture and prosecution
of identity thieves, who prey mainly on Hispanic American citizens.
Those who ignore this reality are racists, focusing on Hispanics as a single group
while ignoring hard working Hispanic citizens who compete for jobs with illegal aliens of
all cultures.
Unemployment among Hispanic-Americans (as opposed to illegal aliens) is
11.4%!...
…’From the 2005 National Latino Survey of 1,000 Hispanic adults (margin of error
+/- 3.1% at a 95% confidence interval): A majority of Hispanic voters (52.4% to 38.2%)
support ". . . legislation stating that any person living in this country illegally cannot
become a United States citizen unless they reapply for citizenship legally from their
country of origin’….
(“High court to rule on immigration [online comment section], 2011)
Finally, the comment concluded with an additional link from an outside source:
…And even Mexicans agree: Zogby Poll in Mexico Shows Enforcement Prevents
39 Million From Coming Here -- But Mexicans Say Amnesty Would Increase Illegal
Aliens: http://www.cis.org/articles/2009/zogby.pdf”
(“High court to rule on immigration [online comment section], 2011)
This comment offered a good example of rationalizing one’s opinions with the use of additional
information and outside resources.
The Wall Street Journal also maintained a culture that expected high levels of
rationalization from their peers. Users critiqued one another’s arguments that did not contain
40
Short
factual proof and questioned the credibility of sources when users did cite within their
arguments. For example, one user writes, “Quoting the LA Times....LOL....Why don't you just
put up links from the DNC Web Site...or the White House [propaganda] site.....or how about
one of Obama's speeches, no lies in any of those....wink, wink” (“High court to rule on
immigration [online comment section], 2011). In addition to articulating their passionate
partisan views, this commenter also made clear that they do not feel that LA Times exhibited
the caliber or credibility necessary to develop a persuasive argument.
High Agreement
The Wall Street Journal commenters strived less to consider one another’s varying views
to synthesize, collaborate and develop their own new ideas. Highly opinionated perspectives
seemed to limit an environment for collaboration with comments like, “…Where did you find
such spurious information or did you just make it up because you don't like our president?..”
(“High court to rule on immigration [online comment section], 2011). Instead, there was a
greater focus on proving one’s own perspectives right.
Despite users’ unlikelihood of changing their minds, the community did encourage and
challenge members to present strong and factually sound arguments. The high level of
rationalization within The Wall Street Journal had an integrated relationship with the high level
of agreement. With this, participants may have urged one another to clarify their ideas like in
the following comment that sought clarification from a preceding argument. One user wrote,
“I'm having a hard time understanding your comment, given that deportations are running at
the highest level in 8 years… “(“High court to rule on immigration [online comment section],
2011)
41
Short
In addition to urging peers to revise their arguments, some users also encouraged
others to seek additional resources to support and expand their opinions. For example, the
following comment explained and listed outside resources that could have further helped
clarify and hone another commenter’s previous comments.
[Commenter],
So the article you cite that I put links up for, says that President Obama
increased enforcement, as a ploy to get Immigration Reform passed, as he promised to
do while Campaigning. Remember, "Yes we Can"?
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/10/obama-pitches-immigration-policy/
(“High court to rule on immigration [online comment section], 2011)
In another comment, a user helped provide additional information for a previously discussed
topic:
Here's the blurb that you're talking about from FAIR.... The link that the other
person is talking about is out of context.”
(“High court to rule on immigration [online comment section], 2011)
The high level of agreement was also present due to The Wall Street Journal’s
“comment tracker” feature ("Journal community," 2012). This feature allowed for commenters
to be notified and to keep track of when their peers replied to one of their comments. This
likely strengthened the likelihood of commenters engaging with one another and producing the
conversations that could lead to effective public deliberation.
42
Short
USAToday
Mid-Level Universalism
In order to comment within the USA Today public forum, Facebook accounts were
required. With Facebook as one of the largest social media sites, more than 845 million users
worldwide ("Newsroom Fact Sheet," 2012), the USA Today online forum offered moderate
access to the public. Facebook profiles are accessible to users 12 and over (FAQ, 2012).
Accessibility was, therefore, limited for those who did not wish to create a Facebook account or
preferred for their participation in USA Today’s public forum to be more anonymous.
Low inclusivity
Varying levels of authority became attached to each user depending on their level of
participation on the online forum. On this site, some users were granted the title of “Top
Commenter” if their comments were liked many times by other users. This could have limited
inclusivity by placing more attention and authority on some comments over others. Thus, users
did not have a fair and even opportunity to have their comments read. Further, the “top
commenter” position increased the chance for users to create a bias against posted comments
solely based on the title the commenter was given or lack thereof.
Furthermore, in this particular case study, the hostile comments played a role in limiting
the inclusivity of the USA Today online public forums. Here, a Trolling participant’s comments
and aggressive opinions dominated the conversation in a way that seemed to limit equal
participation of all interested users. The user posted what appeared to be a tirade of ten
comments with only one comment from someone else separating them. The comments got
progressively more aggressive and off topic.
43
Short
Post 1: “[Commenter], OK, so then as a black person when should I expect a check for
the work my people did for your slave-owning Irish-American, German-American and
English-American ancestors? Since "what happened before" still holds direct validity for
what's happening today?”
Post 2: “[Commenter], Globalization attempt and evasion. Directly answer the question.
Where is MY check for MY ancestors' work, since the past is more important than the
present? Either man up and answer it, or I'll meet the press for my championship belt
and champagne in the back, thanks.
Post 9: “[Commenter] Gosh, men have no problem with it. I suspect neither would your
husband, if he existed. Nor would you, if you were minus a few pounds.”
(“States enacting immigration-related laws [online comment section],” 2011)
The domination of this person’s fairly off topic commentary not only distracted from
other deliberation taking place, but also changed the topic of the deliberation. Many users
began responding just to the Trolling comments in a way that sacrificed not only the quality of
the deliberation, but also the opportunity for others with different perspectives to participate.
Mid-Level Rationality:
The commenting culture on USA Today’s online public forum included opinions that
were based largely on personal feelings, experience and surface level knowledge of the topic.
Users did provide additional information to support their arguments. However, there were few
citations proving the information they referenced was credible. One commenter wrote,
First, the point is that the Latino vote is always a key vote in the presidential elections
and even if an illegal cannot legally vote, they have enough relatives and friends in the
country that can and it is THOSE votes that politicians are pandering to.
I don't know what you are talking about as far as blaming the right for taking away their
ability to get tax ID's. The IRS still offers tax ID's to anyone that wishes to apply for one.
Less than 2% actually use them. Most don't pay taxes at all and never did and those that
have or do so now, do so using stolen ID. The emergency room is now and has always
been [their] main access to healthcare which has cost all of us dearly…
44
Short
…You say [illegal] aliens are not going anywhere but know that those of us that have
been fighting it for years now aren't going anywhere either and we are not going to give
in.”
(“States enacting immigration-related laws [online comment section],” 2011)
This comment provided helpful information, including statistics, to illustrate their point, but
there was no convincing proof or citation to verify the facts they present.
Mid- Level Agreement
USA Today’s online forum had a very ideal structure to facilitate agreement in which
commenters could reply directly to one another’s comments. Here, commenters could focus
comments on more specific themes within the topic at hand and communicate more directly to
facilitate conversations that could lead to synthesizing ideas and perspectives. This process
may have led to better understanding of one another’s ideas along with one’s own.
Commenters used phrases like, “ I agree with your comment and…” or addressed one another
by name within their comments to imply direct conversation and engagement with one another
(“States enacting immigration-related laws [online comment section],” 2011).
Unfortunately, while some comments showed evidence of striving to gain clarity
regarding the issue, many others were significantly more focused on proving that their own
ideas were correct. Further, the aggressive tone in which this was done limited the likelihood of
users wanting to collaborate with one another to reach agreement. For example, closely linked
with rationality, one commenter encouraged another to use additional information to support
claims. However, this was done in an aggressive manner when the commenter wrote,
45
Short
Read a book, god knows you need to. The [I]ncas are from Peru, thousands of miles
south of Mexico, the Mayans are from the Yucatan Peninsula at the southernmost tip of
Mexico, where they remain still. The [S]panish invaded and partly colonized up to what
is now the [A]merican southwest, from Texas to California. The [I]ndians you refer to
never immigrated from Mexico, those were native tribes who lived in the region for
hundreds of years before the arrival of white man, one of the only tribes to live in both
countries were the [A]ppache, and they lived there long before borders existed.
(“States enacting immigration-related laws [online comment section],” 2011).
This comment may have actually discouraged another user from commenting and may
have reduced the prospect of collaborating to produce bigger or clearer ideas and
understanding. Because of this commenting culture where user attitudes did not encourage
agreement, USA Today’s online public forum only seemed to offer a moderate level of
agreement.
Content Analysis Results
As the case studies showed, there were times that hostile comments impeded the
pursuit of effective methods of public deliberation. The quantitative content analysis
investigated the presence and categories of online hostile commenting, particularly as they
related to the varying levels of anonymity variable.
Reliability Test Results: Reliability testing was completed with the aid of two volunteers. After
categorizing a list of 20 comments into the “Troll,” “Rager,” or “Misguided” categories, one
volunteer scored a 75% match with the researcher. The other volunteer scored an 80% match
with the researcher, thus confirming that the researcher’s content analysis coding system was
reliable and not biased (See Appendix C).
46
Short
Hostile Commenting Percentages:
TABLE 2. Count and Percentage of Hostile Comments in Each News Source
Total
Percentage of Hostile
Comments
30
25.2%
21
17.6%
USA Today
(least anonymity)
Wall Street Journal
(mid level anonymity)
CNN.com
(most anonymity)
26
21.8%
The content analysis showed that the percentage of hostile comments within each news
source varied slightly with 25.2% of comments being hostile for USA Today, 21.8% for CNN.com
and 17.6% for The Wall Street Journal. With only a slight variance in percentages, a chi square
statistical test proved that there was not a statistically significant difference amongst the
percentages of hostile comments found in each source (See Appendix D). Therefore,
statistically, each news source produced the same number of hostile comments suggesting no
effect of the varying anonymity variable.
Further information was collected about the categories of hostile comments within each
news source. Note that some comments fit into multiple categories and were, therefore,
double counted:
TABLE 3. Count and Percentages of Hostile Comments by Category
Trolls
USA Today (least
anonymity)
The Wall Street
Journal (mid-level
anonymity)
CNN.com (most
anonymity)
6
3
7
Ragers
20%
14%
26.9%
23
18
15
77%
85.7%
57.7%
Misguided
4
3
7
13%
14%
26.9%
47
Short
These results showed a common theme where the majority of hostile comments fit into
the Ragers category. For USA Today, Ragers accounted for 77% of the comments, for CNN.com,
57.7% and for The Wall Street Journal, 85.7%. This identified the Ragers category as a key
culprit in producing hostile comments online. However, this did not negate problems in public
discourse that still exist as a result of Trolls and Misguided/ Negatively Biased comments.
CNN.com, in particular, with 26.9% of its hostile comments fitting into the Troll category and
26.9% labeled as Misguided/ Negatively Biased, had the highest number of Trolls and
Misguided/ Negatively Biased comments. Despite a high number of Rager comments, this
indicated a continued problem with Trolls and Misguided/ Negatively Biased comments in the
public deliberation space as well.
Finally, coding indicated specific characteristics found within each hostile comment.
Within the Trolling, Rager and Misguided categories, each news source showed a fairly even
spread of the specific description that led to a hostile comment with a few notable variances.
Within the Trolling comments (see Fig.1), USA Today did have a notably high number of
comments with “blatant off topic negativity or insults.” With five comments meeting this
criteria, these comments made up 83% of all of USA Today’s Trolling comments. “Blatant off
topic negativity or insults,” was also the leading category within Trolling comments for all three
news sources. CNN.com proved to be the only news source with comments that contained
“harsh name calling/ off topic name calling.”
48
Short
Figure 1 Specific “Troll” Code Count
6
5
4
Harsh name calling/ off topic
name calling
3
Blatant Off topic negativity or
insults
2
Mentions violence toward
someone
1
0
USA Today
The Wall Street
Journal
CNN.com
Within the Misguided/ Negatively Biased category, CNN.com had a notably high number
of comments that “based their argument on something racially, politically, or ethnically
offensive” as they made up 85.7% of CNN.com’s misguided comments and 23% of all of the
source’s hostile comments (see Fig. 2).
Figure 2 Specific “Misguided/ Negatively” Biased Code Count
7
6
5
Bases argument on blatantly
inaccurate information
4
3
Bases argument on
something racially, politically,
or ethnically offensive
2
1
0
USA Today
The Wall Street
Journal
CNN.com
49
Short
As mentioned prior, the Rager category made up the most of each news source’s hostile
comments. Across each news source, the code, “insults a person or group of people” was the
leading reason for comments to be coded as Ragers (see Fig 3.). Additionally, USA Today
contained another code that resulted in a Rager label. Comments with “textual screaming” tied
the number of comments with “insults pertaining to the topic” within USA Today’s Rager
category (each making up 52% of the Rager category) and the most of all of the source’s hostile
comments.
Figure 3 Specific "Rager" Code Count
14
12
10
Insults a Person or group of
people
8
Negative Sarcasm
6
Textual Screaming
4
2
0
USA Today
The Wall Street
Journal
CNN.com
Because it is known statistically, that the news sources’ levels of anonymity were not a
variable correlated with the presence of hostile comments, the above discussed differences in
the specific types of hostile comments may indicate the effects of other variables at play within
each news source.
50
Short
It should be noted that while all of the sources chosen did not engage in pre-monitoring
of comments, some did post monitor them. Therefore, it is possible that some of the extreme
Trolling comments were removed by the source by request of users in the public forum.
Despite this, this study raises concern of the hostile comments that still exist even if post
monitoring is present.
51
Short
DISCUSSION
Interpreting Hostile Comments and Anonymity
Through a content analysis of three key news sources, CNN.com, USA Today, and The
Wall Street Journal, the quantitative results of this study indicated that there was no correlation
between the levels of anonymity and the number of hostile comments produced within an
online public forum. The source with the least anonymity (CNN.com) had the highest
percentage of hostile comments followed by the source with the most anonymity (USA Today)
and then finally the source with mid-level anonymity (The Wall Street Journal). With this, the
study could not conclude that controlling for the level of anonymity alone was a strong enough
variable to limit hostile comments. Furthermore, a chi square statistical analysis of the data
proved that the variances between the number of hostile comments within each source were
not statistically significant. Rather, statistically, each news source produced a similar number of
hostile comments.
Internet as an Anonymous Forum by Nature
Research discussed in the literature review confirms a correlation between hostile
commenting and anonymity. Suler’s Online Disinhibition effect identifies key qualities of online
discourse that could result in hostile commentary between users. Two such key qualities were
dissociative anonymity and invisibility that each suggested that the anonymous nature of hiding
behind a computer screen limits inhibitions and could result in hostile comments (Suler, 2004).
Similarly, Davis’s article on the theory of deindividuation argued that a lack of self awareness could make people less concerned about their perception to others and the option
52
Short
of anonymity could result in a greater likelihood of presenting hostile comments online (Davis,
2002).
This study, though testing the variable of anonymity, did not identify similar
correlations. However, there were many possibilities for why the correlation was not evident in
this study. Furthermore, by exploring the detailed results of the content analysis, this research
presented more information about the types of hostile comments that existed and the
phenomenon and lessons regarding online hostile comments on a whole.
The online disinhibition effect and deindividuation indicate a connection between the
Internet’s nature of anonymity and hostile engagement (Suler, 2004 and Davis, 2002). Each of
these theories proved this correlation, but this study may evidence that how anonymity is
defined could be essential to understanding its relationship with hostile commenting. This study
assumed that anonymity could be defined as the varying levels in which a profile includes
identifying information. However, the nature of the Internet creates a medium in which users
do not physically interact with one another, are likely to never meet, and complete all
communication transactions behind a computer screen. Perhaps in this environment, this
limited opportunity for interaction provides enough anonymity to override different number of
identifying characteristics within an online profile. It is possible that the nuanced varying levels
of anonymity exhibited between CNN.com, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today, were not
significant enough to counter the innate anonymous nature of the Internet on a whole.
53
Short
Significant Lessons about Hostile Commenting
This research showed that The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and CNN.com statistically
contain the same number of hostile comments. While this proves the existence of hostile
commenting, the findings also presented more details regarding the types of hostile comments
present. Much research calls attention to the problem of online trolls, including Hilavach and
Freivogel’s article discussed in the literature review, which worked to find solutions to the
online hostile commenting problem. They argued that limiting the types of articles that the
public had access to comment on might limit the presence of hostile commenting.
This study worked to find solutions to the hostile commenting and trolling problem as
well. Trolling was defined in this study as those that engaged in harsh and off topic name
calling, mentioned violence, and offered blatantly negative and off topic comments.
Interestingly, this study found that Trolls made up a small portion of the online comments.
Instead, it was the category of Ragers that were the largest contribution of hostile comments.
Ragers exhibited negative sarcasm, textual screaming and insulted others while staying on the
topic of immigration. Furthermore, “insults a person or group of people (pertaining to the
topic)” was the key characteristic that caused a comment to be most often coded as a Rager.
With this, there is a greater understanding of the kinds of hostile comments that are most
prevalent within public forums. Research can now hone its efforts on addressing hostile
comments on this most commonly existing category.
Furthermore, the specific codes that categorized the hostile comments indicated some
differences between the types of hostile comments found in each news source. USA Today was
found to have the most comments with “blatant off topic insults” within its Trolling comments
54
Short
when compared to the Trolling comments of CNN.com and The Wall Street Journal.
Furthermore, CNN.com proved to be the only news source with any “harsh name calling” within
its Trolling comments. These slight differences in hostile comments could be the result of
nuanced differences between the implementation methods of each news source’s public
forums. While the study cannot associate these slight differences to varying levels of
anonymity between each source, as noted in the methodology, there may be other variables at
play resulting in the differences.
Developing Best Practices from Findings
The quantitative study investigated hostile commenting, but this was not the only
component that may have inhibited effective public deliberation. A case study of each news
source revealed the strengths and weaknesses in each online public forum by evaluating them
on the basis of universalism, inclusivity, rationality and agreement – four of the five key
components Jacobs et.al. identified as necessary to effective public deliberation and democratic
authenticity. It should be noted that the fifth component, political efficacy, could not be
evaluated within this study as it measured the political activism that results from engaging in
public deliberation. This study focused on the content of the online public forums, thus not
making available information regarding the commenter’s follow-up actions.
The results of this study indicate that none of the investigated online public forums
contained a high level of all four components. For example, The Wall Street Journal exhibited a
high level of rationality, inclusivity, and agreement, but due to its limited access to only
WSJ.com subscribers, it had a low level of universalism. Although The Wall Street Journal had
the highest evaluations in the case study, it still seemed that none of the three investigated
55
Short
sources presented a sufficient model to emulate future online public forums after. This does
not mean, however that the case studies did not identify helpful lessons for facilitating effective
online public deliberation. It appears that a fair participatory model of public deliberation is
difficult to achieve alongside high quality and sophisticated issue-centered dialogue,
particularly on the topic of controversial or hot button issues. The four components of effective
public deliberation assisted in navigating where best practices currently lie in the pursuit of an
effective participatory model of public discourse.
Effective Public Deliberation Best Practices and Learned Lessons
1. Structure of the public forum can lend to greater and clearer levels of agreement.
As exemplified through online forums like that of USA Today and The Wall Street Journal, the
setup of the online forum could facilitate more opportunities for participants to engage and
seek agreement amongst one another. The website feature that enabled users to reply directly
to other participants assisted in starting the conversations that allowed users to collaborate
and work towards agreement. The Wall Street Journal’s comment tracker also encouraged a
commenting culture where participants remained more engaged and more in touch with one
another to work towards developing agreement.
2. Ranking users and granting positions of authority inhibits inclusivity.
Many news sources, USA Today, for example, sought to reward participants that contributed
regularly to the conversation. They were given titles such as “Top Commenter.” Doing so,
however, could have placed false levels of authority on certain users thus decreasing equality
between all participants. Titles of authority could have evoked intimidation from other users
and decreased their likelihood of participation. Most of all, the attention toward each comment
56
Short
may not have been equal if certain commenters were granted higher levels of attention and
recognition.
3. Users and the online public forum community can play an important role in encouraging
inclusivity, rationality, and agreement.
While it may seem that effective public deliberation is typically controlled by the facilitators and
structure of the online public forum, much of the content within the public forum was actually
dependent upon the culture developed by the participants. The case study showed that a
supportive and encouraging commenting culture could lead to greater levels of rationality and
agreement as shown in The Wall Street Journal. Alternatively, the absence of this positive
cultural support could inhibit levels of inclusivity as was evident in USA Today.
4. Online users seemingly regularly speak amongst one another, but rarely show evidence
of naturally collaborating and synthesizing in an effort to revise their own ideas in the
process of agreement.
All three news sources presented evidence of sharing ideas and beginning the process of
collaborating and honing their individual ideas as a result of the conversation. Unfortunately, it
was only the beginning of this process that was evident. Participants initiated direct
communication with other users, shared their perspectives, and identified flaws or strengths in
one another’s arguments. What were not found in the public forums were the final developed
ideas as a result of these exchanges in comments. If this were the case, a true presence of
agreement would be evident.
5. The structural permissions within an online forum can increase universalism.
57
Short
Equal and fair access to the online public forum is dependent upon the type and structure that
the news source decides. For example, The Wall Street Journal’s universalism was only low
because the website only allowed for subscribers to participate. Likewise, USA Today’s
universalism was only limited because not every Internet user has a Facebook account.
Therefore, each news source was in complete control over the level of universalism that their
public forum exhibited.
Catalyst for Future Research
Ultimately, the quantitative section of this study presented evidence of no correlation
between different levels of anonymity and hostile commenting. Additionally it proved no
significant difference in the presence of hostile commentary between The Wall Street Journal,
USA Today and CNN.com. Alongside slightly nuanced differences between the types of hostile
comments found in each source, this study also highlighted the overarching prevalence of
Rager hostile comments in each source. These findings may contribute to unlocking a clearer
understanding of the motives of online hostile commenters. However, there is much more that
research can investigate to contribute to improving the pursuit of public deliberation
specifically in reducing hostile commentary. This paper alone maintains additional variables
that can be further studied to determine correlation and causation of online hostile comments.
Specifically, the following two variables should be the focus of future research:
Varying Audiences
The differences in audience segmentation between CNN.com, The Wall Street Journal,
and USA Today indicate apparent variables that could also be investigated to determine their
correlation with effective public deliberation. While nuanced, the methodology section of this
58
Short
paper indicates variances in audience age and income levels. Perhaps certain audience profiles
are more likely than others to post comments that contribute to effective public deliberation.
Additionally, it is possible that certain audience segments are more likely to express their
viewpoints through hostile comments in an online forum.
Online Content and Structure Differences
Aside from attracting different audiences, each news source also maintained a distinct
personality and level of formality. Many of these variances became apparent through the case
studies of this study. For example, The Wall Street Journal is known for thorough and in-depth
discussions of news stories with a sophisticated and highly informed commentary on story
details. This news source is, therefore, more formal in structure and content than others. USA
Today, known for its highly visual components in news stories has a more casual personality.
This is reiterated through its use of the recreational social media website, Facebook, as its
online public forum facilitator. CNN, which began as a television news station, has a history of
operating in a medium outside of print thus developing a different culture and audience
segmentation. It could be these variances in website formalities that produced an environment
that made forum users and facilitators feel less or more comfortable with exhibiting high levels
of universalism, inclusivity, rationality, and agreement.
Goals of Future Research
Where negative correlations are determined, the opportunity for additional research
and studies is also present. While this study identified types of hostilities, the differences
between these online forums were not significant enough to shed light on the actual causes of
59
Short
hostile comments. Therefore, further research should be completed to test variables other
than anonymity to determine additional causes for hostile commenting, specifically Rager
commenting.
Additional best practices and specific lessons could be identified if research could
determine which specific variables lead to the presence of universalism, inclusivity,
rationalization, and agreement. This study should spark future research that can identify key
variables that assist in producing the positive effects of effective public deliberation. It is
possible that testing variables, like those discussed in the methodology limitations section of
this paper, could lead research to the reasons and motives behind online hostile commenting.
60
Short
CONCLUSION
At the beginning of this study, Greg Laden is quoted by asking, “When did it become an
apparently accepted online norm to try to silence people by insulting, intimidating and
attacking them through aggressive online behavior?” Greg Laden’s concern is valid, but his
question should not be only “when?” but also, “how?”
With the introduction of new opportunities, come new responsibilities in managing the
Internet’s methods of public discourse. Many political and societal issues remain that require
public deliberation to effectively exchange thoughts, opinions, and furnish solutions. By
peering into existing online forums centered on the topic of immigration, this study uncovers
the interactions and dynamics at play within this online form of public discourse. This study
proves, through a quantitative content analysis, the problematic existence of hostile
commenting in its varied forms and categories. It also identifies, through qualitative case
studies, the strengths and weaknesses that exist in facilitating online public forums.
Immigration policies, in particular, are at the forefront of the 2012 election debates and,
through this study, have been shown to spur angered perspectives where commenters insult
one another’s opinions and intelligence levels, mock one another through sarcasm, and
sometimes call one another names. Despite strengths that may have been found in public
deliberation through the case studies, these hostilities inhibit the quality of public discourse.
A participatory model of democracy and the availability of public deliberation is a
fundamental function of the United States based on free speech and equality. However, this
privilege should be managed responsibly and with a certain level of accountability. With any
incorporation of new media, there must be an effective means of facilitating discourse that
61
Short
highlights the features of the new media while also engaging in productive deliberation.
Furthermore, the dialogue that takes place during public deliberation must influence the
political efficacy and actions of the public. Unfortunately, with offensive, slanderous, and
bullying commentary, this is not always the case. This behavior is likely to encourage divisive
perspectives proliferated through an already polarized Congress and society. The problems in
effective public deliberation exceed the topic of immigration. Abortion, birth control, national
budget decisions, and the appropriate size of the government, are just a few of the many other
controversial policy debates that have the potential to evoke vitriolic and passionate opinions
leading to the continued problems in effective public deliberation. However, these hot button
topics also offer the opportunity for effective exchange of opinions thought that was often
evidenced through The Wall Street Journal’s high agreement public forum.
Ultimately, this study highlights the need for continued research on this topic. There is
much potential for online public forums to produce highly effective environments of public
deliberation particularly if more variables are investigated and tested to determine correlation
and causality of online hostile commentary. Online public forums offer an excellent
opportunity to engage in public deliberation with new forms of media with other members of
society that were previously inaccessible. Current research should make the pursuit of effective
public deliberation a priority and continue work towards improving these opportunities.
62
Short
APPENDIX A
63
Short
APPENDIX B
HOSTILE COMMENTS CODING SHEET
A hostile comment means that it can fit into one of the following categories:
Trolling
01. Name calling
02. Blatant off topic negativity
03. Mentions violence towards someone
Raging
04. Insults a person or group of people based on their views pertaining to the topic
05. Negative Sarcasm
06. Textual screaming (excessive use of capital letters and exclamation points to imply yelling)
Misguided/ Negatively Biased:
07. Bases argument on blatantly inaccurate information
08. Bases argument on something racially, politically or ethnically offensive
64
Short
APPENDIX C
Reliability Test: Please use the coding worksheet to identify the following comments as a Troll, Rager, or
Misguided/ Negatively Biased comment.
1.
Roy Laudenslager; "Legally they cn't vote but why do democrats fight photo ID to vote";
While photo ID is not needed - a bill with your name and address should be OK as they will match it
to your name on the voting rolls and you can only vote that one time. Never has been a big deal in
the past. But by requiring a photo id it will eliminate some peoples ability to vote and that is crazy!
Right now they are going afer the youth vote as they sometimes don't have picture ID. But what if
the next time the Dems are in power they pass a voting law that requires us to have a computer to
vote with! That would most likely reduce the votes on the right. It's all a game to both sides but "We
The People" are the ones always getting shafted.
2. Lonnie E. Davis Sr · Rio Rico, Arizona
An Onymoose , We for one thing will not earn enought money to pay back all the cost of having Illegal here
from taxes. the crime and problems they cause is just to much.. Yes their are many great illegals that want a
better life, but if their so good then enter the right way, don't start off breaking our laws and then say we are
the good guys, when they start oof as criminals. Yes I said CRIMINALS, that is what you are when you break
the law. Our GOVERNMENT IS CAUSEING THE PROBLEM BY NOT MAKING IT EASER TO DO IT THE RIGHT
WAY. I know this, because, I work for the Immigration Department. The Government is not rewarding people
for doing the right thing, but reather for doing the wrong. And, we all know they are great exampls for doing
thing wrong..
3. Kevin Carns · Several different places
I don't think it should matter that much. Why not let people come and go as they please?
Reply · Like · December 12, 2011 at 6:45pm
4. Kevin Carns · Several different places
Catherine Vance Some would say that we have a responsibility to take care of those citizens.
Reply · Like · December 12, 2011 at 6:53pm
5. Nancy Hicks · Top Commenter
65
Short
An Onymoose: except in New Mexico where the state hands out drivers licenses to illegal aliens, in the belief
that they will then purchase auto insurance to keep those of us on the roads, safe. They can then use those
legal id's to register to vote in any state that doesn't require a birth certificate to register. We wouldn't have
to pay to deport them, if the laws against hiring them were enforced. If we quit providing social services to
them, in the name of their anchor babies and stopped free education and free health care, they would selfdeport on their own.
Reply · Like · December 12, 2011 at 8:17pm
6. Scott Traficante · Top Commenter · College of Coastal Georgia
An Onymoose So the rule of law means nothing to you...but as for me, I decide that if they break the law,
then they should be held accountable. If you don;t agree with the law --then fight to change the law, but in
the meant time, you still must obey the law.
7. Charlie Gleason · Top Commenter · Taiji instructor at Lions Gate Kung Fu Academy
An Onymoose If I could earn money off them, I'd not be looking for work myself. If they paid taxes, maybe
my tax bill would be lower. As for voter fraud, look up Project Vote. Not the new one that ObaMao is
supporting, but the original Project Vote.
Illegal immigration costs all taxpayers a pile of money we don't have. Cheap labor? Do not kid yourself.
Reply · 41 · Like · Follow Post · December 12, 2011 at 9:25am
8. Steven Hill · Midfield/Ensley
I still cannot understand why people,cannot understand why illegal immigrants is a bad thing.Their morals
must be shot to think someone who came to this country illegaly should have the freedoms those of us that
are here and LEGAL.
Reply · 24 · Like · Follow Post · December 12, 2011 at 8:46am
9. Jeffrey Lee Pennington · Top Commenter · Naples, Florida
Sara O'Flaherty It's illegal now, deal with it!
66
Short
Reply · 28 · Like · December 12, 2011 at 9:43am
10. Charlie Gleason · Top Commenter · Taiji instructor at Lions Gate Kung Fu Academy
An Onymoose So, if I break into your home, clean the house from top to bottom, cook your meals, do your
laundry, wash your car, you'd be OK with that? But, when I insist on living in your home and bring the rest of
my family to join me, will you still be OK with that? And when I insist you learn to speak Mandarin to
communicate with me and my family, are you still OK with that? How about when I insist that I have the
same rights and privilages as your family members while I live in your home? How long will you let this
continue before you decide to kick us out?
Reply · 5 · Like · December 12, 2011 at 9:46am
11. Bunny Lage · Top Commenter
An Onymoose - you need to review your history - we BOUGHT the lands, we didn't seize them - we bought
Texas, NM, AZ and we even bought California
Reply · 2 · Like · December 12, 2011 at 10:47am
12. Jerry Reid · Top Commenter · Works at Create-A-Pack Foods Inc
Jeffrey Lee Pennington , THE GREAT WALL OF CHINA- Sara is a housewife who does not have to compete
with illegal aliens for work during the 2011 recession /depression. Just like waiting in line to enjoy the the
World Series or Superbowl the illegal martians must wait in line outside of the USA.
Reply · 1 · Like · December 12, 2011 at 11:04am
13. Jim Gemmill · Top Commenter
Well then fix it, but dont just ignore it.
14. Richard Head · Top Commenter
Sara O'Flaherty This is 2011 and it is ILLEGAL to enter the US without going through US immigration. You
liberals would rather pick and choose which laws to obey?
These people are criminals and should be treated as such
15. Heather Ferreira · Top Commenter
67
Short
An Onymoose OK, so then as a black person when should I expect a check for the work my people did for
your slave-owning Irish-American, German-American and English-American ancestors? Since "what
happened before" still holds direct validity for what's happening today?
Reply · 1 · Like · December 12, 2011 at 11:39am
16. Heather Ferreira · Top Commenter
"Slavery used to be legal, so I guess that makes it okay too, right?" You tell us. You're the one claiming
observing the laws of the past is more important the breaking laws of the present. Do you know what the
word "onus" is? How about the phrase "burden of proof"? Both are yours; take them out for lunch and get to
know them, then return to us with a real academic and legal defense for allowing lawbreakers to push to the
front of the immigration line ahead of those in other countries waiting patiently, filling out the paperwork,
and doing it correctly.
17. Stephen P Thomas · Bowie, Maryland
An Onymoose HUGE difference. The Indians and Mexicans in your example did NOT want to be here. These
ILLELGLE aliens WANT to come here by any means possible (except legal).
18. Heather Ferreira · Top Commenter
As stated on another forum, it's so interesting to me how many racists are suddenly half of an interracial
couple when someone of another race questions them. I'm sure you were at the WTC when it went down,
too, and you're also a physician, an attorney and a law enforcement officer. Spare me your Facebook photo
insults, female. You're a troll, and a racist, and you lost the argument. Illegal immigration is against the law,
you're playing against a loaded deck, and the times, the mores, the nation and the economy are against you.
Go play with your imaginary nonwhite husband puppet now. I'm sure its in the shoebox next to the Latino
paper puppets you're vigorously waving about between the Native American ones while shouting to us all
about how mean we're being.
And since Latinos aren't wrong for demanding something ridiculous in return for imagined past wrongs, as a
racist Irish enjoying the benefits of your white slaveowner ancestors and their cohorts, you owe this Negro
some money, and I want my check. Now.
19. Heather Ferreira · Top Commenter
And guess how their legal friends, relatives, and black sympathizers like myself are going to vote?
Reply · Like · December 12, 2011 at 1:34pm
68
Short
20. Heather Ferreira ·
Top Commenter
1. Visiting opponent's Facebook page to search for elements she can "attack", 2. Choosing something
physical, wishing she could make it a comparative weight and body size attack but, seeing she cannot,
making it the old faithful "slut" smear, 3. Abandoning earlier vitriol she herself was engaged in to take a
sudden high and mighty pearl clutcher tone abruptly made to blush by said vitriol, 4. Accusing opponent of
vitriol where none exists and hoping no other posters will catch and call her on it, 5. The "have fun being
bitter, I am sure it is working for you" valediction (possibly the commonest online surrender line in
existence), and 6. Failed attempt at a clever final line. Wow, she's hit the trifecta this morning. Jenny Craig
makes Red Bull? Who knew?
RELIABILITY TEST RESULTS
"C" denotes correct answer; "X," incorrect
Answer Key
1
No Code
2
Raging
3
No Code
4
No Code
5
No Code
6
No Code
7
No Code
8
No Code
9
Raging
10
No Code
11
No Code
12
No Code
13
No Code
14
No Code
15
No Code
16
Raging
17
None
18
Trolling
19
No Code
20
Trolling
Reviewer Reviewer
1
2
C
C
X
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
X
C
X
C
C
C
C
C
X
C
C
C
C
C
X
X
C
C
X
C
C
X
C
C
C
85%
75%
69
Short
APPENDIX D: Chi-Square Tests
Formula: (Observed-Expected)2/ Expected
Test 1 – Determine if there is a statistically significant difference between number of hostile comments
found on CNN.com (26 comments), The Wall Street Journal (21 comments), and USA Today (30
comments).
Total Comments reviewed: 357 (119 comments for each source)
Total hostile comments identified: 77
Total non-hostile comments identified: 280
77/357= 0.21569 0.21569*119 = 25.667  Expected Value Hostile comments
(Observed-Expected)2/ Expected
CNN.com
The Wall Street Journal
USA Today
TOTAL
0.004329
0.848485
0.731602
1.584416
280/357= 0.78431 0.78431*119 = 93.333  Expected Value Non Hostile Comments
CNN.com
0.00119
The Wall Street Journal
USA Today
TOTAL
0.233333
0.20119
0.435714
p = 2.02013 < 5.991 (p value at 0.05, 2 df) ------- No Statistical Significance
Test 2 – Determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the number of hostile
comments found on The Wall Street Journal (21 comments) and USA Today (30 comments).
Total Comments reviewed: 238 (119 comments for each source)
Total hostile comments identified: 51
51/238= 0.21429
0.21429*119= 25.5 Expected Value Hostile Comments
USA Today
The Wall Street Journal
TOTAL
187/238= 0.78571
Total non-hostile comments identified: 187
0.7941176
0.7941176
1.5882353
0.78571*119 = 93.5  Expected Value Non-Hostile Comments
USA Today
The Wall Street Journal
TOTAL
0.2165775
0.2165775
0.4331551
Tails sum= 2.02139 --- No Statistical Significance
70
Short
APPENDIX E
The Wall Street Journal Hostile Comments and Codes
Troll
Rager
Misguided
The Obama administration challenged the law on the grounds the federal
government has exclusive control over immigration enforcement.
CODE
05, 06
Sure, that's fair. The leader of the executive branch of Federal government (OWS guy:
that's our government's CEO), Obama, does not care about dealing with Illegal
immigration. A border state, who is seeing a huge surge in crime, drugs, guns (some
of which originated with the Obama Justice department sending them there) wants to
address a problem that the federal government lacks the spine to address. The take
bold measures and, instead of being a partner in reducing illegal imigration, crime and
drugs - the Administration wants to side with the people who are breaking the law
and making our country safer in the hopes of winning a couple votes.
The hypocrisy on this issue from the left is breathtaking! Here in Cook County
(Chicago's County) our county government is boycotting Arizona goods and cancelled
contracts with Arizona companies due to their new immigration law. Except for the
Red Light Cameras and, as of this week, our new Chicago speeding cameras. Its about
politics not principle, money not immigrant rights.It's politics over the safety and best
interests of the citizens who pay taxes to a government which is supposed to preserve
our sovereignty. It's despicable.
1. About your first link (www.presstv.ir). Really?!? Some Iranian state-run news
website? Really?
About PressTV:
"Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network,
broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis.Our global Tehran-based
headquarters is staffed with outstanding Iranian and foreign media professionals."
X
04, 05,
06
2. Read the article then read my comment again. The article is discussing the AZ law,
not US policy. Has illegal immigration decreased in AZ? If so, why'd they pass that law.
If Obama is Mr. Stop-Illegal-Immigration then why is he against the law.
3. Your second article says Illegals are leaving CA because the CA economy is in
shambles. They are basing their numbers on illegals who file tax returns. It also says
that the unemployment rate in Mexico is 4.9%.
Iranian state-run news, papers who say they have full employment in Mexico
(unemployment < 5%) and the WSJ. Spend less time on the comment boards and
more time in the article section of the ladder, stop reading the former. More critical
thinking. There's hope yet Pete!
X
71
Short
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (CONT.)
, what you're saying is that you want a state to prevail in an untenable argument
with the federal government so as to politically damage a president who may be
gone in a year, bearing in mind that the outcome of this litigation will affect
future presidents too.very patriotic and forward thinking there.
We must have the most incompetent Government in the history of the Earth,
even cavemen developed boundaries or borders and their leaders had them
guarded. Virtually ALL other countries enforce their borders and/or kick out
invaders. But with the biggest credit card on Earth, Obama says "NO WE CAN'T"
when it comes to doing the most basic job of a Government, maintaining a
"Department of Defense". We used to have one, but sadly it has been converted
into a "Department of Endless Occupations of Foreign Lands to Secure Exxon
Profits"; seems when it comes to the borders of their conquests, somehow they
can protect the most difficult borders on Earth; just not ours. I say if they can't
protect our borders, they are useless people refusing to do their simple job and
we don't need them; the States should unite and FIRE the Federal Government.
Then our only problem will be what to with all the extra money that would no
longer be stolen and/or wasted by the greedy anti-constitutional EMPIRE seeking
bureaucrats in DC.
Obama is the Constitutional Crisis...
Troll
Rager
Misguided
CODE
05
X
04,05,06,
08
X
X
04
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202534300979
"A constitutional fight is brewing over whether lawyers in civil cases have a right
to access and disseminate classified national security information to pursue
claims against the federal government."
Is re-electing Obama morphing into a SECret DOJ national security issue?
Everything that could possibly embarrass the world leader forever and our ruler
is somehow being classified as a national securitySECret issue.
Obama's a hoaxer, prankster, and scary. Fear Obama and his too big to fail reelection campaign hoaxes and pranks.
X
04
SECrets, not SEC - learn to read and your comprehension will improve.
People understand and agree that Obama is the Constitutional Crisis... is that too
much for you to grasp?
No matter what the issue - the US Constitution poses significant problems for
Obama (S.1867, Obamascare, Immigration, Solyndra, ATF Fast and Furious, DEA
Money Laundering, etc).
Obama's ongoing war on the US Constitution and the citizens of the USA is
transparent.
Or was that information classified?
X
72
Short
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (CONT.)
Arizona is helping the Feds enforce the law that the America-hating "community
organizer" we have as president refuses to take seriously. That is not a violation
of federal law, it is the only thing that keeps federal law even remotely relevant.
Troll
I know that any Supreme Court decision these days unfortunately depends on
what side of bed Justice Kennedy got out of. But for them to rule against AZ will
be a smack in the face (if not a coup de grace) to American sovereignty, and
every citizen of this nation. I hope we see protesters take to the streets in mass
to show that America as a sovereign country still exists if the Supremes rule
against Arizona.
America needs to wake up look out in the back yard and see complete strangers
sleeping on the patio, dumping their garbage cans and defecating on sidewalk.
This is what is happening to property owners and taxpayers in Arizona and it has
nothing to do with RACE or IMMIGRATION!
Maybe the Idiots of the Aspen free press, who are not losing jobs to the illegals,
should mind their own business. Our little roofing company here in Tucson has
gone from 63 employees to 30 in the past 2-1/ yrs because we don't hire illegals
like the other companies here. The only "firebrand" posting here is you, you
have no idea of the situation here.
It is time Arizona took care of the immigration issue and if the federal
government intrudes arrest them and throw them in jail, are they going to send
in the troops? It would be great to see a bunch of Washington lawyers and
politicians in jail, maybe they couldn't sell guns to Mexican terrorists any longer
while they were cooling their heels. I know sheriff Joe has a special place they
could live and wear pink underwear at the same time and not be bothering
honest state officials.
So you can steal quotes from Elizabeth Cady Stanton and post them as your
own....brilliant
Your posts remind me of General Change in Star Trek 6 spewing out quotes.
Though General Chang did so from Shakespeare.
To quote Dr McCoy: "I'g give real money if he'd shut up."
Rager
Misguided
CODE
04
X
07
X
04
X
04, 05,
08
X
X
05
X
02
X
73
Short
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (CONT.)
Obama just decided to drawdown the 1200 National Guard troops. Texas
Governor Perry had asked for 1,000 troops for Texas alone. Perry also said that
decision is all the more appalling given the actions of AG Eric Holder, who let
thousands of guns fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels through the botched
Fast and Furious program, which is responsible for the death of U.S. Border Patrol
Agent Brian Terry and more killings will come.
Troll
Rager
Misguided CODE
04
You Bush bashers never quit. Obama has apparently done a great job at
brainwashing his Hope-a-Dopes into believing if anything goes bad, blame it on
Bush. Old reliable Bush has been a life saver for Obama.
Obama has been at the helm for three years. When is he going to be held
responsible for his putrid policies that have taken a shaky economy and made it
much worse. In three years, his policies have yet to create ONE NET JOB. In fact,
during his tenure, the Nation has lost over 1.5 million net jobs and 6 million have
given up trying to find a job. The unemployment rate has averaged 9+% these last
three years.
BTW, Democrats led by Barney Frank and Maxine Waters pushed and praised
Fannie and Freddie in 2004 at a Congressional hearing, while Republicans warned
and predicted of the housing debacle, which triggered the financial tsunami, and
Taxpayer clean-up if their risky practices continued.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Remember Owebama's Uncle Omar and his Aunties are illegal aliens, still in the
country under direct protection of Owebama. Uncle Omar was busted for identity
theft.....let's see if a White Meth addict gets that type of treatment. Nnot that
they should, both they and Uncle Omar should be breaking rocks in a penitentiary
Who the hell are the Feds to decide what is good for Arizona?
I applaud Arizona for taking a tough stand against illegal immigration. Our country
has turned into a third-world dump, thanks to our liberal laws that allow every
Tom, D*ck and Harry to enter and enjoy the social benefits, without proper
documentation.
Ron Paul - FAIL!!!!!!!!!https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.htmlRon Paul is as bad as Owebama
and his illegal alien, identity stealing Uncle Omar.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form
of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion." If the Feds were
doing their job, our borders were secured, and we wouldn't have an illegal
invasion! We are a nation of laws which separates us from the bad guys. Since
when does supporting and defending US Laws labeled as "nazism?" Your
comparison is way over the top and insulting, but by all means, be a good leftist
propagandist and continue to distort the truth and label decent law abiding
Americans as 'nazis"
101. All of this points to the reason illegals are being left alone. That is so that
Holdme, obarry's chief Constitution trampler, can get all those illegal Mexicans to
vote for his boss.
After that if Holdme looks cross-eyed at Congress barry will can him.
X
02
X
04
X
04
X
06
X
04
X
74
Short
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (CONT.)
103. Wholeheartedly agree James. I think it boils to down to Obama using the
Constitution as toilet paper the morning after his election gala. It appears he and
his administration live by their own rules.
109. While you're apparently an expert on punctuation, as well as law, try a little
thing called capitalization!
111. Greg, you forget the astronomical number of regulations which are also a
form of LAW. As a Statistician, I was contracted to assist a company with fighting
goofy statistics employed by the Feds in the "Regulations for Manufacturing Light
Bulbs". I was to focus on a handful of pages; Volume 74, starting with page 53,836;
I nearly feel out of my chair when I saw this. Can you imagine just one volume of
over 50,000 pages that tells you how to do your job, and failure to comply is a
crime? American ingenuity and entrepreneurship has unfortunately been nearly
regulated out of existence. If all these regulations are needed, explain to me how
the Chinese have captured that industry and are making fine light bulbs without
them? Oh, and the pages I reviewed would of made any first year Statistician
nearly die of laughter, making me wonder just who are these so-called
government experts running our business's into the ground, and how many
hundreds of thousands of pages of business micro-management from DC, which
appear to be written by a failing 6th grader, can any industry afford to comply
with, let alone read without dying of laughter at the total idiocy involved? They
have strangled our places of employment until they could no longer afford to be in
business or had to move to China to escape their mandated idiocy, and then they
have the nerve to say, if only we let them waste more of OUR money, they will
create jobs. Sounds like they traded in our Constitution for a little red fairy book.
TOTALS
Troll
Rager
Misguided
CODE
04
X
02, 06
X
X
04, 05
X
3
18
3
75
Short
APPENDIX F
CNN.com Hostile Comments and Codes
Troll
in AZ. So much for your education? Try this one, all states have the right to
protect themselves. Illegal immigration is also considered to most as an
invasion of our country and state, and you are saying that legal citizens of
the state do not have the right to protect themselves?
Rager
Misguided
CODE
04, 05
X
05, 06
Yay
"That seems fair, regardless of what the law actually is."
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY IS?? seriously?
X
04
Which part of the word "illegal" do you, and people like you, not
understand? Shows a real lack of intelligence for the people that do not
understand that word, be they congressmen or private citizen. Does not
speak well for the public education system
Enforcing a law by detaining a Suspect for vein illegal? How the badly
trained Police Depearment will base their judgement ? base on the Skin?
the Hair? the Look? or they are going to ask Illegal Immigrants and
Crossers to have a tag in the arm? may be with David's Star??? Then you
have to ad the NDAA where the Habeas Corpus has been eliminated. A
formula for MAssive Violations of Human Rights in the name of Profiting.
The only ones getting rich by this law is the Penitentiary Corporations and
the Security Corporations. How is going to pay? the Tax payers, Agains,
more and more Corruption. How many years has the Penitentiary
Corporation being lobyying by a Law like this?
X
04, 05
X
Forget to take your meds this morning
Hasn't Obama killed enough Bortder Patrol Agents?
X
Put the service men & women on the border with orders to "shoot to kill."
X
02
07
X
03
03
That's a good idea. Another decent suggestion I've heard is a "Jurrasic
Park" style fence with 10,000 volts running through it.
All it would take is a few shots as they cross our border and few would
then even try it. Other countries do that and have little problems with
illegal entry. However our big farm businesses want to hire them so maybe
they are the ones that should be shot.
Get a life meathead.
X
03
X
X
01
76
Short
CNN.com (CONT.)
Troll
When my Ancestors crossed Europe by Boat And came into Ellis Island in
New York Before seeing the " Statue of Liberty " they were first taught
how to " READ, WRITE and Speak " ENGLISH ! " Now adays since the BUSH
and OBAMA presidency there has been record level of Illegal Immigrants in
America who do not know how to read or write English at all. But when my
ancestors came to America they had to learn Basic English just to pass to
become US CITIZENS ! Look at what America has become a thrid world
cess pool ! Im tired of it !!!!
Here's a thought: Try proofreading your work and correcting your own use
of written English
Hey DEMOGAL – why don't you go bite a big one! Kenneth makes a very
valid point & then you show your stupidity!
Kenneth I agree with you completely. Until a few Americans love this
country enough to fight for it – we will become a 3rd world country if not
there already. I see women in the grocery store with 5 kids under school
age and she is ready to deliver another. Good for her but when I think
about the fact that we will not only pay for her food, her housing, plus pay
for the delivery of all the children that creates a resentment. Then note
that she is driving a new automobile. They don't know what birth control is
or if so never use it. Why should they we are such good people in the USA
we will pay for all those kids. Now she will be bringing all the uncles, aunts
and cousins over too. such a wonderful country
Sorry, America doesn't need even more poor people. It has nothing to do
with color... enforce the laws against all illegal aliens. And you have to be
kidding about talent right? What talent do millions of illegals w/o a highschool education bring to the US?
Intelligent conclusion! (sarcasm) If we deported ALL the illegals, the line of
buses needed would reach from the Mexican border to Alaska, not to
mention a few hundred other nightmares your "simple" solution would
create
Rager
Misguided
X
X
02
X
01, 02
X
08
X
08
X
05
X
jorge yes we came into America as immigrants but major difference. We
were charted, checked for disease and etc. through Ellis Island. The illegals
that are here now we have NO idea who they are, where they came from
and what diseases they are reintroducing into the USA that had previously
been Eradicated many deseases that are showing up again. Also Bed Bugs.
There is a legal way to come here and that is by invitation and if they are
here without that then they should be sent back to where ever. So simple.
The Feds won't enforce the laws so the states have every right to do so.
Lousy immigants. I always knew it was them even when it was the bears
CODE
06, 08
08
X
04
X
77
Short
CNN.com (CONT.)
False premise alert!!!
Please don't rehash the argument that we can't round up and deport
illegals. It's been tried and done before – read up on operation wetback.
But there is a very easy way to get them to self-deport if you don't want to
spend a penny...
MANDATE E-VERIFY and w/o jobs the illegals will mainly go back home.
The rest we can round up on the cheap.
DT – sorry but we already have so many virtually unlimited visa programs
your argument doesn't hold any water. Considering all the unemployed in
this country if you didn't pay illegals under the table there would be an
American who would do the job.
In areas of the country w/o a high number of illegals who do you think
cleans the beds mows the lawns? US citizens who have to be paid
minimum wage.
If you want slave labor move to another country – the US will be better off
w/o you
We are losing our country so fast and no one really seems to be very upset
over it. Illegals are not immigrants in the sense they are illegals and are
breaking our laws. Every nation on this big ball in the sky have certain
guidelines for you to enter their nation and stay. Not the USA we have the
ACLU and the Supreme courts that will not allow the Federal Government
to enforce the laws so why do we even bother to have a president of
governor? Just let them take charge and we won't complain when we see
them with food stamps, free housing, schooling and medical care that the
tax payer pays for. Lets all just sit back and let them invade. Does it really
matter if the terrorist come here – obviously not. Borders open to all for
the USA. What a country!
Troll
Rager
Misguided
X
X
CODE
06, 08
04
X
05, 08
X
X
06
I really do Not understand this. I always thought ILLEAGLE WAS
ILLEAGLE!!!!!WITH NO EXEPTIONS. And this Should NOT be an exeption!!!!
You know this would be like me moving out of my home and then inviting
myself to go live in the white house, and tell obama, " im staying here and
theres nothing you can do about it, because its a better life for me!!!" and
then take all his money and food and say its a better life. then I will move
in to his oval office and do my work there and once again tell him sorry sir
but this office is a better way of life then before. You guys get the idea
X
78
Short
CNN.com (CONT.)
What planet are you from? Did you not read my post about my family
friend who couldn't find a job in construction anymore because they
were being overrun by illegal aliens? He sure as hell wanted to work to
support his family. He lost his house because of illegals and had to move
to a backwater town 100 miles away.
And the folks in the midwest poultry plants and slaughterhouses that
were displaced by illegals taking the jobs for less. Yeah – I am sure they
would have much rather gone on welfare than work for a living but a
funny thing happened – when the illegals were thrown out (enforcement
of existing laws) – guess who showed back up for work? US Citizens.
I would say take your anti-American blinders off but it would probably be
more appropriate to say pull your head out of your a$$ before
speaking/typing again.
Troll
Rager
Misguided
CODE
04, 05
X
04
And for the record Portland Tony ignored the factual evidence presented
by others to support the lie that illegal aliens are good because American
workers won't take those jobs. A real American doesn't resort to lies to
try and make a point and influence people. I don't like liars and I will call
them out wherever they are
I assume you must be in or on your way to Alabama since they cannot
find anyone to pick the crops or gut the fish there. They kicked out the
illegals and the farms and businesses are going under. Owners say that
"real americans" only show up to work for a day or two then disappear.
The owners are scared the businesses will go under because they can't
afford to add benefits or better wages in this economy. It has turned into
a nightmare for farmers etc. Please do your research before making
yourself sound foolish. Pick those tomatos in the hot sun for 25 CENTS a
basket for twelve hours. Im sure the 15 dollars you make a day will go far
in supporting your "real american" family.
X
04
X
04
Send 'em ALL back, and their little dog, too.
Remember: They Crossed The Border With Intent To Defraud. Eff 'em.
There is no place in my heart for criminals
X
7
15
7
79
Short
APPENDIX G
USA Today Hostile Comments and Codes
Charlie Gleason - I agree with you on your comment and, while they are
protesting for the same rights as American Citizens have, "THEY ARE
WAVING AND FLYING THE MEXICAN FLAG, WHILE DISRESPECTING THE
AMERICAN FLAG." THEY DO NOT WANT TO BECOME CITIZENS OF THIS
COUNTRY, they only want what they think this country can give to them.
BTW, THEY ARE DEMANDING THINGS AT THAT. as for how to pay for
deporting them, LET THEM WALK BACK ACROSS THE BORDER, THE SAME
WAY THEY CROSSED IT WHEN THEY CAME HERE! this Illegally crossing that
border has got to stop and, it should have never been allowed to get as bad
as it has now gotten. they are the reason, that there are so many
unemployed American citizens in this country!
Brad Canelo - THE STATES WOULD NOT HAVE TO IMPLEMENT THEIR OWN
LAWS, IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD DO THEIR JOB. SPEAKING OF
JOBS THAT AMERICANS DON'T WANT TO DO, EVERYTIME THOSE WORDS
ARE UTTERED, THE PRESIDENT IS ONLY SPEAKING OF HIMSELF! NOT ONLY
HIM BUT, THIS GOES FOR ANY MEMBERS IN CONGRESS AND THE SENATE
WHO JUST LOVE TO UTTER THOSE WORDS. THE UGLY PUERTO RICAN
SENATOR FROM ILL. IS ONE OF THE MAIN ONES BEHIND OBAMA WHO IS
ALWAYS SAYING, THEY ARE DOING JOBS THAT AMERICANS DON'T WANT
TO DO.
An Onymoose , We for one thing will not earn enought money to pay back
all the cost of having Illegal here from taxes. the crime and problems they
cause is just to much.. Yes their are many great illegals that want a better
life, but if their so good then enter the right way, don't start off breaking
our laws and then say we are the good guys, when they start oof as
criminals. Yes I said CRIMINALS, that is what you are when you break the
law. Our GOVERNMENT IS CAUSEING THE PROBLEM BY NOT MAKING IT
EASER TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY. I know this, because, I work for the
Immigration Department. The Government is not rewarding people for
doing the right thing, but reather for doing the wrong. And, we all know
they are great exampls for doing thing wrong..
Sara O'Flaherty It's illegal now, deal with it!
"Slavery used to be legal, so I guess that makes it okay too, right?" You tell
us. You're the one claiming observing the laws of the past is more
important the breaking laws of the present. Do you know what the word
"onus" is? How about the phrase "burden of proof"? Both are yours; take
them out for lunch and get to know them, then return to us with a real
academic and legal defense for allowing lawbreakers to push to the front of
the immigration line ahead of those in other countries waiting patiently,
filling out the paperwork, and doing it correctly.
Troll
Rager
Misguided
X
X
CODE
06, 08
04, 06
X
04, 06
X
X
06
04, 05
X
80
Short
USA TODAY (CONT.)
As stated on another forum, it's so interesting to me how many racists are
suddenly half of an interracial couple when someone of another race
questions them. I'm sure you were at the WTC when it went down, too, and
you're also a physician, an attorney and a law enforcement officer. Spare
me your Facebook photo insults, female. You're a troll, and a racist, and
you lost the argument. Illegal immigration is against the law, you're playing
against a loaded deck, and the times, the mores, the nation and the
economy are against you.
Troll
Rager
X
X
Misguided
CODE
02, 04
Go play with your imaginary nonwhite husband puppet now. I'm sure its in
the shoebox next to the Latino paper puppets you're vigorously waving
about between the Native American ones while shouting to us all about
how mean we're being.
And since Latinos aren't wrong for demanding something ridiculous in
return for imagined past wrongs, as a racist Irish enjoying the benefits of
your white slaveowner ancestors and their cohorts, you owe this Negro
some money, and I want my check. Now.
1. Visiting opponent's Facebook page to search for elements she can
"attack", 2. Choosing something physical, wishing she could make it a
comparative weight and body size attack but, seeing she cannot, making it
the old faithful "slut" smear, 3. Abandoning earlier vitriol she herself was
engaged in to take a sudden high and mighty pearl clutcher tone abruptly
made to blush by said vitriol, 4. Accusing opponent of vitriol where none
exists and hoping no other posters will catch and call her on it, 5. The "have
fun being bitter, I am sure it is working for you" valediction (possibly the
commonest online surrender line in existence), and 6. Failed attempt at a
clever final line. Wow, she's hit the trifecta this morning. Jenny Craig makes
Red Bull? Who knew?
My son is Miccosukee, and he lives in Big Cypress - on the Rez. What he IS
required to do, every day of his life, is to listen to ignorant horsecrap,
spoken & written by generations of pompous, self-satisfied invaders. I
admire his self-control. So should you, every single time you drive your
Arab gas-guzzling, fume-belching rat-rod across the Tamiami Trail. It takes a
lot of work to breathe your exhaust.
Bunny Lage youre insane to say that indians came from asia youreNUT!!!!!!
Miguel Yga My history may be wrong but I am pretty sure the native (at
that time) language was not spanish. Needless to say that was in the past,
illegal immigration to the U.S.A. is now illegal. We can't reverse history( and
who would want to[who knows how many good advances we would lose]).
It is illegal now DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
02
X
02, 08
X
X
04
06
X
X
81
Short
USA TODAY (CONT.)
Among the blocked provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry
immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an
illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allowing police to arrest
suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.
==============
There is not legal basis for the federal opposition. Just visit pretty much any
other country in the world and you had better carry your passport at all
times. There are many situations where you have to have the passport to
do something - like rent a car, check in to a hotel, get on a plane, etc. It just
shows the sheer insanity of our idiot in chief and his mindless drones.
YOU SURE AS HECK WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO BE IN OTHER COUNTRIES
ILLEGALLY AND, THAT GOES DOUBLE FOR BEING IN MEXICO WITHOUT
PERMISSION. THEY WILL THROW YOUR BEHIND IN JAIL AND, ASK
QUESTIONS LATER. YET THEY WANT OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS CHANGED
IN ORDER TO SUIT THEM. THE SAD PART ABOUT THAT, IS THE FACT THAT
OBAMA IS WILLING TO DO JUST THAT. COME 2012, HE IS OUT OF THE WH. I
DON'T HOW MUCH HISPANIC BUTT HE KISSES, HE IS GONE ON BACK TO
THE WINDY CITY.
Lenny Richey The Federal Government "giving" the states handouts! Where
in the hell do you think the Feds get their money?!! From the citizens of the
states!!!
"The Justice Department says regulating immigration is the job of the
federal government, not states."
Troll
Rager
Misguided
CODE
04
X
04, 06
X
06
X
05
Perhaps if the federal government did the job they were elected to do, the
states wouldn't have to write their own laws on immigration. Or, perhaps
this is part of Dear Leader's attempt to completely bankrupt this nation.
Since deporting illegals isn't free, and these same illegals simply return for
another free (to them) trip home, the costs are mounting on a daily basis.
One solution to this would be to charge the governments of the nations the
deportees are being returned to for the costs of the deportation. Should
their governments refuse to pay, deduct the costs for the aid the US is
giving them. (I doubt there are more than a handful of countries in the
world that are not receiving aid of some kind from the US.) This would
serve two purposes, 1) It would then not cost the US to deport the illegals,
and 2) the governments of those nations may take their own steps to
prevent the illegals from entering the US.
Kelli Behr the majority of people who come here illegally have a criminal
records or are trying to get away from domestic abuse, family feuds, etc.
X
07
X
82
Short
USA TODAY (CONT.)
Bleu Bird - WHAT CENTURY ARE YOU LIVING IN? THESE PEOPLE ARE
COMING HERE FOR NONE OF THE REASONS THAT YOU'VE LISTED! THEY
ARE COMING HERE FOR THE JOBS, BENEFITS AND THE FREE EDUCATION
FOR THEIR KIDS. AMERICAN CITIZENS CAN NOT GET A SECTION 8 VOUCHER
BECAUSE, OUR GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN IT UPON THEMSELVES, TO
GRANT THESE PEOPLE HOUSING AT THE COST OF PUTTING THEIR OWN
CITIZENS OUT IN THE STREETS. THEY ARE COMING HERE FOR WHAT THEY
CAN SUCK OUT OF THIS COUNTRY, WITH THE HELP OF THE POTUS.
If we make laws stringent enough and actually vigorously enforce them to
force checks for illegal immigrant status for school enrollment, for renting
or buying a house, for getting a job, for applying for a credit card, and for
getting help from federal and state governments, we won't have to deport
most illegal immigrants. They will self deport themselves. Pass such a law,
give it six months to it takes effect so that immigrants can get their affairs
in order and self deport themselves. After that, add jail time if they are
caught and don't spend a lot of money on permanent jails. String some
electrified barb wire and give them tents, sleeping bags (which is more than
many soldiers in combat have), and back breaking work plus take all their
assets never to be returned (Mexico does that too for their illegal
immigrants from Central America).
They are NOT "undocumented immigrants." They are ILLEGAL aliens!
Troll
Rager
Misguided
CODE
06
X
03
X
06
That's like saying Bank Robbers are undocumented bank customers.
That's like saying Burglars are undocumented house guests.
Sheesh!
The hell with the Supreme Court. This is an issue the State has addressed
and the Federal Govenment has no business interfering in this matter.
Arizona wants to protect it's borders and they should have the right to do
so. Are we back into a state of civil war with one state against another? I
certainly hope not. Feds, get the hell out of Arizona (period).................
America needs to wake look out in the back yard and see complete
strangers sleeping on the patio, dumping their garbage cans and defecating
on sidewalk. This is what is happening to property owners and taxpayers in
Arizona and it has nothing to do with RACE or IMMIGRATION!
And where do you get this "fact"? Why are 77% of imbeciles named
Richard? See I can make up statistics to make a point also, doesn't make
any of what is said true.
shut up with this, that has already been proven false, get a real argument
I think it is a shame the the USA has to change it's law to accomodate illegel
aliens. Just let them all in and bankrupt the country as they are already
doing. It's good for businesses. In fact lets let then stay and deport the
republican party and all those that think the right wing gives a dam about
them!
X
04, 06
X
07
X
02
X
04
X
04, 05
X
83
Short
USA TODAY (CONT.)
Yeah but NOT on the state level...states do NOT have the power to infringe
on federal immigration laws! They aren't above federal immigration laws by
a long shot, even though states only adopt some federal laws (it is not
meant for them to make up their own immigration laws {like Arizona}) but,
that doesn't mean they are keen to state whether someone is here
ILLEGALLY or NOT! You wouldn't ask a Canadian if he/she is here legally
(only because most look WHITE)! Indeed, this law is commonly racist &
surely infringes on every legal human being (NOT AN ALIEN) residing on
U.S. soil! Federal immigration laws are ironclad!
An Onymoose The main problem is, being illegal. The secondary problem is,
as illegals, they don't feel a need to pay taxes to support the benefits they
claim as they line up in the ER for treatment of colds and such, claim free
housing, food, police and fire protection, etc. If they want the same rights
and privileges as US citizens, then (this is a truly radical idea) why not
BECOME citizens?
An Onymoose So, if I break into your home, clean the house from top to
bottom, cook your meals, do your laundry, wash your car, you'd be OK with
that? But, when I insist on living in your home and bring the rest of my
family to join me, will you still be OK with that? And when I insist you learn
to speak Mandarin to communicate with me and my family, are you still OK
with that? How about when I insist that I have the same rights and
privilages as your family members while I live in your home? How long will
you let this continue before you decide to kick us out?
I take it your ancestors.. didn't struggle to become LEGAL.. dude wake up..
An Onymoose Globalization attempt and evasion. Directly answer the
question. Where is MY check for MY ancestors' work, since the past is more
important than the present? Either man up and answer it, or I'll meet the
press for my championship belt and champagne in the back, thanks.
An Onymoose Gosh, men have no problem with it. I suspect neither would
your husband, if he existed. Nor would you, if you were minus a few
pounds.
Read a book, god knows you need to. The incas are from Peru, thousands of
miles south of Mexico, the Mayans are from the Yucatan Peninsula at the
southernmost tip of Mexico, where they remain still. The spanish invaded
and partly colonized up to what is now the american southwest, from Texas
to California. The indians you refer to never immigrated from Mexico, those
were native tribes who lived in the region for hundreds of years before the
arrival of white man, one of the only tribes to live in both countries were
the appache, and they lived there long before borders existed.
Troll
Rager
Misguided
CODE
06
X
05
X
05, 06
X
X
04
04, 06
X
02
X
04
"The sleep of reason produces monsters" that's a quote from spanish
painter Goya, you should inform and educate yourself first then speak.
Fools do otherwise.
X
6
23
4
84
Short
APPENDIX H
Hostile Comment Code Count/ Percentage of Hostile Category/ Percentage of
News Source
Troll
Harsh
name
calling/
Off
topic
name
calling
USA Today
% of
category
% of USA
Today’s
hostile
comments
The Wall
Street
Journal
% of
category
% of Wall
Street
Journal’s
hostile
comments
CNN.com
% of
category
% of
CNN.com
hostile
comments
Rager
Insults a
person or
group of
people
(pertaining
to the
topic)
Misguided
Negative Textual
Bases
sarcasm screaming argument
on blatantly
inaccurate
information
1
16%
3%
12
52%
40%
5
21.7%
16.7%
12
52%
40%
2
50%
6%
Bases
argument
on
something
racially,
politically,
or
ethnically
offensive
2
50%
6%
3
0
13
7
5
2
1
0%
0%
100%
14.3%
0%
0%
72%
61.9%
38.9%
33.3%
27.8%
23.8%
66.7%
9.5%
33.3%
4.8%
2
28.6%
7.7%
3
42.9%
11.5%
3
42.9%
11.5%
9
60%
34.6%
6
40%
23%
4
26.7%
15.4%
1
14.3%
3.8%
6
85.7%
23%
Blatant
off topic
negativity
or insults
Mentions
violence
toward
someone
0
0%
0%
5
83%
16%
0
85
Short
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Adams, T. (2011, July 23). How the Internet created an age of rage. The Guardian. Retrieved
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/24/internet-anonymity-trollingtim-adams
Air Force Public Affairs Agency – Emerging Technologies Division (n.d.). Air Foce Web Posting
Response
Assessment [Chart]. Retrieved from http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD091210-037.pdf
Bernays, E. L. (1928). Manipulating public opinion: the why and the how. American journal of
Sociology, 958-971.
Bravin, J. (2011, December 13). High court to rule on immigration. WSJ.com. Retrieved from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203518404577094272586674592.htm
l#articleTabs%3Darticle
Biskupic, J. (2011, December 12). High court will examine state immigration laws. USA Today.
Retrieved
from http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/story/2011-12-12/supremecourt-arizona-immigration/51826852/1
Biskupic, J. (2011, December 12). High court will examine state immigration laws [online
comment
section]. USA Today. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/story/2011-12-12/supremecourt-arizona-immigration/51826852/1
CNN.com. (2011, December 12). Supreme Court to Rule on Arizona Immigration Law. Supreme
Court to Rule on Arizona Immigration Law. Retrieved from
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/12/supreme-court-to-rule-on-arizona-immigrationlaw/comment-page-4/
CNN.com (Comp.). (n.d.). Supreme Court to rule on Arizona immigration [Online Comment
Section].
Http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/12/supreme-court-to-rule-on-arizonaimmigration-law/comment-page-4/#comments.
CNN.com Traffic and Demographic Statistics by Quantcast. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.quantcast.com/cnn.com/demographics
86
Short
Davis, J. 2002. Understanding and decreasing aversive behavior in online social contexts.
AAAI Technical Report FS-02-02.
Delli Carpini, Michael X., Cook, Fay Lomax, & Jacobs, Lawrence R. (2004). Public deliberation,
discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature.
Annual Review of Political Science, 7(1), 315-344.
DiMaggio, Paul, Hargittai, Eszter, Neuman, W. Russell, & Robinson, John P. (2001). Social
implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27 (1), 307.
FAQ. (2012). Welcome to Facebook. Retrieved from
http://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=210644045634222
FAIR. (2010, April 27). Legislative analysis: Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe
Neighborhoods Act summary of Arizona SB 1070 as enacted. Retrieved from
http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/ariz_SB1070_summary.pdf?docID=4761
Home Page. (n.d.). Civilination. Retrieved from http://www.civilination.org/
Hlavach, L., & Freivogel, W. H. (2011). Ethical Implications of Anonymous Comments Posted
to Online News Stories. Journal Of Mass Media Ethics, 26(1), 21-37.
Jacobs, L. R., Cook, F. L., & Delli, C. M. (2009). The civic and political impacts of discursive
participation. In Talking together. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Journal community. (2012). WSJ.com. Retrieved from
http://online.wsj.com/community/faq#Profiles
Newsroom Fact Sheet. (2012). Facebook's Latest News, Announcements and Media
Resources. Retrieved from
http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22
Price, V. (2008). The public and public opinion in political theories. In W. Donsbach & M.
Traugott (Eds). Sage Handbook of Public Opinion Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Price, V. 2009. Citizens Deliberating Online: Theory and Some Evidence. Online
Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice, eds. T. Davies and S. P. Gangadharan, 3758. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publication
Suler, John. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326.
87
Short
Up to 8 weeks free, start by choosing a subscription... [Advertisement]. (2012). Retrieved from
(https://buy.wsj.com/shopandbuy/order/subscribe.jsp?trackCode=aapvwha0#
USA Today.com: Audience Overview. (n.d.).
http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/media_kit/usatcom/audience.html.
WSJ.com (2011, December 13). High court to rule on immigration [Online Comment Section].
Bravin, J. (2011, December 13). High court to rule on immigration. WSJ.com. Retrieved
from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203518404577094272586674592.htm
l#articleTabs%3Darticle.
WSJ.com (2012, March 13). WSJ.com audience profile [Press Kit].
Http://www.wsjmediakit.com/downloads/WSJcom_Audience_Profile.pdf?12040702241
0.
88