this is my week 5 final that I need help with. In order to know what to do, you have to read the entire week 5 assignment instructors guidance. and the article " Presence of online reader comments low

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0739532916677056 nrj.sagepub.com Article Presence of online reader comments lowers news site credibility By Lindsey Conlin and Chris Roberts Abstract The authors raise questions about the effects of reader comments on online news credibility, and among their findings is that the same feature—readers’ comments—that makes online news more appealing also decreases the credibility of the news outlet. The commenting system and the way comments are moderated do not appear to affect a news outlet’s credibility.

Keywords online comments, quantitative, experiment, ANOVA, online newspapers, United States, credibility, newspaper and online news, anonymity A s more news content moves online, how readers consume news is changing, \ as well as their interaction with news stories, messengers and other reader\ s. Many online news outlets let readers comment on content on the same page as t\ hat con- tent, which can result in commentary by readers who directly challenge t\ he credibility of news story and/or the news organization. 1 A related concern is that anonymity among com- menters can affect perceived message and/or messenger credibility, as commenters can post inflammatory, offensive comments with little fear of repercussion, leading to Conlin is an assistant professor in the School of Mass Communication and\ Journalism at the University of Southern Mississippi. Roberts is an asso\ ciate professor in the Department of Journalism at the University of Alabama. \ Conlin is the corresponding author: [email protected]. 677056 NRJ XX X 10.1177/0739532916677056Newspaper Research JournalConlin and Roberts research-article 2016 366 Newspaper Research Journal 37(4) arguments among readers and comments that detract from the news story and \ relevant opinions about the story expressed by other commenters. 2 Credibility is a fundamental construct in journalism research, and the shift of news content online has changed the direction of credibility research toward \ “collaborative judgments of credibility within the context of interactive readings of c\ ommunication messages,” 3 with implications for the long-studied relationship between the perceiv\ ed credibility of message and messenger. 4 This research uses the literature of credibility as the basis for an experiment to determine whether the type of commenting systems and method of comment moderation employed by a traditional news outlet, in this case a community newspaper’s website, may affect the credibility of the messenger and the message. Literature Review The Role of Commenting in Journalism Feedback from news consumers has existed for as long as there have been \ news messages and messengers, as audience feedback is a basic function of com\ munication 5 and journalism and plays an integral role in news production and consump\ tion.

Commenting on the news of the day is an important function of the social\ discourse tightly linked to journalism. According to Diakopoulos and Naaman, “News organizations are tasked with pro- viding forums that engender constructive discussions that coalesce and s\ trengthen their online communities.” 6 Before the rise of online journalism, letters to the editor gave readers\ a newspaper- sponsored forum to express opinions; however, while printed letters are usually reviewed, edited, proofed and the writer’s identity confirmed before publication, 7 online comments generally receive much less moderation by news organizations.8 Researchers have noted that:

Consumption of online news is becoming increasingly social and interactive, and now commonly includes facilities for sharing and commenting directly on news articles or via social network channels. 9 Encouraging online user commenting is one way news organizations seek to engage readers and to bolster sagging revenue. 10 Online news outlets have found that “the swirl of perspectives can lead to discussions that build a community and\ , subsequently, loyalty.” 11 If a user returns frequently to read, to post and to interact with othe\ r users, that user becomes a prized asset to the news site. The role of commenting in journal- ism is not limited simply to interactivity. Online comments are a clear-cut way to show that readers are engaged, and, therefore, valuable to advertisers. 12 Even as most news organizations encourage online comments, they seek some control to discour\ age libel, off-topic rants and other bad behaviors. This is a difficult task for many smaller-staffed news organizations, according to Diakopoulos and Naaman, who write:

. . .as the largest online newspapers have the resources to police and effectively moderate their online space, smaller news organizations and local community Conlin and Roberts 367 newspapers are struggling with the quality and volume of the discourse that arises in their online communities. 13 The quality of online news comments has been called into question in recent years by news organizations themselves, who find that . . . it’s not always easy and it’s still a challenge to stop the conversation being dominated by the angriest, noisiest people—who often scare others away. 14 Some news organizations have combated this by moderating reader comments, requiring commenters to provide their real names and identities or disco\ ntinuing reader comments altogether. For example, the Chicago Sun-Times temporarily dis- abled reader comments in 2014 while struggling to curb racism, hate spee\ ch and other types of low-quality comments that damaged the overall presentation of n\ ews to its readers. The paper stated that it was not permanently removing comments, but rath\ er waiting until it could upgrade its commenting system to better moderate \ not only what its readers read, but also what they were able to contribute to the conv\ ersation. 15 Researchers investigating the individuals who read—and potentially comment on—online news have observed that the experience of regularly consumi\ ng online news has resulted in a stronger perception of bias in online news and th\ at this “reflects, perhaps, experiences by online users that have led to biased and less-than-objective reports at online news sites.” 16 The importance of understanding how users interact with news is apparent, as readers of online news “are not merely pass\ ive recipients of information. To impact their assessments, users must become actively engaged with the content.” 17 Reading and commenting on online news stories may impact long-term processes such as credibility and may play a role in understanding how a\ nd why users choose to comment on online news and form judgments about credibility. Online Commenting Systems News organizations must make two sets of decisions when allowing online user comments: whether to host comments using their own technology and whethe\ r to moderate comments before or after submission. Two types of hosting systems exist:

native and non-native. 18 Native commenting systems are unique to the website where they appear and require users to provide personal information and to create a unique login name. Non-native commenting systems are operated by a third-party \ (such as Facebook) outside of an individual news website. The system that a news organization chooses may affect how users comment on stories, users’ likelihood to post comments and the content of the comments they post. The different types of commenting systems may foster intelligent, well thought-out discussion, or inflammatory, off-topic conver - sation, depending on the level of accountability required of users. Bala\ ncing quality of conversation and likelihood for people to comment has proven difficult, especially for smaller news outlets. Native commenting systems refers to commenting platforms that are unique\ to a specific website and embedded in the website’s content itself. A native system’s pri- mary benefit is to give site operators greater creative and editorial co\ ntrol over user comments, 19 for both practical and ethical reasons. 20 The anonymity provided by 368 Newspaper Research Journal 37(4) native commenting systems may be an important aspect of whether readers \ will com- ment on news stories. Research 21 demonstrated that 39.3 percent of respondents who had experience posting comments on a news site would be unwilling to com\ ment if required to provide their real name. Non-native, third-party commenting systems (such as Facebook Comments a\ nd Disqus 22) require users to log into an existing account in order to leave comments.

Non-academic sources have noted that sites which allow social-media logi\ n—such as Facebook comments—for their commenting “promise real-time conversa\ tions, stream- lined moderation functionality and better spam filtering.” 23 Creators and adopters of non- native commenting systems assume that “transparency would tamp down b\ ad behavior,” 24 such as the aggressive or inflammatory commenting that comes along with \ anonymity.

Diakopoulos and Naaman 25 defined low-quality comments as impulsive commentary that contributes little to the discussion of news or general knowledge and noted that these low-quality remarks are often associated with anonymous commenters, where “less anonymity [was] linked to higher quality comments.” 26 If a comment is linked back to the specific Facebook page of an individual, that person may be \ less likely to post hostile, antagonistic comments on a news story. 27 The second key decision is when or whether the news organization will moderate user comments online. The two most common moderation methods are pre-moderation and post-moderation. Pre-moderation refers to the editorial practice of news\ staffers decid- ing which comments will appear online before they are posted. Organizations using pre-moderation include NPR and The New York Times. Pre-moderation can cut contro- versial commenting, keeping comments on-topic and away from threads that\ evolve into more conversation about an inflammatory remark than about the origi\ nal story. 28 Post-moderation refers to a news site allowing all comments to appear on\ the site and then removing unwanted comments after online publication (these sys\ tems have filters to guard against a list of unapproved words and phrases). Post-\ moderation gives readers the immediacy of seeing their comments appear nearly instantly b\ elow a story, but still lets news organizations protect their brands and reputations and also may insulate them from legal action. 29 Credibility Journalistic credibility centers on the idea that to be an effective provider of news, audiences must find the messenger itself—as well as messages delivere\ d—to be believable and reliable. 30 At its most basic form, credibility can be defined as “percep- tions of a news channel’s believability, as distinct from individual sources, media organizations or the content of the news itself.” 31 Messenger credibility is the per - ceived credibility based on factors such as trustworthiness and expertis\ e. 32 An early study of the credibility of journalism messengers found that “opinion\ on an issue was changed by the attribution of the material to different sources,” previously perceived as more or less credible. 33 Much of the research on messenger credibility has centered on the possible characteristics of a messenger that may make it more or \ less credible. 34 Canter 35 touched on the topic of messenger credibility related to users commenti\ ng in interviews of British newspaper workers, quoting one who said he was Conlin and Roberts 369 Flabbergasted that sometimes they are allowed to post derogatory comments about us, so we are almost giving people a platform to attack us, which seems curious to say the least. 36 Message credibility refers to the concept of the perceived believability\ of the message itself.37 When a messenger presents an imbalanced story or message, the messenger \ is perceived as less credible. 38 Message and messenger credibility are closely related, as “perceived story bias in turn influenced perceived newspaper credibil\ ity.” 39 In addition, Message credibility examines how message characteristics impact perceptions of believability, either of the source or of the source’s message. In this way, source and message credibility are overlapping concepts. 40 Message credibility deals specifically with message structure, content, delivery and the intensity of language used. 41 While decades of research indicate an obvious rela- tionship between messenger and message credibility, more recent research techniques have been employed to separate the two for analysis. 42 Research Questions The presence of user comments seems to be a valuable asset to online new\ s outlets, as they may encourage readers to return to the site in order to be part \ of a conversation.

However, these comments can be inflammatory and low-quality, prompting the fol- lowing question: RQ1: Does the presence of reader comments on a news story affect messenger and/or message credibility?

Diakopoulos and Naaman 43 showed that users were less willing to post inflamma- tory comments if they might be held accountable through non-native comme\ nting systems, which often require users to connect to their social media page\ s, such as Facebook. The following research question is posed: RQ2: Does the type of commenting system (native or non-native) affect messenger and/ or message credibility?

In addition to commenting on system type, comment moderation types also \ may affect credibility. Pre-moderation occurs when comments are moderated before they can be read by other users; whereas, post-moderation allows users to pos\ t comments, which may be edited or removed by staff at a later time. Because of this, the following research question is posed: 370 Newspaper Research Journal 37(4) RQ3: Does the method of moderation (pre-moderation or post-moderation) affect mes- senger or/or message credibility?

Diakopoulos and Naaman 44 found that people who are more frequent commenters on online news sites perceived the message and messenger differently, possibly because less-frequent commenters did not have a diverse sample of commen\ ts that they read. Therefore, the following research question is posed: RQ4: Does the amount that a person reads or comments on online news affect their per - ceptions of messenger and/or message credibility? Method This study used a 2x2 experiment to test the effects of commenting systems and comment moderation on perceived message and messenger credibility. The two inde- pendent variables were type of commenting system (native vs. non-native\ ) and method of moderation (pre-moderation vs. post-moderation). This resulted in four experimen- tal conditions. Additionally, a control condition was used that included the news story but no user comments. A post-test method of measuring responses and other pertinent information was implemented, as well as a between-subjects design, where\ partici- pants were exposed to only one of the five story treatments. Within the experiment, participants were randomly assigned to an experime\ ntal group. The conditions featured an online news story—approximately 500 words,\ which participants believed was from a website associated with a local c\ ommunity newspaper, The Tuscaloosa News. Each news story featured nine reader comments following the content of the story. The researchers had the cooperation of the newspa- per, who allowed the exact look and feel of their website to be replicated \ in the experi- ment. This resulted in treatments that were essentially indistinguishable from\ actual online news content. Use of a known messenger was used because of the inherent difficulties in measuring messenger credibility of an unknown messenger and\ because consistent use of the news organization created a controlling factor in the analysis. The story embedded within the news site was reported and written by rese\ archers, using the paper’s style to provide a topical, relevant story that would likely engender \ discussion in the comments section. The story was about a food stamps program under consideration in the state, written in a way so as to present a neutral \ voice and no opin- ion toward the topic. Although the topic was of interest to the region, it was not par - ticularly controversial and therefore should not have prompted influenci\ ng reactions from participants. Each experimental condition featured the same story. The only dif- ference between the conditions was the type of commenting system and mod\ eration that appeared below the news story itself. Conditions that featured native commenting systems, ones that were unique to the news site itself, had a statement telling users to “log into The Tuscaloosa News to post a comment.” Conditions that featured non-native commenting systems, w\ hich were from external sites and require an external logon, instructed users to “\ log into Facebook Conlin and Roberts 371 [or Disqus] to post a comment.” The native commenting conditions included photos of three out of nine commenters, and no commenter used a real name. The non-native com- menting conditions featured commenters with real names and realistic photographs—not animations or drawings—associated with the comments. The difference between the two moderation conditions were statements about “all comments are rev\ iewed by the [newspaper name] prior to being posted” (pre-moderation) or “all\ comments may be removed by the [newspaper name] at a later time” (post-moderation).\ The nine com- ments in the experimental conditions were taken directly or revised slig\ htly by researchers from actual comments about a similar story from reputable ne\ ws websites or were written by researchers in order to ensure a variety of opinions \ commenting on the news story. The comments were selected by utilizing the commentary that was most closely related to the story itself, and any comments that containe\ d offensive language or opinions were excluded from the conditions. Most of the comm\ ents were directed at the content of the story, with one that directly criticized the reporting of the story. Each experimental condition included the same comments, with the contr\ ol group including the story but no comments. After being asked to read the content on the page, participants complete\ d a post-test questionnaire. Participants were asked to provide limited demographic in\ formation and information about their news consumption and commenting habits. The questions on messenger credibility 45 and message credibility 46 were adopted from scales shown to be correlated in a previous study 47 and were randomized. Both measures—messen- ger and message credibility—featured five questions, for a total of 1\ 0 questions about credibility. Participants were recruited both from undergraduate classes at a large, southeastern university and from outside of the university setting in order to gain a\ more diverse sample of participants. The study took place entirely online through the use of the software Qualtrics, and the link to the experiment was distributed throu\ gh the univer - sity participant pool and through social media. In order to receive more\ nuanced responses, researchers did not inform participants in advance about the \ true nature of the study. After completing the experiment, participants were debriefed about its nature. Findings A total of 388 people participated in this experiment. To control for participants who did not fully engage in the study or answer all of the questions, respon\ ses were not ana- lyzed if the participant spent less than one minute reading the experime\ ntal stimulus ( n = 24) or if the participant did not respond to the post-test questionn\ aire (n = 20). This resulted in an analysis of responses from 344 participants, self-identif\ ied as 232 females and 109 males. Two hundred ninety participants reported that they were white or Caucasian (84.3 percent), and 32 participants reported that they were black or African American (9.3 percent). The remaining 7.3 percent were other races. The mean age for participants was 21(SD = 8.50). Participants were relatively evenly distributed between the experimental conditions, with between 17 percent and 23 percent of t\ he participants in each group. A Cronbach’s Alpha reliability analysis showed that scales for messenger credibility α = .81 and message credibility α = .76 were found to \ be reliable. The two dependent variables were tested for normality, and were both found to be normal. 372 Newspaper Research Journal 37(4) Research Question 1 asked whether the presence of comments on a news sto\ ry affected messenger and/or message credibility. After combining experimental condi- tions to compare to the control group, an ANOVA revealed that people who were not exposed to any comments (control group) perceived significantly more messenger credibility (M = 3.46, SD = .79) than did people who were exposed to the experimental conditions (M = 3.25, SD = .79), F(1, 338) = 3.97, p < .05. However, there was no significant difference in message credibility, F(1, 339) = 1.04, p < .31. Therefore, the answer to RQ1 is that the presence of comments on a news story significa\ ntly lowered messenger credibility. Research Question 2 asked whether the type of commenting system (native\ or non- native) would affect messenger and/or message credibility. (See Table 1 for group means.) An ANOVA between commenting system type and messenger credibility indi- cated that the difference between means was not significant F(2, 337) = 2.55, p < .08.

An ANOVA between commenting system type and message credibility revealed that the difference between means was not significant, F(2, 338) = .57, p < .57. Therefore, commenting system type had no effect on messenger or message credibility. Research Question 3 asked whether the type of moderation (pre-moderatio\ n or post-moderation) would affect messenger and/or message credibility. (See Table 1 for means and standard deviations.) An ANOVA between moderation type and messenger credibility showed the difference between means was not significant F(2, 337) = 2.81, p < .06. An ANOVA between moderation type and message credibility revealed the difference between means was not significant F(2, 338) = 1.04, p < .35. Therefore, moderation type had no effect on either messenger or message credibility. Research Question 4 asked whether the amount a person reads or comments \ on online news affects his or her perceptions of messenger and message credibility. A Pearson’s correlation analysis showed no significance between messenger credibil\ ity and amount of news read online r(338) = .02, p < .70, message credibility and amount of news read online r(339) = .05, p < 36, or the amount a person comments online and message credibility r(337) = -.10, p < .06. However, there was significance between the amount a person comments online and overall perception of messenger \ credibility r(336) = -.13, p < .02, with heavy commenters posting lower messenger credibility scores than did people less likely to comment.

Table 1 Means for Messenger and Message Credibility Messenger Credibility Message Credibility MeanSDMean SD Native Commenting Systems 3.30.763.41 .75 Pre-Moderation 3.19.793.30 .83 Post-Moderation 3.38.733.50 .66 Non-Native Commenting Systems 3.20.693.38 .64 Pre-Moderation 3.19.683.41 .68 Post-Moderation 3.21.713.36 .59 Control 3.46.793.50 .67 Conlin and Roberts 373 Discussion This study assessed relationships between types of commenting systems an\ d mod- eration on messenger and message credibility. Neither type of commenting system or moderation seemed to have an effect on message or messenger credibility; however, when the experimental conditions—all featuring comments—were combi\ ned and compared to the control group, which had no comments, participants not e\ xposed to comments reported significantly higher perceptions of messenger credibil\ ity. The presence of news comments alone decreased the credibility of the news ou\ tlet, which is perhaps the most significant finding in this study. This suggests that news that is presented in a way that is more associated with traditional news outlets\ —news without comments directly next to the story—is perceived as more credible. The addition of comments significantly decreased the credibility of the news messenger b\ ut not the message. It may be that the mere presence of comments triggers or promot\ es questions about the messenger—a phenomenon in which “the consensus view of t\ ruth [and therefore credibility] no longer rests on scarcity of public speech.”\ 48 Thus, the diffi- culty for news outlets of navigating the changing landscape of online ne\ ws is even more complicated, as the very feature, which makes online news more appe\ aling, the commenting feature, also decreases the credibility of the news outlet. The presence of news comments alone decreased the credibility of the news outlet, which is perhaps the most significant finding in this study. A second notable finding was that people who comment regularly on online \ news perceived lower messenger credibility, regardless of the type of commenting system or moderation. One reason for the lowered amount of reported credibility by\ people who are frequent commenters on online news is that they may be more cynical \ about online news and/or the news organization and/or other online commenters in general. They may be more aware of the quality of comments that are pervasive on many \ websites, including news sites. This type of person might also be more acutely aware of the importance of thoroughly reading a news article. Further research is nee\ ded here. This study also suggests that the perception of credibility of online ne\ ws may be a more long-term process, one that relies on a person’s history of consumption of online news to form a complete opinion, particularly about messenger credibility. Nothing in this study’s results indicated that participants were affected by the type of commenting system or moderation associated with an online news outlet. Therefore, it may be safe to say that the credibility associated with online news outlets may be u\ nderstood better as a whole; individuals may associate some degree of credibility with on\ line news messengers, rather than one particular online news organization. The freedom and anonymity that have long been afforded to online commenters are now taking their toll on the credibility associated with online news. However unexpected these results may be, they are not wholly inconsisten\ t with previous literature’s assertion that credibility is a complicated, multi-faceted con- struct. 49 Additionally, these results are consistent with recent research on perceived bias in online news, which stated that 374 Newspaper Research Journal 37(4) The components of online information don’t function in isolation, but might be affected by other elements of the online environment. Therefore, it’s clear that all of the aspects of the online environment should be considered when examining news media effects. 50 Limitations, Conclusions and Future Research This study’s limitations included participants who were primarily undergraduate students, who may perceive credibility in ways that differ from older news consumers.

Future research could benefit from a more representative sample of news \ consumers.

Another limitation was the use of a single story in the experimental con\ ditions. Future research should manipulate the story in order to test whether any effects observed are a result of the story’s content. Additionally, future research should address any residual effect of the credibility of the news organization within the community. Finally, it should be noted that this experiment and other social science experiment\ s like it are conducted with a purpose in mind, and that human subjects are aware that\ they are being observed. Individuals who are commenting and interacting with news\ sites out- side of an experimental setting may behave differently than they do when they are participating in research. This study suggests that news organizations may take hits in credibility by simply allowing readers to comment on news stories online. These results may trouble news organizations that rely on the loyalty fostered by the ability of users to comment on news stories, 51 as well as the income generated by additional page views. The results of this study indicate that the inflammatory, aggressive comments—or comments that question a story or news organization—that appear with online news stories have taken their toll on the credibility of news organizations. Online users are not alone in their frustration over the quality of online discourse; journalists them\ selves are unsat- isfied with how sites provide “a forum for anonymous discussion, wher\ e emotions can run high and mudslinging is the norm.” 52 The findings of this study support and echo the sentiments of news producers, who are beginning to feel that reader \ comments are valuable—but only under certain conditions. Reader comments may still\ be valuable when included with opinion pieces rather than news, as “columns are a\ bout opinions and should probably should allow comments, but news items are about what\ the reporter has seen or knows, and where comments that bitterly dispute the report prob- ably undermine the reporter’s efforts to report the news.” 53 The results of this study further complicate the problem of Knowing how to best strike the balance between user restrictions that might result from comment moderation with the news industry’s general desire for greater user engagement with online content. 54 It may be that a small number of commenters who use inflammatory and offensive tactics to make their opinions heard tend to dominate the commenting sec\ tions of online news outlets, but the results here indicate that these users have\ a long-term, detrimental effect on the perception of credibility by the majority of readers. It is \ the negative and low-quality nature of the comments that affects credibility, rather than the type of commenting system, the type of moderation, or even any type \ of attack on the reporting of the story itself. These results stress the importance of understanding Conlin and Roberts 375 the online news environment as a whole, as “evaluations of news credi\ bility are influ- enced by the context in which the news story is read.” 55 Notes 1. Noah Davis, “Can Gawker’s New Commenting System Improve Quality Without Creating Chaos?” Fast Company.com, June 18, 2012, (January 11, 2015); Nicholas Diakopoulos and Mor Naaman. “Towards Quality Discourse in Online News Comments.” In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 133-142. ACM, 2011; Arthur D. Santana, “Online Readers’ Comments Represent News Opinion Pipeline,” Newspaper Research Journal 32, no. 3 (2011): 66; Jeff Sonderman, “News Sites Using Facebook Comments See Higher Quality Discussion, More Referrals,” poynter.org, August 18, 2012, < http://www.poynter.org/2011/ news-sites-using-facebook-comments-see-higher-quality-discussion-more-referrals/143192/> (14 January 2015).

2. Ashley A. Anderson, Dominique Brossard, Dietram A. Scheufele, Michael A. Xenos, and Peter Ladwig. “The ‘Nasty Effect:’ Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19, no. 3 (April 2014): 373-387; Michael G. Hughes, Jennifer A. Griffith, Thomas A. Zeni, Matthew L. Arsenault, Olivia D. Cooper, Genevieve Johnson, Jay H. Hardy, Shane Connelly, and Michael D. Mumford. “Discrediting in a Message Board Forum:

The Effects of Social Support and Attacks on Expertise and Trustworthiness.” Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication 19, no. 3 (April 2014): 325-341.

3. Charles Self, “Credibility,” in An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research, eds.

Don W. Stacks and Michael B. Salwen (New York, Routledge, 2008), 436.

4. Carl I. Hovland and Walter Weiss. “The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness,” Public Opinion Quarterly 15, no. 4 (1951): 635-650; Erica Weintraub Austin and Qingwen Dong. “Source v. Content Effects on Judgments of News Believability.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 71, no. 4 (December 1994): 973-983.

5. David Berlo. The Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. (New York, Holt, 1960).

6. Diakopoulos and Naaman. “Towards Quality Discourse in Online News Comments,” 141 7. Bill Reader. “An Ethical” Blind Spot”: Problems of Anonymous Letters to the Editor.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 20, no. 1 (2005): 62-76.

8. Santana, “Online Readers’ Comments Represent News Opinion Pipeline.” 9. Diakopoulos and Naaman. “Towards Quality Discourse in Online News Comments,” 133 10. Santana, “Online Readers’ Comments Represent News Opinion Pipeline.” 11. Davis, “Can Gawker’s New Commenting System Improve Quality without Creating Chaos?” para\ . 3 12. Davis, “Can Gawker’s New Commenting System Improve Quality without Creating Chaos?”; Kathleen McElroy,”Where Old (Gatekeepers) Meets New (Media): Herding Reader Comme\ nts into Print,” Journalism Practice 7, no. 6 (February 2013): 755-771.

13. Diakopoulos and Naaman. “Towards Quality Discourse in Online News Comments” 14. Shane Richmond, “Do Online Newspapers Value Reader Comments?” The Telegraph UK, April 22, 2010, (6 May 2015).

15. Catherine Taibi, “Chicago Sun-Times Gets Rid of Reader Comments For Now,” huffingtonpost.

com, April 14, 2014, < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/14/chicago-sun-times-comments- user_n_5146107.html> (6 May 2015).

16. Rasha A. Abdulla, Bruce Garrison, Michael B. Salwen, Paul D. Driscoll, Denise Cas\ ey, “Online News Credibility,” in Online News and the Public, eds. Michael B. Salwen, Bruce Garri\ son, and Paul D.

Driscoll (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, 2005), 161.

17. Spiro Kiousis, “Exploring the Impact of Modality on Perceptions of Cr\ edibility for Online News Stories.” Journalism Studies 7, No. 6 (2006): 355.

18. Jane Sheeba, “Native vs Non-Native Commenting Systems: Scratching you\ r Head, eh?,” janesheeba.

com, July 25, 2013,< http://www.janesheeba.com/native-vs-non-native-commenting-systems-scratch- ing-your-head-eh/ > (14 January 2015).

19. Diana Urban, “Why WordPress’ Native Commenting System beats Disqus or Livefyre,” ustandout .com, April 5, 2013,< http://ustandout.com/blogging/why-wordpresss-native-comm\ enting-system- beats-disqus-or-livefyre> (14 January 2015).

20. Laura Hlavach, and William H. Freivogel. “Ethical Implications of Anonymous Comments Posted to Online News Stories.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 26, no. 1 (2011): 21-37. 376 Newspaper Research Journal 37(4) 21. Diakopoulos and Naaman. “Towards Quality Discourse in Online News Comments” 22. Disqus, “How Disqus Works,” disqus.com, no date, < https://disqus.com/how/>(18 March 2014).

23. Urban, “Why WordPress’ Native Commenting System beats Disqus or Livefyre,” para. 1 24. Davis, “Can Gawker’s New Commenting System Improve Quality without Creating Chaos?” para\ . 4 25. Diakopoulos and Naaman. “Towards Quality Discourse in Online News Comments” 26. Diakopoulos and Naaman. “Towards Quality Discourse in Online News Comments,”133 27. Sonderman, “News Sites using Facebook Comments see Higher Quality Dis\ cussion, More Referrals” 28. Jeff Sonderman, “NPR, Other News Orgs Tighten Comment Moderation to Improve Conversation,” poynter.org, September 20, 2012, < http://www.poynter.org/2012/npr-other-news-orgs-tighten-com- ment-moderation-to-improve-conversation/189124/> (14 January 2015) 29. Jane B. Singer, “Taking responsibility,” in Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers,” (New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 119-138.

30. Self, “Credibility” 31. Erik P. Bucy, “Media Credibility Reconsidered: Synergy Effects between On-Air and Online News.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 80, no. 2 (June 2003): 247-264, 248 32. Chanthika Pornpitakpan, “The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34, no. 2 (February 2004): 243-281 33. Hovland and Weiss, “The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness,” 642 34. Self, “Credibility” 35. Lily Canter. “The Misconception of Online Comment Threads: Content and Control on Local Newspaper Websites.” Journalism Practice 7, no. 5 (2013): 604-619 36. Canter “The Misconception of Online Comment Threads: Content and Control on Local Newspaper Websites,” 612 37. Paul I. Rosenthal. “Specificity, Verifiability, and Message Credibility.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 57, no. 4 (1971): 393-401 38. Frederick Fico, John D. Richardson, and Steven M. Edwards. “Influence\ of Story Structure on Perceived Story Bias and News Organization Credibility.” Mass Communication & Society 7, no. 3 (2004): 301-318 39. Fico, Richardson, and Edwards. “Influence of Story Structure on Perce\ ived Story Bias and News Organization Credibility,” 315 40. Miriam J. Metzger, Andrew J. Flanagin, Keren Eyal, Daisy R. Lemus, and Robert M. McCann.

“Credibility for the 21st Century: Integrating Perspectives on Source, Message, and Media Credibility in the Contemporary Media Environment.” Communication Yearbook 27 (2003): 293-336, page 302 41. Ibid.

42. Chris Roberts, “Correlations among Variables in Message and Messenger Credibility Scales,” American Behavioral Scientist 54, no. 1 (September 2010): 43-56 43. Diakopoulos and Naaman. “Towards Quality Discourse in Online News Comments” 44. Ibid.

45. Philip Meyer, “Defining and Measuring Credibility of Newspapers: Developing an In\ dex,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 65, no. 3 (September1988): 567-574 46. Andrew J. Flanagin and Miriam J. Metzger, “Perceptions of Internet Information Credibility,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 77, no. 3 (September 2000): 515-540 47. Roberts, “Correlations among Variables in Message and Messenger Credibility Scales” 48. Clay Shirky, “Truth Without Scarcity, Ethics Without Force,” in The New Ethics of Journalism:

Principles for the 21st Century, eds. Kelly McBride and Tom Rosenstiel (Los Angeles, Sage, 2014), 15.

49. Roberts, “Correlations among Variables in Message and Messenger Credibility Scales.”; Self, “Credibility.” 50. J. Brian Houston, Glenn J. Hansen, and Gwendelyn S. Nisbett, “Influen\ ce of User Comments on Perceptions of Media Bias and Third-Person Effect in Online News,” Electronic News 5, no. 2 (June 2011): 79-92, 88 51. Davis, “Can Gawker’s New Commenting System Improve Quality Without Creating Chaos?” 52. Santana, “Online Readers’ Comments Represent News Opinion Pipeline.” 53. D.B. Hebbard, “Newspaper Websites and Other Forums Continue to Struggle with Comment Policies,” talkingnewmedia.com, January 1, 2015, < http://www.talkingnewmedia.com/2015/01/08/news-sites- online-forums-continue-struggle-comment-policies/ > (6 May 2015).

54. Houston, Glenn, Hansen, and Nisbett. “Influence of User Comments on P\ erceptions of Media Bias and Third-Person Effect in Online News.” 89 55. Kjerstin Thorson, Emily Vraga, and Brian Ekdale. “Credibility in Context: How Uncivil Online Commentary Affects News Credibility.” Mass Communication and Society 13, no. 3 (2010): 289-313, 309 R epro duce d w ith p erm is sio n o f th e c o pyrig ht o w ner. F urth er r e pro ductio n p ro hib ite d w ith out p erm is sio n.