User engagement with online news: Conceptualizing interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news videos and user comments

New Media and Society

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 502-520

  Ksiazek, Thomas B ^a   Peer, Limor ^b   Lessard, Kevin ^a  

^a VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital journalism; engagement; interactivity; news videos; online news; user comments; YouTube

Indexed keywords

EID: 84959292271     PISSN: 14614448     EISSN: 14617315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1461444814545073     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. B.R.Barber (2004) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
2. M.A.Baum (2002) Sex, lies, and war: how soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. American Political Science Review96(1): 91–110.
3. M.A.Baum (2003) Soft news and political knowledge: evidence of absence or absence of evidence?Political Communication20(2): 173–190.
4. M.A.Baum (2004) Circling the wagons: soft news and isolationism in American public opinion. International Studies Quarterly48(2): 313–338.
5. L.Beckett (2010) Getting beyond just pageviews: Philly.com’s seven-part equation for measuring online engagement. Nieman Reports, 26October. Available at: http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/10/getting-beyond-just-pageviews-philly-coms-seven-part-equation-for-measuring-online-engagement/ (accessed 27 July 2012).
6. P.J.Boczkowski (2009) Rethinking hard and soft news production: from common ground to divergent paths. Journal of Communication59(1): 98–116.
7. P.J.BoczkowskiL.Peer (2011) The choice gap: the divergent online news preferences of journalists and consumers. Journal of Communication61(5): 857–876.
8. R.J.BrodieL.D.HollebeekB.Juric (2011) Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research14(3): 252–271.
9. J.BurgessJ.Green (2009) YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
10. B.J.CalderE.C.MalthouseU.Schaedel (2009) An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing23: 321–331.
11. J.K.ChanL.Leung (2005) Lifestyles, reliance on traditional news media and online news adoption. New Media & Society7(3): 357–382.
12. G.ChatzopoulouC.ShengM.Faloutsos (2010) A first step towards understanding popularity in YouTube. In: Proceedings of INFOCOM IEEE conference on computer communications workshops, San Diego, CA, 15–19 March, pp. 1–6. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
13. X.ChengC.DaleJ.Liu (2008) Characteristics and potentials of YouTube: a measurement study. In: (eds) Peer-to-Peer Video: The Economics, Policy, and Culture of Today’s New Mass Medium. New York: Springer, pp. 205–217.
14. D.S.Chung (2008) Interactive features of online newspapers: identifying patterns and predicting use of engaged readers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13(3): 658–679.
15. D.S.ChungC.Y.Yoo (2008) Audience motivations for using interactive features: distinguishing use of different types of interactivity on an online newspaper. Mass Communication & Society11(4): 375–397.
16. M.Deuze (2003) The web and its journalisms: considering the consequences of different types of newsmedia online. New Media & Society5(2): 203–230.
17. W.N.EspelandM.Sauder (2007) Rankings and reactivity: how public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology113(1): 1–40.
18. H.Gans (1980) Deciding What’s News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Random House.
19. J.T.Hamilton (2004) All the News That’s Fit to Sell. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20. E.HargittaiG.Walejko (2008) The participation divide: content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society11(2): 239–256.
21. T.Hayes (2008) Jump Point: How Network Culture Is Revolutionizing Business. New York: McGraw Hill.
22. S.Herbst (1998) Reading Public Opinion: Political Actors View the Democratic Process. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
23. J.B.HoustonG.J.HansenG.S.Nisbett (2011) Influence of user comments on perceptions of media bias and third-person effect in online news. Electronic News5(2): 79–92.
24. J.HujanenS.Pietikäinen (2004) Interactive uses of journalism: crossing between technological potential and young people’s news-using practices. New Media & Society6(3): 383–401.
25. S.JamaliH.Rangwala (2009) Digging digg: comment mining, popularity prediction, and social network analysis. In: Proceedings of the international conference on web information systems and mining, Shanghai, China, 7–8 November, pp. 32–38. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
26. G.Jarboe (2011) YouTube and Video Marketing: An Hour a Day. 2nd ed.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
27. H.Jenkins (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.
28. J.KimR.O.WyattE.Katz (1999) News, talk, opinion, participation: the part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication16(4): 361–385.
29. S.Kiousis (2002) Interactivity: a concept explication. New Media & Society4(3): 355–383.
30. H.KoC.H.ChoM.S.Roberts (2005) Internet uses and gratifications: a structural equation model of interactive advertising. Journal of Advertising34(2): 57–70.
31. P.Lange (2007) Searching for the “you” in “Youtube”: an analysis of online response ability. In: Proceedings of the ethnographic praxis in industry conference, Keystone, CO, 3–6 October, pp. 31–35. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
32. A.O.Larsson (2011) Interactive to me—interactive to you? A study of use and appreciation of interactivity on Swedish newspaper websites. New Media & Society13(7): 1180–1197.
33. J.G.LeeS.MoonK.Salamatian (2010) An approach to model and predict the popularity of online contents with explanatory factors. In: Proceedings of the international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology, Toronto, ON, Canada, 31 August–3 September, pp. 623–630. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
34. P.MacGregor (2007) Tracking the online audience: metric data start a subtle revolution. Journalism Studies8(2): 280–298.
35. S.J.McMillan (2002) Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: users, documents and systems. In: (eds) The Handbook of New Media. London: SAGE, pp. 163–182.
36. S.J.McMillan (2005) The researchers and the concept: moving beyond a blind examination of interactivity. Journal of Interactive Advertising5(2): 1–4.
37. E.C.MalthouseB.J.Calder (2011) Engagement and experiences: comment on Brodie, Hollenbeek, Juric, and Ilic (2011). Journal of Service Research14(3): 277–279.
38. E.ManosevitchD.M.Walker (2009) Reader comments to online opinion journalism: a space of public deliberation. Paper prepared for presentation at the 10th international symposium on online journalism, Austin, TX, 17–18 April. Available at: https://online.journalism.utexas.edu/2009/papers/ManosevitchWalker09.pdf (accessed 2 November 2013).
39. B.L.MasseyM.R.Levy (1999) Interactivity, online journalism, and English-language web newspapers in Asia. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly76(1): 138–151.
40. N.Nagar (2011) The loud public: the case of user comments in online news media. PhD Dissertation, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY.
41. P.Napoli (2011) Audience Evolution: New Technologies and the Transformation of Media Audiences. New York: Columbia University Press.
42. NielsenWire (2012) May 2012: top US online video sites. Available at: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/may-2012-top-u-s-online-video-sites/ (accessed 24 July 2012).
43. H.L.O’BrienE.G.Toms (2008) What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology59(6): 938–955.
44. J.OhS.BellurS.S.Sundar (2010) A conceptual model of user engagement with media. In: 60th annual conference of the International Communication Association, Singapore, 22–26 June.
45. T.Patterson (2003) The search for a standard: markets and media. Political Communication20(2): 139–143.
46. L.PeerT.B.Ksiazek (2011) YouTube and the challenge to journalism: new standards for news videos online. Journalism Studies12(1): 45–63.
47. E.T.PetersonJ.Carrabis (2008) Measuring the immeasurable: visitor engagement. Report, Web Analytics Demystified, 7September. Available at: http://www.webanalyticsdemystified.com/downloads/Web_Analytics_Demystified_and_NextStage_Global_-_Measuring_the_Immeasurable_-_Visitor_Engagement.pdf (accessed 5 January 2012).
48. Pew Research Center (2012) YouTube and news: a new kind of visual news. Report, Pew Research Center, Project for Excellence in Journalism, 16July. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2012/07/16/youtube-news/ (accessed 18 July 2012).
49. M.Prior (2003) Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political knowledge. Political Communication20(2): 149–171.
50. T.E.Ruggiero (2000) Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society3(1): 3–37.
51. S.SchaudtS.Carpenter (2009) The news that’s fit to click: an analysis of online news values and preferences present in the most-viewed stories on azcentral.com. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal24(2): 17–26.
52. A.Schmitz WeissV.De Macedo Higgins Joyce (2009) Compressed dimensions in digital media occupations: journalists in transformation. Journalism: Theory, Practice, Criticism10(5): 587–603.
53. M.Schudson (2001) The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism2(2): 149–170.
54. T.Schultz (1999) Interactive options in online journalism: a content analysis of 100 US newspapers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication5(1): 0. DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00331.x.
55. T.Schultz (2000) Mass media and the concept of interactivity: an exploratory study of online forums and reader e-mail. Media, Culture & Society22(2): 205–221.
56. C.Shirky (2010) Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. New York: Penguin Press.
57. S.SiersdorferS.ChelaruW.Nejdl (2010) How useful are your comments? Analyzing and predicting YouTube comments and comment ratings. In: Proceedings of 19th international World Wide Web conference, Raleigh, NC, 26–30 April. Available at: http://www.l3s.de/~siersdorfer/sources/2010/wfp0542-siersdorfer.pdf (accessed 27 July 2012).
58. J.Stromer-Galley (2000) Online interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication50(4): 111–132.
59. D.Tewksbury (2003) What do Americans really want to know? Tracking the behavior of news readers on the Internet. Journal of Communication53(4): 694–710.
60. N.Thurman (2008) Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user generated content initiatives by online news media. New Media & Society10(1): 139–157.
61. M.Tremayne (2008) Manipulating interactivity with thematically hyperlinked news texts: a media learning experiment. New Media & Society10(5): 703–727.
62. J.G.Webster (2010) User information regimes: how social media shape patterns of consumption. Northwestern University Law Review104(2): 593–612.
63. J.G.Webster (2011) The duality of media: a structurational theory of public attention. Communication Theory21(1): 43–66.
64. C.Y.Yoo (2011) Modeling audience interactivity as the gratification-seeking process in online newspapers. Communication Theory21(1): 67–89.
65. J.Zaller (2003) A new standard of news quality: burglar alarms for the monitorial citizen. Political Communication20(2): 109–130.