The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm OIR 36,6 WikiLeaks comments: a study of responses to articles 828 Department of Information Science, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel Noa Aharony Refereed article received 29 July 2011 Approved for publication 6 February 2012 Abstract Purpose – The study aims to explore WikiLeaks’ worldwide impact amongst readers of three online newspapers, as expressed through reader comments. There are three primary research questions: are there differences between the three online newspapers concerning the factual information in the comments, the linguistic characteristics of the comments, and the rhetorical and style elements of the comments? Design/methodology/approach – The study focused on three online newspapers: The New York Times in the USA, The Guardian in the UK and Ynet in Israel, all popular channels of communication in their countries. The researcher examined the comments relating to WikiLeaks and conducted a content analysis on a sample of the comments. Findings – The main findings suggest that most of the comments were written in an emotional style and with pathos. However there are major differences between comments written to The New York Times and to Ynet. Research limitations/implications – This research is limited by the extent to which it can be generalised, as it focuses only on WikiLeaks comments written before 1 December 2010. Originality/value – This paper is the first known exhaustive study that concentrates on WikiLeaks comments. The research findings may encourage further exploration into the nature of the relationship between media texts and reactions to them. Keywords WikiLeaks, The New York Times, The Guardian, Ynet, Qualitative investigation, Newspapers, Web sites Paper type Research paper Online Information Review Vol. 36 No. 6, 2012 pp. 828-845 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1468-4527 DOI 10.1108/14684521211287927 Introduction Internet comments are part of user-generated content, where users expand on, critique, and express their ideas about various topics in news and non-news contexts. These users are generally referred to as active internet contributors (Dijck, 2009). Singer and Ashman (2009) conclude that the website has become a shared space, characterised by dynamic changing content, produced by different individuals. User-generated content seemingly influences traditional media and confers an independent voice to viewpoints not previously expressed by the media (Leung, 2009). Furthermore, the internet provides average citizens with the ability to express their opinions on political issues via the mass media. The theoretical framework for this study postulates that public opinion is not only the collection of individual opinions measured in polls and surveys, but can be seen as the product of widespread discussions that emerge from a debate, that is open to wide participation (Price and Neijens, 1997). In the offline world debates take place in letters to the editor, letters to political officials, and talk shows, where ordinary people can express their sentiments and beliefs on important matters of public concern (Hart, 2001). Online opinion expressions are a virtual representation of such public discourse, where the citizens decide when and how to voice their political concerns (Nagar, 2011). The deliberative democracy theory that prevailed in the twentieth century suggests that public discourse should be rational, logical, follow some preconditions such as inclusivity, relate to domains of common concern, disregard status, and lead to consensus (Habermas, 1991). However a more modern theory of agonistic pluralism contends that consensus is the result of a hegemonic system, as it excludes some voices of the public. Thus the public discourse should encourage disagreement and conflict in order to promote a more democratic and egalitarian society (Mouffe, 2000). To this end we can say that the shift from “letters to the editor” to online comments can be perceived as a change from the deliberative democracy theory, where the editor has control of the discussion, to the agonistic pluralism theory, where heated debates and different opinions are presented in newspapers. Problem statement The current study focuses on WikiLeaks, a non-profit media organisation that aims to deliver important news and information to the public. The current research aims to explore WikiLeaks’ impact worldwide amongst the readers of three online newspapers, as expressed through reader comments. Each of the newspapers – The New York Times in the United States, The Guardian in the United Kingdom and Ynet in Israel – is a major, popular channel of communication in its country. As there are only a few studies about internet comments, this study aims to characterise and analyse factual information about the comments, their linguistic characteristics, and their rhetorical and style elements, relying partially on Galily’s (2008) categorisation of comment writers, and on Kohn and Neiger’s (2006) rhetorical model that analysed and characterised comments in rhetorical terms. The three primary research questions are: (1) Are there differences between the three online newspapers concerning the factual information in the comments? (2) Are there differences between the three online newspapers concerning the linguistic characteristics of the comments? (3) Are there differences between the three online newspapers concerning the rhetorical and style elements of the comments? The research findings may facilitate improved understanding, for both the layman and for media or information researchers, of the power and impact of the media and information on our daily lives. The findings may encourage further exploration into the nature of the relationship between media texts and reactions to them, and into the social channels for social and ideological interactions. Literature review User-generated content: comments Cultural theorist Jenkins (2006) observes that with the emergence of Web 2.0 applications, a paradigm shift has occurred in the way media content is produced, as audiences empowered by the new technologies demand the right to participate in the culture. This changes the culture into a participatory one, where ordinary citizens WikiLeaks comments 829 OIR 36,6 830 express themselves and share their opinions with others. Dijck (2009) points out, however, that the digital age is different in that users have better and easier access to technology, enabling them to simply “talk back” to different kinds of content. The term “talk-back” is a new one in the communication glossary. It can be associated with letters to the editor or conversations with listeners on the radio, when the written press, radio, and television were dominant (Galily, 2008). The talk-back creates an encounter between virtual texts and web surfers. Radway (1984) proclaims that readers respond to the text according to their different points of view and cultural codes, and are not dependent on the structure or literal meaning of the text itself. The term talk-back is similar to the term comment: both emphasise users’ ability to express their opinions on the content of the site. According to Kohn and Neiger (2006) a talk-back is a kind of forum in which one can immediately react to a newspaper article in the virtual sphere. A talk-back, appearing at the end of the article, represents a kind of hybridisation between a chat and a forum. In addition the talk-back creates an encounter between the virtual text and the user, where the user can respond, adding meaning to the text, according to his/her point of view or cultural codes (Galily, 2008). With the exception of a few rare cases, the newspaper’s editorial staff do not intervene in the talk-back content nor monitor or filter the messages. This lack of censorship differs from the traditional media (print journalism or radio), where responses undergo filtering, mediation, or receive directives. Hecht (2003) claims that the absence of guided intervention in talk-backs strengthens the dimensions of spontaneity and anonymity, giving the users the pleasure derived from interactivity, as they use unconstrained language and style. The question that arises is whether the comments or talk-backs can be considered part of the “public sphere”. According to Habermas (1991), who coined the term, “the public sphere is a middle ground between state and civilian society, a sphere (not necessarily physical) in which differences in power and status are temporarily suspended, a space where in principle all individuals have equal status and are aware of their right to use their intelligence to criticise any issue of public interest” (Verman, 1997, p. 35). Habermas (1991) asserts that public discourse takes place in a free country, in a situation of independent economic pressure. In sum the “ideal speech situation” is one in which everyone can express their positions, ambitions and needs. In addition it is where everyone can pose questions, criticise, and make any claim that comes to mind. Furthermore participants cannot be prevented from exercising their rights by external or internal pressure. Habermas (1991) refers to the public sphere as a place where discourse can take place between private people and form a community. According to Galily (2008), who referred to comments as talk-backs, the ideal speech situation can be found in talk-backs, where equality, mutuality, and symmetry can be maintained, as long as the participants are not professionals, businesspeople looking out for their personal business interests. Furthermore the participants do not represent a permanent virtual community and do not share defined goals. Usually no lasting contact is created among participants. To sum up, comments or talk-backs can be considered as a channel for the movement of ideas within the social public sphere. They have become a cultural catalyst, supporting the flow of ideas between the centre and the periphery, providing large sectors of the population with an opportunity to express their ideas in the public arena (Hecht, 2003). There are not many studies that focus on internet comments or talk-backs. However several studies have examined various general aspects of internet comments. One of the first, conducted by Newhagen et al. (1995), dealt with internet mail messages sent to NBC Nightly News by the audience. Their study revealed that “macro-scopic” messages were formal, dealt with political issues, and did not mention technology or mass media, thus resembling a letter to a newspaper editor. “Mezzo-scopic” messages were positive and did not deal with political issues, while “micro-scopic” messages mentioned computer technology more than any other type and resembled face-to-face communication in many ways. Thelwall (2008), focusing on MySpace comments, claimed that comments are a new type of text-based communication that is public and visible around the world. Furthermore the findings revealed that MySpace comments were used for general friendship maintenance and were usually short. Aharony (2010) found that most of the comments made on professional library and information science blogs were written in a personal style, and that commenters dealt with substantive issues reflecting their professional and personal interests. Other studies address user comments as an opportunity for the individuals to produce online content (Bergström, 2008; Domingo, 2008; Hermida and Thurman, 2008). Domingo (2008) suggests that we should differentiate between user comments and comments left on news site forums, claiming that user comments make journalists feel closer to their audience. Hermida and Thurman (2008) claim that editors are more willing to include user comments, but are concerned with the effect of these comments on the reputation of the brand. Bergström (2008) concludes that users are not motivated to generate content on news sites, and those who write comments perceive it as a creative leisure time activity and not as an opportunity to exercise their democratic rights. Some studies focus on the user comments feature as a new form of opinion activity. Hecht (2003), for example, examined user comments as a new sphere that enables a spontaneous public discourse on issues of importance. Freund (2011) delved into user comments on German news site Spiegel Online, assuming that the comments feature promotes interaction among users. She found out that most of the comments were declarative and less reactive or interactive. Furthermore most of the commenters used comments to express their views on current issues or to criticise political officials. In another study Manosevitch and Walker (2009), who explored user comments for their deliberative nature, found that comments included both social as well as analytic processes necessary for public deliberation. In addition Nagar (2011) found that user comments are a tool for opinion expression and surveillance, adding that they become an important source of influence on editorial decision making. Several studies contend that user comments represent a continuation of offline public expressions of opinions. Sikron (2008) and Galily (2008) referred to user comments as a source of opinion data. Sikron (2008) used them to learn about individuals’ attitudes towards road accidents, and Galily (2008) used them to study the readers’ views in news sites’ sport sections. Linguistic aspects of internet discourse As the current study delves into linguistic and rhetorical aspects of internet comments, the following sections present linguistic as well as rhetorical aspects of the internet discourse. The internet has become an excellent source of natural language data for WikiLeaks comments 831 OIR 36,6 researchers in linguistics and in communication (Koteyko, 2010). Fairclough (1992) who focuses on textual analysis differentiates between two complementary types of analysis: (1) linguistic analysis; and (2) intertextual analysis. 832 Linguistic analysis covers phonology, grammar up to the level of the sentence, vocabulary and semantics. It also encompasses the analysis of textual organisation above the sentence and shows how texts draw upon linguistic systems. Intertextual analysis focuses on how texts draw upon orders of discourse referring to genres, discourses, and narratives, available in specific social circumstances. The present study seeks to explore linguistic aspects of WikiLeaks comments. Focusing on linguistic aspects of internet comments, Galily (2008), who investigated Israeli comments, claims that we can observe linguistic and metaphoric innovations which represent change and developments in the Israeli culture. Moreover talk-backs are often similar to graffiti and like graffiti can lead to war as the discourse may get out of control (Rosenthal, 2004). These talk-backs may present a personal protest about social issues. Hughes (1998) claims that protest may be expressed via linguistic aggression, characterised by slander and expletives. Virilio (1997) mentions that as online cultural norms are still being developed, commenters feel free of moral restrictions and norms. Hecht (2004) asserts that the use of harsh language which is often found in talk-backs can be viewed as a form of aggressive personal protest. Ben-David and Folkman (2010) add that online comments can include language and views that would never be allowed in the printed version. Rhetorical aspects of internet discourse The last issue to deal with is the rhetorical aspects of internet comments. Logos, pathos and ethos are the three classical Aristotelian components that create arguments in classical rhetoric. Logos addresses the logical side, pathos the emotive side, and ethos refers to the reputation and reliability of the speaker. Exploration of the digital rhetoric concept reveals how traditional rhetorical strategies function in digital environments and suggests how traditional rhetoric might be extended into a comprehensive theory of digital rhetoric. Gurak (1997), for example, explores how strategies of persuasion, based upon Aristotle’s notions of ethos, pathos and logos, motivate action and belief in the online debates about Lotus MarketPlace and the Clipper Chip. In the case of Lotus MarketPlace the CD-ROM included mail marketing information about American consumers and presented issues of personal privacy, and thus provoked strong protests. Gurak (1997) explains that the protests were based upon highly emotive ethos, while Lotus’s response was based upon a hard-facts corporate logos. Fogg (2003) has investigated how computers as persuasive technologies achieve credibility (ethos) and how they address the emotions (pathos). Furthermore Amernic and Craig (2004) argue that rhetorical perspective is very important when analysing communication on and about the internet. They analysed AOLTime Warner’s “Internet Policy Statement”, based on Burke’s rhetorical features that emphasised the rhetoric of religion, the rhetoric of hierarchy and the rhetoric of development, progress and journeys. Fredrick’s (1999) study explores an intersection of feminism and cyberspace in the ethos of online discussions, claiming that the analysis reveals examples of how sarcastic questioning, strong assertions, accusatory disagreements, and sexist comments create a hostile and noninclusive ethos. In addition Gurak (1997) concludes that speed, reach, anonymity and interactivity are basic characteristics that function as both affordances and constraints, helping to understand how the new media enable the transformation of old rhetoric persuasion into a digital rhetoric. Speed enables an oral and casual style, but also redundant and repetitive postings. Reach allows denouncement on a large global scale; however it does not include gatekeeping. Anonymity enables experimenting with self and gender identities, but also creates problems of authorship, and encourages “flaming” that conveys expression of hostile emotions. Interactivity facilitates closer access and dialogue with other people, but also permits opportunities for intrusions upon personal privacy. As noted above, the current research focuses on the impact of WikiLeaks as expressed through three online newspapers’ reader comments. The research aims to characterise and analyse factual information about the comments, their linguistic characteristics, and their rhetorical and style elements. Methods Research design This paper presents an analysis of comments, (or talk-backs as they are known in Israel) sent to three online newspapers around the world: (1) The New York Times (USA); (2) The Guardian (UK); and (3) Ynet (Israel). Each newspaper is a major popular channel of communication in its country. The comments were collected on 1 December 2010, three days after the WikiLeaks editors began releasing huge amounts of leaks from all over the world. According to WikiLeaks’ editorial statement, the site tries to provide a new, anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to WikiLeaks journalists. One of their main goals is to publish original source material alongside news stories, thus providing a way to reveal suppressed and censored injustices to readers and historians. The researcher examined the comments assigned to WikiLeaks and conducted analysis in two phases: (1) statistical descriptive analysis; and (2) content analysis. For both phases, the researcher examined a sample of the comments. Data collection In the first phase of the investigation the comments to be included in the sample were selected. Since the WikiLeaks editors began releasing huge amounts of cables referring to various countries on 28 November 2010, choosing and exploring the comments relating to the WikiLeaks phenomenon seemed an enlightening, interesting and new topic to study. As the author lives in Israel, she decided to compare the Israeli WikiLeaks comments 833 OIR 36,6 834 comments appearing in the online newspaper Ynet with American comments appearing in The New York Times online and with British comments appearing in The Guardian online. The author entered the word “WikiLeaks” in the search engine of each newspaper on 1 December 2010. Various answers were retrieved, but the author decided to focus on articles that did not concentrate on a specific event, but rather on those relating to the WikiLeaks phenomenon from a broad, general perspective, as expressed in some cases in the editorial columns or the opinion pages. Out of these the researcher chose five articles from Ynet with 363 comments, two articles from The New York Times with 531 comments, and four articles from The Guardian with 918 comments (links to the articles and comments appear in the Appendix). Data analysis A sample of 900 comments was selected, 300 from each newspaper, by randomly drawing every third comment from each newspaper. The descriptive statistical analysis was conducted on these 900 comments, while the content analysis included 600 comments (200 from each newspaper), based again on the same criterion, i.e. randomly drawing every third comment from each newspaper. The second phase of the investigation involved statistical descriptive analysis, usually used in order to describe the basic features of data in a study. The third phase was content analysis, which, according to Neuendorf (2002), summarises a quantitative analysis of messages. It is a common method for investigating written documents such as webpages (Babbie and Mouton, 2001). Krippendorff (1980) presented the advantages of content analysis: it is unobtrusive, accepts unstructured material, and is context-sensitive. It can also process symbolic forms and cope with large amounts of data. The goal of content analysis is to examine message characteristics in an objective manner by applying consistent criteria rigorously (Neuendorf, 2002). The messages analysed represent how the writer presents him/herself to a normal audience and not to a researcher (Kabanoff, 1997). Initially content analysis was applied to newspapers and other written documents in order to understand their content and to make inferences from the data to their context (Krippendorff, 1980). It has also been applied to modern technologies such as radio, television, internet newsgroups, and websites (Gossett and Byrne, 2002; McMillan, 2000; Paul, 2001; Still, 2001). In order to classify the comments, the author read the comments and categorised them basically according to Galily’s (2008) and Kohn and Neiger’s (2006) categorisations. Galily proposed the following categorisation for the comment writers: those who use a minimalist style, writing one sentence or word; those who use an intellectual style, presenting various aspects of the issues; those who use a knowledgeable style, who seem to know a lot and are willing to share their information, insights, and knowledge with others; those who use slogans; and those who are emotionally involved. The current study combined the intellectual and knowledgeable styles into one. Kohn and Neiger (2006) proposed a rhetorical model that analysed and characterised comments in rhetorical terms. They used the opposition to the classical Aristotelian components of rhetoric, i.e. anti-logos, anti-pathos, and anti-ethos. The current research used the three classical Aristotelian components of rhetoric, classifying the comments according to these three categories. It should be noted that the same comment can include items from different categories and thus can be counted several times. The total, therefore, adds up to more than 100 per cent. Each classification was assessed by a single classifier and then cross-checked by a second classifier. The final percentage of agreement for all coding decisions was 90 per cent, suggesting that the coding classification used was reliable. WikiLeaks comments 835 Findings Descriptive statistics The first part of the findings addresses factual information about the comments. Two differences can be noticed between the Israeli comments and the American and British. In Ynet, the Israeli newspaper, the comments are called talk-backs, while in the other two newspapers they are called comments. In addition, in Ynet the comments appear at the bottom of the article, while in The New York Times and The Guardian, the reader must enter a link named “comments”, and only there can he or she write the comment. The first section focuses on the number of words in the comments in each newspaper. Table I displays the number of words in comments in Ynet, The New York Times and The Guardian. Table I shows that Ynet had 93 (30.98 per cent) comments with only a title and no accompanying text. Within the Ynet newspaper the largest group comprised 1-50 words (155 comments; 51.66 per cent), followed by the group containing 51-150 words (45 comments; 15 per cent). The smallest group was that with more than 150 words, made up of only seven comments (2.33 per cent). Table I shows that the largest group within The New York Times comprised 51-150 words (147 comments; 49 per cent), followed by that containing 1-50 words (74 comments; 24.66 per cent), then the group with 151-250 words (40 comments; 13.33 per cent), almost equal to the group that had more than 251 words per comment (39 comments; 13 per cent). Table I also reveals that the largest group within The Guardian comprised 1-50 words (158 comments; 52.66 per cent), followed by the group that contained 51-150 words (100 comments; 33.33 per cent), and then by the group with more than 251 words (25 comments; 8.33 per cent). The smallest group had 151-250 words (17 comments; 5.66 per cent). The following section provides further factual information. Table II presents the breakdown of real names, nicknames, and gender of comment writers in each of the three newspapers. Table II shows that when lacking details about the comment writers, we draw conclusions only from what was clear and understood in the comments. Within Ynet, 227 out of 300 comment writers (75.66 per cent) identified themselves either with a real name (130; 43.33 per cent) or a nickname (97; 32.33 per cent). Furthermore, it was simple to discover the gender of about 139 (46.33 per cent) writers: 115 (38.33 per cent) were males and 24 (8 per cent) females. Focusing on The New York Times, it appears that 295 (88.33 per cent) comment writers identified themselves either with real names (180; 60 per cent) or nicknames (115; 38.33 per cent). In addition, 179 supplied information about their gender, revealing 149 (49.66 per cent) to be males and 30 (10 per cent) to be females. Regarding The Guardian comment writers, 230 (76.66 per cent) identified their real names (eight; 2.66 per cent) or nicknames (222; 74 per cent). Furthermore only 12 (4 per cent) writers provided information about their gender. Average number of words Ynet The New York Times The Guardian Number of words 51-50 1-50 151-250 OIR 36,6 836 Table I. Breakdown of number of words in comments in Ynet, The New York Times and The Guardian 0 251 þ Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage 28.39 93 30.98 155 51.66 45 15.00 7 2.33 0 0 123.16 0 0 74 24.66 147 49.00 40 13.33 39 13.00 85.97 0 0 158 52.66 100 33.33 17 5.66 25 8.33 Content analysis The next section refers to the content analysis of the comments, beginning with their linguistic characteristics. Table III presents the breakdown of spelling mistakes, awkward structure, and slang in each of the three newspapers. Table III shows that in Ynet, 26 comments (13 per cent) had spelling mistakes, 110 (55 per cent) were not written properly, and 105 (52.2 per cent) included slang. The New York Times had two (1 per cent) comments with spelling mistakes, 40 (20 per cent) comments not written properly, and 33 (16.5 per cent) that included slang. The Guardian had one comment with a spelling mistake, 84 (42 per cent) comments not written properly, and 46 (23 per cent) that included slang. The next part presents a further content analysis, addressing the rhetorical and style elements in the three newspapers, examining whether the comments contain logos, pathos, ethos, or some of these characteristics. Table IV presents the breakdown of comments according to logos, pathos and ethos. Table IV shows that in Ynet most of the comments were written with pathos (173; 86.5 per cent), followed by comments written with ethos (27; 13.5 per cent), and then by comments written with logos (20; 10 per cent). Within The New York Times most of the comments were written with pathos (171; 85.5 per cent), followed by comments written with logos (80; 40 per cent), and then by comments written with ethos (27; 13.5 per Ynet Frequency Percentage Real names Nicknames Total number Male Female Total number 130 97 227 115 24 139 The New York Times Frequency Percentage 43.33 32.33 75.66 38.33 8 46.33 180 115 295 149 30 179 Ynet Number Per cent 26 110 105 13 55 52.5 Spelling mistakes Awkward structure Slang Ynet Type of content Logos Pathos Ethos Number Per cent 20 173 27 10 86.5 13.5 60 38.33 98.33 49.66 10 59.66 The New York Times Number Per cent 2 40 33 1 20 16.5 The New York Times Number Per cent 80 171 27 40 85.5 13.5 WikiLeaks comments 837 The Guardian Frequency Percentage 8 222 230 12 12 2.66 74 76.66 4 4 The Guardian Number Per cent 1 84 46 0.5 42 23 Table II. Breakdown of real names, nicknames and gender of Ynet, The New York Times and The Guardian comments writers Table III. Breakdown of spelling mistakes, awkward structure, and slang in each of the three newspapers The Guardian Number Per cent 49 161 1 24.5 80.5 0.5 Table IV. Breakdown of comments according to logos, pathos and ethos OIR 36,6 838 cent). Within The Guardian most of the comments were written with pathos (161; 80.5 per cent), followed by comments written with logos (49; 24.5 per cent), and by comments written with ethos (1; 0.5 per cent). The following are examples of comments classified according to logos, pathos and ethos. . An example from Ynet – logos: “We have to remember so far, that only 0.1 per cent of the leaks were published”. . An example from The New York Times – pathos: “Hooray! The Obama administration has no hidden agenda”. . An example from The New York Times – ethos: “Thank you for this sane, sober, several-points-covered editorial [. . .] it heartens me this editorial treats the information as reliable and discusses the information in its own terms”. The following section characterises the comments according to their style: minimalist, intellectual/knowledgeable, containing slogans, or emotional. A comment may include more than one style characteristic. Table V portrays the breakdown of the comments in the three newspapers according to their style. Table V shows that within Ynet, the largest group of comments was characterised by an emotional style (166; 83 per cent), then by slogans (162; 81 per cent), followed by minimalist style (47; 23.5 per cent), and finally by intellectual/knowledgeable style (29; 14.5 per cent). Within The New York Times the largest group was characterised by an emotional style (159; 79.5 per cent), then by slogans (99; 49.5 per cent), followed by intellectual/knowledgeable style (93; 46.5 per cent), and finally by minimalist style (13; 6.5 per cent). Within The Guardian the largest group was characterised by an emotional style (130; 65 per cent), then by slogans (114; 57 per cent), followed by intellectual/knowledgeable style (41; 20.5 per cent), and finally by minimalist style (22; 11 per cent). The following are examples of comments according to their style. . An example from Ynet – minimalist style: “A very good and concise article”. . An example from The New York Times – intellectual/ knowledgeable style: “The Times and other news media have already reported much of this. What the cables add is sizzle . . . ”. . An example from The Guardian – slogans: “the puppets have finally cut the strings”. . An example from The Guardian – emotional style: “Mostly boring. Wake me up if they’ve unearthed a tape of Major and Edwina. Depressed. Need a good laugh”. Style Table V. Breakdown of comments according to their style Minimalist Intellectual/knowledgeable Slogans Emotional Ynet Number Per cent 47 29 162 166 23.5 14.5 81 83 The New York Times Number Per cent 13 93 99 159 6.5 46.5 49.5 79.5 The Guardian Number Per cent 22 41 114 130 11 20.5 57 65 Discussion This study presents an exploratory analysis of comments assigned to three different online newspapers that focus on the phenomenon of WikiLeaks. Referring to the first research question, which deals with differences between the three online newspapers concerning the factual information in the comments, the Israeli newspaper Ynet seems to be the only one with comments comprised of headlines without any text in the message. This finding can be related to one of the characteristics of a comment writing style called “headline discourse”. The headline is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the interpretation the commenter gives to the text. Hecht (2003) claims that the headline hints at textual activity no less than the content itself. In addition the headline discourse comments can be associated with Rosenthal’s (2004) assertion that talk-backs are often similar to graffiti, and that both can inflame war. Thus these short comments may cause the discourse to get out of control. Furthermore within both Ynet and The Guardian, the largest groups of comments contained 1-50 words, while the largest group of comments within The New York Times comprised 51-150 words. The fact that in both Ynet and The Guardian the largest groups of comments were 1-50 words can be linked to Thelwall’s (2008) finding that the median number of words per social network comment was 14 and claiming that shorter comments are more common in social networks than longer comments. In all three newspapers the smallest groups were those that included more than 151 words. Comparing the average number of words of the comments, it appears that The New York Times has the highest average number of words per comment, followed by The Guardian, and then by Ynet. Summing up, the findings so far reveal that while the American comments are much longer than the British and Israeli comments, usually comment writers tend not to write long comments. Further findings suggest that The New York Times has the highest percentage of comment writers who identified themselves and the highest percentage of comment writers who identified themselves with their real names. In contrast in The Guardian most of the comment writers who identified themselves used nicknames, which may be due to various reasons. The first may be that the comment platform is spontaneous, immediate, and anonymous, and writers do not want to be identified. The second is that perhaps people really do not want to identify themselves as they present their attitudes towards WikiLeaks: a loaded, complicated phenomenon. It should be noted that in both Ynet and The New York Times, men wrote more comments than women. The second research question refers to differences between the three online newspapers concerning the comments’ linguistic characteristics. Earlier researchers (Baron, 2003; Crystal, 2006) explored the degree to which internet language is similar to spoken rather than to written language. Previous research presents an ambiguous picture. Ko (1996) asserted that internet language can be associated with both spoken and written language, while Herring (2002) concluded that the term “internet language” is too broad and that it is very difficult to generalise about it. In another paper, Herring (2007) proposed a faceted classification scheme with a wide range of factors that may influence the language used in a particular computer-mediated communication context. In the current study it turns out that Ynet comments were written in a sloppier, more careless way than comments in The New York Times and The Guardian. In general it seems that the present findings can be associated with the suggestion of Thelwall (2008) regarding MySpace comments, that spelling mistakes and slang are an WikiLeaks comments 839 OIR 36,6 840 integral part of these comments, which are closer to spoken rather than written language. Furthermore these findings are close to those of Aharony (2010), who explored library and information science blog comments, asserting that most comments were written in a personal style rather than in formal language. Moreover, these findings replicate those of other researchers (Ben-David and Folkman, 2010; Hecht, 2004; Hughes, 1998; Kohn and Neiger, 2006) in that talk-backs reflect a particularly violent and aggressive discourse, adding that the use of harsh language in online comments can be viewed as a form of aggressive personal protest that would never reach the printed version. We can also associate the linguistic differences with the theory of agonistic pluralism, which suggests that the public discourse should allow disagreement and conflict in order to promote a more democratic and egalitarian society, thus allowing heated debates and different opinions presented on the newspapers. The next section concentrates on the third research question, which focuses on the differences between the three online newspapers with regard to the rhetorical and style elements of the comments. The findings suggest that pathos prevailed in all three newspapers. This finding is not surprising at all, since the WikiLeaks phenomenon is controversial and presents problematic issues that provoke various emotional responses within the public. It seems that the comment writers wanted to attract attention, by appealing to the pathos and focusing less on the logos. Furthermore this finding replicates those of other researchers (Dror, 2003; Hadar, 2001), who claim that the comments platform has become a stage for slander, where everything is immediate, urgent, interactive, and impulsive; this further highlights the use of pathos in comments. However this finding contradicts other studies (Fogg, 2003; Fredrick, 1999; and Gurak, 1997) where ethos was the prevalent rhetorical element, following by the logos and pathos components. We assume that these studies were conducted on other internet platforms and investigated less controversial issues, thus the ethos element was dominant. The second largest group revealed the dominance of logos. On the one hand it is not surprising that logos was found to be the second largest group rather than the largest because of the nature of commenting, which provides web surfers the opportunity to respond spontaneously and anonymously, and is often characterised by superficial and limited discourse and by violent and harsh content (Galily, 2008). On the other hand, because WikiLeaks deals with major and crucial issues, one might expect that the discourse around it would be more serious, with logos dominating as writers use more thoughtful, meaningful arguments. Furthermore various researchers (Hecht, 2003; Nagar, 2011) assume that user comments can be considered venues of opinion expression where citizens decide when and how to voice their political convictions; in addition they enable spontaneous public discourse on highly important issues. Ben-David and Folkman (2010) add that user comments contribute to the public debate because individuals whose voice is not heard in the mainstream media may present their different or extreme opinion in the public sphere. Thus considering user comments as venues of online opinion expression requires using the logos component, which was used only in a limited scope in the current study. This finding can be linked to Bergström’s (2008) assertion that users who write comments perceive it as a creative leisure time activity and not as an opportunity to exercise their democratic rights. The least common group was ethos. This finding is also interesting as it was found to be the dominant group in other studies (Fogg, 2003; Fredrick, 1999; Gurak, 1997). We see that ethos is not the main focus of WikiLeaks commenters. Perhaps WikiLeaks commenters are occupied with the problematic and intriguing topics that were revealed in the leaks, thus paying less attention to the ethos component. The limited use of logos and ethos and the fact that most of the comments in Ynet and The Guardian were short may reflect the superficial level of discourse. It seems that commenters are interested in expressing themselves via the media. However they are not willing to devote time and thought in order to formulate more thoughtful and deep comments, which would probably be written with logos or ethos. The last issue to deal with is the style of the comments. It was not surprising to discover that the largest category across the three newspapers was the emotional style, followed by slogans. These two categories can be associated with the pathos variable discussed earlier, emphasising again the controversial nature of WikiLeaks and the various reactions it provoked among the public. The present findings echo Galily’s (2008) statement that one of the dominant characteristics of online discourse is the use of emotional texts and expressions that are outside the social consensus, thus creating drama and further discussion. These findings can also be associated with the agonistic pluralism theory, that enables heated debates and different opinions to be presented, and in our case on the news sites. The next category is characterised by the intellectual/knowledgeable style, which can be linked to the previous finding about logos, discussed earlier in the text and found to be the second largest group of comments. The smallest category was the minimalist style. Conclusions In sum although user comments can be seen as venues for opinion expression, where citizens express their opinions on political issues via the mass media, it was surprising to find out that WikiLeaks commenters did not use this platform to really engage in the public discourse and hardly used the logos and ethos components. However, the issue of WikiLeaks is not simple and raises various ethical and legal problems, which may explain why most of the comments were written in an emotional style and with pathos. It should be noted that this finding is international and is not limited to readers from a specific country. These findings can be interpreted in two ways. The first is that the WikiLeaks phenomenon is controversial, thus it arouses emotions and pathos. The second is that perhaps the specific platform of comments or talk-backs which is usually uncensored, may encourage users to write superficial comments, in comparison with other internet platforms that enable users to express more thoughtful and deep comments. However The New York Times comments relating to the WikiLeaks phenomenon are quite different from those in Ynet and The Guardian in the following aspects: . their length; . the fact that most of the writers identify themselves either by name or with a nickname; . the largest use of logos; and . the limited use of slogans. WikiLeaks comments 841 OIR 36,6 842 Nagar’s (2011) dissertation asserts that users’ level of identification influences the quality of discourse in user comments. It seems that the current findings strengthen those of Nagar (2011), showing that users who identify themselves write their comments distinctively – more thoroughly and seriously – and attempt to create respectable discourse and present diverse perspectives regarding the WikiLeaks phenomenon. In addition it is easy to differentiate between the Israeli comments and the American and British ones. It seems that the Israeli commenters are in a hurry and spontaneous, as they write short comments and express their ideas briefly, immediately, and concisely. In addition they use slogans and do not pay attention to spelling mistakes. Perhaps these facts reflect some of the Mediterranean characteristics of the Israeli commenters. This characteristic is also reflected in the name of the Israeli comments, i.e. “talk-backs”, which conveys the meaning of something contemporary and spontaneous that takes place right now. This research is limited by the extent to which it can be generalised, as it focuses only on WikiLeaks comments written up to 1 December 2010. Since, however, the WikiLeaks topic is interesting, attractive and challenging, it will be intriguing to continue examining the WikiLeaks comments from another perspective. The author recommends that further research delve into the content itself, not classifying it according to defined categories as in the present research, but rather building content categories constructed from the text itself (the comments). References Aharony, N. (2010), “LIS blog comments: an exploratory analysis”, Libri, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 65-77. Amernic, J. and Craig, R. (2004), “The rhetoric of a juggernaut: AOLTimeWarner’s Internet Policy Statement”, Prometheus, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 21-41. Babbie, E. and Mouton, J. (2001), The Practice of Social Research, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Baron, N.S. (2003), “Language of the internet”, in Farghali, A. (Ed.), The Stanford Handbook for Language Engineers, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp. 59-127. Ben-David, B. and Folkman, A. (2010), “Readers’ comments (talk-backs) on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Canadian news-websites: a lighting-rod for extreme views vs a ban on free discussions”, available at: www.boazbendavid.org/uploads/4/5/7/5/4575323/ben-david__ folkman_2010.pdf (accessed 24 January 2012). Bergström, A. (2008), “The reluctant audience: online participation in the Swedish journalistic context”, available at: www.westminster.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/20019/ 005WPCC-Vol5-No2-Annika_Bergstrom.pdf (accessed 31 January 2012). Crystal, D. (2006), Language and the Internet, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dijck, V.J. (2009), “Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content”, Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 41-58. Domingo, D. (2008), “Interactivity in the daily routines of online newsrooms: dealing with an uncomfortable myth”, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 680-704. Dror, Y. (2003), “The new coliseum”, Haaretz, available at: www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo¼320205&contrassIDContrassID¼3&sbSubContrassID¼0 (accessed 18 December 2010). Fairclough, N. (1992), “Discourse and text: linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis”, Discourse & Society, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 193-217. Fogg, B.J. (2003), Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do, Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA. Fredrick, C. (1999), “Feminist rhetoric in cyberspace: the ethos of feminist Usenet newsgroups”, The Information Society, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 187-97. Freund, E. (2011), “‘Discuss this article!’. Participatory uses of comment sections on Spiegel Online: a content analysis”, available at: www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/media WorkingPapers/MScDissertationSeries/2010/Freund.pdf (accessed 24 January 2011). Galily, Y. (2008), “The (re)shaping of the Israeli sport media: the case of talk-back”, International Journal of Sport Communication, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 273-85. Gossett, J.L. and Byrne, S. (2002), “Click here: a content analysis of internet rape sites”, Gender and Society, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 689-709. Gurak, L. (1997), Persuasion and Privacy in Cyberspace: The Online Protests over Lotus MarketPlace and the Clipper Chip, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Habermas, J. (1991), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Hadar, D. (2001), “Put your head down and scream!”, Haaretz, available at: www.haaretz.co.il/ hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo¼99063&contrassID¼2&subContrassID¼18&sb SubContrassID¼0 (accessed 18 December 2010). Hart, R.P. (2001), “Citizen discourse and political participation: a survey”, in Bennett, W.L. and Entman, R.M. (Eds), Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 407-32. Hecht, J. (2003), “The fight for online content’s hegemony: the case of the TalkBack”, Internet Association Magazine, available at: www.isoc.org.il/magazine/magazine4_3.html#5 (accessed 18 January 2011) (in Hebrew). Hecht, J. (2004), “Online discourse and a social medium”, Internet Association Magazine, available at: www.isoc.org.il/magazine/magazine4_8.html (accessed 20 January 2012). Hermida, A. and Thurman, N. (2008), “A clash of cultures: the integration of user generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at British newspaper websites”, Journalism Practice, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 343-56. Herring, S.C. (2002), “Computer-mediated communication on the internet”, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 36, pp. 109-68. Herring, S.C. (2007), “A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse”, Language@Internet 4, available at: www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2007/2761 (accessed 20 January 2011). Hughes, G. (1998), Swearing: A Social History of Foul Language, Oaths and Profanity in English, Penguin, New York, NY. Jenkins, H. (2006), Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Kabanoff, B. (1997), “Computers can read as well as count: how computer-aided text analysis can benefit organizational research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 507-11. WikiLeaks comments 843 OIR 36,6 Ko, K.K. (1996), “Structural characteristics of computer-mediated language: a comparative analysis of inter change discourse”, Electronic Journal of Communication, Vol. 6 No. 3, available at: www.cios.org/www/ejc/v2006n2396.htm (accessed 22 February 2011). Kohn, A. and Neiger, M. (2006), “To talk and talkback: analyzing the rhetoric of talkbacks in online journalism”, paper presented at the Israel Communication Association Conference, 19 February, Tel Aviv. 844 Koteyko, N. (2010), “Mining the internet for linguistic and social data: an analysis of ‘carbon compounds’ in web feeds”, Discourse Society, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 655-74. Krippendorff, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Leung, L. (2009), “User-generated content on the internet: an examination of gratifications, civic engagement and psychological empowerment”, New Media & Society, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 1327-47. McMillan, S. (2000), “The microscope and the moving target: the challenge of applying content analysis to the World Wide Web”, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 80-98. Manosevitch, E. and Walker, D. (2009), “Reader comments to online opinion journalism: a space of public deliberation”, available at: http://online.journalism.utexas.edu/2009/papers/ ManosevitchWalker09.pdf (accessed 22 January 2012). Mouffe, C. (2000), The Democratic Paradox, Verso, London. Nagar, N. (2011), “The loud public: the case of user comments in online news media”, PhD dissertation, State University of New York, Albany, NY. Neuendorf, K. (2002), The Content Analysis Guidebook, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Newhagen, J.E., Cordes, J.W. and Levy, M.R. (1995), “Nightly@nbc.com: audience scope and the perception of interactivity in viewer mail on the internet”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 164-75. Paul, M. (2001), “Interactive disaster communication on the internet: a content analysis of sixty-four disaster relief home pages”, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 739-53. Price, V. and Neijens, P. (1997), “Opinion quality in public opinion research”, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 336-61. Radway, J.A. (1984), “Interpretive communities and variable literacies: the function of romance reading”, Daedalus, Vol. 113 No. 3, pp. 49-73. Rosenthal, R. (2004), The Joy of the Hebrew Language, Am Oved, Tel Aviv. Sikron, F. (2008), “The science of ‘talk-backs’”, available at: www.mouse.co.il/CM.articles_ item,1049,209,25223,.aspx (accessed 23 January 2012). Singer, J.B. and Ashman, I. (2009), “Comment is free, but facts are sacred: user-generated content and ethical constructs at The Guardian”, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 3-21. Still, J. (2001), “A content analysis of university library websites in English speaking countries”, Online Information Review, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 160-5. Thelwall, M. (2008), “MySpace comments”, Online Information Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 58-76. Verman, D. (1997), “Habermas’s public sphere”, Dvarim Achadim, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 34-45. Virilio, P. (1997), Cybernetics, Anyone, New York, NY. Appendix Ynet: . www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3991735,00.html . www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3991295,00.html . www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3991326,00.html . www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3991213,00.html . www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3991151,00.html The New York Times: . www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30tue1.html?ref ¼ wikileaks . www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30brooks.html?ref ¼ wikileaks The Guardian: . www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/29/the-revolution-will-be-digitised . www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/wikileaks-open-secrets-us-embassycables . www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks . www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-secrets-pentagonpapers Corresponding author Noa Aharony can be contacted at: aharonn1@mail.biu.ac.il To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints WikiLeaks comments 845