Skip to comments.A Third of Online Comments About Obama Arenít Civil
Posted on 06/30/2014 2:14:40 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Have you ever really dug into the comments section below a controversial news article? The correct answer is "No, I am not a crazy person," but if you have you'll know that it's a Hobbesian netherworld down there, and a new study in Journal of Communication puts some numbers behind the all-caps hysterics.
Researchers from the Universities of Utah and Arizona examined more than 6,400 comments posted on the website of the Arizona Daily Star (those poor, poor researchers ... ) and found, in a result unlikely to shock anyone who has been called an OBAMABOT or RETHUGLICAN by a 12-year-old on the other side of the country, that we do not tend to interact with each other in a kindly manner online: Overall, one in five comments were not civil, but that number was often higher for more controversial subjects.
To the press release:
"We tracked six different kinds of uncivil language, but name-calling was far and away the most common," said Kevin Coe, assistant professor of communication at the University of Utah and one of the study's authors. "Many people just can't seem to avoid the impulse to go after someone else."
The study also showed that these types of commenters do not fit the stereotype of a few angry individuals who spend hours at their computers blasting others and making baseless claims. In fact, incivility was more common among infrequent commenters. Equally surprising, uncivil commenters were just as likely to use evidence in support of their claims as were the more respectful individuals.
As might be expected, stories that focused on well-known leaders with clear partisan positions garnered more impolite comments. In stories that quoted President Barack Obama, for example, nearly 1 in 3 comments were uncivil.
Disrespectful comments also tended to spike in discussions about weightier issues, such as politics, the economy, crime and taxes. The one exception to this trend was sports articles, which generated the highest percentage of these types of comments.
But buried in all the trolly trollness is a small, glittering kernel of humanity: "When one commenter was directly replying to another commenter, they were more likely to be courteous."
So it's almost as though being reminded that you're interacting with another human can help make you more civil online. Strange! And while things may look bleak, there are a growing number of troll-suppression solutions, some of which I wrote about a couple of years ago.
We welcome your thoughts below.
And their point is?
He does not deserve civility. He does not love this country nor respect the office he holds.
More than a third of 0bama’s comments about Americans aren’t civil.
The filthy rat-bastard reaps what he sows.
So that means 2/3 are civil. A better treatment than GW Bush, likely.
90 percent of those comments are documented to come from me.
A third? Only a third?
Hell, here at FR, we are proud to say that 99 percent of comments about Obastard aren’t civil.
(Why should they be?)
Only one third?
Hell that’s just the ones posted by me.
"That depends on what the meaning of 'civil' is."
They would encounter “Lerner-esque” type server meltdowns if they just checked KOS or DU archives from November 2000 through October 2008.
As opposed to the two thirds that were uncivil to Bush.
Most of Obama’s (and Hillary Clinton’s, and Harry Reid’s and McCain’s come to think of it) comments regarding me could hardly be considered civil.
I agree, the sleazy slimeball narcissist brought it all on his own nasty self.
And not even a third of online comments by Obama supporters are civil. So what’s your point exactly?
(Not Nick, of course; this is directed at the author of the piece.)
Any movies about The Won’s assassination, to be lauded as “free speech” by the right? Exactly.
I reckon it is difficult to maintain civility when the subject is a serial liar, pretentious, ignorant, arrogant. affirmative action, commie traitor whose every effort has served to fundamentally transform the greatest, most free nation in the history into another third word socialist craphole where unemployment is rampant as inflation necessarily skyrockets and whose wife is an obnoxious, constant scold.
That means that 2/3 don’t get it or are fearful of personal retribution by the despotic tyrant
People say mean things about the lowlife, scumbag Obamanation?
That’s why I refrain from commenting on the corrupt, lying, thieving commie, egotistical, backstabbing, cowardly, feckless, deranged, maniacal, duplicitous, deceptive, dictator wannabe. If you can’t say something nice about someone.........
Did they do the same survey about Bush?
Dear leader probably thought his race would be enough to silence any criticism. Guess he hasn’t been paying attention to all the signs of people getting fed up with the race card.
Some "researchers" would see any vile thing said about Bush as civil while anything less than boot licking for Obama would be downright racist!
And comments about Bush by the left were civil?
Obama is a worthless piece of smelly dog poo.
I feel an obligation to help keep the percentages up.
“And their point is? “
Obviously the online comment sections should be banned and only bloggers that are certified “Media Journalists” by the federal government should be allowed to have political blogs.
“He doesn’t deserve civility”
Nope, not a bit. I figured that out in 2008:
Obama poked fun of McCain and Palin’s new “change” mantra.
“You can put lipstick on a pig,” he said as the crowd cheered. “It’s still a pig.”
“You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still gonna stink.”
“We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”
The crowd apparently took the “lipstick” line as a reference to Palin, who described the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull in a single word: “lipstick.”
Zero/”I won” opened the door, he can’t complain about a thing.
No the point is so what? I would like to see the article they published regarding this perceived issue and George Bush when he was in office or perhaps a comparison between comments about Bush and those made about mr. mulato, otherwise this is just more of the whining started by mr. mulato himself.
BFD half of all the comments about George W Bush were downright obscene.
When will a see a stand up comedian do a routine eviscerating Urkel. It won’t happen because no matter how “cutting edge” these guys are , they are all cowards.
Another tactic of the left that (thanks to their faithful Obama-Media) usually works for them:
They routinely conduct themselves in the most underhanded, unethical, immoral, vile, criminal fashion they are capable of.
They pursue their objective with any means necessary to get what they want.
There is no word or act too low for them.
But then immediately profess to be offended and indignant when someone who disagrees with them does anything more than say “heck”, “gosh” or darn it!”.
I try to be fair and civil when it comes to the drug-addled communist in our White House.
Sensible people accuse him of treason, but I consistently point out that the Community-Organizer-in-Chief is no traitor. He’s not American enough to owe any allegiance to the United States, so he cannot commit treason against our country.
Decent Christians accuse the thug of being the Antichrist, but I regularly point out that the former junior US Senator from Illinois is not the Antichrist. It’s frightening to think about facing the real thing, given how dangerous that level of evil is even with the laziness and limited mental capacity of our current adversary, but the real thing will be even worse.
Fair and balanced: Obama is pure evil, but he’s an ignorant, lazy, inept version of evil. Obama is harmful to our country, but so were Rommel, bin Laden, and Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, none of whom were traitors.
It's not often I am made to feel inadequate.
I must try harder.
Mind you, I have been suspended from this most respected conservative forum a few times, in my 16 years here. Mind you, all of those were for "disrespecting" the Religion of Peace. That was when Dubya was still calling it the R.O.P. I was just about 10 years ahead of the present reality.
As for Obama, it wasn't always thus, but I have been threatened with suspension for stuff infinitely milder than what is being posted about Omugabe now. Am I smarter or wiser? Not at all. I just tend to see and stay on the politically incorrect bleeding edge of obvious world threats.
Since I am permanently resolved that respect is earned, and never can be demanded, I intend to stay there.
I resemble that remark!
You mean people don’t take kindly to some marxist baboon trampling on their rights?
I have NEVER posted anything but derogatory things about the fraud.
They can bite me.
“I have been threatened with suspension for stuff infinitely milder than what is being posted about Omugabe now”
Too bad for you, freepers with classy names are held to higher standards.
Obamamamagumby! Now that’s gonna short-dick *every* *cannibal* in the *Congo*.
See, you need a honky tonk name to re-mojosize yo bad sef.
Why not change it to, say, The Juice Loosener, or MoFo?
Dang, Web must be her daddy...
And I mean all that in the nicest possible way.
You reap what you sow and odumbo has done a really bad job of sowing good seeds.
Why be civil, the democrats sure are not civil. Give them what they deserve. Extreme scorn.
Clown Prince deserves no civility for the crimes he daily commits against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Rule of Law. The Crown Fool only deserves derision, mockery and ridicule. Beyond that he deserves prison and exile.
Calling Obama a communist traitor, coward, closet queen, Moslem worshipping dhimmi, economic illiterate, environmental wacko, “constitutional law professor” (NOT), a King living high on the taxpayer, Mr. Wookie, crackhead, and Obama The Destroyer (of America) are not “uncivil” terms.
They are terms of endearment, and also terms of the TRUTH.
Professor: Put that in your study and shove it.
I’m running for the least PC person in America. Vote for me. I need love (but cash, checks or money orders will also do)!
Were they concerned about the comments online about president Bush?