The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Public Sphere 2.0? The Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online Newspapers
Abstract
Comments in online news could be the contemporary enactment of the eighteenth-century cafés that founded public sphere. This article assesses to what extent do these forms of digital discussion fit in Habermas’ principles for democratic debate, using his discursive ethics as a demanding normative benchmark. The sample of more than 15,000 comments was selected from the online versions of five national newspapers of record from different political and journalistic contexts: The Guardian (United Kingdom), Le Monde (France), The New York Times (United States), El País (Spain), and La Repubblica (Italy). The ethical guidelines and legal frameworks set up by the newspapers as well as their moderation strategies were considered to understand the different settings of the conversations. Two models of audience participation emerge from the analysis, one where communities of debate are formed based on mostly respectful discussions between diverse points of view and another of homogenous communities , in which expressing feelings about current events dominates the contributions and there is less of an argumentative debate.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Interactive Written Discourse as an Emergent Register
FERRARA, K., BRUNNER, H., & WHITTEMORE, G. (1991) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088391008001002 · Cited by 496 · cited 1×
“…the analysis of the discursive ethics of the conversations would be a linguistic analysis of written orality (Pérez-Sabater et al. 2008; Yates 1996) as a discourse register with its own rules (Ferrara et al. 1991), similar to the fruitful comparative analysis of hard news by Thomson et al. (2008).”
Background
Cited by
Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments
Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12104 · Cited by 964
Civility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion
Rowe, I. (2015) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2014.940365 · Cited by 326
Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations' Facebook Sites
Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A. L. (2015) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/jcc4.12104 · Cited by 276
Echo chambers of denial: Explaining user comments on climate change
Walter, S., Brüggemann, M., & Engesser, S. (2018) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1394893 · Cited by 158
“There are however concerns that anonymity, especially in the context of user comments sections, leads to incivility (Coe, Kenski, Rains, 2014; Freelon, 2015) and is affecting the quality of debates (Ksiazek, 2016; Ruiz et al., 2011).”
BackgroundCollective memory and social media: fostering a new historical consciousness in the digital age?
Birkner, T., & Donk, A. (2020) · Memory Studies · doi:10.1177/1750698017750012 · Cited by 112
Metadata
- Authors
- Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K., & Masip, P.
- Venue
- The International Journal of Press/Politics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-09-22
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 463-487
- ISSN
- 1040-1620 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-1612
- 1940-1620
- OpenAlex
- W2160088732
- Cited by
- 372
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 41.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Public Sphere 2.0? The Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online Newspapers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1940161211415849
- The paper
- Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K., & Masip, P. (2011). Public Sphere 2.0? The Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online Newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211415849
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
