The Impact of Sexist Rhetoric on Women's Participation in News Comments Sections
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ii ABSTRACT The introduction of the comments section to online news articles enabled new forms of interaction, allowing readers to participate directly in the conversation. Scholars have hailed the comments sections as digital public spheres of democratic discourse. However, scant research has been done on how sexist rhetoric affects women’s ability to participate in online discourse, despite research indicating that such rhetoric is a problem. This thesis project draws connections between research on the comments sections, uninhibited behavior and flaming, cybersexism, and women’s participation in discourse to look at the impact of sexist rhetoric. I conduct a close reading of comments from BuzzFeed, MSNBC, and Fox News, analyzing the material using feminist and sociological rhetorical criticism. I argue that the presence of sexist rhetoric leads to a reduction in women’s participation in the comments and negative effects on women’s agency within the comments. Findings include consistent patterns of sexist rhetoric on all three sites, and consistent patterns of responses from women, the most predominant of which is silence. If the comments are to meet the ideal of a democratic public sphere, then the role of sexist rhetoric must be understood and mitigated. iii DEDICATION For all the women who make themselves heard, and those we haven’t yet listened to. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to my thesis committee for working with me on asking interesting questions and trusting me to figure out how to find the answers, and to my fellow MARW students for their feedback and camaraderie during the writing process. Finally, I am indebted to my family, as we have weathered and continue to weather life’s stormier moments together. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 1 Background of the Problem ...................................................................................... 4 Rationale & Significance of the Study...................................................................... 14 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................. 14 Theoretical Framework............................................................................................. 16 Research Questions................................................................................................... 17 Definition of Terms................................................................................................... 17 Ethical Considerations .............................................................................................. 20 Delimitations............................................................................................................. 21 Limitations ................................................................................................................ 21 Researcher Bias......................................................................................................... 23 CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 24 Comments Sections................................................................................................... 26 Uninhibited Behavior and Flaming........................................................................... 32 Cybersexism: Sexism Online.................................................................................... 39 Women’s Participation in Discourse ........................................................................ 46 Summary................................................................................................................... 51 CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 52 Overview of Methodology........................................................................................ 52 Basis for Methods Used............................................................................................ 54 Commentators........................................................................................................... 57 vi Websites Studied....................................................................................................... 57 Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 60 Data Analysis............................................................................................................ 62 Summary................................................................................................................... 64 CHAPTER IV. RESULTS................................................................................................... 66 Instrument Validity and Reliability .......................................................................... 66 Websites.................................................................................................................... 67 Sexist Rhetoric.......................................................................................................... 72 Women’s Responses to Sexist Rhetoric ................................................................... 94 Summary................................................................................................................... 110 CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 112 Websites.................................................................................................................... 113 Sexist Rhetoric.......................................................................................................... 114 Women’s Responses to Sexist Rhetoric ................................................................... 119 Limitations ................................................................................................................ 123 Recommendations for Future Research.................................................................... 125 Conclusions............................................................................................................... 126 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 130 APPENDIX A. Total Comments on Selected Websites and Articles ................................. 134 APPENDIX B. Comments Sections for Buzzfeed, Fox News, and MSNBC..................... 137 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Breakdown of Comments Drawn From BuzzFeed, Fox News, and MSNBC.......... 67 1 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION The introduction of news media to online spaces drastically changed the ways journalists and readers interact. Traditional print and broadcast media offer limited points of connection for audiences to respond to and communicate with publishers, writers, and one another: few letters to the editor make their way past the screening process to print, for example, and are often selected in alignment with the biases of the paper or the editorial group (McCluskey and Hmielowski 2011). Creating comments sections online for feedback on news articles altered the discursive landscape, allowing readers to offer instantaneous responses not only to the article, but also to each other (Weber 2013, Ruiz et al 2011). Although newspapers moderate their online comments, moderation often affects only the types of comments deemed most noxious (such as those that contain overt threats, hate speech, or spam), and participation in online comments sections provides fewer and weaker barriers to engagement than writing and mailing a physical letter to the editor (Diakopoulos and Naaman 2011). The proliferation of comments sections has meant that the role of historical gatekeepers, such as editors, has been reduced; discourse communities can now form in the comments sections themselves, and participants can develop their own methods of encouraging and limiting certain forms of participation. During the past decade and a half, academic attention to comments sections has been focused largely on how such spaces expand the discourse available to consumers of news media. Comments sections are often framed as hallmarks of democratic debate, in line with Habermas’ theory of the public sphere (Ruiz et al 2011, McCluskey and Hmielowski 2011). Enabling individuals to comment on news articles online is described as a leveling of the playing field that enhances the democratic nature of online discussion. McCluskey and Hmielowski (2011) discussed anonymity in comments sections as a way for marginalized writers, such as women 2 and other minority groups, to make themselves heard in ways they might not be comfortable with in traditional print media. Comments sections are thus seen as online discourse communities forming in response to news articles, which provide a space for new perspectives to be aired. In addition to assessing the comments sections, scholarly attention has long been turned towards conflict in online spaces. Despite this attention, studies on conflict online, including those that look at rudeness, hostility, flaming, and other negative forms of interaction, rarely focus on how the rhetorical environment of the comments silences certain forms of discourse or certain speakers. Flaming, for example, is often positioned as a minor problem in online communities—expected, perhaps at times unpleasant, but ultimately insignificant