HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE: OPINIONS, EMOTIONS, AND 

THE USES OF ONLINE CONVERSATION 

 
By 
 

Kris Richard Windorski 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

A DISSERTATION 

Submitted to 

Michigan State University 

in partial fulfillment of the requirements 

for the degree of 

Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education – Doctor of Philosophy 

 

 
 
 

 

 

2020 

 

ABSTRACT 

HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE: OPINIONS, EMOTIONS, AND 

THE USES OF ONLINE CONVERSATION  

 

By 

Kris Richard Windorski 

Public sentiment is crucial to the overall wellbeing of higher education.  Recent polls point to a 

growing divide between the public and academia, as well as waning confidence in the necessity 

of higher education.  And yet, polls tell us relatively little about how the various publics think 

and feel about our nation’s colleges and universities.  People’s actual unfiltered thoughts, words, 

and conversations tell us more.  With the advent of the internet and the ease at which people can 

in an instant transmit, view, and infect opinions worldwide, we now have an unprecedented 

ability via the digital public sphere to investigate and understand people’s emotionally charged 

opinions.  The number one reason people post online news comments is to express an opinion or 

an emotion, and yet researchers have largely ignored this rich online data source.  While not a 

mainstream form of dialogue, online comments represent a backchannel into the conversations of 

digital publics.  The purpose of my dissertation was to investigate online news comments to learn 

what they might tell us about the conversations people are having and what they think about 

higher education.  Utilizing a multiple methods approach, I analyzed comments made in 

response to four news articles pertaining to higher education from The New York Times and The 

Wall Street Journal.  My findings revealed commenters utilizing the online comments to engage 

in conversation by asking a multitude of questions, providing evidence to support their claims, 

and at times, replying to one another.  Through these online conversations I distilled opinion 

themes pertaining to higher education, as well as the overall emotional tone of each forum.  

Implications for higher education include recognizing online news comments as a mechanism to 

 

 

listen to the concerns and deliberations of the people within its publics, as well as an opportunity 

to engage with them. 

 

 

Copyright by 
KRIS RICHARD WINDORSKI 
2020

 

 

 

I dedicate my dissertation to my parents, Melvin and Maryanne (Yenter) Windorski, and to 

Hanna.

v 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Thank you to my dissertation committee members, Drs. Steven Weiland, Marilyn Amey, 

Patricia Marin, and Rand Spiro.  You all supported me through a process that included two 

successfully defended dissertation proposals, a change of topic in between, and eventually a 

successful dissertation defense.  A special thanks to Dr. Spiro.  You periodically checking in on 

me, as well as your unwavering positive encouragement made a critical difference in my ability 

to complete my program.   

I am grateful for the opportunity to have worked for Drs. Lynn Paine and Inge Steglitz.  I 

learned a great deal from you both and your advice and encouragement were an invaluable part 

of my time at MSU.   

While at MSU, I had the opportunity to work with some great staff.  A special thanks to 

Karla Bellingar.  You were one of the first people I had the privilege to work with.  You have 

become a great friend and constant source of support.           

During my doctoral program I developed some of the most profound friendships in my 

life.  My friendships span the globe and have been a crucial support network.  You know who 

you are and I thank you all.   

I can never thank my parents enough for the help and support they have provided me over 

the years.  My visits home to Wisconsin and simply hearing your voices on the phone helped 

recharge my soul as I continued to push through my program.  Thank you both for being 

incredible people and incredible parents.     

 

vi 

 

Last, but certainly not least, Hanna.  Meeting you was by far the best part of my doctoral 

program.  You know me better than anyone and you have been there for me in good times and in 

bad.  Thank you for your unwavering support and for being in my life. 

 

vii 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 
 
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xi 
 
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii 
 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 
The Problem .................................................................................................................................... 3 
Significance..................................................................................................................................... 7 
Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 14 
A Primer on Terminology ............................................................................................................. 15 
Conversation ............................................................................................................................. 15 
Public Opinion .......................................................................................................................... 19 
Organization of My Dissertation .................................................................................................. 23 
 
CHAPTER 2: MY RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE ........................................................................ 26 
 
CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 37 
A New Public Sphere? .................................................................................................................. 39 
Public Opinion .............................................................................................................................. 49 
Emotion ......................................................................................................................................... 64 
Influence ....................................................................................................................................... 83 
Online News Comments ............................................................................................................... 94 
A New Public Sphere? .............................................................................................................. 94 
Public Opinion ........................................................................................................................ 106 
Emotions ................................................................................................................................. 111 
Influence ................................................................................................................................. 115 

 
CHAPTER 4: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................ 117 
 
CHAPTER 5: METHODS .......................................................................................................... 122 
Overview of Case Selection and Data ........................................................................................ 122 
Rationale for Multi-Methods Approach...................................................................................... 124 
R1: Methods ............................................................................................................................ 124 
R2: Methods ............................................................................................................................ 126 
R3: Methods ............................................................................................................................ 129 
Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 133 
 
CHAPTER 6: THE EVOLUTION OF A DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE: THE CASE OF THE 
NY TIMES ONLINE COMMENTS .......................................................................................... 136 
 
CHAPTER 7: CASES AND FINDINGS ................................................................................... 159 
Case 1: Technological Transformation ....................................................................................... 160 
Article Summary ......................................................................................................................... 160 

 

viii 

 

Findings....................................................................................................................................... 161 
R1: (Public Sphere) ................................................................................................................. 162 
R2: (Public Opinion) ............................................................................................................... 164 
Higher education is not simply job training! ...................................................................... 165 
Public Disinvestment .......................................................................................................... 165 
Greedy Higher Education ................................................................................................... 166 
The True Higher Education Experience ............................................................................. 167 
Online is inferior ................................................................................................................. 168 
There is a place for online education .................................................................................. 169 
MOOCs: Failure, Nothing Special, or Potential? ............................................................... 170 
Challenging the opinions of others ..................................................................................... 172 
R3: (Emotion) ......................................................................................................................... 176 
Case 2: International Students .................................................................................................... 178 
Article Summary ......................................................................................................................... 178 
Findings....................................................................................................................................... 179 
R1: (Public Sphere) ................................................................................................................. 180 
R2: (Public Opinion) ............................................................................................................... 183 
Welcome to the U.S.! .......................................................................................................... 184 
America First! ..................................................................................................................... 185 
Chinese are rich, a distraction, and are cheaters ................................................................. 186 
Why are we teaching our enemy? ....................................................................................... 188 
U.S. students are lazy .......................................................................................................... 190 
It’s all about the Benjamins ................................................................................................ 191 
Challenging the opinions of others ..................................................................................... 193 
R3: (Emotion) ......................................................................................................................... 194 
Case 3: Free College ................................................................................................................... 196 
Article Summaries ...................................................................................................................... 196 
Findings....................................................................................................................................... 198 
R1: (Public Sphere) ................................................................................................................. 199 
Ansari’s article in The Wall Street Journal......................................................................... 199 
Romero and Goldstein’s article in The New York Times .................................................... 201 
R2: (Public Opinion) ............................................................................................................... 203 
Hell yes to free college! ...................................................................................................... 204 
Yes, but not funded via fossil fuels ..................................................................................... 205 
No such thing as free........................................................................................................... 206 
Higher Education’s Unnecessary and Irresponsible Expenses ........................................... 207 
Useful and Useless Degrees ................................................................................................ 208 
Fix K-12 first! ..................................................................................................................... 209 
Challenging the opinions of others ..................................................................................... 211 
R3: (Emotion) ......................................................................................................................... 213 

 
CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION, SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH, AND 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 216 
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 216 
Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 217 
Public Sphere .......................................................................................................................... 218 

 

ix 

 

Public Opinion ........................................................................................................................ 227 
Emotion ................................................................................................................................... 234 
Suggestions for Future Research ................................................................................................ 238 
Public Sphere .......................................................................................................................... 239 
Public Opinion ........................................................................................................................ 240 
Emotion ................................................................................................................................... 242 
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 243 
 
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 245 
 
 

 

x 

 

LIST OF TABLES 

 
 
Table 1. Case 1 descriptive statistics. ......................................................................................... 161 
 
Table 2. Case 2 descriptive statistics. ......................................................................................... 180 
 
Table 3. Case 3 (Ansari – WSJ) descriptive statistics. ............................................................... 198 
 
Table 4. Case 3 (Romero & Goldstein – NYT) descriptive statistics. ........................................ 198 
 
Table 5. Deliberation indexes – All cases. .................................................................................. 220 
 
Table 6. Opinion themes – All cases. ......................................................................................... 229 
 

 

xi 

 

LIST OF FIGURES 

 
 
Figure 1. Conceptual framework. ............................................................................................... 117 
 
Figure 2. Case 1 distribution of LIWC emotional tone scores. .................................................. 177 
 
Figure 3. Case 2 distribution of LIWC emotional tone scores. .................................................. 195 
 
Figure 4. Case 3 (Ansari – WSJ) distribution of LIWC emotional tone scores. ........................ 215 
 
Figure 5. Case 3 (Romero & Goldstein – NYT) distribution of LIWC emotional tone scores. . 215 
 
Figure 6. Distribution of LIWC emotional tone scores – All cases. .......................................... 235 
 

 

xii 

 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

Father of Public Relations Edward Bernays (1928b) believed “an educator should, in 

addition to his academic duties, bear a definite and wholesome relation to the general public” (p. 

122).  Bernays was critical of educators’ ability, or lack thereof, to connect with and influence 

people outside academia.  He described the significance of the relationship between the public to 

the educator as follows: 

This public does not come within the immediate scope of his academic duties. But in a 
sense he depends upon it for his living, for the moral support, and the general 
cultural tone upon which his work must be based [emphasis added]. (Bernays, 1928b, 
p. 122) 

 
Today, with polls pointing to a growing divide between the public and academia, higher 

education’s relationship with the public appears strained (Fishman, Ekowo, & Ezeugo, 2017; 

Jaschik & Lederman, 2017; Schleifer & Silliman, 2016).  And while polls have become 

synonymous with public opinion (Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, & Shapiro, 2015; Goidel, 

2011; Herbst, 2011a), they are not the only means to assess public sentiment, nor are they 

inherently the best way.     

 

Bernays (1945) claimed, “The voice of the people which pollsters say is expressed in 

attitude polls, is rarely the unchangeable voice of the people” (p. 267).  He went on to describe 

public opinion as follows: 

Public opinion is like an iceberg. The visible portion is the expressed attitudes, but the 
submerged portion of public opinion is sometimes potentially the more powerful. 
(Bernays, 1945, p. 267) 

 
More recently, public opinion scholars Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, and Shapiro (2015) 

assert “to focus on survey results alone is to miss most of the story” (p. 4).  Even Goidel, co-

editor of the Survey Practice journal published by the American Association for Public Opinion 

Research, questions the appropriateness of polling in today’s environment.  He argues that “in a 

1 

 

digital age, aggregating privately held individual opinions may be insufficient to the task of 

capturing an increasingly dynamic and interactive public” (Goidel, 2011, p. 12).   

Many of the shortcomings of opinion polls stem from the concept that public opinion is 

conversational in nature.  For example, Habermas (1996) believes public opinion to be much 

richer than survey results, something derived via dialogue within the public sphere.  The process 

of public opinion formation is social in nature (Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, & Shapiro, 

2015; Habermas, 1996; Herbst, 2011b).  Herbst (2011b) insists “that textured talk, dialogue, 

exchange, and conversation—not numbers—are the content of public opinion” (p. 95).  And 

while it might be tempting to focus on mainstream conversations, Herbst (1996) warns us not to 

ignore communications that occur “on the margins of the public sphere” (p. 120).  She believes 

such mechanisms for public expression “can create communication back channels” (p. 124), 

which “enable common citizens to voice opinions that might not ordinarily be heard” (p. 125).  

And while the effects of such backchannels often do not work quickly, in time they can affect the 

highest aspects of society (Herbst, 1996).  In today’s hyper-connected digital world, the 

possibilities for backchannels are greater than ever before. As Herbst (1996) points out, “the 

Internet certainly provides multiple opportunities for behind-the-scenes public debate” (p 130-

131).    

The purpose of my dissertation was to investigate one such digital backchannel for 

conversation—online news comments—to learn what they might tell us about the conversations 

people are having and what they think about higher education.  “Dip into the comments”, says 

New York Times columnist Michael Erard (2013), “and you can sense the currents that move 

American life” (para. 1). Dip into the comments is exactly what I did.  Utilizing the comments 

made in response to four articles pertaining to Higher Education, two from The New York Times 

2 

 

and another two from The Wall Street Journal, I explored whether or not public sphere like 

characteristics manifested within the digital forums, the emotions conveyed via comments, as 

well as the public opinion themes that unfolded within.  My results show deliberation did occur 

within the comments, and that they represent a place where commenters express emotions.  My 

results also show that the themes that unfold within the online conversations provide valuable 

insight into the textured talk that is the makings of public opinion as it pertains to higher 

education.     

In the following sections I first describe the problem that is the impetus of my research.  I 

then explain the significance of the study followed by my research questions.  Next, I provide a 

primer on terminology.  Within the primer I briefly explain my use of terms conversation and 

public opinion within my study, as my way of employing the terms likely differs from how 

people commonly understand them.  I end the chapter with an overview of how the rest of my 

dissertation is organized. 

The Problem  

Higher education has a problematic relationship with its publics.  This is a problem 

because colleges and universities depend upon their publics for their existence.  Whether in the 

form of public support via tax dollars, government backed financial aid, tax breaks, federal 

research grants, the local, state, and federal policy environments in which they operate, or the 

very students that fill its classrooms; higher education is reliant on its publics.  Even private 

institutions receive significant support from the public (Vedder, 2018).  I am not stating anything 

new here.  After all, Bernays (1928b) recognized this dependency nearly a century ago when he 

claimed, “Education is not securing its proper share of public interest” (p. 121) and urged 

educators to improve their relationship with their publics.  Several decades later, then Assistant 

3 

 

Secretary for Research and Improvement and Counselor to the Secretary at the U.S. Department 

of Education, Chester E. Finn Jr. made a similar plea to higher education leaders.  He offered the 

following description of higher education and how it perceives its relationship to the public: 

The denizens of and spokesmen for higher education, however, appear to have convinced 
themselves that in virtue of the self-evident value that their enterprise holds for the entire 
society, the public has an obligation to keep the academy both solvent and sovereign. I 
have never actually heard the reasoning set forth as brazenly as this, but here is how it 
seems to proceed: practically everything that colleges and universities do is intrinsically 
worthwhile and inherently beneficial; the procedures by which these things are done, the 
norms to which they are held and the standards by which they are evaluated are matters 
that only members of the academy possess the competence and authority to determine; 
hence funds should flow in from a variety of governmental and private sources without 
regard to the quality or quantity of what flows out, and those supplying the resources 
should exercise very little control over what is done with them; ordinary notions of 
productivity and accountability simply do not apply to the creation and transmission of 
knowledge or to the activities of those who claim to be engaged in that creation and 
transmission. (Finn, 1984, p. 51) 

 
Finn is not alone in his criticism of higher education’s apparent self-righteousness.  Smith (2010) 

arrived at a similar conclusion, as he makes clear in his following assessment:    

But when academics who are not administrators confront fiscal adversity, they generally 
blame it on administrators, legislators, and others who, they claim, have no understanding 
of the “true” value of higher education as embodied in the academic ideology. They tend 
to attack economic reasoning (even the most obvious kinds, such as “There isn’t enough 
money to pay for ...”) as a sellout. They generally do not, nor are they asked to, defend 
their position. They are simply ignored. Few of them, in my experience, are willing to 
take the trouble to go beyond the accusation stage. The implication is essentially that the 
position on their side is self-evident, and if the people on the other side can’t see it, they 
aren’t worth responding to. This is not a very effective strategy. (Smith, 2010, p. 35) 

 
Smith (2010) argues, “A significant factor in the crisis of public higher education is the 

continuing tendency of university faculty to explain their functions in terms of the academic 

ideology” (p. 164).  He believes it is an ideology that non-academics no longer find as 

convincing as they once did (Smith, 2010). 

 

Even though they are critical of higher education’s relationship with its publics, Finn and 

Smith are also firm believers in the tremendous value colleges and universities bring to society.  

4 

 

For example, Finn (1984) argued that his scathing critique of higher education was “not to 

detract from its glories or to diminish its accomplishments, much less to suggest that it should be 

put out of its misery” (p. 51).  Instead, the purpose of his criticism was to urge higher education 

leadership to realize their institutions’ place in society is not self-evident and that the public can 

and likely will turn on them.  Regarding his opinion and call for action Finn (1988) lamented, 

“So long as the appellate court is held in the faculty club or around the conference table at One 

Dupont Circle, I will always be overruled” (p. 39).  And yet, he warned “the ultimate tribunal is 

the court of public opinion” (Finn, 1988, p. 39).   

 

Fast forward to recent years and we find the ultimate tribunal judging higher education 

unfavorably.  For example, a recent poll found the public’s confidence in the necessity of higher 

education to be waning (Schleifer & Silliman, 2016).  Another poll found a majority of 

university and college presidents believing the last U.S. Presidential election “exposed a 

disconnect between academe and much of American society” and that “anti-intellectual 

sentiment is growing in the U.S.” (Jaschik & Lederman, 2017, p. 7).  College presidents are 

aware of decreasing public support, but most see public opinion as “being influenced by false, or 

exaggerated, impressions” (Jaschik & Lederman, 2018, p. 23).  According to a New America 

survey on higher education, “Only one in four Americans agree that our higher education system 

is fine just the way it is” (Fishman, Ekowo, & Ezeugo, 2017, p. 11).  A poll by Third Way found 

that out of 1,389 likely 2020 voters, “only 58% think colleges are doing a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ 

job at providing students a return on their investment” (Hiler & Erickson, 2019).  Meanwhile, a 

2019 Gallup poll found “About half of U.S. adults (51%) now consider a college education to be 

‘very important,’ down from 70% in 2013” (Marken, 2019).   This sizable drop in Americans’ 

view of higher education prompted president emeritus of Missouri State University Michael T. 

5 

 

Nietzel (2019) to argue that the results should “send shivers through higher education leaders 

who have been struggling with several negative stories about fairness, costs, and overall state of 

higher education during the past year.”  Indeed, just a few years earlier a group of higher 

education leaders from across the nation convened at the University of Michigan “driven by a 

deep concern that the academy is facing a crisis of relevance” (Hoffman et al., 2015, p. 1) due to 

its inability to effectively connect with its publics.  

 

If you are not a fan of polls, perhaps looking to trends in public funding of higher 

education will serve as a more convincing barometer of public perception.  According to Webber 

(2018), “There has been a gradual decline in public financial support of higher education over 

the past 30 years” (p. 56).  Even more recently we find between the 2007/08 and 2017/18 

academic years, thirty-nine states experienced an overall decrease in state and local funding per 

FTE (College Board, 2019).  Wisconsin and Michigan, my former and current home states, saw a 

-20% and a -12% change in state and local support per student (College Board, 2019).  Granted, 

decisions on state and federal funding are made by politicians.  But those politicians are elected 

by citizens and are in government to serve as proxies for their respective constituents, at least in 

theory.     

 

Unfavorable polls and declines in public funding are but two of a variety of indicators 

that point to a problem in higher education’s relationship with its publics.  We could of course 

look at other ones, such as college accountability efforts and threats to tenure, to name just a 

couple more.  And, we have not even begun to address more localized indicators specific to a 

given college or university, such as widespread protests against a university’s handling of 

horrific sexual abuse within its confines.  One does not have to look hard to see higher education 

has a problem when it comes to its relationship with its publics.  It is a problem that has 

6 

 

President of Yale University, Peter Salovey (2018) proclaiming, “Leaders in higher education, 

including myself, must work to regain the public’s trust.”  He asserts, “This begins with empathy 

- listening to people’s concerns and trying to understand them.”  My dissertation utilizes a novel 

approach to listening to people.  By utilizing readily available online news comments within the 

digital public sphere, I sought to better understand public sentiment towards higher education.   

Significance  

 

My research is significant in that it investigates the topic of higher education in the public 

sphere.  The public sphere is “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public 

opinion can be formed” (Habermas, 2006, p. 73) in which all citizens can access.  Whenever 

people join in unrestricted conversation on matters of general interest a part of the public sphere 

is realized (Habermas, 2006).  Higher education has an important role to play within this 

communal domain.  However, it is a role that some believe it has neglected.  For example, Price 

(2002) claims, “the academy has seemingly relinquished so many opportunities to engage” with 

the public.  And yet, he believes “scholars remain better positioned than almost any other class of 

leaders to bring informed guidance to social settings and issues.”  He argues, “this is a moment 

deserving of a bold and imaginative engagement with the public.”  Price is not alone in his 

beliefs.  Smith, Nichols, Legg, and Lupia all find higher education guilty of neglecting its 

publics.  For example, Smith (2003; 2010) links the deteriorating condition of the public sphere 

to declining public support for higher education, as well as many other problems facing colleges 

and universities.  He urges universities to reclaim their critical role in fostering and sustaining 

robust public conversations.  Meanwhile, Nichols (2017) sees higher education’s absence from 

the public sphere as a dereliction of one of its most essential responsibilities asserting, “many 

experts, and particularly those in the academy, have abandoned their duty to engage with the 

7 

 

public” (p. 5).  In a similar vein, Legg (2018) accuses academics of embracing “institutional 

isolation extremely uncritically” (p. 55).  She asserts, “we have created an environment where 

we never have to genuinely engage with the many ordinary people who, it would appear, have 

been developing genuine (‘living’) doubts on a number of the beliefs that we have been taking 

for granted (liberalism being one key example, the value of a University education being 

another)” (p. 55).  Higher education’s absence from the public sphere has Lupia deeply 

concerned.  He warns that if colleges and universities “want to be relevant in the public sphere, 

we have to step up our game, because we lost the monopoly on communication” (as quoted in 

Hoffman et al., 2015, p. 38).  Lupia went on to assert, “If we do not, we will be absent in public 

and political discourse, which could lead to greater restrictions in public support of universities 

to create, test, and disseminate knowledge” (p. 38).  My study is significant because it 

investigates an overlooked digital incarnation of the public sphere—that is, online news 

comments—where publics are having conversations about higher education.           

According to Smith (2010), “the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and their 

staffs, the Atlantic and Harper’s, the Nation and the National Review, the Brookings Institution, 

the news and information programs of the Public Broadcasting System, Harvard University—all 

of these are clearly examples of central, prestigious elements of legitimate public discourse in the 

United States and thus fixtures of the core public sphere” (p. 12).  My study focuses on the first 

two—The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal—and the online conversations that occur 

within their online comment forums.  Both forums remain largely unexplored systematically 

from the perspective of what can be learned about public sentiment pertaining to higher 

education.  While there are reports of news organizations eliminating online commenting from 

their websites, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal see them as assets and have 

8 

 

made concerted efforts in recent years to enhance their online conversations (Etim, 2017, Story, 

2019). 

 

Adding to the significance of my study is my detailed investigation of the evolution of 

online commenting at The New York Times.  Comments have what Reagle (2015) describes as a 

“tarnished reputation as something best avoided” (p. 2).  In chapter 6 I show how the opposite is 

true of online commenting at The Times.  As one of the most historic and prestigious news 

organizations in the world, The Times has made online commenting an integral component of its 

institutional strategy.  Quite a few of its staff participate within the online conversations that 

accompany their articles.  For example, in an article by Carl Zimmer, Knvul Sheikh, and Noah 

Weiland (2020) titled “A New Entry in the Race for a Coronavirus Vaccine: Hope”, Zimmer 

took time to listen and reply to several commenters.  Two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist 

Nicholas Kristof and Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman are just two more examples 

of contributors at The Times who quite often participate in the online conversations 

accompanying their articles (Harris & Tarchak, 2019).  Rather than something to be avoided, my 

exploration of commenting at The Times shows commenting as a form of dialogue to be valued, 

cultivated and learned from.   

 

Even though commenting at The Times is an exemplar in the news world, and the WSJ 

has made similar strides to elevate its online conversations, online comments are far from being a 

mainstream form of communication.  As Louise Story (2019), Chief News Strategist at the WSJ 

admits, “there are also lots of people who subscribe to the Journal and never, ever take a peek at 

our comments sections.”  Nonetheless, being a non-mainstream form of communication does not 

diminish the significance of investigating such forums.  Instead, it may very well make them an 

even more important form of dialogue to study.  For example, former President of the University 

9 

 

of Connecticut and public opinion scholar Susan Herbst (1996) argues in addition to mainstream 

communications (e.g., mass media), it is necessary for scholars interested in public expression to 

focus on communications that occur “on the margins of the public sphere as well” (p. 120).  Her 

rationale as to the significance of communications on the margins is as follows:  

By focusing on the margin-on those who stand outside the conventional public sphere-we 
can begin to understand the biases of mainstream media and institutions. More important, 
though, we begin to get a sense of how innovative public expression can be when it is not 
forced into the narrow format of opinion polling or focus group testing. (Herbst, 1996, p. 
122)  

 
Herbst (1996) offered talk radio as a meaningful form of public expression at the margin of the 

public sphere, which academics long ignored.  Among the arguments she deemed unpersuasive 

as to why scholars were not giving talk radio its due attention where that “talk is not action (that 

is, voting), that the discourse is inane, and that the people who call in are not representative of 

the population” (Herbst, 1996, p. 122).  Contrary to fellow scholars who choose to ignore non-

mainstream communications, Herbst (1996) believes such mechanisms for public expression 

“can create communication back channels” (p. 124), which “enable common citizens to voice 

opinions that might not ordinarily be heard” (p. 125).  She admits the effects of such 

backchannels often do not work quickly, but in time can affect the highest aspects of society (see 

Herbst, 1996 for several examples).  In 1996, Herbst predicted talk radio would eventually 

become part of mainstream as more people—in particular the popular press and elected 

officials—took notice, and that new back channels would emerge.  She claimed over twenty 

years ago, “What those back channels will look like is unclear, but the Internet certainly provides 

multiple opportunities for behind-the-scenes public debate” (Herbst, 1996, p. 130-131).  Today, 

online news comment forums are at the margins of the public sphere and offer one such possible 

10 

 

back channel the internet makes possible.  My research is significant because it explores online 

comments as a place for common citizens to voice opinions that might not ordinarily be heard.   

 

Communications scholar Joseph Reagle (2015) says he continues “to be intrigued by 

what is happening in the margins—the seemingly modest comment” (p. 1).  He asserts, “There is 

little novelty in the form of comment itself, but its contemporary ubiquity makes it worthy of 

careful consideration, especially given online comment’s tarnished reputation as something best 

avoided” (Reagle, 2015, p. 2).  Online conversations are right at our fingertips, and yet this near 

ubiquitous form of online discourse has largely gone uninvestigated (Henrich & Holmes, 2013; 

Li, Mueen, Faloutsos, & Hang, 2016; McDermott, 2016; Reagle, 2015; Santana, 2011; Taylor, 

Al-Hiyari, Lee, Priebe, Guerrero, & Bales, 2016; Trice, 2011).  Within the online world the 

common advice is don’t read the comments (Chen, 2017; Dash, 2016; Reagle, 2015; Shahanan, 

2018).  Researchers and higher education leaders, for the most part, appear to have uncritically 

accepted this common mantra.  This lack of attention is concerning.  As I indicated in my 

problem statement, higher education has a problematic relationship with its publics.  Colleges, 

universities, and scholars alike have a readily available means to listen to public discussions to 

gain a better understanding of their publics yet have not given online comments their due 

attention.     

 

Making the lack of attention to online comments even more concerning is the virus like 

nature of digital communications.  As Pinker (2008) asserts, “Language is not just a window into 

human nature but a fistula: an open wound through which our innards are exposed to an 

infectious world” (p. 426).  He argues the internet “not only provides a gigantic corpus of real 

language used by real people, but also acts as a superefficient vector for the transmission of 

infectious ideas” (Pinker, 2008, p. 20).  Bohm (2004) made a similar argument as he depicted 

11 

 

what he saw as a “disease in thought” (p. 58) occurring collectively, which accelerates along 

with technology.  Consider conversations in the pre-internet age, perhaps around the watercooler, 

the local tavern, or at the dinner table.  Those conversations were relatively isolated compared to 

their digital counterparts today.  If by some slim chance you had a highly visible speaking 

platform or managed to get through the traditional news gatekeepers and were able to publish a 

letter to the editor you might be speaking to a larger group, but typically your audience was quite 

small.  The sentiment expressed, while still held in the hearts and minds of those who conveyed 

it would for the most part be invisible to the rest of us.  Through conversation it might influence 

or infect others’ thoughts and feelings about the topic, but would remain hidden to those not part 

of the conversation.  At least until it reaches a precipice of such magnitude even the most 

oblivious observer notices.  Today, however, we live in a digitally connected world where people 

can convey and spread facts, opinions, beliefs, ideas, lies, and emotions around the world in a 

split second.  Amplifying the spread is the unprecedented ability for people to connect with 

others who think and feel the same way throughout the world.  Whereas in the past the spread of 

sentiment was a rather slow and hidden process, today, thanks to the internet, it can spread like 

an infectious disease with potentially toxic effects on public discourse and decision making and 

the process is much more visible.  Well over one hundred years ago acclaimed sociologist and 

psychologist Gabriel Tarde (Tarde & Clark, 2010) petitioned scholars to pay much closer 

attention to conversations.  It seems only prudent for us to pay attention to conversations that 

come in the form of online news comments and are only a computer screen away.  My study is 

significant because it pulls back the curtain on this often overlooked—if not ignored—form of 

communication to see what it can reveal regarding online conversations about higher education 

topics.   

12 

 

 

My research pulls back the curtain not only by exploring online news comments as a 

digital manifestation of the public sphere, but also by exploring the opinions and emotions 

people reveal within the online forums.  As it turns out, the number one reason people post 

online news comments is to express an opinion or an emotion (Stroud, Van Duyn, Alizor, 

Alibhai, & Lang, 2017; Stroud, Van Duyn, & Peacock, 2016).  And while opinion and emotion 

might seem like two separate and different things, my literature review shows they are 

interwoven to such a great extent that studying one without the other makes little sense.  In fact, 

scholars are increasingly recognizing the importance of emotions in opinion research (Glynn, 

Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, & Shapiro, 2015).  The traditional view of emotion is one of it 

being in opposition to reason (Barrett, 2017; Cavanagh, 2016; Damasio, 1994; Frijda, 2008; 

Haidt, 2013; Isen, 2008; Kahneman, 2011; Marcus, 2002; Prinz, 2012; Salovey, Detweiler-

Bedell, Detweiler-Bedell, & Mayer, 2008; Solomon, 2008; Westen, 2008).  From a 

philosophical, political, neurological, and psychological perspective the traditional view of 

emotion being in opposition to reason is on shaky ground.  A growing number of scholars and 

body of literature from multiple disciplines are beginning to recognize what Hume (1958) 

proclaimed long ago: “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never 

pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them” (Hume, 1958, p. 313).  Bernays appears 

to have been keenly aware of the integral relationship between emotions and opinions in his 

following assertion:   

Here the specialist in swaying public opinion avails himself of the, findings of 
introspective psychology. He knows in general the basic emotions and desires of the 
public he intends to reach, and their prevalence and intensity. Analysis is the first 
step in dealing with a problem that concerns the public [emphasis added]. (Bernays, 
1928a, p. 961) 

     

13 

 

If we are to proactively and effectively shape opinions about higher education, we not only need 

to know the opinions people have, we also need to have some sense of the emotions such 

opinions and conversations invoke.  My research is significant because it takes into account the 

emotional tone of the online comments in which people are conversing and expressing opinions.   

Research Questions 

 

In my research I investigated online news comments to learn what they might tell us 

about the conversations people are having and what they think about higher education.  In 

Chapter 4 I explain in detail the conceptual framework for my study.  I base it off an extensive 

body of literature and as such have placed the chapter after my literature review.  For now, I 

offer a preview of my framework so you can see how it connects to my research questions.   

 

My conceptual framework for my study consisted of the following components: public 

sphere, public opinion, emotion, influence, and online comments. The logic behind my 

framework for my dissertation begins with the public sphere.  The public sphere being “a realm 

of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed” (Habermas, 

2006, p. 73).  For my research I took the perspective that public opinion is something richer than 

common poll results.  Instead, conversation within the public sphere is at the root of public 

opinion.  Emotion is a part of my framework because emotion is an integral part of opinion.  My 

following research questions address the first three parts of my framework:    

 

-  R1: (Public Sphere) To what extent do people appear to engage in conversation with one 

another in online news comment forums? 

-  R2: (Public Opinion) What opinions do people express about higher education in online 

news comment forums and what do such opinions reveal about public views of higher 

education that are not apparent via traditional opinion polling? 

14 

 

-  R3: (Emotion) What emotions do people convey via online news comments? 

The influence component of my framework was not under investigation per se within my study.  

However, it gets at the importance of my research and implications for higher education, which I 

weave into my discussion in Chapter 8.   

A Primer on Terminology 

 

Conversation and public opinion are terms most people are familiar with.  However, my 

use of them within my dissertation likely differs from how many people traditionally understand 

these words.  In the following sections I briefly explain how I use each term within the context of 

my research, as well as why.       

Conversation  

Throughout my writing I refer to online comments as a “conversation.”  I realize my use 

of the word might seem misplaced given online comments tarnished reputation.  However, I use 

the term for several reasons.  First, media scholars, such as Alejandro (2010), Batsell (2015), 

Chen (2017), Chen and Pain (2016), Henrich and Holmes (2013), Ksiazek (2015, 2016), Loke 

(2013), Santana (2016), Shanahan (2018), Stroud, Van Duyn, Alizor, Alibhai, and Lang (2017), 

Stroud, Van Duyn, and Peacock (2016), and Wolfgang (2016, 2019), use the term conversation 

when referring to online comments.  According to Shanahan (2018), “Information posted by 

audience members in comment forums can be considered the digital iteration of conversation” 

(p. 19).  “The back and forth among commenters creates a conversation in which ideas are 

debated and negotiated” (p. 2), claim Henrich and Holmes (2013).  It appears scholars who deem 

online comments to be conversation recognize what Giese did early on.  That is, “by and large 

people engaged in computer-mediated communication tend to conceptualize their 

15 

 

communicative acts as conversation despite the fact that they employ written rather than verbal 

modes” (Giese, 1998).   

Second, a number of news organizations view their online comments as “conversations”.  

For example, in 2019 the WSJ “relabeled ‘comments’ as ‘conversations’ to help create an 

environment where everyone is welcome and encouraged to share their thoughts” (Story, 2019).  

That same year The Times thanked its commenters announcing, “This year has been a series of 

news tsunamis, and you, our readers, absorbed it all with gumption — offering millions of 

comments that told your own stories and helped elevate conversations around tricky subjects” 

(Harris & Tarchak, 2019).  Two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist at The Times Nicholas 

Kristof said, “We’ve moved from lectures to conversations” (Harris & Tarchak, 2019).  

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times announced, “Journalists in our newsroom will take part in the 

comments to listen, engage and help keep the conversation healthy and on topic” (Readers’ 

Representative Journal, 2019).  The Denver Post (2014) claims its “goal with article comments is 

to provide a space for civil, informative and constructive conversations.”  The Washington Post 

and The Boston Globe are two more examples of prominent news organizations viewing their 

online comments as conversation (Amenabar & Barber, 2017; Boston Globe Media Partners, 

2020).   

 

Perhaps the most important reason I refer to online comments as conversation is because 

this is how many commenters experience them.  For example, when The Times announced the 

expansion of its online commenting Dr. John Burch of Mountain View, Ca exclaimed: 

Excellent. Beyond excellent! This is a wonderful advancement in the quest, globally, for 
the functionality of conversations that matter. Bravo! (Comment made in response to 
Etim, 2017) 

 

16 

 

Dr. Burch is not alone in his sentiment.  Ma of NYC asserted, “I also experience the comment 

sections as conversations, and interesting and enlightening ones at that, for lots of reasons” 

(comment made in response to Harris & Tarchak, 2019).  For Jeezum H. Crowbar of Vermont, 

the participation of staff at The Times within the comment forums helps make them 

conversational.  He asserts, “It’s very interesting to see the columnists do read the comments, 

and that most of them take the experience as a kind of conversation, a step toward further 

thought on their topics” (comment made in response to Harris & Tarchak, 2019).  “Long live the 

‘conversations’ via the comments section”, proclaimed whs of ct (comment made in response to 

Harris & Tarchak, 2019).  Even people who simply read the comments, but do not comment 

themselves have indicated they feel part of a conversation (Barnes, 2015).   

 

Some commenters experience online comments as they do in-person conversations.  In 

the following excerpt from Bh’s comment, they not only reveal that the online comments 

influence their thinking and voting, but they also liken them to a type of face-to-face 

conversation:   

…My passion for the environment (and middle class, healthcare, education, etc.) has 
necessitated my ongoing passion for politics and insistence on voting every election.  The 
NYT and its brilliant commenters help refine my thinking, inform my votes, and battle 
my “State of the environment” depression through their compassion and humor. 
 
And often, I must confess, I skip to the comments to just bask in the global conversation, 
like I’m sitting at an interesting dinner party.  Thank you, all. (comment made in response 
to Harris & Tarchak, 2019)   

 
In a similar vein, Marty of Pacific Northwest described the comments at The Times as “a dinner 

party with fine food & wine and a group of acquaintances who appreciate a lively and intelligent 

conversation” (comment made in response to Harris & Tarchak, 2019).  In comparison, he 

described the comments at The Washington Post as a “dive bar that some of us retire to afterward 

to speak a little more freely, drink a little more than we should, and laugh at decidedly non-PC 

17 

 

and probably more than a little juvenile humor” (comment made in response to Harris & 

Tarchak, 2019).   

 

Seeing them as a place for conversation, commenters can be protective of their online 

forums.  For example, Loyde Yates indicated the comment sections as his favorite part of the 

WSJ (comment made in response to A WSJ commenting experience, 2017).  In 2017, when the 

journal announced changes to its online commenting he expressed concern the journal’s changes 

would “reduce conversations between commenters” (comment made in response to A WSJ 

commenting experience, 2017).  To help address Loyde’s worries, weekend editor at the WSJ in 

London, Tom Olmstead replied to thank him for his feedback and asked, “Can you elaborate on 

why you believe the new software will ‘reduce conversations between commenters?” (comment 

made in response to A WSJ commenting experience, 2017).  He then invited Loyde to email him 

directly.  In 2018, when The Atlantic decided to replace its comment sections with an online 

Letters section, Tom Carroll of Chicago, Illinois chimed in arguing “One cannot have the same 

sort of think-on-your feet, conversational interactions via a curated letters section that one can 

have in a comments section exchange” (The Conversation, 2018).  More recently, when Inside 

Higher Ed announced the end to its reader comments 115thDream made the following 

impassioned plea: 

I, too, am disappointed. Yes we have a level-of-discourse problem, but I would rather 
have it on the table than to stop talking in public. And there is a lot of valuable 
conversation, information, and counterpoint that will be lost by shutting down the 
comments. (Not to mention that those of us who are academics--or those of us who think 
one way--need to hear our neighbors...ALL of them.) 
 
Hoping against hope that you will reconsider, 
Storm Bailey 
Luther College (comment made in response to Jaschik & Lederman, 2020) 

 

18 

 

A quick Google search and we find out that Storm Bailey of Luther College is a professor of 

philosophy.  A quick read of his comment and we can see he is someone who values listening to 

and conversing with people from all walks of life.   

Of course, there are scholars, news organizations, as well as commenters who do not 

refer to or consider online comments to be a conversation.  However, regarding my research I do 

refer to them as such.  I do so because of the reasons I just discussed.  I also do so because I have 

spent a considerable amount of time over the past couple years immersed in online comments 

within a variety of news outlets.  During that time, I have observed comments as conversation in 

the ways described within the literature, as well as by commenters.  Also, from a more empirical 

perspective, my findings support my use of the term conversation.  I share and discuss my 

findings in Chapters 7 and 8.     

Public Opinion  

 

As you will see in my literature review, as well as in my conceptual framework, I utilize 

scholarship on public opinion to inform my research.  Public opinion is a term most people are 

familiar with.  What many people might not know is that a universally agreed upon definition of 

public opinion is elusive (Donsbach & Traugott, 2008; Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, & 

Shapiro, 2015; Herbst, 2011b).  And yet, opinion polls are likely the first thing that comes to 

mind when someone says “public opinion”, as they have become synonymous with the term 

(Ginsberg, 1986; Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, & Shapiro, 2015; Goidel, 2011; Herbst, 

1993, 2011a).  However, polls are not the only form of public opinion, nor are they necessarily 

the best means to gain a sense of it.  For example, while acknowledging polls can have value, 

Hauser (1999) warns us, “Taken at face value they can be deceiving; weighed alone they offer a 

limited and sometimes superficial understanding of publics and what they believe” (p. 4).  In a 

19 

 

similar vein, Ginsberg (1986) argues “polling can create a misleading picture of the agenda of 

public concerns, for what appears significant to the agencies sponsoring polls may be quite 

different from the concerns of the general public” (p. 81).  I explore in more detail criticisms and 

shortcomings of opinion polls within my literature review.   

 

There are other ways to investigating public opinion than via surveys and polling we are 

accustomed to.  For example, Habermas (1996), whose work on the public sphere is frequently 

cited, claims public opinion is “not an aggregate of individually gathered, privately expressed 

opinions held by isolated persons”, and therefore “must not be confused with survey results” (p. 

362).  His work regarding the public sphere—“a realm of our social life in which something 

approaching public opinion can be formed” (Habermas, 2006, p. 73)—is widely cited in the 

literature.  Whenever people join in unrestricted conversation on matters of general interest a part 

of the public sphere is realized (Habermas, 2006).  Similar to Habermas, Herbst (2011b) asserts, 

“textured talk, dialogue, exchange, and conversation—not numbers—are the content of public 

opinion” (p. 95).  As you will see from my literature review, Habermas and Herbst, as well as 

Hauser and Ginsberg, are not alone in their criticism of polls, nor are they alone in their belief 

that conversation is foundational to public opinion.  Rather than utilizing poll or survey results, 

in my research I investigate public opinion by diving into the conversation taking place within 

the online comments.   

 

Another aspect of public opinion in the way I utilize it that might differ from other 

peoples’ understanding pertains to its scope.  When people see poll results on the latest 

presidential approval rating or current election races, they likely presume them to have the scope 

of measuring the nation’s pulse on the matter.  Such an assumption by people is, of course, 

debatable, and I explore some of the shortcomings of polls within my literature review.  For now, 

20 

 

what is important is the recognition that the scope of public opinion investigation does not need 

to be wide sweeping, as perhaps the opinion polls we are accustomed to appear to be.  Such an 

expansive view of the public can be problematic, leading to messaging problems and tensions 

with one’s intended audience(s) by privileging the interests of one group above all others 

(Ginneken, 2003).  Hauser (1999) reminds us, “Rather than searching for ‘the public,’ we should 

expect a developed society to be populated by a montage of publics” (p. 35).  He went on to 

assert, “And rather than anticipating publics as already existing, we should seek them through 

actual discursive engagements on the issues raised in civil society as emergences of society’s 

active members” (Hauser, 1999, p. 35).   

 

Instead of searching for the monolithic public, we can focus our public opinion 

investigations on a smaller scale.  It really depends on the “public” one is interested in learning 

more about.  For example, Childs (1940) claimed, “There is no such thing as the public except in 

the sense that there may be a particular group of persons about which we are speaking” (p. 41-

42).  He went on to assert, “A public is simply any collection of individuals” (Childs, 1940, p. 

41).  A public can be with or without organization (Bernays, 1947; Childs, 1940).  Childs (1940), 

as well as Bernays (1947), recognized the readers of newspapers and news magazines as types of 

publics worthy of attention regarding public opinion.  Today, the online news comment forum 

represents a type of public worth our attention.  This new organized public taking form in online 

news comment forums is still just one small part of a much larger overall public.  And yet, the 

study of it is still a form of public opinion research.  As Childs (1940) asserted, “If we are 

studying the opinions of the individual members of a forum audience it is quite as definitely a 

study of public opinion as if we were studying the opinions of the voters of the United States” (p. 

44).   

21 

 

 

One final aspect of public opinion important to this primer on terminology pertains to the 

inclusion of emotion.  In his seminal book Public Opinion, Walter Lippmann (1960) recognized 

emotions as being integral to opinions having claimed, “On many subjects of great public 

importance, and in varying degree among different people for more personal matters, the threads 

of memory and emotion are in a snarl” (p. 405).  He believed the process “by which general 

opinions are brought to cooperation consists of an intensification of feeling and a degradation of 

significance” (Lippmann, 1993, p. 37-38).  Likewise, Bernays (1928a) argued the following:  

Here the specialist in swaying public opinion avails himself of the, findings of 
introspective psychology. He knows in general the basic emotions and desires of the 
public he intends to reach, and their prevalence and intensity. (Bernays, 1928a, p. 961) 

 
Even with Bernays and Lippmann’s astute observations, researchers have largely ignored 

emotions’ relationship to opinion (Brader, Marcus, & Miller, 2011; Ginneken, 2003).  Choosing 

rather to focus on the role of cognition with the belief that people’s ability to reason is not only 

separate from, but is also more powerful than emotion (Brader, Marcus, & Miller, 2011; 

Ginneken, 2003).   

 

Today, we find from a philosophical, political, neurological, and psychological 

perspective the traditional view of emotion being in opposition to reason is on shaky ground.  A 

growing number of scholars are recognizing what Hume boldly proclaimed long ago.  That is, 

“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other 

office than to serve and obey them” (Hume, 1958, p. 313).  I explore this body of literature 

within my review, but for now I offer a couple examples.  Drawing from cutting-edge 

neuroscience research, Barrett (2017) asserts “you might believe that you are a rational creature, 

weighing the pros and cons before deciding how to act, but the structure of your cortex makes 

this an implausible fiction” (p. 79-80).  Meanwhile, Marcus (2002) claims “people are able to be 

22 

 

rational because they are emotional; emotions enable rationality” (p. 7).  It comes as no surprise 

then to find the study of emotion as a critical component of opinion gaining traction.   

According to Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, and Shapiro (2015), the study of 

emotion “is increasingly playing an important role in public opinion research” (p. 133).  

According to them, “Public opinion polls that ask people’s opinions on various issues, without 

tapping their feelings, may fundamentally misrepresent their views” (Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, 

O’Keefe, & Shapiro, 2015, p. 132).  It is worth restating Bernays’s keen point about the 

specialist in swaying public opinion: “He knows in general the basic emotions and desires of the 

public he intends to reach, and their prevalence and intensity” (1928a, p. 961).  If we want to be 

able to effectively understand and shape opinion, understanding the basic emotions of one’s 

audience is critical.  As such, within my research I include a high-level assessment of the 

emotional tone of the comment forums I investigated.   

Organization of My Dissertation 

 

I have organized the remainder of my dissertation into seven chapters.  In Chapter 2 I 

discuss in detail my research perspective.  I present my research perspective as an independent 

chapter because I not only explain social construction as a perspective, but I also convey in detail 

how the perspective is uniquely suited for my research, such as its relation to the news, opinions, 

as well as emotions.   

 

In Chapter 3 I present my literature review.  I have organized it into the following 

subsections that correspond to my conceptual framework: A New Public Sphere?, Public 

Opinion, Emotion, Influence, and Online Comments.  Within my online comments subsection, I 

place my review findings into further subsections that reflect the prior components of my 

framework.  Fair warning, my review is extensive, spanning multiple disciplines.  I believe it is 

23 

 

important to provide a thorough foundation of the constructs on which I base my framework.  

This foundation includes sharing historical underpinnings, interconnected elements, as well as 

ongoing debates pertaining to each component.  A thorough foundation is of particular 

importance for the public opinion and emotion components of my framework because I 

challenge commonly held assumptions and dominant ideologies.  I also use my literature review 

as an opportunity to call attention to much larger but connected issues that reach further than my 

research sample and empirical results.  I do so to mitigate oversimplifying what I believe to be 

very complex and challenging problems.   

 

In Chapter 4 I present my conceptual framework.  I already provided a preview of it 

when I shared my research questions.  I based my framework off an extensive body of literature.  

As such, I placed the chapter after my review to give my readers the substantial background that 

went into developing it.   

 

In Chapter 5 I present my methods.  In the chapter I provide an overview of my case 

selection, as well as my rationale for my multi-methods approach.  I then present in detail my 

methods for each of my three research questions followed by limitations to my study.   

 

In Chapter 6 I provide a detailed exploration of the evolution of online commenting at 

The New York Times.  This chapter does not have a higher education focus per se.  However, it 

serves as a detailed case of a historic and prestigious news organization’s use of online 

commenting.  Online comments have a tarnished reputation.  This chapter serves to help 

rehabilitate that reputation and show online comments as something The New York Times values 

and learns from.  If one of the world’s most authoritative news organizations sees the value in 

this digital incarnation of conversation, perhaps it should give us all reason to second guess the 

mantra that is do not read the comments.     

24 

 

 

In Chapter 7 I present my findings from my three cases where I investigated the online 

news comments from popular press articles.  I organized the chapter by the following higher 

topics: Technological Transformation, International Students, and Free College. Within each 

topic I provide an overview of the respective articles followed by my findings organized by 

research question.   

 

I conclude my dissertation with Chapter 8.  I organized my final chapter into the 

following sections: Discussion, Suggestions for Future Research, and Conclusion.  Within the 

discussion section I go examine my findings and the implications for higher education.  The line 

of inquiry I explored within my study is ripe for further analysis.  As such, I offer suggestions for 

future research.  I conclude by recapping my study as well as its importance.   

   
 
 
 

25 

 

CHAPTER 2: MY RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE 

For my research I utilized a social construction perspective.  According to Gergen (2015), 

the concept of social construction proposes that “what we take to be the truth about the world 

importantly depends on the social relationships of which we are a part” (p. 3).  In other words, 

given we all have differing social relationships, what we take to be the truth will also differ, 

individually and within and across groups.  For example, different religions profess different 

truths, and even within a given religion there can be differences in what its members perceive as 

true.  People have committed some of the most noble, as well as the most horrific acts based on 

socially constructed realities manifested in religions.  Governments have been formed, policies 

created, children raised, based on these varying realities.  Perhaps one particular religion, faith, 

or non-faith is correct and all the others incorrect.  Or, perhaps they are all different 

representations of the same thing.  Perhaps you believe with absolute conviction that there is 

only one reality, and you might be right.  But, if you are correct in your view of reality in the 

most absolute and universal sense, then does that not mean a whole lot of people are making 

decisions and taking actions based on fantasies?     

While my dissertation is not about religion, religion to me is an easy way to demonstrate 

social construction, albeit a bit taboo.  Trying to settle what is true and not true is also not the 

purpose of my research study.  In this study I investigated the public opinions and emotions 

conveyed via online news readers’ comments, to which social construction is a useful 

perspective.  Public opinion scholar and former professor of politics at Princeton University 

Harwood L. Childs appeared to have recognized the power of social construction as it pertains to 

opinions when he made the following assertion:  

We live in a world of conflicting ideologies and philosophical systems. All of them start 
with certain assumptions, certain premises incapable of absolute proof. The only certainty 

26 

 

is that every listing of human values takes us back ultimately to a premise, an 
assumption, a mere opinion. (Childs, 1940, p. 80) 

 
There is no mistaking of Krippendorff’s recognition of the power of social construction in public 

opinion.  In his appropriately titled article “The Social Construction of Public Opinion”, 

Krippendorff (2005) dissects the public opinion polling process to argue how even it is socially 

constructed.  Public opinion scholars Eveland and Glynn (2008) contend how people perceive 

reality “has been, and likely will continue to be, a central component of the study of public 

opinion” (p. 161).  As such, I approached my research from the position that people’s sentiments 

do not form in isolation, but result from social relationships, and are not absolute facts even if 

people experience them as so.   

People routinely perceive their opinions, from the most informed to the most ludicrous, 

as absolute truths and passionately defend them.  World renowned theoretical physicist and 

philosopher David Bohm, who spent much of his career contemplating and offering profound 

insights on the construction of reality, described our tendency to unknowingly process our 

opinions as absolute truths as follows:      

Opinions thus tend to be experienced as “truths,” even though they may only be your own 
assumptions and your own background. You got them from your teacher, your family, or 
by reading, or in yet some other way. Then for one reason or another you are identified 
with them, and you defend them. (Bohm, 2004, p. 10) 

 
Bohm described our assumptions as reflexes and claimed we are largely unaware we have them.  

However, he observed when these reflexes are challenged “suddenly a person may jump up with 

an emotional charge” (Bohm, 1994, p. 249) to defend them.   

 

We are emotional beings.  We see emotionally charged defenses time after time, such as 

in political debates.  If we are honest with ourselves, we can probably each think of numerous 

times when we have taken such passionate defenses ourselves.  There is strong reason to believe 

27 

 

that none of us see things for how they really are.  For instance, in her book How Emotions Are 

Made: The Secret Life of the Brain, distinguished psychologist and neuroscientist Lisa Feldman 

Barrett (2017) describes how one’s brain wires itself to the environment and culture it finds itself 

within.  She asserts, “Through prediction and correction, your brain continually creates and 

revises your mental model of the world” (Barrett, 2017, p. 62).  Barrett (2017) claims that “in a 

sense, your brain is wired for delusion” (p. 65) and offers the following colorful description of 

how one perceives the world:     

Your own perceptions are not like a photograph of the world. They are not even a 
painting of photographic quality, like a Vermeer. They are more like a Van Gogh or 
Monet. (Or on a very bad day, perhaps a Jackson Pollock.) (Barrett, 2017, p. 283) 

 
Perhaps those of us with higher levels of education might assume we see the world more clearly 

than others, but as my review of the literature will show this is not necessarily the case.  

Everyone is far less rational then traditionally assumed, and we see the world, as Barrett (2017) 

puts it, “through affect-colored glasses” (p. 80).   

Barrett (2017) claims “social reality is not just about words—it gets under your skin” (p. 

39).  As evidence she points to research suggesting one’s body metabolizes the same baked good 

differently depending on how one perceives it (e.g., a cupcake as opposed to a healthy muffin) 

(Barrett, 2017).  As additional evidence Barrett (2017) discusses how “some of your synapses 

literally come into existence because other people talked to you or treated you in a certain way” 

(p. 34).  While fascinating to think about, the power of social construction to change our bodily 

processes and cellular structure is far beyond the use of social construction as a research 

perspective within my study.  And yet within the context of my work, it is important to at least 

keep in mind the potential of our words, such as inflammatory online comments, to physically 

affect other people. 

28 

 

 

Social construction has no shortage of critics.  I think where it runs into problems is when 

one takes it too far.  One can in effect use it to rationalize oneself out of rationalizing if taken to 

the extreme view of everything is relative.  As Hacking (1999) states, “most constructionism is 

not universal” (p. 24).  Social construction theorists Berger and Luckman (1991) contend 

“society exists as both objective and subjective reality, any adequate theoretical understanding of 

it must comprehend both these aspects” (p. 149).  For example, Barrett (2017), a firm believer in 

social construction, recognizes “construction cannot make a solid wall unsolid (unless you have 

mutant superpowers), but you can redraw countries, redefine marriage, and decide who’s 

worthwhile and who isn’t” (p. 154).  Gergen (2015) warns us that “constructionist ideas are not 

candidates for ‘the new truth’” (p. 28).  Instead, he describes the usefulness of constructionism as 

follows:  

Constructionism is not a set of beliefs or dogma to which one must be committed. Rather, 
constructionist ideas are more like tools for action. One may pick them up and use them 
at will. (Gergen, 2015, p. 225) 

 
In the case of my current research, I used social construction as a tool to investigate and develop 

some understanding of people’s constructed public opinions.  I say “some understanding” to 

denote the limitation of my own understanding of another’s socially constructed reality.     

My subjective reality of a particular object or an idea may seem ludicrous to some, 

perhaps even most.  This does not mean it is an inferior or a false reality.  At the same time, it 

does not mean our socially constructed realities are of equal merit, and this is where things get 

tricky.  For example, when it comes to constructed ideas, Hacking contends “they may be 

woolly, suggestive, profound, stupid, useful, clear, or distinct” (p. 22).  His description 

contradicts the overgeneralization of social construction as being of the perspective that 

everyone’s ideas or beliefs are of equal footing.  Determining the usefulness of a given 

29 

 

subjective reality as opposed to alternative realities is complicated because we all belong to 

varying groups and subgroups, which at face value may seem to preordain a group’s constructed 

reality as superior.  However, being part of a group may in a way blind one to important 

observations that might otherwise alter one’s constructed reality.  As Le Bon (1969) cynically 

observed “from the moment that they form part of a crowd the learned man and the ignoramus 

are equally incapable of observation” (p. 24).  According to Le Bon “as soon as a few individuals 

are gathered together they constitute a crowd” (p. 25), and the individuals’ ability to be critical 

vanishes.   

Le Bon’s view on groups in the absolute sense in which he conveys it is rather too 

pessimistic for me.  However, it does warrant consideration as to how one’s belonging to a group 

might limit his or her view of reality.  For example, I love when Gergen (2015) proclaims “I am 

limited by the fact that I have lived the better part of my life as a scholar” (p. vi).  His statement 

conveys a level of humility I believe is important to have within a profession, another type of 

group.  As Shirky (2008) contends, “a profession becomes, for its members, a way of 

understanding their world” (p. 58).  A profession’s understanding of the world can be 

disadvantageous (Shirky, 2008) because it, like the world understandings of others’ professions, 

is limited.  A profession is a social experience, and it contributes to one’s socially constructed 

understanding of the way things are or should be.  As Dewey (1927) asserted, “The sailor, miner, 

fisherman, and farmer think, but their thoughts fall within the framework of accustomed 

occupations and relationships” (p. 160).  And yet, when one is immersed in a given tradition, 

constructions have the tendency to be seen as universal (Gergen, 2015).  Gergen (2015) warns 

that “when we take our realities and values as essential and undeniable, we often trample on 

others’ values and ways of life” (p. 28-29).  Stated differently, Bohm (1994) contends people 

30 

 

have varying basic assumptions about “what is really necessary, what is really true, the way 

people ought to be, what our real purpose ought to be, and all that” (p. 249), which we are 

largely unaware of.   

 

Social construction is a particular useful perspective for analyzing the news—of which 

online comments have become an integral part—because the news media plays a significant role 

in crafting how people come to view the world (Döveling, von Scheve, & Konijn, 2010; Herman 

& Chomsky, 2003; Lippmann, 1961; McCombs, 2014; Patterson, 2013).  The world is a big 

place and each of us has relatively little firsthand experience of all it entails.  Much of what we 

know of the world beyond our immediate grasp is as McCombs (2014) describes, “a second-

hand reality, a reality that is structured by journalists’ reports about these events and situations” 

(p. 1).  Lippmann (1961) referred to all which one has no intimate experience with, which in the 

grand scheme is almost everything, as the unseen environment.  Regarding trying to understand 

the unseen environment, Lippmann (1961) claimed the universal assumption is that the press 

“will present us with a true picture of all the outer world in which we are interested” (p. 320).  

Two components of his claim point to a socially constructed reality.   

 

The first component is when Lippmann uses the words “true picture”.  These words may 

imply objectivity, but contrary to this implication Lippmann (1961) reminds us that “in respect to 

most of the big topics of news, the facts are not simple, and not at all obvious, but subject to 

choice and opinion, it is natural that everyone should wish to make his own choice of facts for 

the newspapers to print” (p. 345).  In this sense, journalists exert influence on the pictures within 

the minds of their audience by the way they frame the issues (Nelson, 2011; Pinker, 2008; 

Roessler, 2008).  Gergen offers the powerful example of a reporter covering the war in 

Afghanistan as a demonstration of the subjectivity in presenting a true picture.  He points out 

31 

 

how the reporter could describe bodies lying on the road as “‘five casualties’, or as ‘promising 

young men whose bodies have been ripped apart by an explosion’” (Gergen, 2015, p. 12).  Both 

are accurate descriptions, but the value implications are far from equivalent (Gergen, 2015).  

They are also likely to create very different true pictures in the minds of the reporter’s audience.   

The emotions the contrasting descriptions trigger within a person are also likely very 

different, which in turn influences one’s constructed reality of the event.  Emotions play an 

important role in what we believe to be real.  Near the end of the nineteenth century the Father of 

American Psychology William James (1950b) recognized the importance of emotions in the 

construction of reality.  He stated, “speaking generally, the more a conceived object excites us, 

the more reality it has” (James, 1950b, p. 307).  McCombs illustrates the news’ propensity to 

influence the construction of reality in the way James describes by using the example of 

increased news coverage of crime.  He claims a contributing factor to the increased public 

concern over crime during the 1990s, while crime rates were actually declining, was likely the 

increased coverage of crime in the media (McCombs, 2014), thereby exciting the public.  In my 

literature review I explore in more detail the role of emotions in how a person thinks, conceives 

reality, as well as their role in influencing the actions one takes.   

A universal true picture is elusive because we come at things from varying perspectives.  

Huxley (1960) reminds us “as for the meaning of the facts, that of course depends upon the 

particular system of ideas, in terms of which you choose to interpret them” (p. 277).  Let us 

consider the hypothetical example of a report documenting cost savings resulting from a 

university utilizing more adjunct and fixed term faculty as opposed to tenured faculty.  Some 

may enthusiastically interpret the report as a much needed and successful approach to 

combatting the rising costs of higher education.  Others might fearfully view it as the 

32 

 

deprofessionalization of faculty and a direct assault on the quality of education.  Neither meaning 

found within the report are necessarily false, but instead are shaded by the particular system of 

ideas one is a part of.   

 

The second component of what Lippmann (1961) claims to be the universal assumption 

that the press “will present us with a true picture of all the outer world in which we are 

interested” (p. 320) with social construction implications is the use of the words “in which we 

are interested”.  Who makes up the “we” is an important consideration.  Commonsense tells us it 

is very unlikely that “we”, in the grandest sense of the word, are interested in all the same things.  

So then, whose interests is the news considering when it presents us with a true picture of all the 

outer world?  According to Herman and Chomsky (2003), “the national media typically target 

and serve elite opinion”, while presenting “a tolerably realistic portrayal of the world” (p. 303).  

They claim, “the media’s interpretation of the world reflect the interests and concerns of the 

sellers, the buyers, and the governmental and private institutions” (p. 303) controlled by elites.  

Meanwhile, Hauser (1999) claims the media’s portrayal of the public “is an abstract 

representation whose needs, thoughts, and responses are extrapolated from survey data” (p. 5).  

He asserts, “Although we supposedly are included in this picture, we seldom experience it as ‘us’ 

and usually narrate it as ‘them’” (p. 5).   

Herman, Chomsky, and Hauser are not alone in their claims.  Hebdige (2006) argues “it 

should be obvious that access to the means by which ideas are disseminated in our society (i.e., 

principally the mass media) is not the same for all classes”, and that those less favorably 

positioned “have less power to produce and impose their definitions of the world on the world” 

(p. 150).  Patterson (2013) claims “journalists’ sense of their audience is wrong side up” (p.121).  

He explains by saying “what’s happening at the top as it affects the fortunes of those at the top is 

33 

 

not what interests most people” (p. 121).  In other words, the media’s interpretation of the world 

might very well be different if they primarily focused on the interests of a different group, for 

example the poor.  A press that focuses on the interest of the elites projects an image of the world 

that is different from how most people experience it (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2001).  Access to the 

means of disseminating ideas has drastically changed with the widespread use of the internet, 

which I further explore in my literature review.   

Regardless of level of access, we all contribute to the construction of realities.  Even the 

absence in the participation of a social mechanism, such as the news or online commenting, is a 

contribution because it may result in a presumed and perhaps undesirable reality going 

unchallenged.  What I find appealing about social construction is that it posits a collective 

responsibility for one another and in the construction of realities.  Returning to the example of 

how our actions “shape other people’s concepts and behaviors, creating the environment that 

turns genes on and off to wire their brains, including the brains of the next generation”, Barrett 

(2017) makes the following assertion: “Social reality implies that we are all partly responsible 

for one another’s behavior, not in a fluffy, let’s-all-blame-society sort of way, but a very real 

brain-wiring way” (p. 155).  Consider Bohm’s following proposition regarding thought:   

A key assumption that we have to question is that our thought is our own individual 
thought. Now, to some extent it is. We have some independence. But we must look at it 
more carefully. It’s more subtle than to say it’s individual or it’s not individual. We have 
to see what thought really is, without presuppositions. What is really going on when 
we’re thinking? I’m trying to say that most of our thought in its general form is not 
individual. It originates in the whole culture and it pervades us. We pick it up as children 
from parents, from friends, from school, from newspapers, from books, and so on. We 
make a small change in it; we select certain parts of it which we like, and we may reject 
other parts. But still, it all comes from that pool. (Bohm, 2004, p. 59)  

 
Accepting Bohm’s proposition has several fascinating implications for my research.  For 

example, online commentary gives us unprecedented access to the collective pool of thought and 

34 

 

constructions of reality, which as Bohm puts it, pervades us.  Think about it.  We now have 

unsolicited thoughts on numerous topics from people around the world recorded online for 

virtually anyone to read indefinitely.  We can see what people are thinking and feeling as it 

happens organically, as opposed to in a formalized research setting.  We can peer into the 

constructed realities people come from, as well as see how they might be changing or 

solidifying.  It may turn out that some of the truths people hold dear may seem crazy to you and I 

and can be easily proved false.  In which cases we can look for emotionally compelling ways to 

alter perspectives.  Or, perhaps we will become more aware of the limitations of our own 

perspectives.   

 

From a higher education standpoint, peering into the socially constructed realities of 

others may provide useful insight into how to improve the public’s confidence in our colleges 

and universities.  Almost a century ago, Bernays recognized the value in investigating and 

evaluating social realities in various realms, including higher education.  From a higher 

education standpoint, Bernays (1928) argued if the public has a negative mental picture of a 

university one of two problems might exist.  The public’s view might be wrong, in which case 

the institution should pursue means to alter the public’s perception.  Or, the public’s mental 

picture might be correct, in which the institution itself should seek to change.      

Before moving on to my literature review, there is one more excerpt from Bohm’s work I 

think is important to consider.  It comes in the form of a warning:    

The real crisis is not in these events which are confronting us, like wars and crime and 
drugs and economic chaos and pollution; it’s really in the thought which is making it – all 
the time. Each person can do something about that thought, because he’s in it. But one of 
the troubles we get into is to say, “It’s they who are thinking all that, and I am thinking 
right.” I say that’s a mistake. I say thought pervades us. It’s similar to a virus – somehow 
this is a disease of thought, of knowledge, of information, spreading all over the world. 
The more computers, radio, and television we have, the faster it spreads. So the kind of 
thought that’s going on all around us begins to take over in every one of us, without our 

35 

 

even noticing it. It’s spreading like a virus and each one of us is nourishing that virus. 
(Bohm, 2004, p. 58) 

 
He describes thought as pervading us and spreading like a virus.  It spreads faster and faster with 

the advent of new communication technologies.  Bohm died in 1992, well before the internet—

the most prolific communication technology the world has ever known—became widely used.  I 

admit I am pessimistic about the future, both from a higher education standpoint, as well as on a 

much broader and global scale.  Thought, as something which pervades us appears to be 

breaking down in many respects.  Childs (1940) appeared to have noticed this breakdown as it 

relates to public opinion eighty years ago.  He claimed, “One of the most disturbing aspects of 

the whole subject of public opinion is the growing intensity of conflicts of opinion, the 

deepening cleavages between groups, the absence of generally accepted premises and goals” 

(Childs, 1940, p. 39).  The socially constructed realities within society today appear to be so 

divergent there is little room for commonality.  As Patterson (2013) contends, “It is nearly 

impossible to have sensible public deliberation when large numbers of people are out of touch 

with reality” (p. 4).  I believe the internet is contributing to this breakdown in alarming, yet often 

overlooked ways.  Some of what I discuss within my writing may seem grandiose, given for the 

time being my focus is not on what most people would likely consider potentially catastrophic 

breakdowns in thought.  However, I believe it is crucial to draw attention to larger issues as they 

relate to this type of research and their implications on a broader scale.  Also, I believe it is 

important to consider that catastrophic breakdowns in thought might be the result of the 

cumulative effect of the tiniest and seemingly harmless faults in perception.  And finally, I 

cannot stress this enough, my use of social construction as a research perspective is not to say 

that everything is relative.  But, it is to stress that there is power, whether constructive or 

destructive, in the socially constructed realities held within the hearts and minds of the public.   

36 

 

 

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW 

I have divided my literature review into the following five sections: 1) A New Public 

Sphere?, 2) Public Opinion, 3) Emotion, 4) Influence, and 5) Online News and Comments.  Each 

subsequent section builds upon the prior section(s).  There are overlapping themes, such as the 

opinion, emotion, news, and comments, which appear in each section.  I explore such themes in 

more depth within the respective sections named for each theme.   

 

In the first section titled “A New Public Sphere?” I review literature pertaining to the 

concept of a public sphere—a place where Habermas argues public opinion is formed–as well as 

to the debate on whether or not the Internet is a new realization of the ideal.  Given the news’ 

crucial role in the public sphere I briefly explore it as well, along with its evolving gatekeeping 

function in the digital world.   

In the second section titled “Public Opinion” I review literature pertaining to the concept 

of public opinion, a product of the public sphere.  I also review the literature on public opinion 

polling and its shortcomings as well as the call for a more conversation-based formation of 

public opinion.  By exploring the work of such notable scholars as Lippmann and Le Bon, I also 

discuss the makeup and the emotional power inherent in people’s and group’s opinions.   

 

In the third section titled “Emotion” I review literature pertaining to the historical view of 

emotion as separate and in opposition to reason, as well as on the shift in thinking to a more 

interrelated view of the two.  I make the argument that it is likely more effective to focus on 

emotions rather than reason when enacting difficult change and explore the conceptual and 

scientific evidence to support it.   

 

In the fourth section titled “Influence” I review literature on how for good or bad people 

can manipulate the feelings of others to influence their behavior.  I offer contemporary examples 

37 

 

of the use of online mechanisms to manipulate segments of the population.  I also rely heavily on 

the work of Edward Bernays who gave considerable thought as to the need for education to 

improve its standing with the general public.   

In the last section titled “Online News Comments” I review literature on online news 

consumption and on online news comments.  I place the findings within subsections that mirror 

the prior four main sections.  As like with the prior four main sections, there is also overlapping 

themes within the “Online News Comments” subsections.  I utilize the literature to make the case 

that online news comment spaces are an important form of discourse, which higher education 

leaders should not ignore.   

 

Herbst (1993) contends, “The reason why classical writing on public opinion was so 

interesting was that theorists seemed to know no disciplinary boundaries” (p. 143).  She went on 

to assert, “In Fact, from the standpoint of late 20th-century social science, these writings seem 

wild and undisciplined” (p.143).  Having spent considerable time immersed in the literature, I 

understand her point.  As such, my extensive literature review spans multiple disciplines, 

including communication, journalism, political science, psychology, and education.   

At times I use my literature review as a vehicle to call attention to items outside the scope 

of my current research, but which are closely related and call attention to much larger issues.  I 

hope my readers will afford me this latitude.  As Malin (2014) contends in his historical 

assessment of media technologies and emotion, “narratives of technological advancement tend to 

oversimplify what should be some very complex questions” (p. 245).  My calling attention to 

larger, but related issues is my way of trying to avoid oversimplifying what is part of what I 

believe to be some very complex questions.        

38 

 

You will no doubt notice from time to time I express my own opinions, as well as my 

own emotions within my literature review, as well as throughout my writing in general.  It seems 

only fitting, given my research is investigating opinions and emotions that I share some of mine.  

I realize this defies scholarly conventions.  I suggest readers consider the use of my own 

opinions and emotions as a sort of interwoven reflexivity, which from time to time reminds them 

of my own subjectivity. 

A New Public Sphere?   

 

Researchers of the internet and online discourse often invoke the work of Jürgen 

Habermas and his concept of the public sphere (see Chen, 2017; Dahlberg, 1998, 2001a, 2001b, 

2001c, 2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2007, 2013; Debatin, 2008; Durham & Kellner, 2006; Harlow, 2015; 

Jackson & Valentine, 2014; McCluskey & Hmielowski, 2012; McDermott, 2016; Papacharissi, 

2002; Shanahan, 2018; Trice, 2011).  Habermas (2006) defines the public sphere as follows: 

By “the public sphere” we mean first of all a realm of our social life in which something 
approaching public opinion can be formed. Access is guaranteed to all citizens. (p. 73)  

 
The public sphere is not an institution or an organization, but instead as Habermas (1996) asserts 

“is characterized by open, permeable, and shifting horizons” (p. 360).  Habermas goes onto say 

“The public sphere can best be described as a network for communicating information and points 

of view (i.e., opinions expressing affirmative or negative attitudes); the streams of 

communication are, in the process, filtered and synthesized in such a way that they coalesce into 

bundles of topically specified public opinions” (p. 360).  By detecting and intensifying the 

pressure on problems, the public sphere serves as “a warning system with sensors that, though 

unspecialized, are sensitive throughout society” (p. 359).   

Whenever people join in unrestricted conversation on matters of general interest a part of 

the public sphere is realized (Habermas, 2006).  In this sense, there is not a size requirement for 

39 

 

the public sphere to begin to be realized, other than it must include more than just an individual.  

The people convening in this type of conversation constitute what Habermas (2006) refers to as a 

public body.  Within a public body people are able to “confer in an unrestricted fashion” 

(Habermas, 2006, p. 73).  As a public body grows larger it becomes necessary to have a form of 

media to communicate ideas and to influence others (Habermas, 2006).  Without such media, 

Shepard (1909) argues, “conversation can only busy itself with the gossip of the village; where it 

is concerned with the affairs of the nation it is so diffuse that it requires itself organs to become 

definitely articulate” (p. 46).  Traditionally these forms of media have included newspapers, 

magazines, television, and radio, the contents of which people discussed within social sites such 

as pubs and cafes (Durham & Kellner, 2006; Habermas, 2006).  Habermas (1991) describes the 

press as “the public sphere’s preeminent institution” (p. 181).  Likewise, Tarde (Tarde & Clark, 

2010) proclaimed, “The press unifies and invigorates conversations, makes them uniform in 

space and diversified in time” (p. 312).  As such, the organizations and people in control of the 

media of the public sphere are in a position of great influence.   

 

Within the U.S. we often consider the news to be a pillar of democracy serving 

benevolent purposes.  However, in his historical assessment, Schudson questions the taken for 

granted view of the news in a democracy.  He argues that “newspapers have not always been 

about, nor are they necessarily today about, providing the information to make democracy work 

in the communities they most directly serve” (Schudson, 2011, p. 64).  In his following assertion 

Schudson attributes the often assumed view of the press to the egos of journalists:   

The relationship of news or journalism to democracy, then, is more complicated and far 
more attenuated in practice than in normative theory.  Even in theory, it is journalism 
theory and not political theory that attributes great weight to journalism, and the self-love 
of journalists in this celebration is obvious.  (Schudson, 2011, p. 64) 

 

40 

 

While he is critical of the inflated role people typically attribute to the news in democracy, 

Schudson recognizes the crucial role news has in democratic society, albeit a more nuanced one 

than often assumed.    

According to McCombs (2014), the news media, with its selection of topics it decides to 

cover, is the beginning of public opinion formation.  Thereby, the news holds significant 

influence over public opinion, as well as the public agenda.  He claims, “This is not a deliberate, 

premeditated influence – as in the expression ‘to have an agenda’ – but rather an inadvertent 

influence resulting from the necessity of the news media to select and highlight a few topics in 

their reports about the most salient news of the moment” (McCombs, 2014, p. 2).  McComb’s 

claim that such influence is not deliberate or premeditated is questionable.  After all, part of a 

news organization’s agenda is to generate enough revenues to remain in existence (Lippmann, 

1960).  Therefore, it is plausible they have a deliberate motivation to cover stories that do not put 

off advertisers and which attract consumers.  Bücher made such a critique of the news’ conscious 

agenda over a hundred years ago.   

 

In his chapter aptly titled The Evolution of Journalism, Bücher traces the historical 

origins and metamorphosis of the discipline to the time of the publication of his most acclaimed 

work, the book Industrial Evolution.  Bücher (1901) claimed in most countries during the 

nineteenth century “The newspaper, from being a mere vehicle for the publication of news, 

became an instrument for supporting and shaping public opinion and a weapon of party politics” 

(Bücher, 1901, p. 240).  He went on to assert, “For the newspaper publisher, however, it 

signified that from a mere seller of news he had become a dealer in public opinion as well” 

(Bücher, 1901, p. 240).  Whereas McCombs has a rather innocent take on the agenda of the 

media, Bücher had a much more cynical one.   

41 

 

Within the capitalistic newspaper enterprise readers have little influence (Bücher, 1901).  

According to Bücher, “In this market, however, as generally in wholesale markets, the 

consumers of the goods, the newspaper readers, take no direct part; the determining factors are 

the wholesale dealers and the speculators in news: the governments, the telegraph bureaux 

dependent upon their Special correspondents, the political parties, artistic and scientific cliques, 

men on ‘change, and last but not least, the advertising agencies and large individual advertisers” 

(p. 242).  Well over a hundred years ago he contemplated the future of news and said, “It would 

indeed be difficult for us to believe that the newspaper in its present development is destined to 

constitute the highest and final medium for the supplying of news” (p. 243).  One can only 

imagine what Bücher might think about the Internet and today’s rapidly changing news 

landscape.   

The internet, with its ability to connect people across the world at digital speed, is a 

potentially limitless public sphere.  Many see it as a means to liberate the mass media from the 

control of only a powerful few.  Papacharissi (2002) contends internet enthusiasts “promise that 

online discourse will increase political participation and pave the way for a democratic utopia” 

(p.10).  Technologies, such as the internet, have eliminated barriers to participation in discourse 

allowing people across geographical, political, and other spectrums to find and engage one 

another in dialogue (McCluskey & Hmielowski, 2012; Papacharissi, 2002).  With widespread 

access, and by allowing for anonymity, the internet has the potential to level the playing field 

among the so-called elite and the average citizenry (Jackson & Valentine, 2014; Reagle, 2015).  

The instantaneous nature of online text-based communications allows people from around the 

world to communicate with such minimal delays between participants it is comparable to face-

to-face communication (Giese, 1998).  Giese (1998) asserts “by and large people engaged in 

42 

 

computer-mediated communication tend to conceptualize their communicative acts as 

conversation despite the fact that they employ written rather than verbal modes.”   

 

Not everyone shares in Giese’s likening of online text to that of face-to-face 

communication.  For example, Turkle (2015) makes the following criticism of online 

communications:  

Face-to-face conversation unfolds slowly. It teaches patience. We attend to tone and 
nuance. When we communicate on our digital devices, we learn different habits. As we 
ramp up the volume and velocity of our online connections, we want immediate answers. 
In order to get them, we ask simpler questions; we dumb down our communications, even 
on the most important matters. (p. 35) 

 
While Turkle believes face-to-face communication unfolds slowly as compared to online 

communications, Bohman (2004) contends online communication may unfold more slowly than 

we anticipate.  He believes the traditional requirement of a public sphere manifesting in face-to-

face communication needs to be relaxed in today’s technological mediated world.  He challenges 

the assumption that “dialogue must be modelled on one-to-one communication”, and asserts “the 

other’s response can be understood in a quite expansive spatial and temporal sense, in that 

someone in the indefinite future could give a response, without the speaker even conceivably 

having intended to address that hearer” (Bohman, 2004, p. 133 - 144).   

 

North recognizes the expansive spatial and temporal nature of online conversations as it 

applies to online discussion boards.  Regarding any given user’s post to the online forum she 

asserts, “From a narrow perspective this message is the start of a new text, but from a broader 

perspective it is part of an ongoing text comprising all the discussions on this board; it picks up 

and continues earlier discussions in what might be regarded as a ‘long conversation’, where 

particular themes and preoccupations are repeatedly returned to across different conversations 

(Maybin 2006: 29)” (North, 2007, p. 545).  As you can see from the quote, she refers to the idea 

43 

 

of a “long conversation” developed by Janet Maybin.  In her book Children’s Voices: Talk, 

Knowledge, and Identity, Maybin (2008) defines “long conversation” as follows: 

While, as I shall discuss latter in the book, knowledge appears more fixed and non-
negotiable within the authoritative discourse of textbooks and worksheets, the knowledge 
negotiated between children was often dialogically open.  They returned again and again 
in their talk to particular questions and themes.  It is as if the exploration of a particular 
theme in a particular account, or through a particular interaction, functions at a metalevel 
as a turn in what might be called a ‘long conversation’, which is carried on between 
children in different places and at different times, about the various ways of knowing 
which are involved in moving from childhood into adolescence in their particular cultural 
setting. (Maybin, 2008, p. 29) 

 
Granted, Maybin developed the idea of a long conversation from the perspective of her research 

with children.  However, we can see its application into conversations through adulthood.  The 

countless conversations each of us has in our lifetimes are not walled off entities.  Instead, we 

can view them as being dialogically open as we return again and again to particular questions 

and themes in life. 

 

It is exciting, as well as frightening to consider the impact our unprecedented access to 

conversations captured indefinitely online might have on people’s thinking and other aspects of 

society.  To illustrate a scary possibility of the expansive spatial and temporal sense of internet 

dialogues, Samuels (2016)—whose work focuses on the dark and incendiary side of online 

conversations—shares the following concern:    

I began to get very irritated about what I was reading and concerned about the effect that 
it would have on African-Americans as a whole. I even wondered how long these types 
of comments would remain in Internet archives, on the off chance that some African-
American elementary student researching a book report in the distant future might 
stumble upon the vile words. I imagined how any child would feel reading hateful words 
about any black person that they admired, including President Barack Obama. The child 
or adult might shrug it off and go back to playing video games or chatting with their 
friends on Facebook or Meebo, but it could affect them for much longer than anyone ever 
imagined. (Samuels, 2016, p xxi-xxii) 

 

44 

 

Sharing in Samuels concerns, Harlow (2015) points out how “once a racist comment might have 

been limited to a one-on-one conversation or a town hall meeting” (p. 26), but today with the 

help of the internet it has the potential to spread indefinitely.  And while Samuels and Harlow are 

expressing concern over the negative effects online conversations might have on people now and 

into the indefinite future, the same concern can easily pertain to organizations, such as 

universities.  Negative press and negative public commentary about an organization captured 

online could have unforeseeable consequence well into the future.  

The expansive spatial and temporal sense in which a dialogue may exist, described by 

Bohman, is not a new phenomenon.  It existed and continues to exist in print books, newspapers, 

and other traditional forms of media.  Malin (2014) invokes the thoughts of Socrates in his 

historic depiction of the spatial and temporal potential of written communications in his 

following claim:   

In its transformation of time and space, Socrates suggested, the written word was 
simultaneously living and dead.  It detached the emotions of language from the body 
of the speaker and represented them in the disembodied form of the text.  Like a 
drug, the written word stimulated emotion without a clear source, lending it an 
apparently evocative eerie power [emphasis added]. (Malin, 2014, p. 7) 

 
Malin’s use of Socrates’s work is itself an example of how one’s words and emotions can 

continue on indefinitely.  However, prior to the advent of the internet only a relatively small 

number of people had access to such forms of media to disseminate their ideas in a way that 

visibly spans time and space.  Before the internet, the standard view of the relationship between 

media and its audience was one directional: information flowing from media to the audience 

(Shapiro & Jacobs, 2011a).  The exponential growth in people digitally connecting with one 

another has challenged and in some cases dismantled the traditional gatekeeping function 

traditional institutions, such as the press, have served for centuries.   

45 

 

In traditional media of the public sphere, such as print newspapers, magazines, and 

books, as well as television and radio, there is a formal gatekeeper in the form of the editor, the 

company providing the media, or some other mechanism.  However, in the online world many of 

these gatekeepers are nonexistent or serve a very different role (Alejandro, 2010; Kovach & 

Rosenstiel, 2001; Lee & Jang, 2010; McCluskey & Hmielowski, 2012; Nielsen, 2014; Nip, 2006; 

Shanahan, 2018; Spyridou & Veglis, 2008).  For example, in traditional print media, as well as in 

some forms of online media, one can write a letter to the editor, but in the end the media—or 

powerful interests exerting control over the it—is the gatekeeper and decides which letters are 

worthy of publishing (Herman & Chomsky, 2006; McCluskey & Hmielowski, 2012; Nielsen, 

2014; Nip, 2006; Santana, 2011).  Habermas (1991) has been critical of the so-called public 

sphere facilitated by mass media having stated “the world fashioned by the mass media is a 

public sphere in appearance only” (p. 171).  At the time of his assertion the mass media he was 

referring to were radio, film, and television.  However, today in an online world virtually anyone 

can post their opinion or ideas to a worldwide audience in various forms, such as online 

comments, with little to no formal editing or gatekeeping (Lee & Jang, 2010; McCluskey & 

Hmielowski, 2012; Nielsen, 2014; Santana, 2011; Shanahan, 2018; Shirky, 2008).  The 

dismantling of many of the traditional gatekeepers prompted Shirky (2008) to optimistically 

proclaim “To speak online is to publish, and to publish online is to connect with others” (p. 171).  

 

While Shirky’s proclamation has merit, it is too optimistic for my taste.  While anyone 

with an internet connection has the potential to “publish” writing online there is no guarantee 

anyone besides the author will ever really look at it and “connect” with the writer or his or her 

writing.  Regardless of the level of connecting actually happening online, people’s exponential 

increase in their ability to contribute to the conversation has altered one of the traditional flows 

46 

 

of information within the public sphere.  Rather than a one-way flow of information from media 

to the audience, we now have what Shapiro and Jacobs (2011a) call informational 

interdependence in the form of dynamic communicative relationships between media and the 

public.   Instead of news conveyed from professional organizations to a passive audience, news 

is increasingly co-produced with common citizens (Alejandro, 2010; Batsell, 2015; Just, 2011; 

Shanahan, 2018; Shapiro & Jacobs, 2011a).  As Just (2011) proclaims, through internet 

mechanisms, such as online commenting and social networking, “the audience has invaded the 

newsroom and is shaping the very definition of news” (p. 106).   

Opening the floodgates to mass communication to anyone and everyone with an internet 

connection fuels the “utopian rhetoric that surrounds new media technologies”, which 

Papacharissi (2002) says “promises further democratization of post-industrial society” (p. 9).  

For example, Shirky (2008)—while flaunting the unprecedented ability for people to organize, 

mobilize, and take collective action via the internet—proclaims “It isn’t that our communication 

tools are cheaper; they are also better” (p. 77).   He goes on to claim, “Our social tools are 

dramatically improving our ability to share, cooperate, and act together” (p. 304).  However, not 

everyone views the internet and the so-called new public sphere with such optimism.  Political 

scientist Jodie Dean, a fierce critic of the internet as a public sphere, exclaims that not only is the 

internet not a public sphere, “it is damaging to practices of democracy under contemporary 

technoculture” (Dean, 2003, p. 95).  She makes the following dismal observation of the saturated 

anti-discourse of the internet: 

Today, the circulation of content in the dense, intensive networks of global 
communications relieves top-level actors (corporate, institutional and governmental) 
from the obligation to respond. Rather than responding to messages sent by activists and 
critics, they counter with their own contributions to the circulating flow of 
communications, hoping that sufficient volume (whether in terms of number of 
contributions or the spectacular nature of a contribution) will give their contributions 

47 

 

dominance or stickiness. Instead of engaged debates, instead of contestations employing 
common terms, points of reference or demarcated frontiers, we confront a multiplication 
of resistances and assertions so extensive that it hinders the formation of strong 
counterhegemonies. (Dean, 2005, p. 53) 

 
Dean offers what I find to be an all too often missing critical perspective of the internet.  Rather 

than being enamored by the promises and hype of the online world, she considers the profound 

damage it might be causing.  Teng, while not referring to the internet as a public sphere per se, 

echoes Dean’s concerns in her following critique:    

We are not machines; feeding our quest for knowledge and defining our existences online 
delivers a synthetic fulfillment that is fleeting and unsustainable.  Seeking such 
satisfaction via the Internet is like trying to quench thirst by sipping water from a fire 
hose.  By drinking from the Internet’s fire hose, we not only end up still thirsty, but we 
may get seriously hurt in the process.  Because this onslaught of information disallows us 
from taking the time to truly consider any of it; we open ourselves to believing dangerous 
and unchecked falsehoods. (Teng, 2018, p. 227 - 228) 

 
Shirky and Dean and Teng, at least regarding the effects the internet is having on society and 

discourse, are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  With Shirky perhaps too optimistic, and Dean 

and Teng perhaps overly pessimistic.   

 

So, is the internet a new public sphere or not?  The purpose of this section of my 

literature review was not to settle this ongoing debate.  Dahlberg (1998, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 

2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2007, 2013) has focused much of his work on contemplating the potential 

for public sphere ideals to manifest on the internet, as well as to barriers preventing or slowing 

their manifestation.  He has not arrived at a decisive answer, but recognizes the importance of 

continued investigation to determine the types and quality of conversations occurring online.  In 

all likelihood the answer to the question is “it depends.”  There are likely constructive robust 

dialogues occurring online that epitomize a public sphere, as well as destructive anti-dialogues 

taking place.  Making a broad and accurate statement as to whether or not the internet tends to 

materialize as a public sphere is likely premature, and perhaps impossible given the relative 

48 

 

newness, rapidly evolving nature, and sheer size of the internet.  While sweeping claims are 

attention grabbing, Shapiro and Jacobs (2011a) warn against making such claims about the 

internet as being emancipatory or corruptive.   

Regardless of the nature of dialogues taking place, the most important thing to do is to 

listen and try to understand.  As Kahn and Kellner (2006) insist “those interested in the politics 

and culture of the future should therefore be clear on the important role of the alternative public 

spheres and intervene accordingly” (p. 720).  Recognizing the wide range in the kinds and 

quality of dialogues taking place on the internet, Herbst (2011) describes the value and 

importance of paying attention to online conversations as follows:   

In fact, the Internet—from truly ignorant chatter to incisive analysis—fills a gap we did 
not quite know existed. There has long been space for editorializing in newspapers and 
sparring of Sunday morning television pundits, but who knew that Americans would 
support such an expansive, varied, and intense mechanism for the expression of public 
opinion? To compare the talk of the political Internet to the eighteenth-century salons is 
the best we can do in looking for a historical correlate to what we see now. Like the 
Internet talk, the political talk of salons could be brilliant, uneven, wild, and ridiculous all 
at once. But the conversation of the salons reflected and shaped the culture of France and 
much of Western Europe and ignited the revolutions that would change our world 
forever. We do not take the salons lightly now; they are invaluable to historians. And we 
should treat the Internet in precisely the same way. (Herbst, 2011, p. 95) 

 
Herbst recognizes the diversity in quality of dialogues taking place online and the unprecedented 

access we have into the expression of opinion by so many people.  Public opinion, as Herbst 

claims, has reflected, shaped, and ignited societal revolutions.  It is the concept of public opinion 

I explore in the next section.   

Public Opinion 

 

Father of Public Relations, Edward Bernays stated the necessity of public opinion as 

follows:   

Industries, public utilities, educational movements [emphasis added], indeed all groups 
representing any concept or product, whether they are majority or minority ideas, succeed 

49 

 

only because of approving public opinion. Public opinion is the unacknowledged 
partner in all broad efforts [emphasis added]. (Bernays, 1928b, p. 38) 

 
If we accept Bernays’s assertion then it means we could have the most sound and robust research 

and data available on an idea, proposal, policy, or some other item, but it will mean little to 

nothing if we are unable to get public opinion behind it.  While the power of public opinion 

might not be as cut and dry as Bernays asserted, it is hard to deny its value.  Whether on a macro 

(eg. state or country) or micro scale (eg. college department or unit), we can likely all think of 

numerous examples where opinion was a catalyst for or barrier to change.   

So, what is public opinion?  Bernays (1928a) claimed “Public opinion, narrowly defined, 

is the thought of a society at a given time toward a given object; broadly conceived, it is the 

power of the group to sway the larger public attitude” (p. 958).  However, Bernays’s definition is 

not universally accepted.  As it turns out, a universally agreed upon definition of public opinion 

is elusive (Donsbach & Traugott, 2008; Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, & Shapiro, 2015; 

Herbst, 2011b).  Herbst (2011b) believes the term public opinion belongs at the top of any list of 

“nebulous concepts” (p. 85).  She asserts “the meaning of public opinion is both enormously 

complex and endlessly in transition” (p. 85).  One might point to common day opinion polls as 

they have become synonymous with public opinion (Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, & 

Shapiro, 2015; Goidel, 2011; Herbst, 1993, 2011a).  However, viewing polls as a representation 

of public opinion is problematic in a number of ways.     

One of the ways in which it is problematic lies in the contradiction in how polls are 

conducted and the word public.  According to Habermas (1996) public opinion is “not an 

aggregate of individually gathered, privately expressed opinions held by isolated persons”, and 

therefore “must not be confused with survey results” (p. 362).  If we consider the following first 

50 

 

entry definitions of the word public, as both an adjective and a noun, from the Oxford English 

Dictionary, Habermas’s assertion seems obvious:   

Adjective: In general, and in most of the senses, the opposite of private 
 
Noun: In a public place; before spectators or onlookers; publicly, openly, without 
concealment 

 
While the results of an opinion poll might be public, the actual giving of individual opinions is 

done in private.   

Herbst (2011b) makes similar points about polls while offering the following assessment 

of early concerns of the polling industry as it came about in the 1930s:  

The polling industry was seen as promising but worrisome, throwing a wrench into the 
way Americans thought about politics. After all, conversation, meetings, and assembly 
were—as Tocqueville so deftly documented—the heart and soul of American political 
opinion expression. Where, in the course of opinion polling, was the conversation and 
debate? If a person is to interview me in confidence about my views, adding them to the 
anonymous opinions of others and publicizing these for the world to see, where’s the 
dialogue? (Herbst, 2011b, p. 90) 

 
While acknowledging the weak academic debate over opinion polling, Herbst (2011b) quotes 

one of its critics, Lindsay Rogers, as having observed that “instead of feeling the pulse of 

democracy, Dr. Gallup listens to its baby talk” (as cited in Herbst, 2011b, p. 90).   

 

Some scholars view opinion polls or baby talk polls if you prefer, as having a corrosive 

effect on society.  Bernays (1945) believed polls create a false sense of a permanent public 

opinion, one that “helps to maintain the status quo” (p. 267).  He went on to argue, “Certainly in 

a fast moving world this is a dead weight” (Bernays, 1945, p. 267).  Meanwhile, Postman (2006) 

believed opinion polls are not really a reflection of opinions, but of emotions.  He was critical of 

the proliferation of so-called opinion polls presented in the media.  Postman viewed them as 

contributing to the misleading, superficial, and often irrelevant information promulgated by the 

mass media.  More recently in his analysis of how the news constructs and utilizes polls Bennett 

51 

 

(2011) concluded that opinion polls are “more often an element of news drama than a democratic 

accountability mechanism” (p. 256).  He based his conclusion on the following three related 

issues: decisions on topics to poll on are driven by “implicit journalistic perceptions of power 

and agendas of political institutions” instead of “independent assessments of public interest” (p. 

256), the tendency for poll questions to be “worded to fit the most dramatic and simple news 

narratives” (p. 256), and the ignoring of poll complications (e.g., issues with sampling) by the 

media.  Postman and Bennett’s concerns are echoed by Dunaway (2011) who claims, “the result 

is a ‘perfect storm’ of growing public and media reliance on an increasing array of public 

opinion polls, many of which may use questionable methods and provide misinformation” (p. 

71).     

Consider the controversial topic that is the Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA), otherwise 

known as Obamacare.  Some people are outright opposed to Obamacare, but support ACA 

(Enten, 2013; Hamblin, 2013).  You might ask, but how can a person be simultaneously opposed 

and in support of the same piece of legislation?  Hamblin (2013) points to ignorance, while 

Enten (2013) partially attributes it to the powerful emotions associated with the term Obamacare.  

Postman would likely have attributed it to both ignorance and emotions, as he believed news is 

increasingly “packaged as entertainment” (p. 107).  He was fearful of a society that takes 

ignorance to be knowledge, a state he believed we are steadily approaching.   

 

In any opinion poll, whether on healthcare, foreign policy, or education reform, one 

might wonder if the questions pollsters ask represent what is most important to respondents on 

the given topic.  Regarding education, Billingham and Kimelberg (2016) realized the educational 

priorities of elites might not reflect the priorities of the public.  In their research they analyzed 

forty-five years of PDK/Gallup Poll surveys, “an annual survey of Americans’ attitudes 

52 

 

regarding educational issues” (Billingham & Kimelberg, 2016, p. 532).  Billingham and 

Kimelberg (2016) compared trends in “predetermined forced choice survey questions” to trends 

in responses to the following open ended question: “What do you think are the biggest problems 

that the public schools of your community must deal with?” (Billingham & Kimelberg, 2016, p. 

542).  The open-ended question appeared in the PDK/Gallup surveys every year.  They “found 

notable divergences between the issues that matter most to those in charge of collecting the 

data—the survey designers, as well as the politicians, lobbyists, activists, and educators who 

advise them—and the issues that matter most to the general public” (Billingham & Kimelberg, 

2016, p. 542).  Bernays (1945) once said, “Today the poll has muffled dissenting voices” (p. 

266).  Perhaps today, based on Billingham and Kimelberg’s work, we can say polls muffle what 

matters most to the general public.   

 

Yet another reason equating an opinion poll with public opinion is problematic is a 

question of technique and its appropriateness for what one is actually trying to measure.  For 

example, while contemplating social scientists’ uncritical embracement of polling, Herbst 

(2011b) offers the following consideration: “but I do wonder whether the impatience to just get 

out there and ‘do something,’ regarding opinion measurement, masked a discomfort with the 

public itself” (p. 90).  She questions if our reliance on the expedient measurements opinion polls 

provide are “in the best interests of a diverse democratic nation” (Herbst, 2011b, p. 91).  Herbst 

relies heavily on Blumer’s original critique of opinion polls in making her case for a richer 

analysis of public opinion.  Blumer’s (1948) bold critique questioned whether public opinion 

scholars might be trying to perfect their technique (i.e., polling in the form of aggregations) at 

the expense of considering whether their technique was even appropriate for what they were 

trying to measure.  He expressed embarrassment to have to convey what he thought should be 

53 

 

common sense to scholars, namely that society “is not a mere aggregation of disparate 

individuals” (Blumer, 1948, p. 544).  Blumer’s critique was largely dismissed by the scholarly 

community (Herbst, 2011b), his argument even being described as having “misfired” (Newcomb, 

1948, p. 549).   But it is his argument, according to Herbst, that is timelier than ever as she 

makes the following assertion:   

Surprisingly, not long after Blumer had been pronounced dead, the arrival of the 
Internet—the most important change in our communication environment since the 
introduction of television—leads us directly back to Blumer. I would argue that Blumer is 
more right than ever before: public opinion is most productively defined as a 
phenomenon in motion, replete with power dynamics, social stratification, and, most of 
all, conversation [emphasis added]. If Blumer were alive today, he would view our 
blogs, Web pages, and constant chatter as extraordinarily helpful in understanding public 
opinion. In fact, it is precisely the sort of textured discourse that is so superior to the 
aggregation of anonymous individuals gathered in our artificial “publics” produced by 
polls. (Herbst, 2011b, p. 92)  

 
Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, and Shapiro (2015) assert “to focus on survey results alone 

is to miss most of the story” (p. 4).  Even Goidel, public opinion scholar and co-editor of the 

Survey Practice journal published by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, 

questions the appropriateness of polling in today’s environment.  He argues that “in a digital age, 

aggregating privately held individual opinions may be insufficient to the task of capturing an 

increasingly dynamic and interactive public” (Goidel, 2011, p. 12).  Such a dynamic and 

interactive online public has some researchers turning to new and relatively overlooked data 

sources, such as online comments (see Cho & Hong, 2009; Henrich & Holmes, 2013; Lee, 2012; 

Manosevitch & Walker, 2009; Matthews, 2015; McDermott, 2016; Santana, 2011), as a means to 

gauge public opinion.   

 

Instead of or in addition to opinion polls one might point to a vote as representative of 

public opinion on a given matter.  However, this is problematic as well.  For example, Lippmann 

(1993) questioned whether or not an election is an expression of the popular will.  He recognized 

54 

 

that opinion is much more complex than a check on a ballot, as he made clear in his following 

assertion:        

Presumably we have a number of thoughts on this and that with many buts and ifs and 
ors. Surely the cross on a piece of paper does not express them. It would take us hours to 
express our thoughts, and calling a vote the expression of our mind is an empty fiction. 
(Lippmann, 1993, p. 46) 

 
When you consider in many cases votes occur in private and only the results are public, an 

election has some of the same shortcomings opinion polls have when considered to be a 

representation of public opinion.     

 

So, if public opinion is not opinion poll results or election results, then what is it?  

Habermas (1996) believes public opinion to be much richer than survey results, something 

derived via dialogue within the public sphere.  Within the public sphere, Habermas argues, 

various points of view are openly communicated and “the streams of communication are, in the 

process, filtered and synthesized in such a way that they coalesce into bundles of topically 

specified public opinions” (p. 360).  The process of public opinion formation is social in nature 

(Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, & Shapiro, 2015; Habermas, 1996; Herbst, 2011b).  Unlike 

in an opinion poll, within the public sphere there is opportunity for dialogue among all 

participants with varying viewpoints as they are forming their opinions.  In an opinion poll the 

result is open, but the communication is private.  In the public sphere both the communications 

and results are open.  If you want to disagree with and engage in a conversation with a specific 

person within the public sphere you can do so.  There is an opportunity to find out more about 

why a person is of a particular opinion on a given topic and in turn try to influence it.  Whereas 

in an opinion poll we know little about the people whose opinions were tallied beyond some 

basic demographic information.         

55 

 

In her historical assessment of the evolution of public opinion, Herbst (2011b) claims in 

eighteenth-century Europe “wherever one found public opinion, it was somehow tied to talk—

not to counting people, ideas, or election returns (there were no general elections)” (p. 87).  She 

claims, “even with the emergence of the newspaper, public opinion was a conversational 

concept” (p. 87).  Herbst insists “that textured talk, dialogue, exchange, and conversation—not 

numbers—are the content of public opinion” (p. 95).  In addition to Habermas’s and Blumer’s 

work, Herbst (1993), as does Krippendorff (2005), points us to the work of French sociologist 

Gabriel Tarde, who lived from 1843 to 1904, to help us understand public opinion as 

conversation.  Long ago Tarde (Tarde & Clark, 2010) announced, “But now it is advisable to 

study in greater depth an unexplored domain, that factor of opinion that we have already 

recognized as the most continuous and the most universal, its invisible source, flowing 

everywhere and at all time in unequal waves: conversation” (p. 307).  Public opinion is social in 

nature and the primary means it is formed is via discourse (Tarde & Clark, 2010).  For Tarde, 

conversation is foundational to public opinion.  He was not alone.  Shepard (1909) proclaimed, 

“The simplest primary organ of public opinion is conversation” (p. 45).  For Shepard, the 

benefits of public opinion as conversation were obvious.  He stated the advantages as follows: 

“No special equipment is required; no pecuniary expense is involved; it is not necessary to 

interest or assemble large numbers of people, and yet all classes and conditions of men can with 

equal advantage participate in this mode of public-opinion-making” (Shepard, 1909, p. 46).  For 

Shepard, Tarde, Blumer, and Herbst, public opinion begins with conversation.   

While the debate as to whether the internet is a public sphere or not is unsettled, it does 

present us with unprecedented access to conversations people are having.  Arriving at an 

authoritative definition of public opinion is outside the scope of my dissertation.  I tend to agree 

56 

 

with the criticisms of polls just discussed and the potential damage they might be causing to 

discourse and our society.  For the purpose of this research, I took the position that public 

opinion is something much richer and nuanced than opinion polls and is the result of social 

processes.  In other words, public opinion is socially constructed.  As discussed earlier, social 

construction proposes that “what we take to be the truth about the world importantly depends on 

the social relationships of which we are a part” (Gergen, 2015, p. 3).  In other words, given we 

all have differing social relationships, what we take to be the truth will also differ, individually 

and within and across groups.  We can substitute the word opinion for truth.  This is because if 

truth can vary depending on social relationships it is more a belief or an opinion than absolute 

fact.  I realize this proposition likely makes some of my readers uncomfortable, given the 

unfortunate era of so-called fake news and alternative facts society currently finds itself within.  

Substituting the word opinion for truth is not a ploy to make everything relative.  Quite the 

opposite.  Some opinions, let’s call them the most informed opinions, are vastly superior to other 

held sentiment.  Nevertheless, opinions that may seem ludicrous, even delusional to most people 

are not viewed that way by the people who hold such beliefs.  Opinions, whether sound or crazy, 

are potentially powerful and can shape society for better or for worse.   

Walter Lippmann’s work on public opinion offers valuable insight into both the power of 

opinions and their makeup.  In his seminal book aptly named Public Opinion, Lippmann 

critiqued in detail the irrationality he believed drives most individual and collective behavior 

resulting in breakdowns in society.  The irrationality he describes largely stems from how we 

come to perceive the world and our individual and collective realities.  Lippmann (1960) claimed 

“The world is vast, the situations that concern us are intricate, the messages are few, the biggest 

part of opinion must be constructed in the imagination” (Lippmann, 1960, p. 68).  Much of what 

57 

 

we imagine of the world and its affairs stems from what other people and institutions (e.g., the 

news) report to us (Lippmann, 1960, McCombs, 2014), which Lippmann described as a “pseudo-

environment” (p. 15), and more recently McCombs described as a “second-hand reality” (p. 1).   

One part of Lippmann’s claim in need of revising pertains to there being few messages.  

In 1940, Princeton University Professor of Politics and public opinion guru Harold L. Childs 

claimed, “Nationwide hook ups, feature pictures displayed at the same time throughout the 

country and over the world, newspapers and magazines with circulations in the millions can 

produce opinion revolutions as different from the slow evolutionary changes of the past as TNT 

is different from gunpowder” (Childs, 1940, p. 9).  Childs died in 1972.  Today, with the advent 

of 24-hour news channels, the internet, social networking sites, and the plethora of other 

technological means of sharing at digital speed results in the number of messages being plentiful, 

if not overwhelming.  Given its low barrier to entry, the internet “acts as an amplifier for any sort 

of message” (Debatin, 2008, p. 67).  In today’s environment we can extend Childs’s analogy and 

say the proliferation and continual onslaught of digital communications can produce opinion 

revolutions as different from the slow evolutionary changes of the past as a nuclear bomb is 

different from TNT.  Or as Alejandro (2010) puts it, “In the social media sphere, news is word of 

mouth on steroids” (p. 12).  The world is still vast and the situations we face are often, perhaps 

more than we admit intricate, as Lippmann once asserted.  But our opinions largely constructed 

in imagination can seem even more like absolute truth as we are more easily able to find others 

who share in our social reality (Goidel, Kirzinger, & Xenos, 2011).   

 

Absolutes are problematic, but commonly assumed.  I think people like absolutes because 

they take comfort in certainty.  Taking shelter behind an absolute provides one with a sort of 

58 

 

protection, although imagined, against being wrong.  Lippmann perhaps stated it best when he 

made the following assertion:  

Generally it all culminates in the fabrication of a system of all evil, and of another which 
is the system of all good. Then our love of the absolute shows itself. For we do not like 
qualifying adverbs. They clutter up sentences, and interfere with irresistible feeling. We 
prefer most to more, least to less, we dislike the words rather, perhaps, if, or, but, toward, 
not quite, almost, temporarily, partly. Yet nearly every opinion about public affairs needs 
to be deflated by some word of this sort. But in our free moments everything tends to 
behave absolutely,—one hundred percent, everywhere, forever. (Lippmann, 1960, p. 156) 

 
And yet, we are all guilty, some more than others, in making absolute statements or conclusions 

when what we have to say warrant qualification.  For example, consider the lead-up to the 2016 

Presidential election.  How many pundits and so-called experts on TV said something to the 

effect of “there is NO chance Trump will win”?  How many common day citizens said the same?  

These are of course, rhetorical questions.  The point is absolutes are problematic because they 

exclude possibility and flexibility.   

Le Bon found the opinions held by crowds to be particularly pernicious and unwavering.  

He believed crowds to be incapable of reason (Le Bon, 1969).  Regardless of the focus of the 

crowd’s attention, Le Bon defined the convictions held by it as religious sentiment (Le Bon, 

1969).  According to Le Bon (1969), “This sentiment has very simple characteristics, such as 

worship of a being supposed superior, fear of the power with which the being is credited, blind 

submission to its commands, inability to discuss its dogmas, the desire to spread them, and a 

tendency to consider as enemies all by whom they are not accepted” (p. 43).  I think such 

religious sentiment exists within many higher education debates.  For example, from my vantage 

point it appears people often believe universities should be ran like businesses or that universities 

are not businesses and any argument to the contrary fundamentally misses what higher education 

59 

 

is about.  As if there are not a great number of things both perspectives could learn from one 

another and utilize to their mutual benefit.   

 

Let us for a moment consider the general public as a crowd.  Lippmann (1993) believed 

the public only become interested in an event when it has “been melodramatized as a conflict” 

(p. 55).  In other words, once the public perceives an event as an emotionally charged conflict.  

One such example of an emotionally charged conflict is the current state of higher education.  I 

realize the words “current state” is vague, but for the purpose of this illustration it will suffice.  

Higher education insiders might think the public is not well informed enough to have a say in 

how colleges and universities should or should not change.  After all, higher education is a very 

complex enterprise facing challenges stemming from multiple sources of various current and 

historical natures.  Based on Lippmann’s following assertion, I think it is safe to say he would 

agree with the insiders:    

We must assume that the members of a public will not anticipate a problem much before 
its crisis has become obvious, nor stay with the problem long after its crisis is past. They 
will not know the antecedent events, will not have seen the issue as it developed, will not 
have thought out or willed a program, and will not be able to predict the consequences of 
acting on that program. (Lippmann, 1993, p. 54) 

 
However, simply because the public is not well informed on the melodramatized conflict—

which according to Lippmann is essentially always the case—does not mean they will not exert 

great influence.  For Lippmann (1993) proclaimed “The public will arrive in the middle of the 

third act and will leave before the last curtain, having stayed just long enough perhaps to decide 

who is the hero and who the villain of the piece” (p. 55).  There is of course, no guarantee the 

public will correctly identify the hero and villain.  An important thing to remember is a person’s 

status as an insider or outsider varies from situation to situation, so one moves in and out of what 

is considered a public (Childs, 1940; Lippmann, 1993).  In other words, in the case of a higher 

60 

 

education insider, he is an insider to higher education conflicts, but an outsider to other realms 

where he is not an intimate part of.  According to Lippmann, in those other realms he is a part of 

the public and is subject to the same tendencies as just described.         

 

The concept of the crowd as it pertains to public opinion is of particular importance in 

regards to my current research.  In Le Bon’s time the crowds he was referring to were physical 

ones.  In order to form a crowd people needed to have means to be within close proximity to one 

another.  Today with the internet people can form virtual crowds regardless of distance, and with 

people from all across the world.  And while some view the idea of virtual crowds with unbridled 

optimism, as discussed in the prior section, others fear it will lead to the creation of echo-

chambers where people only connect to people with similar opinions thereby reinforcing their 

beliefs (Massaro & Stryker, 2012; Papacharissi, 2002; Turkle, 2015).  The evidence of such 

balkanization of the public via the internet is as of yet inconclusive (Massaro & Stryker, 2012).  

However, it is not too difficult to imagine how online spheres could cause such a problem.  For 

example, prior to the internet one’s ability to find and connect with people of similar opinion on 

a particular topic was quite limited.  Now if one has an internet connection he or she can simply 

go online and search for and connect with potentially millions of other people with the same 

opinion.  In addition to the exponential increase in ability to connect with likeminded people, the 

internet also provides anonymity, which may result in people expressing opinions—civil or 

uncivil—they might not otherwise be comfortable sharing (Harlow, 2015; Insler, 2016; Ksiazek, 

2015; Reagle, 2015; Samuels, 2016; Sax, 2011; Shanahan, 2016; Warzel, 2012).   

 

Besides the crowd pathology and its effect on opinion, another important pathology 

worth important attention pertains to the opinions of the well-educated.  In the news we hear so-

called expert opinions, often from professors at prestigious universities or leading professionals 

61 

 

within a given industry.  The assumption is they have focused much of their life and work on a 

particular topic, and therefore they know more about it and have more informed opinions.  But 

even so-called expert opinions can be problematic.  For example, Lippmann (1960) argued that 

“sometimes a little expertness on a small topic may simply exaggerate our normal human habit 

of trying to squeeze into our stereotypes all that can be squeezed, and of casting into outer 

darkness that which does not fit” (Lippmann, 1960, p. 116).  Renowned theoretical physicist 

David Bohm was aware of this tendency within scientists.  He believed too often in science 

people view their conclusions as “necessary and inevitable”, which in turn leads to “very little 

disposition to look for evidence to the contrary” (Bohm, 2002, p. 19).  Bohm argued “even when 

such evidence does arise, as in modern physics, the general tendency is to minimize its 

significance or even to ignore it altogether” (p. 19).  “Skeptical of science’s presumption of 

objectivity and definitiveness” (p. xviii), acclaimed neuroscientist Antonio Damasio (1994) 

makes a similar claim asserting, “ I have a difficult time seeing scientific results, especially in 

neurobiology, as anything but provisional approximations, to be enjoyed for a while and 

discarded as soon as better accounts become available” (p. xviii).  This tendency to presume 

objectivity and definitiveness does not just apply to physicists and neuroscientists.  Political 

science and public opinion scholars Shapiro and Jacobs (2011b) contend the more educated, 

informed, and engaged people are the more likely they are to dismiss evidence which contradicts 

their deeply held beliefs and are “particularly susceptible to emotional reasoning and to reaching 

views that are not consistently wise or ‘correct’” (p. 726).   

 

I think Lippmann, Bohm, Damasio, and Shapiro and Jacobs’ assertions about the 

opinions of experts warrant special consideration within academia.  After all, higher education is 

composed of so-called experts.  I say so-called not to be derogatory—there certainly are 

62 

 

legitimate experts within colleges and universities—but to denote that not everyone with an 

advanced degree is an expert even if he or she considers him or herself one.  Professors and 

higher education leaders should be careful not to dismiss the general public’s opinions of 

colleges and universities as naïve or ill-informed.  Perhaps the opinions others express simply do 

not fit within our own stereotypes as to what higher education should be about or how it should 

be ran.  Perhaps one’s own presumed expertness precludes him from seeing the value in what 

others have to say.  Regardless, there is power in opinions, in both democratic and tyrannical 

environments (Key, 1961).   

Thankfully, Lippmann offers a solution to never miss what we can learn from opinions, 

which should resonate with higher education members.  Lippmann proclaimed, “in truly 

effective thinking the prime necessity is to liquidate judgments, regain an innocent eye, 

disentangle feelings, be curious and open-hearted [emphasis added]” (Lippmann, 1960, p. 56).  I 

think it is important to note he used the term open-hearted instead of open-minded.  Lippmann 

(1960) believed “On many subjects of great public importance, and in varying degree among 

different people for more personal matters, the threads of memory and emotion are in a snarl” (p. 

405).  And while Lippmann astutely observed the power of emotions, researchers have largely 

ignored their relationship to opinion (Brader, Marcus, & Miller, 2011; Ginneken, 2003).  Instead, 

scholars have focused on the role of cognition with the belief that people’s ability to reason is not 

only separate from, but is also more powerful than emotion (Brader, Marcus, & Miller, 2011; 

Ginneken, 2003).  In the next section I explore why this belief is problematic and why it is 

important for us all to pay more attention to emotions.  

63 

 

Emotion 

The number one reason people post online comments on news stories is to express an 

emotion or an opinion (Stroud, Van Duyn, Alizor, Alibhai, & Lang, 2017; Stroud, Van Duyn, & 

Peacock, 2016).  Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “to express an emotional opinion”, 

rather than creating the illusion of a dichotomy between emotion and opinion, given how 

interrelated the two are.  Public opinion scholars Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, and 

Shapiro (2015) claim the study of emotion “is increasingly playing an important role in public 

opinion research” (p. 133).  They even go as far as to argue that “Public opinion polls that ask 

people’s opinions on various issues, without tapping their feelings, may fundamentally 

misrepresent their views” (Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, & Shapiro, 2015, p. 132).  

Emotions are integral to opinions, just as emotions are integral to virtually every aspect of our 

lives.  Director of the Oxford Centre for Emotions and Affective Neuroscience (OCEAN), Elaine 

Fox makes this point clear in the following opening to her book titled Emotion Science:  

Emotions are at the heart of what it means to be human.  Indeed, emotions are at the heart 
of what it means to be alive.  (Fox, 2008, p. XV) 
 

I agree with Fox and I would like to think most people would agree with her as well.  However, 

traditionally, both philosophically and scientifically, emotion has not received the attention it 

deserves.     

The traditional view is one of emotion being in opposition to reason (Barrett, 2017; 

Cavanagh, 2016; Damasio, 1994; Frijda, 2008; Haidt, 2013; Isen, 2008; Kahneman, 2011; 

Marcus, 2002; Prinz, 2012; Salovey, Detweiler-Bedell, Detweiler-Bedell, & Mayer, 2008; 

Solomon, 2008; Westen, 2008).  Over 250 years ago David Hume asserted, “Nothing is more 

usual in philosophy, and even in common life, than to talk of the combat of passion and reason, 

to give the preference to reason, and assert that men are only so far virtuous as they conform 

64 

 

themselves to its dictates” (Hume, 1958, p. 311).  In direct defiance to the common preference to 

reason Hume boldly proclaimed, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and 

can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them” (Hume, 1958, p. 313).  From 

a philosophical standpoint, society has largely ignored Hume’s proclamation (Solomon, 2008).   

Instead of embracing the power of emotion, the dominant ideology in Western societies 

has been that reason can and should prevail over emotional reactions and decisions (Barrett, 

2017; Haidt, 2013; Kahneman, 2015; Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Marcus, 2002; Prinz, 2012; 

Westen, 2008).  However, a growing number of scholars and body of literature from multiple 

disciplines are beginning to challenge this longstanding belief.  Drawing from cutting-edge 

neuroscience research, Barrett (2017) asserts “you might believe that you are a rational creature, 

weighing the pros and cons before deciding how to act, but the structure of your cortex makes 

this an implausible fiction” (p. 79-80).  She goes on to make the following Hume-like assertion:  

Affect is in the driver’s seat and rationality is a passenger. It doesn’t matter whether 
you’re choosing between two snacks, two job offers, two investments, or two heart 
surgeons— your everyday decisions are driven by a loudmouthed, mostly deaf scientist 
who views the world through affect-colored glasses. (Barrett, 2017, p. 79-80) 
 
Barrett is not alone in her claim.  For example, Haidt (2013) calls the dominant ideology 

the “rationalist delusion” (p. 33) and asserts “anyone who values truth should stop worshiping 

reason” (p. 104).  In a similar vein, Westen (2008) claims the dominant view of “a dispassionate 

mind that makes decisions by weighing the evidence and reasoning to the most valid 

conclusions—bears no relation to how the mind and brain actually work” (p. ix).  When it comes 

to politics, he makes the following critique of Democrat campaign failures:    

With the exception of the Clinton era, Democratic strategists for the last three decades 
have instead clung tenaciously to the dispassionate view of the mind and to the campaign 
strategy that logically follows from it, namely one that focuses on facts, figures, policy 
statements, costs and benefits, and appeals to intellect and expertise. They do so, I 
believe, because of an irrational emotional commitment to rationality-one that renders 

65 

 

them, ironically, impervious to both scientific evidence on how the political mind and 
brain work and to an accurate diagnosis of why their campaigns repeatedly fail. (Westen, 
2008, p. 15)  
 

I cannot help but find aspects of his critique to be characteristic of academia as well.  Academia 

prides itself on facts and figures and appeals to intellect and expertise.  In my opinion, many 

within higher education have an irrational emotional commitment to rationality which 

contributes to the disconnect between academia and the general public.  Consider as an example 

the recent advice higher education leaders Peterson and Rudgers (2018) gave to higher 

education.  Believing “higher education is no longer sitting on a pedestal” and anticipating 

eroding public support this year, they gave the following recommendation to colleges and 

universities:   

Be clear about the value your institution provides to students, alumni, employers and the 
region. Translate jargon into language, data and concrete examples that demonstrate 
relevance and value. (Peterson & Rudgers, 2018) 
 

Peterson and Rudgers’s advice seem to encourage higher education to appeal to the dispassionate 

mind, the kind of mind Westen argues does not exist.  Nowhere in their advice do they appear to 

place any explicit focus on emotionally connecting with the public.   

If we accept that a dispassionate mind is for the most part non-existent then there is a 

clear but often overlooked mismatch between Peterson and Rudgers’ advice and the problem it 

seeks to address.  If people are frustrated with, disappointed in, or pissed off at higher education, 

focusing on the data and sound analytic arguments to try and convince them to see things 

differently may actually make things worse.  Consider the following assertion by Heath & Heath:   

Trying to fight inertia and indifference with analytical arguments is like tossing a fire 
extinguisher to someone who’s drowning. The solution doesn’t match the problem. 
(Heath & Heath, 2010, p. 107) 
 

66 

 

There assertion is likely a tough pill for many within academia to swallow.  After all, many 

scholars pride themselves on sound research and analytic arguments to make their case.  It is not 

that reason and rigorous data analysis and presentation are not important, but that people’s 

obsession and focus on them is misplaced when having a challenging conversation or trying to 

enact difficult change (Haidt, 2013; Heath & Heath, 2010; Kotter & Cohen, 2002).   

For example, imagine you are in an emotionally charged argument with a significant 

other, family member, close friend, or a boss.  Tempers are flaring, talking morphs into yelling, 

with both sides thinking they are right.  Let’s say most people would agree you are right and the 

person you are arguing with is being irrational, perhaps even delusional in what he or she is 

asserting.  During the argument, do you think it would be a good idea or a successful approach to 

getting your point across to pull out a laptop with spreadsheets of data, statistical analyses, and 

charts and say to the person you arguing with “See, look at the data…clearly I am right and you 

are wrong”?  Unless you are arguing with a Vulcan—non-Star Trek fans please google Vulcan—

I am going to assume in many, if not most cases it would likely make the situation worse.  This is 

because we are far more emotional and far less rational than people realize or like to admit.   

Haidt offers the vivid metaphor of a rider on an elephant to convey the relationship 

between emotion and reason.  As he puts it, “the rider is our conscious reasoning—the stream of 

words and images of which we are fully aware”, whereas “the elephant is the other 99 percent of 

mental processes—the ones that occur outside of awareness but that actually govern most of our 

behavior” (Haidt, 2013, p. XXI).  The automatic processes the elephant consists of include 

intuition and emotion (Haidt, 2013).  Haidt claims automatic processes “have been running 

animal minds for 500 million years” (p. 53) and have done so efficiently.  He goes on to assert, 

“When human beings evolved the capacity for language and reasoning at some point in the last 

67 

 

million years, the brain did not rewire itself to hand over the reins to a new and inexperienced 

charioteer”, but instead “the rider (language-based reasoning) evolved because it did something 

useful for the elephant” (p. 53).  And while the elephant (i.e., emotions and other automatic 

processes) “is not an absolute dictator”, Haidt contends, it “is far more powerful than the rider” 

(p. 79).  Returning to our imagined emotionally charged argument, Haidt (2013) argues “you 

can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments” (p. 57).  Instead, “if you want to 

change people’s minds, you’ve got to talk to their elephants” (p. 57).   

Historically scientists have viewed emotion and cognition as separate domains 

(Blanchette & Richards, 2010; De Houwer & Hermans, 2010; Fox, 2008).  Recognizing the rise 

of affective neuroscience as a serious and maturing line of inquiry, Davidson (2003) came up 

with a list of seven sins in emotion research with the first sin being the assumption that “affect 

and cognition are subserved by separate and independent neural circuits” (p. 129).  Fox (2008) 

believes committing this sin today is inexcusable because the “neuroanatomical facts cannot be 

ignored and indicate that affective and cognitive processes involve many different and 

overlapping brain regions” (p. 349) and are deeply integrated.  As Fox asserts, today there is a 

growing body of literature showing “that affect and cognition are actually integral and 

inseparable parts of each other” (p. 190) right down to the neural level (Damasio, 1994; Fox, 

2008).  Researchers have found the relationship between emotion and cognition to be a two-way 

street, in that cognitions can have strong effects on emotions and vice versa (Fox, 2008).  In what 

he himself labels as a “radical assertion”, Marcus (2002) claims “people are able to be rational 

because they are emotional; emotions enable rationality” (p. 7).  He argues that instead of being 

independent of emotion, “rationality is a special set of abilities that are recruited by emotion 

68 

 

systems in the brain to enable us to adapt to the challenges that daily confront us” (Marcus, 2002, 

p. 7).  To remove emotion would hinder our ability to reason.   

Only recently have researchers begun to look at the integral relationship between emotion 

and cognition instead of focusing on cognition in isolation (Blanchette & Richards, 2010). And 

yet within the last few decades there has been a growing number of scholars and body of 

research that supports the idea that emotion influences such things as economic behavior (Rick & 

Loewenstein, 2008), decision making (Barrett, 2017; Blanchette & Richards, 2010; Isen, 2008; 

Prinz, 2012; Rick & Loewenstein, 2008), implementing change (Heath & Heath, 2010; Kotter & 

Cohen, 2002), problem-solving (Isen, 2008; Prinz, 2012), perception (Barrett, 2017; Ledoux & 

Phelps, 2008; Prinz, 2012), memory (Kensinger & Schacter, 2008; Ledoux & Phelps, 2008; 

Levine & Edelstein, 2010; Prinz, 2012), and attention (Prinz, 2012; Yiend, 2010).  Emotions can 

be damaging to our ability to reason, but so too can the absence of them (Damasio, 1994).  

Emotions can override one’s ability in certain situations to consider evidence contrary to one’s 

beliefs (Barrett, 2017; Damasio, 1994; Marcus, 2002).  Negative emotions tend to narrow one’s 

thinking whereas positive emotions tend to open one’s thinking (Haidt, 2013; Heath & Heath, 

2010; Isen, 2008; Konijn & ten Holt, 2010; Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Prinz, 2012).  Konijn and ten 

Holt (2010) claim “The attention-narrowing effects of negative emotions such as fear, appear to 

lead people to become less open minded, less accepting of dissenting opinions, and less 

accepting of out-group members” (p. 52). 

“Less accepting of out-group members” returns us to the idea of the crowd, which I have 

already touched on in prior sections on social construction and public opinion.  In his seminal 

work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, Gustave Le Bon (1969) described in detail the 

power of emotions in driving the actions and thinking of a crowd.  Collective emotion can be 

69 

 

exhilarating and is often harmless, such as in the collective emotion one feels cheering alongside 

other fans at a sporting event.  Le Bon recognized the value of the convictions of crowds and 

proclaimed, “It is not by reason, but most often in spite of it, that are created those sentiments 

that are the mainsprings of all civilisation — sentiments such as honour, self-sacrifice, religious 

faith, patriotism, and the love of glory” (p. 67).  But the vast part of his attention in his book is 

on the negative effects of crowds.  Le Bon argued that “the masses have never thirsted after 

truth”, and “they turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if 

error seduces them” (p. 64).  He went on to conclude “Whoever can supply them with illusions is 

easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim” (p. 64).  It 

is important to note, Le Bon’s conception of a crowd could be as small as a few individuals 

coming together.  He argued, “It is not necessary that a crowd should be numerous for the faculty 

of seeing what is taking place before its eyes to be destroyed and for the real facts to be replaced 

by hallucinations unrelated to them” (p. 25).  Today with the internet, the potential for the 

creation of crowds, whether virtual or physical, big or small, is practically limitless.   

Le Bon’s seminal work is well over a century old, but perhaps timelier than ever.  

Consider for a moment his following assertion:   

Given to exaggeration in its feelings, a crowd is only impressed by excessive sentiments. 
An orator wishing to move a crowd must make an abusive use of violent affirmations. To 
exaggerate, to affirm, to resort to repetitions, and never to attempt to prove anything by 
reasoning are methods of argument well known to speakers at public meetings. (Le Bon, 
1969, p. 30)  
 

Sound like anyone you know?  Perhaps someone who is seemingly an artful master at wielding 

the power of emotions within a crowd to push his agenda?  The person I am alluding to is the 

current U.S. President.  And while he does not refer to Le Bon’s work in forming his own 

70 

 

assessment of the Trump phenomenon, Singer’s following argument echoes the tenets of crowd 

psychology:   

Collective emotion is the only truth that matters.  A group caught up in a cultural 
complex has highly selective memory—if any historical memory at all—and chooses 
only those historical and contemporary facts that validate their preexisting opinion.  
Evidence of this is that no matter what Trump does or how many lies he tells, his base 
remains steadfast in its support of him, as the polls tell us.  (Singer, 2017, p. 289) 
 

The idea that within a crowd collective emotion is the only truth that matters, as Singer contends, 

is a scary thing to consider.  Granted, in my current research I am not looking at anything as 

significant as the election of a country’s leader.  However, the concepts of the crowd and its 

collective emotions are very much an important consideration in my work.   

Le Bon (1969) believed that “To bring home conviction to crowds it is necessary first of 

all to thoroughly comprehend the sentiments by which they are animated, to pretend to share 

these sentiments, then to endeavour to modify them by calling up, by means of rudimentary 

associations, certain eminently suggestive notions, to be capable, if need be, of going back to the 

point of view from which a start was made, and, above all, to divine from instant to instant the 

sentiments to which one’s discourse is giving birth” (p. 66).  I think he is wrong to suggest one 

should pretend to share the sentiments of the people he or she is trying to convince.  In my 

opinion doing so would be disingenuous and could potentially make things even worse.  Instead, 

I believe a better step after one has comprehended the sentiments conveyed by the crowd would 

be to convey empathy to the groups’ emotions.  My thoughts on the matter aside, research has 

shown the power of emotions in changing a crowd.       

For example, in their research which included interviewing about 400 people from 130 

organizations, Kotter and Cohen (2002) concluded that “the heart of change is in the emotions” 

(p. 2).  They assert “Change leaders make their points in ways that are as emotionally engaging 

71 

 

and compelling as possible” (p. 178).  Now consider what this finding means for higher 

education.  If we view scholars and their research as a vehicle for change, are they making their 

points as emotionally engaging and compelling as possible?  Sword (2012) describes scholarly 

writing—a primary mode of communicating research findings—as the very opposite of being 

emotional.  Instead of speaking to the far more powerful elephant (i.e., emotions), scholars 

appear to be focusing on speaking to the rider (reason).  Whether or not this is contributing to the 

disconnect between academia and the general public is debatable.  However, as I discussed 

earlier, there is growing scientific evidence that warrants an increased focus on emotions when 

trying to connect with people of varying viewpoints.  And yet, there are many people who 

continue to ignore the elephant as Fox makes clear in her following assertion:  

 
While the role of affect is increasingly being recognized in contemporary cognitive 
psychology and neuroscience there remain many who ignore the potential importance of 
emotions and mood states in cognition.  The evidence reviewed in this book suggests that 
this is a mistake. (Fox, 2008, p. 345)  
 
I would like to think most educators know of the powerful relationship and 

interconnection of emotion and reason even if they do not explicitly acknowledge it as a crucial 

part of their practice or proactively seek to capitalize on it.  My favorite teachers, the ones I most 

respect, may or may not have been the most knowledgeable among the faculty at the various 

schools I attended.  But for me they were the ones who captivated my attention by forming 

emotionally compelling connections with me.  In her book The Spark of Learning: Energizing 

the College Classroom with the Science of Emotion, Cavanagh (2016) makes a compelling case 

for the acknowledgment and utilization of emotions in education to enhance learning 

experiences.  She begins her argument with the following question: “The classroom setting is 

already a highly charged emotional atmosphere; why not harness that power and direct it at 

72 

 

learning” (p. 7)?  We can extend her question beyond the traditional boundaries of a classroom to 

life in general, which is of course, a highly charged emotional atmosphere.  And this is the point 

scholars, such as Haidt, Marcus, Westen, Heath and Heath, Kotter and Cohen, and others are 

getting at when they urge us to focus more on emotion rather than naively relegating it to enemy 

of reason status.   

The media knows the power of emotions, in particular negative emotions (Altheide, 

2010; Fuller, 2010; Konijn & ten Holt, 2010; Patterson, 2013; Patterson, 2016).  Noting a clear 

focus on the negative across a variety of news topics, Patterson (2016) claims the real bias of the 

media “is a decided preference for the negative” (p. 5).  According to Altheide (2010) when it 

comes to the news, “Audiences are cultivated through fear and crisis” (p. 261).  Titles of popular 

press articles, such as The Washington Post article “Everyone thinks the current state of higher 

education is awful…Who is to blame?” written by Drezner (2015), a professor at Tufts 

University I might add, or the Detroit Metro Times article “Why Michigan State University is a 

mess” by Lessenberry (2018), head of the journalism faculty at Wayne State University, aim to 

capitalize on people’s emotions.  At the very least, it is a safe bet authors and editors are aware 

such emotionally charged titles are likely to draw the attention of readers.     

Pantti (2010) describes the news as an “emotional public sphere” and claims “In 

contemporary mediated societies, media work as an intersection of personal and collective public 

emotions: personal emotions become public and public emotions shape personal emotions” (p. 

222).  Beckett and Deuze (2016) assert “As journalism and society change, emotion is becoming 

a much more important dynamic in how news is produced and consumed” (p. 2).  In fact, they 

consider emotion “to be a crucial building block of good journalism” (p. 1).  “Trustworthiness in 

the networked journalism age is”, as Beckett and Deuze (2016) argue, “increasingly determined 

73 

 

by its emotional authenticity” (p. 4).  They go on to argue for what I label as an elephant and 

rider approach to journalism in their following assertion:   

As journalism reinvents itself, it must ask how best an aspiration to objectivity might be 
fostered in this environment. It isn’t by insisting that the authorities know best—let alone 
the journalistic authorities. It will be about linking news to emotion: connecting with 
communities, creating constructive journalism that deploys positive psychology, and 
linking up with the culture of sharing on social networks. (Beckett & Deuze, 2016, p. 4) 
 

I find their assertion to be very applicable to academia as well.  Like journalism, academia is 

unlikely to bridge the gap between it and the general public by insisting scholars know best.  

This is not to say that in many cases academia does not know best, but that in order to make a 

more effective and sustaining connection with the public they should focus on emotion.  Just as 

news organizations are already mining audience data to better understand the emotional makeup 

of their audiences (Beckett & Deuze, 2016), higher education would be wise to do the same. 

An important consideration regarding emotions is that they are not necessarily contained 

within the person experiencing them.  They can cascade to other people infecting them with the 

same or similar emotions.  This may seem rather obvious within our own personal everyday 

face-to-face life.  After all, common advice when I was growing up was to surround oneself with 

positive people.  However, in an online world we may not realize just how contagious our 

emotions might be to people we will likely never see or interact with face-to-face.  Recognizing 

the potential for emotions to spread via the various forms of social media, Nabi, So, and Prestin 

(2010) contend “As media scholars, we do ourselves a disservice to think of emotional responses 

to media as strictly intrapersonal phenomena” (p. 129).  In one of the more recent and disturbing 

research studies, Kramer, Guillory, and Hancock (2014) demonstrated the infectious nature of 

emotions via social media.  By manipulating the content of news feeds for 689,003 Facebook 

users, Kramer, Guillory, and Hancock found that “When positive expressions were reduced, 

74 

 

people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were 

reduced, the opposite pattern occurred” (p. 8788).  I label their study as disturbing for two 

reasons.  First, the ethical nature of their work is highly debatable given the people whose news 

feeds were manipulated might not have viewed their creating of a Facebook account as 

constituting informed consent to such an experiment.  And second, it is scary to think how the 

internet may contribute to the global spread of emotional states at digital speed.  More than a 

hundred years before the advent of the internet Le Bon (1969) warned that “Ideas, sentiments, 

emotions, and beliefs possess in crowds a contagious power as intense as that of microbes” (p. 

73).  It is a warning I believe we all need to take even more seriously in today’s digital world. 

The news, whether knowingly or not, play an influential role in the spread of emotions.  

One such example is what Sustein and Kuran (as cited in Kahneman, 2011) refer to as the 

availability cascade.  While discussing Sustein and Kuran’s work on heuristics, Kahneman offers 

the following depiction of how the media can play a role in the availability cascade:  

In particular, the importance of an idea is often judged by the fluency (and emotional 
charge) [emphasis added] with which that idea comes to mind. An availability cascade is 
a self-sustaining chain of events, which may start from media reports of a relatively 
minor event and lead up to public panic and large-scale government action. On some 
occasions, a media story about a risk catches the attention of a segment of the public, 
which becomes aroused and worried. This emotional reaction becomes a story in itself 
[emphasis added], prompting additional coverage in the media, which in turn produces 
greater concern and involvement. The cycle is sometimes sped along deliberately by 
“availability entrepreneurs,” individuals or organizations who work to ensure a 
continuous flow of worrying news [emphasis added]. The danger is increasingly 
exaggerated as the media compete for attention-grabbing headlines. Scientists and others 
who try to dampen the increasing fear and revulsion attract little attention, most of it 
hostile: anyone who claims that the danger is overstated is suspected of association with a 
“heinous cover-up.” The issue becomes politically important because it is on everyone’s 
mind, and the response of the political system is guided by the intensity of public 
sentiment. The availability cascade has now reset priorities [emphasis added]. Other 
risks, and other ways that resources could be applied for the public good, all have faded 
into the background. (Kahneman, 2011, p. 142) 
 

75 

 

You may recall from my earlier section on social construction that McCombs (2014) attributes 

an increased public concern on crime during the 1990s when crime was actually declining to 

increased news coverage.  His attribution is an example of the availability cascade.  With the 

example of the availability cascade, we can see how the influential role of emotions can make 

something seem more real than it really is.  And while establishing whether or not such cascades 

currently exist within the media is not within the scope of my current research, it is worth 

considering how such cascades might exist within news pertaining to higher education shaping 

priorities for bad or good.   

So-called availability entrepreneurs, as Kahneman refers to, seek to capitalize on 

perpetuating a state of widespread and heightened anxiety throughout society.  Their work, 

which includes the work of some journalists, can have a toxic effect in our ability to make sense 

of the world.  For example, Patterson contends…      

When everything and everybody is portrayed as deeply flawed, there’s no sense making 
distinctions on that score, which works to the advantage of those who are more deeply 
flawed. Civility and sound proposals are no longer the stuff of headlines, which instead 
give voice to those who are skilled in the art of destruction. The car wreck that was the 
2016 election had many drivers. Journalists were not alone in the car, but their 
fingerprints were all over the wheel. (Patterson, 2016, p. 5) 
 

And while Patterson’s remarks were about the 2016 election, his assertion extends much further.  

According to Patterson (2016), the negative focus of the press on most every topic has a 

corrosive effect on our ability to think and talk clearly about those very same topics.  If we 

accept his assertion, think of what that might mean for higher education.  Higher education has 

no shortage of critics and its own negative headlines and book titles.  For example, a common 

starting point for the technical disruption of higher education crowd is the assertion that higher 

education is deeply flawed.  While the merit of their default assertion is debatable, it might be 

76 

 

wise to consider Patterson’s argument and contemplate whether all the negative press colleges 

and universities receive is simply giving voice to those who are skilled at the art of destruction.          

As indicated earlier, the emotions we experience do not occur in isolation, nor are they 

confined to the causing experiences.  In other words, our emotions do not exist within a box.  For 

example, let us say you have a fight with a loved one.  The emotions the two of you experience 

do not begin and end within the context of that specific fight.  It is not like as if you both start 

with a fresh emotional slate in all subsequent fights or even cordial experiences with each other.  

Unless you have reached a Buddha like state of mindfulness, I assume this concept is obvious.  

The idea that our emotions from a given experience can leave a sort of emotional residue, which 

can accumulate and affect our future experiences, is an important consideration in my current 

research.  It is important because some of the comments I analyzed are a few years old.  It is also 

important because I believe it would be naïve to think emotions experienced by an individual or 

group in a given situation or towards a given topic do not carry over, at least to some extent, to 

other situations and topics.  For example, if a commenter expresses anger about the influx of 

international students on campuses, it is possible this anger might affect how they view other 

aspects of higher education.   

I realize the suppositions I just made might drive some of my readers crazy.  But consider 

for a moment the following claim made by distinguished neuroscientist and psychologist Lisa 

Feldman Barrett regarding the role of emotions, both past and present, in how we experience the 

future:      

The bottom line is this: the human brain is anatomically structured so that no decision or 
action can be free of interoception and affect, no matter what fiction people tell 
themselves about how rational they are. Your bodily feeling right now will project 
forward to influence what you will feel and do in the future. It is an elegantly 
orchestrated, self-fulfilling prophecy, embodied within the architecture of your brain. 
(Barrett, 2017, p. 82) 

77 

 

 

In other words, the emotions we experienced yesterday, last week, or years ago affect our present 

day and future experiences, emotions, and actions.  It would be shortsighted to think of an issue 

the public was pissed off about several years ago as no longer affecting how they think and feel 

about the topic today or about other seemingly unrelated issues.   

We might not even be aware of how our past or even current emotions are affecting how 

we perceive things.  As Fox (2008) contends “emotions can operate at different levels and may 

not necessarily be conscious” (p. 352).  The operating of emotions, conscious or unconsciously, 

can occur within an individual or within a group, as in crowds.  Singer (2018) points to the 

power of built-up unconscious feelings within a group psyche in an ominous way, labeling it as 

“shadow energies” (p. 288).  He attributes much of Trump’s success to unleashing such energies 

within his base through the use of trigger words, such as “political correctness”.  According to 

Singer, “the notion of a trigger word activating a complex goes back to Jung’s early word-

association tests, in which certain words detonated powerful emotions contained within personal 

complexes” (p. 288-289), which upon being unleashed “takes on a life of its own” (p. 289).  

Singer’s claim is in line with an argument articulated by Lippmann nearly a hundred years ago.   

Lippmann (1993) claimed the ability to make a general will out of a multitude of 

opinions is “an art well known to leaders, politicians and steering committees” (p. 37).  He went 

on to assert the following: 

It consists essentially in the use of symbols which assemble emotions after they have 
been detached from their ideas. Because feelings are much less specific than ideas, and 
yet more poignant, the leader is able to make a homogeneous will out of a heterogeneous 
mass of desires. The process, therefore, by which general opinions are brought to 
cooperation consists of an intensification of feeling [emphasis added] and a degradation 
of significance. Before a mass of general opinions can eventuate in executive action, the 
choice is narrowed down to a few alternatives. (Lippmann, 1993, p. 37-38) 
 

78 

 

An intensification of feeling implies a buildup of emotions, something that occurs over time.  

Lippmann (1993) argued “The victorious alternative is executed not by the mass but by 

individuals in control of its energy” (p. 38).  In other words, the one who is able to harness the 

accumulated emotional energy of a public detached from any one specific idea wields great 

power.  The use of accumulated emotional energy is not inherently good or bad.  Its nature is 

dependent upon those who leverage it and to what ends.   

In our online lives we face a barrage of emotional communications the likes of which we 

have never seen before.  The conscious, as well as unconscious effect of our emotions, and the 

buildup of shadow energies if you will, might be occurring in unanticipated ways.  For example, 

recognizing the power of media to invoke emotions within its audience, Konijn and ten Holt 

(2010) ask “What is the unconscious and ‘creeping’ impact of mass media on all of us” (p. 48)?  

They assert “we might find that emotional responses are being conditioned into us without our 

own awareness or consent” and that “mass media might hold far more sway over our lives than 

any of us realize” (p. 49).  Konijn and ten Holt’s propositions are concerning.  And while I am 

not attempting to verify or measure the potential creeping impact of mass media on our 

emotional state, it is important to recognize the emotions conveyed within the comments subject 

to my research may carry forward into the indefinite future.   

I assume many within higher education—professors and grad students in particular—

probably think they are significantly more rational than the average person, given their advanced 

educational attainment.  I am not alone in my assumption.  For example, Readings (1999) argued 

that the popular belief in the University as being “a model of rational community, a microcosm 

of the pure form of the public sphere” (p. 20) is a fallacy.  He made what I found to be a 

humorous assertion that “this claim for an ideal community in the University still exerts power, 

79 

 

despite its glaring inaccuracy—evident to anyone who has ever sat on a faculty committee” (p. 

20).  Interestingly, Readings’s claim received support in the form of an Amazon posted book 

review—a type of online comment—seemingly made by Frank Fear (1997) of Michigan State 

University with the subject line stating, “Faculty will read this book and say, ‘Ah, yes!’”  In a not 

so humorous and somewhat apocalyptic assertion, Smith (2018) claims “Much of American 

higher education now embodies the problems it was intended to transcend and transform: 

unreason, duplicity, refusals of accountability, incapacities to grasp complexity and see the big 

picture, and resorts to semi-masked forms of coercion”.  Granted, Readings, Fear, and Smith’s 

assertions are anecdotal, but I cannot help but wonder how many professors and grad students in 

private would agree with them.  I know I find elements of truth in their assertions based on my 

own experiences in multiple institutions of varying types.  Perhaps we can view academia as a 

sort of crowd and apply Le Bon’s (1969) assertion that “In a crowd men always tend to the same 

level, and, on general questions, a vote, recorded by forty academicians is no better than that of 

forty water-carriers” (p. 106). 

Le Bon, as it turns out, was quite pessimistic as to the ability of an academic crowd being 

any less driven by emotion than any other crowd, which he made clear in his following assertion:   

It does not follow because an individual knows Greek or mathematics, is an architect, a 
veterinary surgeon, a doctor, or a barrister, that he is endowed with a special intelligence 
of social questions. All our political economists are highly educated, being for the most 
part professors or academicians, yet is there a single general question — protection, 
bimetallism, &c. — on which they have succeeded in agreeing? The explanation is that 
their science is only a very attenuated form of our universal ignorance. With regard to 
social problems, owing to the number of unknown quantities they offer, men are 
substantially, equally ignorant. In consequence, were the electorate solely composed of 
persons stuffed with sciences their votes would be no better than those emitted at present. 
They would be guided in the main by their sentiments and by party spirit. (Le Bon, 1969, 
p. 106)  
 

80 

 

Again, I am sure there are many who might read his assertion and disagree with his assessment, 

perhaps for more emotional reasons than one is willing to admit.  I realize some might think I am 

just taking an opportunity to beat up on higher education.  Perhaps.  But my main motive is to 

convey that more education does not mean less emotion, and there is nothing wrong with that.  

As Fox (2008) proclaims, “Emotions are at the heart of what it means to be human” (p. XV).  

Where I think we run into problems is when people deny the power of emotion or assume they 

can make it the slave of reason.  And while I do not claim to be an expert on emotions, I hope the 

literature just discussed makes it readily apparent as to why it is important to pay emotions their 

due attention.      

So, what are emotions?  Seems like a straightforward and simple question, but as it turns 

out, a consistent definition remains elusive (Barrett, 2017; Fox, 2008; Mauss & Robinson, 2010; 

Solomon, 2008; Stets & Turner, 2008).  James was critical of attempts to describe or define 

emotions.  He described attempts to define emotions as “one of the most tedious parts of 

psychology” (James, 1950b, p. 448).  Regarding the process of describing emotions, he went on 

to lament as to how “its subdivisions are to a great extent either fictitious or unimportant, and 

that its pretenses to accuracy are a sham” (p. 448).  The purpose of my research is not to settle on 

a definitive definition of emotions, but instead use existing research and theories to elaborate 

upon what emotions might be.  Just because an agreed upon definition has not yet been reached 

does not mean we cannot investigate and try to better understand them, as evidenced by the 

plethora of research on emotions.   

Fox (2008) claims “emotions are often considered to be discrete and consistent responses 

to an internal or an external event which has a particular significance for the organization” (p. 

16).  She goes on to assert “sensing significance or evaluating an object of situation is a key 

81 

 

component of emotions” (p. 16).  “Emotions are public affairs”, says Fox, whereas feelings “are 

private to the individual experiencing them” (p. 17).  In this sense, we can consider the states 

people convey in online comments to be emotions instead of feelings because the comments are 

public.  According to Fox (2008), scientists have utilized several different frameworks to study 

emotion, with the social construction of emotion being among the most influential.  Whereas the 

classic view of emotions views them as “artifacts of evolution”, “fixed”, and “universal” 

(Barrett, 2017, p. xi), the social construction of emotion views emotions as an active construction 

fed by “sensory input and past experience” (Barrett, 2017, p. 31).  Barrett (2017) more fully 

defines the theory of constructed emotion as follows: 

In every waking moment, your brain uses past experience, organized as concepts, to 
guide your actions and give your sensations meaning.  When the concepts involved are 
emotion concepts, your brain constructs instances of emotions. (Barrett, 2017, p. 31)     
 

The theory of constructed emotion fits well with my adoption of a social construction research 

perspective in my current work.   

Barrett (2017) asserts “What we colloquially call emotions, such as anger, fear, and 

happiness, are better thought of as emotion categories, because each is a collection of diverse 

instances” (p. 23).  For example, a person may be angry and still speak in a controlled voice or 

he might be angry and flailing his arms up and down while yelling (Barrett, 2017).  And while a 

conclusive definition of emotion remains to be determined, categories assist in our ability to 

speak about and investigate emotions.  One such form of categorization is to broadly classify into 

two groups, negative and positive (Prinz, 2012).   With regards to the value or usefulness of any 

single particular way out of the infinite number of ways of enumerating and grouping emotions, 

James (1950b) claimed “the only question would be, does this grouping or that suit our purpose 

best?” (p. 485).    For my research I have decided the emotion classifications identified by the 

82 

 

Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) program suit my purposes the best.  LIWC uses the 

broad categories of positive and negative emotions, along with three subcategories of negative 

emotions: anxiety, anger, and sadness (Pennebaker, Boyd, Jordan, & Blackburn, 2015). 

Like public opinion, emotion is a nebulous term, which researchers struggle to arrive at a 

consensus on.  However, just as many scholars see the apparent power in public opinion, many 

also see power in emotion.  Public opinion and emotion are highly interrelated, perhaps 

inseparable.  People who harness the power of emotional public opinions can wield it for good or 

bad, as I explore in more detail in the next section on influence. 

Influence 

According to the Father of Public Relations Edward Bernays (1928a), historically 

“Public opinion was made or changed formerly by tribal chiefs, by kings, by religious leaders” 

(p. 959).  However, ninety years ago he announced, “Today the privilege of attempting to sway 

public opinion is everyone’s” (Bernays, 1928a, p. 959).  Bernays proclaimed, “But to-day 

because ideas can be instantaneously transmitted to any distance and to any number of people, 

this geographical integration has been supplemented by many other kinds of grouping, so that 

persons having the same ideas and interests may be associated and regimented for common 

action even though they live thousands of miles apart” (Bernays, 1928b, p. 13).  He made these 

statements ninety years ago!  And while Bernays lived to the ripe old age of 103, he died in 1995 

well before the ubiquity of the internet, an unprecedented mechanism for the instantaneous 

transmission of ideas all around the world.   

Historically very few had the ability to influence massive audiences given the high costs 

of reaching millions of people (Bernays, 1928b).   However, today anyone with an internet 

connection can reach such an audience instantaneously with a few keystrokes and mouse clicks.  

83 

 

In the early days of the Internet Chomsky (2002) was asked about the kind of impact he thought 

the internet would have on activism and organizing, to which he gave the following answer:  

And that’s probably the way it’s going to go in general: it’ll be used as another 
technique for control and manipulation [emphasis added], and for keeping people in 
their roles as mindless consumers of things they don’t really want.  Sure—why should the 
people who own society do things any differently? (p. 278) 

 
It would be nice to be able to say that Chomsky was completely wrong in his prediction.  

Unfortunately, there is growing evidence that his answer was correct.   

 

Perhaps the most infamous evidence to date is Russia meddling with various U.S. affairs 

via online mechanisms.  In a 2017 piece on NPR titled How Russian Propaganda Spreads On 

Social Media Laura Sydell (2017) discusses the insidious way the country of Russia has used the 

internet as a tool to manipulate.  As an example, she talks about a Facebook group page called 

Blacktivist, which caught the attention of a Black Lives Matter supporter, M’tep Blount.  The 

page apparently had over 400,000 followers and portrayed videos of police brutality against 

African-Americans.  According to Sydell (2017), “the Blacktivist page was not like Black Lives 

Matter, at all”, but instead “it appears to have been linked to Russia” and has subsequently been 

removed.  The following excerpt describes one way online manipulation can work:         

Jeff Hancock, a psychologist who heads Stanford University’s Social Media Lab, says 
that propaganda via a page like Blacktivist was not aimed at changing Blount's mind. It 
was actually meant to trigger strong feelings [emphasis added]. 
 
“Propaganda can actually have a real effect,” he says. “Even though we might already 
believe what we’re hearing, this can heighten our arousal, our emotions.”…  
 
This kind of propaganda, he says, is designed to enhance divisions among people and 
increase “the anger within each other. It’s really truly just a simple divide-and-
conquer approach [emphasis added].” (Sydell, 2017) 

 
Based on Hancock’s assertion, propaganda targets and seizes the power of emotions.  Just like 

Bernays (1928b) argued, “By playing upon an old cliché, or manipulating a new one, the 

84 

 

propagandist can sometimes swing a whole mass of group emotions” (p. 50-51).  The design of 

propaganda which propagandists utilize is not necessarily something so complex only evil 

geniuses are capable of devising.  It can be as simple as inciting divisiveness among people and 

groups.     

 

The simple divide-and-conquer approach Hancock refers to is not something only 

employed by one country against another.  People and organizations of all shapes and sizes can 

use it, like all propaganda, at various micro and macro levels.  For example, as part of his 

strategy to turn Wisconsin into a “right to work state”—a change that would affect a great 

number of higher education professionals, along with employees from other sectors—then 

Governor Scott Walker was unknowingly recorded saying “The first step is we’re going to deal 

with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer” 

(Sargent, 2012).  I am not suggesting that the governor or his supporters used the internet as a 

means to sow division.  But it is not difficult to imagine the possibility of a person or a group 

utilizing online means to incite anger, whether on a local or a global scale.     

 

Another form of manipulation is the use of misinformation.  In the early 1900s Dewey 

(1927) asserted “Of course there has been an enormous increase in the amount of knowledge 

possessed by mankind, but it does not equal, probably, the increase in the amount of errors and 

half-truths which have got into circulation” (p. 163).  He believed our capacity for critical 

thinking and discriminating judgment were not keeping pace with the growth of misinformation.  

We are, in my opinion, in desperate need of critical consideration of Dewey’s assertions in the 

online digital world we live in today.  One of the commonly assumed benefits of the internet is 

having the world’s information at your fingertips.  While to a certain extent the common 

85 

 

assumption has credence, far less understood or even considered is the harmful effects of 

increasingly widespread errors and half-truths Dewey warns of.   

Today with the internet a half-truth or outright complete falsehood may live on 

indefinitely in cyberspace with pernicious effects.  According to a recent Pew Research Center 

poll, 64% of adults in the U.S. believe “fabricated news stories cause a great deal of confusion 

about the basic facts of current issues and events” (Barthel, Mitchell, & Holcomb, 2016, p. 3).  

This belief was shared across most demographics, including educational attainment (Barthel, 

Mitchell, & Holcomb, 2016).  Based on the poll results, 23% of Americans have shared fake 

news, with 14% doing so knowing the story was fake and 16% realizing it was fake after the fact 

(Barthel, Mitchell, & Holcomb, 2016, p. 3).  Even more concerning than the spread of fake news, 

at least in my opinion, is the unprecedented ability for people to find others who believe the same 

thing regardless if it is real or fake, thereby making it seem that much more real to them.  A 

person might even be able to find research to support the fake story.  As Haidt (2013) contends, 

“Science is a smorgasbord, and Google will guide you to the study that’s right for you” (p. 99).   

Thanks to technology, manipulation can even be automated!  For example, an increasing 

number of groups, including governments, politicians, and militaries, are utilizing auto-generated 

messages (i.e., social bots) to interact directly with and influence people (Woolley, 2016).  

Woolley (2016) contends “bots suppress free expression and civic innovation through the 

demobilization of activist groups and the suffocation of democratic free speech” (para. 7).  He 

believes the ubiquity of such malicious automated actors on social platforms, including online 

news sites, is in dire need of attention.  Again, perhaps the most recent and publicized example 

of this has to do with Russian linked manipulators trying to influence U.S. affairs.  Twitter Inc. 

(2018) reported to Congress that between September 1 and November 15, 2016 

86 

 

@realDonaldTrump account tweets were retweeted 469,537 times by Russian-linked automated 

accounts.  In a series of tweets on March 1, 2018 co-founder and CEO of Twitter Jack Dorsey 

admitted to underestimating the power of its platform to be used for manipulation:   

We have witnessed abuse, harassment, troll armies, manipulation through bots and 
human-coordination, misinformation campaigns, and increasingly divisive echo 
chambers [emphasis added]. We aren’t proud of how people have taken advantage of our 
service, or our inability to address it fast enough. (Dorsey, 2018a) 
 
We love instant, public, global messaging and conversation. It’s what Twitter is and it’s 
why we‘re here. But we didn’t fully predict or understand the real-world negative 
consequences [emphasis added]. We acknowledge that now, and are determined to find 
holistic and fair solutions. (Dorsey, 2018b) 

 
The abuse Dorsey refers to are the same kinds of abuse that can and do occur within online news 

comments.  Granted, my research is not on Presidential elections, but the realization of 

automated manipulation should be concerning to all because it could be utilized on a much 

smaller scope.  While it is unlikely anyone can fully predict the future or understand the real-

world negative consequences, this does not mean we cannot or should not exercise caution and 

spend more time thinking about potential consequence of an online world.   

Huxley (1960) forewarned that “the art of mind-control is in the process of becoming a 

science” (p. 287).  Childs (1940) issued a similar warning having argued that “when innumerable 

groups suddenly begin to realize the importance of public opinion” the result is “a race unlike the 

international armaments race; a race for superiority in weapons of aggressive propaganda which 

may be as disastrous as the race for battleship supremacy” (p. 131).  Huxley and Childs’s 

warnings made long ago are eerily coming true.  I realize this may sound like the stuff of science 

fiction.  But consider some of the literature I reviewed in the prior section on emotion in addition 

to this section.  The troves of data with potential insights into what causes people to think and 

feel certain ways is growing at an accelerating rate as people live more of their life digitally 

87 

 

connected or disconnected, depending on your perspective.  According to a science nonfiction 

piece by CBS News, ex-president of Facebook Sean Parker said the social media giant is 

“‘exploiting vulnerability in human psychology’” (Facebook ex-president, 2017).  In yet another 

piece, when former Google product manager Tristan Harris was asked “Is Silicon Valley 

programming apps or are they programming people?” (Cooper, 2017) he gave the following 

answer: 

Inadvertently, whether they want to or not, they are shaping the thoughts and feelings and 
actions of people. They are programming people [emphasis added]. There’s always this 
narrative that technology’s neutral. And it’s up to us to choose how we use it. This is just 
not true. (Cooper, 2017)  

 
Parker and Harris’s remarks seem to indicate the realization of Huxley’s prediction to at least 

some extent.   

 

Online comments are a type of social media producing massive amounts of data about 

people.  There are news articles that generate thousands of online comments.  One such example, 

The Guardian—a British daily newspaper—received seventy million online comments on its 

website between 2006 and 2016 (Gardiner, Mansfield, Anderson, Holder, Louter, & Ulmanu, 

2016)!  That is a hell of a lot of data on a hell of a lot of people—or perhaps social bots—and on 

their opinions and emotions.  The Guardian has a counter on one of its webpages where you can 

see how many comments people left on their site since 7:00 am each day, along with how many 

were blocked.  At 7:10 pm Eastern Standard Time on March 1, 2018 the counter was at over 

28,550 comments with about 510 blocked by moderators (Gardiner, Mansfield, Anderson, 

Holder, Louter, & Ulmanu, 2016).  And while I am not suggesting we shut down the internet to 

prevent the possibility of online manipulation, whether through Facebook, Twitter, Google, 

online comments, or some other form, I am urging us all to exercise more caution and controlled 

optimism when we consider the possibilities of an online world.        

88 

 

 

Now that we have the dark and depressing stuff out of the way, there is a potential silver 

lining.  Just as manipulation can have devastating effects, it can have positive effects as well.  

When we think of manipulation and its best friend propaganda images of oppressive dictators 

and secretive evil agendas might immediately come to mind.  However, this need not be the case.  

Bernays (1928b) and Childs (1940) acknowledged for many the term propaganda carries a 

negative connotation.  However, Bernays (1928b) argued “in any instance, propaganda is good 

or bad depends upon the merit of the cause urged, and the correctness of the information 

published” (p. 20).  Childs (1940) considered the goodness or badness of propaganda is a matter 

of perspective.  Westen makes a similar argument as made by Bernays and Childs.  While 

pointing to the belief Democratic campaigns appear to have that the effective utilization of 

emotions is manipulative, Westen makes the following assertion:   

But there is no necessary relation between reason and morality or between emotion and 
immorality. You can tell the truth or lie with arguments and statistics, just as you can lead 
or mislead with emotionally compelling words, images, and analogies. (Westen, 2008, p. 
134)  

 
Based on Bernays, Childs, and Westen’s points, the use of emotions to influence others is not 

inherently good or bad.   

 

Interestingly, Bernays spent some time contemplating how one prominent sector could 

use the power of emotions for good: the education sector.  Bernays was critical of educators’ 

ability, or lack thereof, to connect with and influence the general public.  He dedicated an entire 

chapter in his seminal book Propaganda (Bernays, 1928b) to detailing the imperative for 

educators and education to wisely understand and utilize propaganda to improve its standing 

with the public.  Like Bernays, Childs also emphasized the importance of propaganda in 

education.  He argued “Every educator is a philosopher of education itself, advocating 

educational ideals which he is deliberately and dogmatically seeking to inculcate in the minds of 

89 

 

students” (Childs, 1940, p. 88).  Childs went on to say, “The educator need not cringe when 

confronted with the label propaganda” (p. 88) and that “Education is propaganda” (p. 127).    

Some within education might argue utilizing propaganda is not within their job 

description, but Bernays made the following argument to the contrary: 

In a democracy an educator should, in addition to his academic duties, bear a definite and 
wholesome relation to the general public. This public does not come within the 
immediate scope of his academic duties. But in a sense he depends upon it for his 
living, for the moral support, and the general cultural tone upon which his work 
must be based [emphasis added]. In the field of education, we find what we have found 
in politics and other fields—that the evolution of the practitioner of the profession has not 
kept pace with the social evolution around him, and is out of gear with the instruments 
for the dissemination of ideas which modern society has developed. (Bernays, 1928b, p. 
122)  

 
Regarding higher education, it is important to keep in mind the diversity among institutional 

types and needs.  The level of dependence upon the public for one’s living, moral support, and 

general cultural tone upon his work depends, which Bernays points to, will likely vary from one 

institution type to another and from one position to another.  But regardless of institution type or 

level of prestige, it seems commonsense that the institution and its employees are dependent 

upon the public to a great extent.  To ensure education’s good standing with the public, Bernays 

(1928b) proposed that colleges help future teachers realize their jobs have two important 

components: “education as a teacher and education as a propagandist” (p. 122).  

 

Another reason for the disconnect between the public and education, according to 

Bernays (1928b), has to do with what he described as “a difficult psychological problem” (p. 

123).  He believed an educator, whether a high school teacher or college professor, “cannot but 

feel a sense of inferiority because he finds himself continually being compared, in the minds of 

his own pupils, with the successful business man and the successful leader in the outside world” 

(p. 123). Perhaps some people reading this dissertation will disagree with Bernays’s belief, but I 

90 

 

cannot help but find some level of truth in it.  The constant reassertion of some individuals’ 

academic and scholarly pedigree within the halls of academia makes me question the self-

confidence of those puffing their chests out.  I also think there is some level of truth in the 

opposite direction.  That is, a sense of inferiority felt by some in the public in relation to those in 

academia.   

Whether it is a sense of inferiority, superiority, indifference, or some other feeling there 

appears to be a level of discomfort within academia to engage with the public.  Some academics 

are beginning to acknowledge the discomfort.  For example, Nichols points a finger at higher 

education as being part of the problem in his following assertion:  

On the other hand, many experts, and particularly those in the academy, have abandoned 
their duty to engage with the public. They have retreated into jargon and irrelevance, 
preferring to interact with each other only. Meanwhile, the people holding the middle 
ground to whom we often refer as “public intellectuals”—I’d like to think I’m one of 
them—are becoming as frustrated and polarized as the rest of society. (Nichols, 2017, 
Introduction) 

 
While not explicitly singling out higher education, Marcus expresses similar sentiment as 

Nichols when he says “activists, often learned academics in pursuit of some particular cause and 

convinced of the rightness of their aims, denigrate the public for failing to adopt their 

conclusions or even give them the courtesy of attention” (Marcus, 2002, p. 137).  While it is 

unclear if Marcus’s group of learned academics is meant to include higher education leaders or 

simply meant to mean college educated activists, it is clear higher education leaders are activists, 

given their active involvement in informing and shaping public policy in all realms.   

 

Bernays (1928b) believed “The public is not cognizant of the real value of education, and 

does not realize that education as a social force is not receiving the kind of attention it has the 

right to expect in a democracy” (p. 121).  I believe Bernays’s ninety year old argument is true 

today.  I have and continue to struggle in conversations with people outside academia when 

91 

 

trying to convey how a college degree is so much more than just job preparation.  Bernays would 

likely first attribute my struggle to a deficiency in training as he asserted, “First of all, there is the 

fact that the educator has been trained to stimulate to thought the individual students in his 

classroom, but has not been trained as an educator at large of the public” (Bernays, 1928b, p. 

121).  Bernays would also probably point to a problem of perception given he argued “A second 

reason for the present remoteness of education from the thoughts and interests of the public is to 

be found in the mental attitude of the pedagogue—whether primary school teacher or college 

professor—toward the world outside the school” (p. 122).  Bernays recognized the importance of 

shaping the public’s perception of education and the important role educators play in positively 

influencing it.   

Regarding higher education, he singled out university presidents’ crucial role in public 

perception management:    

It may be a new idea that the president of a university will concern himself with the kind 
of mental picture his institution produces on the public mind. Yet it is part of the 
president's work to see that his university takes its proper place in the community and 
therefore also in the community mind, and produces the results desired, both in a cultural 
and in a financial sense. If his institution does not produce the mental picture which it 
should [emphasis added], one of two things may be wrong: Either the media of 
communication with the public may be wrong or unbalanced; or his institution may be at 
fault. The public is getting an oblique impression of the university, in which case the 
impression should be modified; or it may be that the public is getting a correct 
impression, in which case, very possibly, the work of the university itself should be 
modified. (Bernays, 1928b, p. 131-132) 

 
Bernays assertion points to social construction principles in that he acknowledges the mental 

pictures (i.e., socially constructed realities) different people and groups hold can and do vary.  

He also pushes against relativism, a common gross mischaracterization of social construction, 

when he says “one of two things may be wrong”, with both of the two things pertaining to one 

side misconstruing the other.  In other words, while neither mental image represents absolute 

92 

 

truth, likely one needs more adjustment then the other.  Social constructionism aside, the more 

important aspect of Bernays’s assertion is the responsibility he places on the university 

leadership in winning over the hearts and minds of the public.   

 

And while Bernays believed it was crucial for educators to appeal to the hearts and minds 

of the public and positively influence their perceptions, he did not believe the use of propaganda 

should take the place of what is more traditionally thought of as education.  He made this point 

clear in his following assertion:   

Under no circumstances should the engineering of consent supersede or displace the 
functions of the educational system [emphasis added], either formal or informal, in 
bringing about understanding by the people as a basis for their action. The engineering 
of consent often does supplement the educational process [emphasis added]. If higher 
general educational standards were to prevail in this country and the general level of 
public knowledge and understanding were raised as a result, this approach would still 
retain its value [emphasis added]. (Bernays, 1947, p. 114-115) 

 
We can call the engineering of consent, which he believed to be a supplement to the educational 

process, effective marketing.  If effective marketing is too much of a business related term for 

some of my higher education readers, we can also call it effective communication.  Or, how 

about we call it genuine and effective emotionally compelling arguments?  Regardless of what 

we call it, effectively connecting with the public will always be necessary within education, as 

Bernays made apparent in his following claim:    

Even in a society of a perfectionist educational standard, equal progress would not be 
achieved in every field. There would always be time lags, blind spots, and points of 
weakness; and the engineering of consent would still be essential [emphasis added]. 
The engineering of consent will always be needed as an adjunct to, or a partner of, the 
educational process. (Bernays, 1947, p. 115) 

 
In good times and in bad, there will likely always be misunderstandings between academia and 

the general public.  Higher education can either sit back and let the misunderstandings fester into 

93 

 

larger and more difficult to control issues, or they can actively get involved in positively 

influencing the public’s perception.     

 

As a first step to influencing public perception Bernays believed it was critical to first 

gain a better understanding of what the public feels and thinks.  He offered the following advice 

on how to go about doing just that:   

Here the specialist in swaying public opinion avails himself of the, findings of 
introspective psychology. He knows in general the basic emotions and desires of the 
public he intends to reach, and their prevalence and intensity. Analysis is the first 
step in dealing with a problem that concerns the public [emphasis added]. (Bernays, 
1928a, p. 961) 

 
The purpose of my current research is to get a general sense of the basic emotions and desires of 

a subsection of the public as conveyed through online news comments, which I explore in more 

detail in the next section.    

Online News Comments 

 

Now that I have reviewed the literature on the public sphere, public opinion, emotion, 

and influence, it is time for me to turn my attention to the data source for my research, online 

news comments.  In this section I place my literature review findings within subsections that 

mirror the prior four main sections starting with a new public sphere.  

A New Public Sphere? 

Habermas (1991) describes the press as “the public sphere’s preeminent institution” (p. 

181), and today much of that institution has moved online.  According to a recent Pew Research 

Center poll, eighty-one percent of Americans get at least some of their news from the internet 

(Mitchel, Gottfried, Barthel, & Shearer, 2016).  Another poll from the center found online news 

participators to “highly prize news sites that facilitate commenting on stories” (Purcell, Rainie, 

Mitchell, Rosenstiel, & Olmstead, 2010, p. 47).  Some people see online commenting as a 

94 

 

potential means to more fully realize the ideals of the public sphere.  For example, Chen (2017) 

believes “that comment streams have the potential to be the salons and cafes of days gone by, 

where people gathered together—drawn by the news—to talk about important issues of the day” 

(p. 11).  In a similar vein, Kovach and Rosenstiel (2001) contend “This kind of high-tech 

interaction is a journalism that resembles conversation again, much like the original journalism 

occurring in the publick houses and coffeehouses four hundred years ago” (p. 25).  News 

organizations have also recognized the public sphere like potential of online comments.  

According to a 2013 report by the World Editors Forum—a global organization representing 

18,000 publications in more than 120 countries—“In many parts of the globe, online comments 

have become an essential ingredient [emphasis added] of a thriving news publication: readers 

feel that they have a right to make their contribution in an online environment that is becoming 

increasingly more dialogue-based [emphasis added] than one-way broadcasting” (Goodman, 

2013, p. 5).  One specific example, The Wall Street Journal sees public sphere like attributes 

within online commenting and a bright future for the dialogue mechanism, as made apparent by 

the following quote attributed to the paper:     

We’re really ready for a more comment centric future. It’s democraticising [emphasis 
added], and I think we should be held accountable, and for the journalistic excellence of 
our work. Our readers are relentlessly energetic and have a very discerning eye for what 
are the strengths and weaknesses of this content, so it makes us better journalists and our 
news organizations are much more plugged into the modern era. (as cited in Goodman, 
2013, p. 65) 

 
While the extent to which online comments are democraticising is certainly debatable, which I 

discuss a little later, it is clear many news organizations see their value in facilitating 

conversation.   

Batsell (2015) insists the role of the twenty-first century journalist is not only to inform, 

“but to bring readers directly into the conversation through digitally powered techniques such as 

95 

 

real-time coverage, alternative story forms, crowdsourcing, beat blogging, user-generated 

content, and comment forums [emphasis added]” (p. 43).  Research has begun to show the 

influence online comments and commenters have on the evolving role of newspapers and their 

journalists.  For most journalists, comments have affected their work to some extent (Santana, 

2011).  Santana (2011) discovered that over 98 percent of reporters read online comments, with 

37 percent of them indicating they read them “often”.  According to a 2016 report by the World 

Editors Forum, most news organizations believe online comments are important with fifty-three 

percent saying they add to the debate and provide new ideas, and forty-seven percent indicating 

the online conversations promote diverse opinions (Huang, 2016).  In some cases commenting is 

a formal part of journalists’ responsibilities, even linked to bonuses (Chen & Pain, 2017).  In a 

recent study Chen and Pain (2017) interviewed 34 journalists from a range of news venues, 

including traditional newspapers and web-only publications.  They found “a shift toward 

journalists embracing commenting and seeing reading comments and responding to them as an 

essential part of their job” (p. 887).  However, some journalists still resist engaging in comments 

seeing it as potentially compromising their objectivity (Chen & Pain, 2017).  According to Chen 

and Pain (2017), journalists are trying to figure out how to make online spaces more conducive 

to robust and civil dialogue.  News organizations hope making commenting a formal part of 

journalists’ work will result in higher quality online conversations (Ksiazek, 2015), and there is 

evidence to support their belief.  In his analysis of 333,605 user comments from twenty news 

sites Ksiazek (2016) found journalist participation in the commenting to not only result in more 

comments, but also more civil discourse.   

Online commenters are also affecting the content news organizations formally produce.  

For example, Nielsen (2014) found that 18.5 percent of editors are sometimes adding content in 

96 

 

anticipation of comments, while 5.4 percent are often or always doing so.  Some reporters are 

excluding sources or avoiding writing about topics entirely out of fear commenters will inflict 

emotional harm upon them (Goodman, 2013; Nielsen, 2012; Samuels, 2016).  According to a 

quote attributed to The Denver Post (as cited in Goodman, 2013), “Some people say they are too 

scared to be quoted in an article because they are afraid of what commenters will say” (p. 13).  

There is also evidence showing commenters would like journalists to participate more in online 

discussions.  For example, Stroud, Van Duyn, and Peacock (2016) found that 60.9 percent of 

people who either comment or read comments would like journalists to clarify factual questions 

presented within the comments.  40.5% would like journalist to be active in commenting and 26 

percent would like journalists to direct the conversation (Stroud, Van Duyn, & Peacock, 2016).     

Online comments and the interaction between commenters and journalists are blurring 

the line between journalist and commenter.  Chen (2017) calls online news comments “quasi-

journalistic spaces” (p. 11), and along with her colleague Pain suggests “journalists are 

participating in ‘reciprocal journalism’” (Chen & Pain, 2017, p. 876).  According to a quote 

attributed to The Times of India (as cited in Goodman, 2013), “Commenting in a way is a form of 

journalism” (p. 11).  Craft, Vos, and Wolfgang (2016) claim “it is perhaps not too far a stretch to 

say that commenting itself constitutes a kind of participation in journalism that places 

commenters at least within striking distance of the field” (p. 688).   While acknowledging online 

news comments spaces can be “messy”, McDermott (2016) argues they “can also be a space 

where thoughtful deliberations are presented, and where under-represented perspectives, 

particularly in terms of traditional media coverage, can be given a public platform” (p. 188), as 

evidenced by her research.  However, even with opening the floodgates to mass communication 

within media, there appears to be some level of enduring respect for the institution of journalism 

97 

 

as we traditionally know it.  In their analysis of online comments from three national news 

organizations over a span of two years, Craft, Vos, and Wolfgang (2016) found commenters to 

be at times “nostalgic” (p. 688) of traditional journalism norms.   

Whereas the 2013 World Editors Forum report recognized the essentiality of online news 

comments, the more recent 2016 report acknowledged “In the three years since, newsroom 

resources have been under even greater pressure, and the temperature of online debate has risen 

significantly, posing real challenges for newsrooms trying to manage potentially brand-damaging 

and legally tricky comment sections” (Huang, 2016, p. 4).  The challenges stem from the 

relaxing and diffusion of the traditional gatekeeping function news organizations have 

historically carried out.  Regarding online news comments, Santana (2016) claims, “By 

providing the forums, journalists diffuse part of their gatekeeping responsibilities to non-

journalist commenters, empowering them as secondary gatekeepers to decide what content 

appears alongside the news” (p. 141).   And while eighty-two percent of the organizations 

surveyed still allow online commenting (Huang, 2016), some are attempting to reclaim their 

gatekeeping function by shutting down comment threads all together.   

 

One example of a news organization turning off their online commenting feature is the 

news magazine The Atlantic.  On February 2, 2018 Editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg (2018) 

announced the magazine was creating essentially an online version of the traditional letters to the 

editor section already present in its print edition.  At the same time he made the following 

announcement regarding the magazine’s online comment sections:    

We’ve also made the not-unrelated decision to close our comments section. Over the 
years, robust conversation in The Atlantic comments section has too often been hijacked 
by people who traffic in snark and ad hominem attacks and even racism, misogyny, 
homophobia, and anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish invective. 
 

98 

 

Instead of hosting these sorts of unhelpful, even destructive, conversations on 
TheAtlantic.com, we are choosing now to elevate respectful, intelligent discourse and 
argument [emphasis added]. We want smart and critical readers [emphasis added] to 
have a more visible role on our site, and we’re looking forward to hearing from you, and 
publishing you. (Goldberg, 2018) 

 
Goldberg’s statement is a clear indication of The Atlantic reclaiming a more traditional 

gatekeeping role.  Some people applauded the decision within the new online letters to the editor 

section.  For example, Luddy Harrison from San Diego, California stated “I applaud your 

decision, and only wish that more online publications would follow your lead” (The 

Conversation, 2018).  Others expressed disappointment in the decision.  Tom Carroll of Chicago, 

Illinois who claims to have made over 15,000 comments said the decision was “baffling and 

disappointing” and that “One cannot have the same sort of think-on-your feet, conversational 

interactions via a curtailed letters section that one can have in a comments section exchange” 

(The Conversation, 2018).  He went on to argue “The lack of spontaneity and opportunity for 

genuine exchange of ideas constitutes a serious step back” (The Conversation, 2018).  Michael 

McElveen of Houston, Texas seemed to imply he would no longer be a patron of The Atlantic in 

his following statement:  

I make it a habit to not patronize any site that doesn’t have a comments section.  Your 
moderated letters section is no good to me. I don’t want to see what you’ve deemed 
appropriate. I want unfiltered, raw, comments; in all their hateful, gory truth. How people 
respond to an article is just as interesting as the article itself. (The Conversation, 2018)     

 
As Michael’s statement points out, The Atlantic’s criteria as to what constitutes respectful and 

intelligent discourse might differ from many of its readers.  Even the most unsophisticated or 

vitriolic of comments may present valuable moments for dialogue and insight.   

 

You may recall from my earlier section on social construction, the media plays an 

influential role in how people come to perceive the world.  Traditional letters to the editor, 

whether in print or digital, limits the dialogue as well as public perception.  Unless of course, 

99 

 

every single letter submitted makes it into the newspaper or magazine, which is clearly not the 

case.  This can have a silencing effect on marginalized populations and reaffirm perceptions that 

might not be representative of the greater public.  For example, in their research on traditional 

letters to the editor and online news comments in response to the Jena Six news story—a 

prominent case of racial tensions—McCluskey and Hmielowski (2012) found online comments 

to represent more balance in range and tone of arguments than did the letters to the editor.  They 

contend the “Ability to post anonymous comments, the absence of media gatekeepers and a 

younger audience are potential reasons why online reader comments differed from reader letters” 

(McCluskey & Hmielowski, 2012, p. 303).   

 

Some news organizations pick and choose which articles they allow commenting on.  For 

example, on January 3, 2016 The Chronicle of Higher Education announced they were moving 

from a self-described laissez-faire approach to commenting—allowing commenting on almost 

everything with infrequent moderation—to allowing comments on only about a dozen articles 

per week with increased moderation (From the Editors, 2016).  The editors claimed much of the 

conversation has moved to external social media, such as Facebook.  They acknowledged the old 

approach “made for some freewheeling and fascinating discussions”, but had “also produced 

threads that have bothered many readers” (From the Editors, 2016).  They announced the mission 

of the increased moderation as “to publish the most valuable comments we receive—the ones 

that provide interesting insights, thoughtful questions, strong points, and cogent criticisms” 

(From the Editors, 2016).  An interesting side-note, the article announcing the change to 

comments received 204 comments.  While the decision to allow commenting on only certain 

pieces is not as outright of a reclaiming of the traditional gatekeeping role, it still is reclaiming it 

to a certain extent.  In a recent study Santana (2016) investigated 2,100 news stories from fifty 

100 

 

news websites and found that controversial stories were less likely than non-controversial stories 

to include a comment section.  By not allowing comments on controversial topics news 

organizations might preclude crucial, albeit likely uncivil conversations from occurring.  Santana 

(2016) recognizes this possibility and claims “At the center of this pattern of forum exclusion is 

the paradox that the champions of free speech are, in their effort at reducing incivility, 

sometimes silencing the public and preventing public dialogue” (p. 151).    

 

It is important to recognize controversial topics do not inherently preclude deliberation 

from occurring within online news comments.  For instance, in her study where she analyzed 

3,508 comments posted on news stories pertaining to the controversial topics of the 2016 

presidential race, same-sex marriage, and the removal of the Confederate flag from government 

buildings, Chen (2017) found deliberation to occur more often than incivility.  She even found 

that comments can be uncivil and deliberative at the same time (Chen, 2017).  The comments she 

analyzed were from articles on the websites of Fox News, Huffington Post, NBC News Digital, 

The New York Times, and USA Today, whose audiences vary according to political viewpoints.  

Even though The New York Times is selective as to which articles it allows commenting on, its 

community manager Bassey Etim claims “If the news value of the story is high enough we will 

allow comments even if it’s going to be a struggle to moderate” (as cited in Goodman, 2013, p. 

18).  By not allowing commenting on so-called controversial topics, news organizations might be 

preventing valuable deliberations from occurring.     

Shanahan (2018) attributes part of the corrosion of online discourse to news organizations 

who neglect “their own leadership role as reliable conveners and moderators of public debate” 

(p. 9).  Shutting down online comments or only allowing commenting on non-controversial 

topics seems to me a dereliction of journalist leadership, as Shanahan describes it.  She believes 

101 

 

news organizations that have shifted their online conversations to Facebook or Twitter are 

simply passing the buck (Shanahan, 2016, 2018).  Shanahan (2018) asserts “In my view, news 

outlets undermine journalism’s critical role in modern democracy—and their own viability—

when they ignore the digital conversations prompted by their content, when they shut down the 

forums they control, and when they pass responsibility for public discourse to third-party social 

media platforms” (p. 12-13).  While fully recognizing the vitriolic nature of many if not most 

online comment threads, she provides the following warning to news organizations:     

If news companies and journalists don’t prioritize interactive communication with their 
audiences or provide welcoming and productive places where their community members 
can talk with each other, the audience will organize itself and find other online feedback 
channels to engage, entertain themselves and call out uncomfortable truths.  A hands-off 
approach digital conversation pushes the market away and further diminishes 
journalism’s role in our hyperconnected democratic society. (Shanahan, 2018, p. 13) 

 
Shanahan is not alone in her claims.  Loke (2013), who investigated six thousand online reader 

comments made in response to the emotionally charged incident of the murder of a twenty-five 

year old Latino man, knows full well as to the hateful and uncivil rhetoric that can take place 

within commenting forums.  And yet, she stands firm in her belief in the value of such spaces 

and the critical need for journalists to get involved, as she makes readily apparent in her 

following powerful claim:       

This slew of bigoted expressions existing on journalists’ space now poses a new 
challenge and a new task for journalists. It is crucial that journalists recognize the 
ongoing conversations in their society [emphasis added]. Whether or not the certain 
perceptions abound because of racism or if it fueled racism, it is the journalists’ 
responsibility to understand the roots of these conversations and begin engaging 
their public in a meaningful conversation [emphasis added]. This, however, is not a 
direction to claim that the function of the online comments’ section is merely to 
promote the truth according to journalists [emphasis added], but rather to understand 
how the process of a community’s truth is constructed [emphasis added], therefore 
allowing journalists to better know and serve their audience. (Loke, 2013, p. 193-194)  

 

102 

 

Loke’s claim makes a number of important points.  With all its faults, online comments represent 

an ongoing conversation.  We can either ignore it or pay attention and work hard to engage in 

constructive dialogue.  Also, that the socially constructed truth according to journalists might be 

different than the truth as perceived and understood by the public.  Shutting down or ignoring 

online comments does not make incivility, hatred, bigotry, and ignorance magically disappear.  

Likely the only ways to quell online incivility and irrational online discourse is to either 

shutdown the internet entirely or look for ways to intervene, educate, and improve the ongoing 

dialogue.   

 

News organizations appear to be recognizing that shutting down commenting or 

offloading it to popular social media platforms might not be such a good idea.  For example, 

many have expressed concern that the issues with online comments do not disappear because 

people will simply find other venues to express their thoughts (Huang, 2016).  Also, news 

organizations are concerned they might suffer a “loss of reader relationship and data, the lack of 

control and possibly, future sustainability” (Huang, 2016, p. 5).  Some organizations, for 

example The New York Times and Pakistan’s Dawn, have reaped such benefits as reader loyalty 

and business revenue by proactively maintaining their online comment forums (Huang, 2016).  

Moving online comments to external popular social media platforms, such as Facebook, may 

also result in deterioration in the quality of online dialogue.  For example, in one study Rowe 

(2015) found the deliberative quality of reader comments left on The Washington Post website to 

be higher than those left on the organization’s Facebook forum.  He discovered the opinions 

expressed on Facebook to be homogenous, whereas The Washington Post website commenters 

expressed more ideological diversity (Rowe, 2015).  Rowe (2015) arrived at the conclusion that 

“the trend toward Facebook news consumption is somewhat worrying” (p. 553) because it may 

103 

 

inhibit deliberation as compared to online news comments.  Given the potential rich business 

value of online new comments, news organizations are striving to find ways to improve them.         

Technology developers are actively thinking of ways to improve online commenting 

forums.  I italicized the word improve because what technologists consider an improvement 

might be seen as a step back by another group.  Li, Mueen, Faloutsos, and Hang (2016) have 

proposed a way to profile commenters as a means to proactively identify uncivil behavior.  

Logins and algorithms to filter out content deemed inappropriate are additional technological 

strategies (Erard, 2013; Ksiazek, 2015; Massaro & Stryker, 2012).  A recent report produced by 

the World Editors Forum claims that “In general, publishers are also looking for technology with 

artificial intelligence and self-learning capabilities” (Huang, 2016, p. 18) as a means to moderate 

online news comments.  Zamith and Lewis (2014) analyzed 126 idea submissions to a news 

innovation contest on how to improve online news comments.  They were able to distil the data 

down to the following four themes on how to improve online comments: “a need to (1) better 

organize content, (2) moderate content more effectively, (3) unite disjointed discourse, and (4) 

increase participation while promoting diversity” (Zamith & Lewis, 2014, p. 567).  And while on 

face value all of these ideas might sound like improvements, Zamith and Lewis recognize a 

perceived improvement may prove to be damaging.  Zamith and Lewis (2014) believe low-cost 

and easy-to-build online commenting systems that would yield more robust and civil dialogue 

are a real possibility.  However, they express concern that new systems might simply perpetuate 

existing issues, such as fragmentation (Zamith & Lewis, 2014).     

 

An important thing to realize at this point, if it is not already obvious, is that for good or 

bad technology is constantly evolving.  The shortcomings and flaws of commenting forums 

today might be resolved or exacerbated in the near future.  As long as there is the potential to 

104 

 

generate valuable data about an organization’s customers and improve its overall marketability 

and profitability, there will most likely be concerted efforts to “perfect” online commenting.  For 

example, the Coral Project (2018)—a collaboration of the Mozilla Foundation, The New York 

Times, and The Washington Post—seeks “to increase the diversity of voices and experiences 

reflected in news reporting, and to improve journalism by making it more relevant to people’s 

lives.”  The project has already produced three open-source commenting products to help 

improve the discourses taking place on news websites (Coral Project, 2018).  According to their 

website, the staff at the project have “interviewed more than 350 people in 150 newsrooms in 30 

countries, as well as commenters, trolls, and people who never comment” (Coral Project, 2018) 

and they have an open invitation to talk to anyone and everyone.       

 

The prevalence of incivility has resulted in the creation of professional roles as comment 

moderators.  Some have described the comment moderator as “the dirtiest job on the internet” 

(Sax, 2011).  According to Sax (2011), comment moderators can make between $40,000 to 

$80,000 a year, “but need to be prepared for daily exposure to humanity at its vilest” (para. 8).  

Given moderating comments can mean big business with news organizations outsourcing their 

filtering work to earning annual revenues in the millions of dollars (Sax, 2011), technologists and 

other professionals might be seeing dollar signs in their future.   

Considering the vast multitude of news venues throughout the world utilizing the public 

discussion mechanism on a plethora of topics it is highly unlikely they are all vitriolic cesspools 

or all robust utopian democratic dialogues.  The scale may at the moment tilt to the vitriolic, but 

that does not mean there are not pockets of real conversation occurring to positive ends.  For 

example, Chen (2017) provides a more middle ground position in the debate as to whether or not 

online commenting is a public sphere in her proposed idea of “deliberative moments” (p. 11).  

105 

 

She defines deliberative moments as “brief forms of public deliberation, small bites, if you will, 

that offer some support for the ideals of free debate, inclusiveness of viewpoints, and discussions 

across difference encompassed by democratic deliberation” (Chen, 2017, p. 176).  Chen argues 

“The value of these moments is that they open the door at least a crack to true discussion, even if 

that door shuts rather quickly if things escalate” (Chen, 2017, p. 177).  Chen believes cracking 

the door open is definitely worth it and asserts “A partially open door is better than one that is 

perpetually shut” (p. 177).  I tend to agree with her.  The cracks she refers to might not occur 

without these online discussion spaces.  Even if they did it is less likely we would know of their 

occurrence because they would take place offline and largely out of sight.     

Public Opinion 

 

To varying degrees, online news comments can be public sphere-like.  According to 

Habermas (2006), the public sphere is “a realm of our social life [emphasis added] in which 

something approaching public opinion can be formed” (p. 73).  Note he says “a realm of our 

social life” and not “our social life in its entirety”.  This is an important distinction because 

public opinion need not be so expansive as to include all of society, but instead we can 

investigate and analyze it as it pertains to various realms.  Bernays was aware of this nuance in 

what constitutes a public, which he made clear in his following assertion:  

There is today even another category of the public group which must be kept in mind by 
the engineer of consent. The readers of the New Republic [emphasis added] or the 
listeners to Raymond Swing’s program are as much voluntary groups, although 
unorganized [emphasis added], as are the members of a trade union or a Rotary Club. 
(Bernays, 1947, p. 117) 

 
Bernays considered the opinions of a public represented by the readers of a news publication, in 

this case the New Republic, as being an important group to understand the opinions and emotions 

of.  In his day, the readers of a particular newspaper or magazine were unorganized in that it was 

106 

 

unlikely to know of others reading the same periodical outside of the people you personally 

knew.  However, today with online news comments a highly visible level of organization among 

readers across geographic and demographic distances takes shape.   

 

The Center for Media Engagement, formerly The Engaging News Project, at The 

University of Texas at Austin is producing some of the most extensive work on online 

commenters and the realm of social life they represent.  In 2016 the Center published results 

from a survey, which included data “from 600 news commenters, 506 people who have not 

commented on news or read news comments, and 365 people who read news comments but have 

not themselves left a comment” (Stroud, Van Duyn, & Peacock, 2016, p. 2).  Based on their 

findings across various digital spaces, including news websites and social media, 55.3% of 

people post and read online news comments, 1.7% post but do not read them, 24.6% do not post, 

but read comments, and 20.2% do not post or read comments (Stroud, Van Duyn, & Peacock, 

2016).  Most people post and read comments on social networking sites.  However, 14.6% of 

people who have posted a comment have done so on a news site or app (Stroud, Van Duyn, & 

Peacock, 2016).  Also, 41.8% of people who read comments, but do not post them have done so 

via a news site or app (Stroud, Van Duyn, & Peacock, 2016).  A slight majority, 50.7%, neither 

read nor post comments on news sites.  However, the fact that there is a sizable percentage 

(35%) of people who do not post but read online comments on news websites shows the 

influence of online comments may extend well beyond simply the people who actually comment.  

Not to mention the fact that online news comments posted on news websites can be easily shared 

via Facebook, Twitter, and other common social networking platforms, thereby further extending 

the comments potential reach and influence.   

107 

 

Overall, people commenting and reading news comments are younger and more educated 

than people who do not (Stroud, Van Duyn, & Peacock, 2016).  62.3% of commenters and 

70.8% of people who read comments but do not comment themselves have at least some college 

or more of higher education, whereas 48.3% of people who do not read or post comments have at 

least some college or more of higher education (Stroud, Van Duyn, & Peacock, 2016).  63.1% of 

commenters and 68.4% of comment readers have incomes of fifty thousand dollars or more, with 

42.8% and 52.2% making more than seventy-five thousand respectively (Stroud, Van Duyn, & 

Peacock, 2016).  53.3% of commenters and 45.2% of comment readers are male (Stroud, Van 

Duyn, & Peacock, 2016).  63% of commenters and 65.5% of comment readers identify as white, 

non-Hispanic (Stroud, Van Duyn, & Peacock, 2016).  Overall, it appears the online news 

commenting public might be more diverse and affluent than one might expect.    

 

Granted, online news commenters might not be representative of the general population, 

but there is much we can learn from them.  For example, Henrich and Holmes (2013) contend 

“due to the high number of comments available on certain articles, they can reflect the 

perspectives of a large segment of the population” (p. 2).  They claim, “Comments have the 

potential to increase our understanding of public opinions, how the public makes decisions and 

how beliefs are formulated, yet comments have only rarely been used as data” (Henrich & 

Holmes, 2013, p. 1).  Along the same lines as Henrich and Holmes, Wolfgang (2018) makes the 

following pitch to journalists on the value of commenters and comments as a source of public 

opinion:   

But a comment has more substance than ratings and clicks and is based on an active 
audience model. Through providing interpretation, opinion, and analysis, the commenter 
fits a new channel of gatekeeping: a community sensemaker who helps with developing 
understanding of the news and constructing a shared vision of the world. The sensemaker 
furthers community interests by challenging others to reflect and think about their 
community, its values, and its goals. The journalist should see the sensemaker as a 

108 

 

provider of public opinion, interpretation, and analysis and resist the urge to banish their 
commentary from their site. (Wolfgang, 2018, p. 35) 

 
Wolfgang, as well as Henrich and Holmes, see comments as a valuable source of public opinion 

formation.  A source rooted in conversation where people can challenge one another’s opinions.   

Online news comments have built-in advantages over other more traditional data sources.  

For instance, Taylor, Al-Hiyari, Lee, Priebe, Guerrero, and Bales, (2016) assert “In stark contrast 

to the reliance on self-report and questionably reliable memories that characterizes traditional 

research, user-generated content in the public domain allows researchers to observe actual 

behaviors and communications as they naturally unfold” (p. 565).  In a similar vein, Mann and 

Stewart (2000) believe online communications is capable of being “more open, reactive and 

spontaneous than many traditional written accounts”.   

Given the often unfiltered and uninhibited nature of many comments, the online comment 

might reveal valuable insight into what people truly think and feel about a given topic.  Features 

such as anonymity may make it easier for people to voice minority and perhaps unpopular ideas, 

and yes, uncivil remarks as well.  However, online news comment forums might not be as 

disastrous and nonsensical as many might assume, as Loke makes clear in her following 

assertion:     

Although the research has shown that anonymity has indeed allowed some in the public 
to be more audacious online, the overall content found in the comments sections are 
not just “haphazard rants of lunatics” as many journalists assume [emphasis added]. 
There is no denying that some commenters relish in instigating shock, but a closer 
investigation of the comments indicated that though the conversations may not contain 
the most sophisticated discourses, there exist reflections of society’s pulse [emphasis 
added]. (Loke, 2013, p. 194) 

 
She goes even farther in her following assertion, making the claim that without online comments 

and all the vile that often comes with, we might not truly know and understand the varied public 

opinions that exist:   

109 

 

We live in a society today that has long suppressed politically insensitive expressions. 
The suppression has been very successful in curbing outward expressions but it is much 
more difficult, if not impossible, to accurately measure the success in altering personal 
beliefs meant to result with the implementation of political correctness. Publicly banning 
certain words, rejecting various ideas, and suppressing select discourses have only 
shifted bigoted ideologies into the private sphere [emphasis added]. Now within the 
safety of anonymity in the public, readers’ comments have allowed the public to be more 
flagrant in expressing a slew of politically incorrect expressions. Readers’ comments 
have unveiled a segment of the public, and the revelation is not an appealing one. 
Are journalists going to take the lead and attempt to make a difference, or are they 
going to force comments on an out-of-sight-out-of-mind path [emphasis added]? 
(Loke, 2013, p. 194) 

 
Regarding heated debates in higher education, instead of asking if journalists are going to take 

the lead and attempt to make a difference, we could ask are higher education leaders.  Are online 

news comments and commenters representative of society as a whole?  Of course not.  But they 

do represent a particular realm of social life, as Habermas would refer to it, and can be revealing 

as to what that realm thinks and feels.  Even if what online comments reveal is unappealing or 

even frightening, would it not be better to be aware of it then to naively pretend it does not exist? 

At least if we are aware of it, we can proactively seek to influence it in a positive more 

constructive direction.  As Erard (2013) proclaims, “Dip into the comments, the American text 

genre of the moment, and you can sense the currents that move American life”.  If those currents 

are moving American life in the wrong direction, at least by being aware of it we can look to 

correct it.   

According to McDermott (2016), while there exists considerable research about online 

media’s potential as a public sphere, “little scholarly attention has focused on analyzing the 

public discourse that ensues within these types of deliberations about contemporary social, 

political and cultural issues” (p. 187).  McDermott (2016) has used online comments as a public 

sphere to analyze and understand the Canadian public’s understanding of the issue of children’s 

physical activity habits.  She analyzed 291 comments posted by 239 readers in response to a 

110 

 

CBCNews article on the matter.  She described the use of online comments as providing “an 

occasion [emphasis added] to examine some of the Canadian public’s deliberations and 

discussion” (McDermott, 2016, p. 178).  I like how she says “an occasion” because while the 

online comments are not representative of the whole discourse taking place both on and offline, 

it does provide an occasion to learn about part of the conversation.  In a similar fashion, 

Matthews (2015) utilized online blog comments as an occasion, to borrow McDermott’s term, to 

observe arguments of climate change skeptics.  In his study he did not attempt to address the 

arguments, but instead he simply identified the opinions (Matthews, 2015), recognizing the 

crucial first step in influencing the public as identified by Bernays: gain a better understanding of 

what the public thinks and feels (Bernays, 1928a).     

Emotions 

Shanahan (2018) argues “The condition that drive information sharing online indicate 

emotions rule” (p. 48).  Online news comments are no exception.  The number one reason people 

post online comments on news stories is to express an emotion or an opinion (Stroud, Van Duyn, 

Alizor, Alibhai, & Lang, 2017; Stroud, Van Duyn, & Peacock, 2016).  Given how interrelated 

emotions and opinions are we could easily say the number one reason is to express an emotional 

opinion.  Chen (2017) believes “Commenting streams may just be a place where emotions 

escalate, as people try to assert deeply held moral convictions” (p. 178).  She describes online 

news comments as a “debate unvarnished, exposing a jaundiced underbelly of emotion peppered 

with moments of rationality” (Chen, 2017, p. 117).  Perhaps the most apparent evidence of 

emotions within online comments comes in the form of incivility.   

Turkle (2015) claims our digital technologies are “implicated in an assault on empathy” 

(p. 4).  She fears society has yet to fully contemplate the negative effects of its technological 

111 

 

vices.  The prevalence of incivility in online communications, including online news comments, 

appear to lend credence to Turkle’s claim.  To describe how on the internet a seemingly typical 

person can degrade into an uncivil commenter, Reagle (2015) refers to the rather colorful 

“Internet fuckwad theory” which “posits that ‘a normal person + anonymity + an audience = total 

fuckwad’” (p. 95).  Indeed, many see anonymity as the main culprit behind online incivility.  

Shanahan (2018) claims “When rude, hateful and harassing comments smother the contributions 

of civil audience members, the comment stream ceases to become useful” (p. 7).  In her new 

book Online Incivility and Public Debate: Nasty Talk, Assistant Professor of Journalism at The 

University of Texas at Austin Gina Masullo Chen (2017) takes the following position on 

incivility:   

I argue that incivility is not something to be feared. Rather, it is a natural, yet undesirable, 
part of the human condition. In some cases, it is a necessary evil that we must tolerate to 
have the type of engaged electorate that informs a strong democracy, but some forms of 
incivility are so harsh that they offer no contribution to public discourse. (Chen, 2017, p. 
4) 

 
She claims incivility “oozes throughout society” (Chen, 2017, p. 4), and existed well before the 

Internet.  A question I have pondered while reviewing the literature is whether the Internet has 

simply shined a spotlight on incivility that may have already existed, but was formerly festering 

within the shadows of society.   

Chen (2017) contends, “Rather than wring our hands and wish for a mythical ‘civil 

society,’ I suggest that understanding how and when incivility operates helps us arrive at 

strategies to reclaim the online public debate” (p. 4).  Chen is advocating for a more proactive 

and fully aware approach to addressing incivility, rather than the reactive approach of shutting 

down comments and hope incivility goes away.  If we do not allow for incivility in our 

communications does it really go away?  Or, does it simply become more hidden?  And if it 

112 

 

becomes more hidden, could it potentially be getting even worse without our knowing it?  These 

are of course, rhetorical questions.  In my opinion, Locke (2013) draws acute attention to the 

potential danger of silencing or tampering down on heated online commentary in her following 

assertion: 

However, sanitizing language does nothing to actually modify the deeper rooted believes. 
The change is merely cosmetic [emphasis added]. (Locke, 2013, p. 193) 

 
In other words, de-emotionalizing online comments and debates does not eliminate the emotions 

and beliefs held within the hearts and minds of the expressers.   

 

Passion is important in debates.  Chen (2017), recognizing the importance and power of 

emotion argues “it seems unlikely that people could make a reasoned argument, supported by 

fact, and open to others’ viewpoints without feeling some passion on the subject” (p. 36).  She 

believes in today’s divisive environment “we cannot shut off debate, even if it is tremendously 

uncomfortable or hurtful at times” (Chen, 2017, p. viii).  Wolfgang (2016) believes several 

deficiencies in news site commenting policies are a contributing factor to uncivil discourses, 

such as not explicitly “encouraging individuals to read postings of others before participating, to 

think critically about their positions first, and to try to build on the ideas of others rather than 

simply attacking other’s positions” (p. 777).  He argues news organizations should not only 

explicitly promote respectful dialogue within their policies, but also include “a defense of robust 

passionate political confrontation” (Wolfgang, 2016, p. 777), and should make their policies 

more readily visible. 

 

On average news organizations delete about eleven percent of comments deemed 

offensive or spam (Goodman, 2013).  However, not all organizations moderate their online 

forums, so the actual levels of incivility likely vary from site to site.  Regardless of the level of 

incivility, there may be a hidden benefit to such discourse.  For example, Chen (2017) believes 

113 

 

uncivil comments can motivate people to action.  She calls this kind of response the “defensive 

effect” and describes it as follows:   

The defensive effect predicts that when people are confronted with uncivil 
disagreement— rife with name-calling, insults, or profanity— this begins a chain 
reaction. First, it stirs negative emotions, and then this emotional response triggers a 
defense mechanism, making them more likely to speak out or get politically involved in 
the issue. In essence, if the incivility boosts their negative emotions enough, it discounts a 
natural urge to stay quiet in the face of disagreement. (Chen, 2017, p. 181) 

 
Chen (2017) has tested her defensive effect hypothesis on such heated online debates as abortion, 

gun control, climate change, same-sex marriage, removal of the Confederate flag, and the 2016 

presidential election.  The results of which suggest emotional responses, positive or negative, do 

prompt people to take some form of action, such as getting involved politically (Chen, 2017).  

However, if the level of incivility does not prompt a high enough emotional response it can result 

in a chilling effect on a person’s intent to get involved (Chen, 2017).  And while by no means 

does Chen encourage the use of incivility, she does recognize it can provoke people to get 

involved and take action, potentially to constructive ends.   

 

I know many of my readers, like many people, probably avoid reading comments.  They 

may assume all they are is hate filled speech with nothing to offer besides inciting anger.  This 

assumption may actually be contributing to the incivility found in online comments.  Chen calls 

for an attitude change in how people perceive online comments in her following hopeful 

assertion:      

However, what is even more vital is that attitudes about commenting streams should 
change. I hear so often from both journalists and friends that comment streams are 
cesspools. “Don’t read the comments,” they warn. But in analyzing thousands of 
comments, that is not what I found. Certainly, there was incivility. Comments made me 
cringe or wonder about the humanity of my fellow Americans. Some made me 
embarrassed for my country. Many made me angry [emphasis added]. Yet, so many 
comments offered thoughtful points or showed a populace that cares deeply about its 
country, its laws, and its people. Not every commenter was eloquent. Many could use a 
lesson in spelling and grammar. But there was often heart in what was being said 

114 

 

[emphasis added], so that, more than anything else, I found writing this book gives me 
hope for the future of online discourse. (Chen, 2017, p. 182-183)  

 
Online news comments may very well provoke strong negative feelings, such as anger and 

hostility.  However, there is also, as Chen affirms, a lot of comments that show people care 

deeply about contested issues.     

Influence 

 

According to a report by the World Editors Forum, “several editors believe that their 

comments sections are being used by disguised politicians and political activists to spread their 

views” (Goodman, 2013).  Regardless of whether people and organizations are or are not using 

them to manipulate the public, they are a potent venue to influence people or learn more about 

those one might want to influence, given it is an environment laden with emotion.  Research has 

already begun to show the contagious effect users’ comments can have on others.  For example, 

Lee and Jang (2010) have found the comments of others to have a significant effect on the 

personal opinions of those less prone to analytical thinking.  In a study conducted by Hsueh, 

Yogeeswaran, and Malinen (2015) they found participants exposed to prejudiced online 

comments were more likely to express prejudiced sentiments themselves, as opposed to 

participants exposed to anti-prejudiced ones.  Chen (2017) claims “Trolls are fueled not by 

passion of their beliefs but by a desire to disrupt others with no real purpose except to humiliate” 

(p. 83), which in turn is a form of manipulation.  You may recall from earlier that some 

journalists and editors are adding content in anticipation of comments (Nielsen, 2014), or 

excluding sources or avoiding writing about certain topics out of fear of retaliation from online 

commenters (Goodman, 2013; Nielsen, 2012; Samuels, 2016).  In effect, to an extent online 

commenters have shown the ability, whether knowingly or not, to manipulate what journalists 

report on.      

115 

 

 

News organizations can and do use online news comments to manipulate.  By deciding 

whether to allow commenting or which comments are of value, they shape the discussion and 

public perception of the issues.  Any change in gatekeeping has the potential to alter the way 

people talk about a given topic.  Research has shown by having journalists actively engage with 

online commenters they can improve the civility of online conversations (Stroud, Muddiman, 

Scacco, Curry, & Peacock, 2014).  As it turns out, a majority of commenters want journalists and 

experts to chime in to help improve the dialogue (Stroud, Van Duyn, & Peacock, 2016).  While I 

am not aware of any existing research on the matter, it might be interesting to see if the active 

engagement of education leaders in online news comments—in particular on contentious 

education debates—might have a similar affect and result in more civil and rational discourses.  

Many people within higher education would fit within the category of experts, a particular group 

commenters want to hear from.  Nevertheless, by simply learning more about the emotional 

opinions conveyed within various social realms—in the case of my research as represented 

within online news comments—we can take that first crucial first step in the process of 

proactively and positively influencing public sentiment on higher education, or perhaps changing 

our own.   

 

116 

 

 

CHAPTER 4: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 

My framework consists of the following five components, which mirror my literature 

review: 1) the concept of the public sphere, 2) public opinion, 3) the power of emotion, 4) 

influence, and 5) online news comments.  I have depicted my framework as a stacked Venn 

diagram in Figure 1.  The outer three circles pertain to my following research questions:         

 

- 

- 

(Public Sphere) To what extent do people appear to engage in conversation with one 
another in online news comment forums?   

(Public Opinion) What opinions do people express about higher education in online news 
comment forums and what do such opinions reveal about public views of higher 
education that are not apparent via traditional opinion polling? 

 

 

- 

(Emotion) What emotions do people convey via online news comments? 

 
The second innermost circle (Influence) gets at the significance of my research, and the 

innermost circle (Online News Comments) is the means through which I investigated my 

research questions.   

 

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.  

 

117 

 

As the stacked diagram conveys, there are overlapping relationships among my 

framework components.  You may recall from my prior chapter that Habermas (2006) defines 

the public sphere as “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion 

can be formed” (p. 73) in which all citizens can access.  Within his definition alone we see the 

overlap of the constructs of public sphere and public opinion.  Moving to emotion, the 

overlapping circles depict emotion as an integral component of public opinion.  As we learned 

from my literature review, the study of emotion “is increasingly playing an important role in 

public opinion research” (Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, & Shapiro, 2015, p. 133).  If we 

want to understand and proactively shape public opinion, it makes sense to investigate public 

spheres and people’s emotional opinions expressed and deliberated within.  After all, Bernays 

(1928a) proclaimed, the specialist of influencing public opinion “knows in general the basic 

emotions and desires of the public he intends to reach, and their prevalence and intensity” (p. 

961).  Online news comments provide us with a novel and as of yet, underutilized mechanism for 

investigating public spheres, opinions, and emotions (Henrich & Holmes, 2013; Li, Mueen, 

Faloutsos, & Hang, 2016; Manosevitch & Walker, 2009; McDermott, 2016; Trice, 2011).   

In my research I analyzed online news comments accompanying popular press articles 

using my framework as a guide.  I did so to determine the extent people are utilizing these digital 

forums as a means to engage in conversation and to explore what online comments might reveal 

about the opinions and emotions people express while talking about higher education.  I realize 

the term “higher education” is a general one.  Whereas scholarly conversations and research may 

home in on a specific finite aspect of a much larger and complicated phenomenon, day-to-day 

conversations among the public are likely more general in nature covering diverse aspects.  I 

think many people have had the experience with friends or family where they find themselves 

118 

 

wondering how they ended up talking about something seemingly distant from the original 

starting point, given the tangential and organic nature of many conversations.  There is no telling 

where a conversation will go once it starts.  Whereas the first person to post a comment on a 

news story might be doing so in response to the article, subsequent commenters might be 

commenting on the comments left by other people.  Or, they may be raising additional points and 

opinions directly or indirectly related to the original news piece.  One person might be talking 

from the viewpoint of a community college whereas another from a research university or from 

any number of other perspectives.  They might even bring up completely unrelated items.  Such 

is the nature of conversation.  Therefore, going into my research I did not have a razor-sharp 

focus on a finite aspect of the tension between higher education and the general public.  I 

accepted that participants (i.e., online commenters) in the conversation likely come from very 

diverse perspectives and that the conversation may very well delve into areas not anticipated.   

To provide focus to my research and analysis I selected four articles and their 

corresponding comments to serve as case studies within the following thematic areas of higher 

education discussions: technological transformation, international students, and free higher 

education.  I selected an article from The New York Times for the theme of technological 

transformation, a Wall Street Journal article for international students, and two articles from both 

news outlets for the theme of free higher education.  Just like with the term “higher education” 

my thematic areas are also broad topics.  I selected articles not to serve as all-encompassing 

examples of each respective theme.  Instead, each article represents an entry point to a 

conversation about the theme.  Simply because an article represents an entry point to a 

conversation does not mean the conversation stays on topic.  There exists the possibility some of 

the participants in the conversation do not even read the article that was the starting point of the 

119 

 

dialogue, but instead are just looking at and responding to the comments.  However, after a 

preliminary review at the start of my research, I was able to determine each respective article did 

provide focus to the conversation.   

I am not the first to utilize online news comments as an entry point to much larger 

conversations.  In her research McDermott (2016) utilized online comments made in response to 

a single news article about children’s physical activity habits in Canada.  While the 291 

comments posted by 239 readers is not representative of the entire Canadian public it did provide 

“an occasion [emphasis added] to examine some of the Canadian public’s deliberations and 

discussion” (McDermott, 2016, p. 178).  In a similar fashion, Bell and Sanderson (2016) 

analyzed 114 reader comments made in response to a New York Times op-ed written by Dr. 

Bennet Omalu.  Dr. Omalu, widely known for having discovered chromic traumatic 

encephalopathy (CTE) in deceased National Football League players’ brains, as well as for 

having his discovery portrayed in the critically acclaimed movie Concussion starring Will Smith, 

argued in his opinion piece that children should not play tackle football (Bell & Sanderson, 

2016).  Bell and Sanderson utilized the 114 online news comments as an occasion, to use 

McDermott’s term, to observe the tensions the public wrestles with regarding sports safety.  In 

addition to observing and identifying the public deliberation on the topic, they also utilized the 

Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) software program to measure the emotional tone (i.e., 

positive or negative) of readers’ comments.  Morehead, O’Hallarn, and Shapiro (2016) 

investigated online news comments to observe the public debate on a new football stadium 

proposal at Old Dominion University, while Laestadius and Caldwell (2015) turned to online 

news comments to understand public perceptions of in vitro meat.  These are just some of the 

120 

 

examples of researchers using news articles and the ensuing online news commentary as an entry 

point to a much larger conversation.   

Similar as in the research just mentioned, my research focus was less about the articles I 

selected then it was about the conversations which ensued and the emotional opinions conveyed 

within.  I utilized the comments initially prompted by the four articles I selected as four 

occasions to examine the online deliberations of the public.  The study of online news comment 

forums may reveal valuable insights that extend beyond the online comments regarding public 

opinion.  For example, in a study where they compared three approaches of capturing public 

opinion on public health topics Giles and Adams (2015) found analysis of online news comments 

to reveal similar insights as systematic reviews and focus groups did.  They concluded that 

online news comments are a robust data source yielding certain benefits over more traditional 

methods to opinion analysis, such as being a quicker and cheaper alternative (Giles & Adams, 

2015).  Unlike more traditional methods, such as in focus groups or interviews, the study of 

online comments allows researchers to witness conversations as they organically unfold (Henrich 

& Holmes, 2013; Mann & Stewart, 2000; Taylor, Al-Hiyari, Lee, Priebe, Guerrero, & Bales, 

2016).  In my research I tapped into this rich, yet mostly overlooked source of data to peer into 

public conversations about higher education.  In the next chapter I share the methods I utilized to 

do so.   

 

121 

 

 

CHAPTER 5: METHODS 

For my study I utilized a multi-methods approach to address my following research 

questions for each of my cases: 

-  R1: (Public Sphere) To what extent do people appear to engage in conversation with one 

another in online news comment forums? 

-  R2: (Public Opinion) What opinions do people express about higher education in online 

news comment forums and what do such opinions reveal about public views of higher 

education that are not apparent via traditional opinion polling? 

-  R3: (Emotion) What emotions do people convey via online news comments? 

In what follows I first provide an overview of my case selection and data.  Second, I discuss my 

rationale for a multi-methods approach.  Third, I discuss specifics on each of the methods I 

employed organized by research question.  I conclude by detailing limitations of my study.     

Overview of Case Selection and Data 

 

Schreier (2012) contends “because in-depth case-oriented research is very time-

consuming, qualitative studies typically include only a few cases, sometimes as few as one case 

only (the single-case study)” (p. 26).  For the purpose of my study I selected four news articles, 

two from both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and their ensuing online news 

commentary as my cases.  Each article represents an entry point to a conversation about one of 

the following three higher education themes: technological transformation, international 

students, and free college.  As you may recall from my framework section, the articles I selected 

are by no means all-encompassing examples of each respective theme.  Instead, each article 

represents an entry point to a conversation about the theme.  I utilized the online comments made 

122 

 

in response to each article as four occasions to examine the online conversations and emotional 

opinions of the virtual publics that take shape in online commenting forums.       

 

For my technological transformation theme I selected an article from The Times, for 

international students an article from the WSJ, and for free college an article from both online 

newspapers.  Smith (2010) identifies The Times and the WSJ as “examples of central, prestigious 

elements of legitimate public discourse in the United States and thus fixtures of the core public 

sphere” (p. 12).  He believes readers of such media “typically see themselves as opinion leaders 

and often are seen in this way by others” (p. 14).  The WSJ and The Times rank number two and 

three respectively in circulation behind only USA Today (Cision Media Research, 2019).  The 

Times has the fifth most popular news website and the WSJ has the eleventh most popular 

(eBizMBA, 2020).  Both websites allow for online commenting on a select number of articles 

and moderate their comment forums.   

 

While articles can be about any topic, controversial topics often generate a high volume 

of comments (Liu, 2016).  Each of my selected articles received a considerable number of online 

comments, comparable to the number of comments used in similar studies (see McDermott, 

2016; Bell & Sanderson, 2016).  Not all comments were retrievable at the time I captured the 

data for analysis purposes, likely due to either commenters deleting their accounts or their 

comments.  For example, in the case of the WSJ the message “This commenter has reset their 

account” appeared at times within the forum in place of an actual comment.  I captured all 

retrievable comments and pertinent details into spreadsheets.  I then used QDA Miner Lite and 

Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) in my analysis processes.  I present additional details on 

each article’s respective comments in chapter 7.     

123 

 

Rationale for Multi-Methods Approach 

Dahlberg (2004a) asserts quantitative approaches to researching the public sphere “result 

in a serious loss of meaning” because there are important aspects of the phenomenon that are 

“less amendable to quantification” (p. 31).  This serious loss of meaning necessitates the use of 

qualitative research if one is to develop a more thorough understanding of the public sphere 

under investigation (Dahlberg, 2004a).  However, a qualitative approach by itself often results in 

“vague or generalist” evaluations of a given public sphere (Dahlberg, 2004a).  Dahlberg (2004a) 

claims neither approach, quantitative or qualitative, by itself “is adequate for enabling a 

comprehensive evaluation of the extent online communicative practices facilitate the public 

sphere” (p. 32).  I agree with Dahlberg’s argument and I believe the same is true for arriving at a 

comprehensive evaluation of public opinion (sentiment), the result of the public sphere.  As such, 

I utilized both qualitative and quantitative methods in my research.   

 

Qualitative research fits nicely with a social construction research perspective in that it 

recognizes people looking at the same data can arrive at varying interpretations (Schreier, 2012).  

As such, objectivity as a criterion is not upheld within qualitative studies (Schreier, 2012).  

However, my use of quantitative content analysis methods serves to mitigate some of the 

subjectivity inherent in qualitative studies. 

R1: Methods 

 

My first research question is as follows: (Public Sphere) To what extent do people appear 

to engage in conversation with one another in online news comment forums?  The method I 

employed in addressing this question was a deliberation index developed by Gina Masullo Chen.  

Chen serves as “an Assistant Professor in the School of Journalism and Associate Director of the 

Center for Media Engagement in the Moody College of Communication at UT Austin” (Gina 

124 

 

Masullo Chen, 2020).  She derived her index on what she refers to as deliberative moments.  

Chen (2017) defines a deliberative moment as “brief forms of public deliberation, small bites, if 

you will, that offer some support for the ideals of free debate, inclusiveness of viewpoints, and 

discussions across difference encompassed by democratic deliberation” (Chen, 2017, p. 176).  

Deliberative moments are instances of the ideals of the public sphere manifesting, if only 

momentarily.  In her research, Chen (2017) developed a deliberation index based on the presence 

of evidence or legitimate questions in a comment.  She coded the presence of evidence in a 

comment as a one and the presence of a legitimate question(s) also as a one, for a total possible 

deliberation index of two per comment (Chen, 2017).  I utilized Chen’s deliberation index in my 

research as a means to determine if the ideals of the public sphere are present within the online 

comments I analyzed.  I based the following description of what I considered evidence off prior 

work by Chen (2017), Stroud, Scacco, Muddiman, and Curry (2015), Coe, Kenski, and Rains 

(2014), and Stromer-Galley (2007). 

Evidence 
 

If a commenter provides a hyperlink, describes information from other sources (e.g., 

“According to…”), utilizes numbers or figures, cites the source article, or provides a personal 

example or story, I coded it as evidence regardless of whether or not the evidence was true.   

I based the following description of what I considered legitimate questions on Chen’s 

(2017) work. 

Legitimate questions  
 

I will deem any question or questions a commenter poses that does not contain any 

elements of incivility as legitimate.  An example of uncivil non-legitimate question is “Why are 

you such an idiot?” 

125 

 

After I coded each comment for elements of deliberation, I then calculated an average 

deliberation index for each respective comment forum.   

R2: Methods 

 

My second research question is as follows: R2: (Public Opinion) What opinions do 

people express about higher education in online news comment forums and what do such 

opinions reveal about public views of higher education that are not apparent via traditional 

opinion polling?  Admittedly, this question was the most difficult for me to address 

methodologically.  And before I describe my approach, it is important that I first describe why I 

found this question most difficult to address.    

It has been my contention throughout my study that public opinion is rooted in 

conversation.  I base my argument on scholars, such as Herbst (1993, 2011b), Hauser (1999), 

Blumer (1948), Habermas (1996; 2006), Tarde (2010), and Shepard (1909), who view 

conversation as foundational to public opinion.  However, my study is not a conversation 

analysis.  In a conversation analysis, one “looks for detailed qualitative evidence of how 

participants work to organize their interactions endogenously within each specific situation” 

(Albert, 2018, p. 99).  Detailing the organization of participant’s interactions is not the purpose 

of my study.  Nevertheless, as I have argued and supported via the literature, online comments 

represent a kind of conversation, one that is the data source for my research.     

 

Herbst has long been an advocate for a return to conversation in the study of public 

opinion.  In her historical assessment of public opinion research, she made the following 

argument:  

Conversation is difficult to study: It is dynamic and complicated. Observing political 
discussions is also incredibly labor intensive. Yet if we are really interested in public 
opinion formation-how people arrive at opinions through their contact with media and 
with friends-we must take conversation more seriously. (Herbst, 1993, p. 144-145) 

126 

 

 
Having spent considerable time swimming in, at times drowning in the online comments, I can 

attest to Herbst’s (1993) assertion that studying conversation is not an easy feat.  Comments are 

messy.  They are messy because within very basic community guidelines that uphold a level of 

civility, commenters can talk about pretty much anything.  And while commenters within the 

forums I investigated stayed mostly on topic—that is they talked about aspects of higher 

education—they did not limit their discussion to any one aspect.  Often commenters would offer 

multiple opinions within a single comment.  Some commenters posted multiple times, offering 

varying shades to their sentiment.  Multiple opinions within a given comment, as well as 

opinions on varying but related aspects of higher education, makes it very difficult to place 

commenters sentiment into neatly demarcated opinion poll like responses (e.g., strongly agree, 

agree, neutral, disagree, etc.).  In fact, doing so would run counter to my public opinion as 

conversation rationale I have stressed. What I needed was flexible qualitative guidance that 

would allow me to address the sentiment texture within the online comments, which I found in 

interpretive description.   

 

Sally Thorne (2016), one of the original developers of the method, describes interpretive 

description as follows: 

Interpretive description is a strategy for excavating, illuminating, articulating, and 
disseminating the kind of knowledge that disciplines with an application mandate tend to 
need in order to enact their mandate—whether it be healing, educating, serving, or 
building something on behalf of society. Such work is fundamentally complex and 
messy, often representing the kinds of wicked problems that defy whole or coherent 
theorizing and demand instead a multiplicity of insights, perspectives, and approaches, 
used intersectionally together within increasingly dynamic contexts. (p. 11) 

 
Rather than try to force one’s research into the prescribed confines of a given method, 

interpretive description allows for flexibility.  It is as Sandelowski (2016) states, “In the ‘real’ 

world of inquiry, methods are not the fixed entities with unbending rules for implementing them 

127 

 

they are depicted as being in the methods literature” (p. 19).  In my work, I took guidance from 

Thorne and colleagues’ work on interpretive description, as well as qualitative content analysis 

(QCA) as a supporting method.   

Thorne (2016) states, “Because interpretive description locates itself outside the social 

science theoretical tradition, it does not hold with the conventional requirement that all studies 

must be explicitly positioned within one or another formal theory” (p. 70).  You will no doubt 

notice, if you have not already, that I have not explicitly positioned my study within any given 

formal theory.  Instead, my work is guided by the multiple perspectives and insights I explored 

within my literature review.  Regarding my second question, the flexibility in which interpretive 

description affords allowed me to move past the minutia of strict adherence to a given 

methodology or theory.   

According to Thorne (2016), “the object of an interpretive description study will typically 

be in the range of a thematic summary or a conceptual description” (p. 182).  For my study, I 

employed thematic summaries as a means to convey the opinions commenters expressed within 

the online comment forums.  To arrive at my themes I first coded all retrievable comments from 

my selected comment forums.  Thorne, Kirkham, and MacDonald-Emes (1997) believe 

“complex coding systems, such as those that encourage multiple codings for all pieces of raw 

data, often overwhelm the researcher with detail to the point that inductive interpretation 

becomes almost inconceivable” (p. 174).  As someone relatively new to conducting research, I 

admit I became overwhelmed with coding at the beginning of my work.  It was as if I was 

approaching my analysis from the belief that every single detail in the comments was fascinating 

and important and needed to make it into my findings.  I took Thorne’s (2016) advice “to 

consider some of the formal coding techniques that have been generated in relation to other 

128 

 

forms of qualitative research, and in some instances to draw inspiration (if not direct authority) 

from them” (p. 159), and turned to qualitative content analysis for guidance.   

A key characteristic of qualitative content analysis is its ability to reduce data (Drisko & 

Maschi, 2016; Schreier, 2012, 2014).  This characteristic of the method made it particularly 

suitable for taking hundreds of comments representing potentially hundreds of opinions and 

reducing them into a more manageable number of opinion themes.  In following with interpretive 

description guidance, I utilized an inductive approach to my analysis (Thorne, 2016; Thorne, 

Kirkham, & MacDonald-Emes, 1997; Thorne, Kirkham, & O’Flynn-Magee, 2004).  That is, I let 

the opinion themes emerge from the data.  It was not until after coding, re-coding, interpreting, 

and reinterpreting the comments, as well as forcing myself to view things from a higher level, 

rather than too granular of one, was I able to arrive at a set of opinion themes for each of my 

cases.  Within each theme I share vignettes from the comments as a means of providing texture 

to the theme and to highlight certain content, which is typical of qualitative content analysis 

(Drisko & Maschi, 2016; Schreier, 2012).   

R3: Methods 

My third research question is as follows: (Emotion) What emotions do people convey via 

online news comments?  The method I employed in addressing this question was sentiment 

analysis via.  Sentiment analysis is a new research area resulting from the proliferation of 

recorded opinion made possible by the internet and various forms of social media (Liu, 2016).  

Liu (2016) defines sentiment analysis as “the field of study that analyzes people’s opinions, 

sentiments, appraisals, attitudes, and emotions toward entities and their attributes expressed in 

written text” (p. 1).  The analysis of emotions, which falls within the realm of sentiment analysis 

(Liu, 2016), is the focused use within my research study.  The terms “sentiment analysis” and 

129 

 

“opinion mining” are often used interchangeably, leading to some confusion among researchers 

(Liu, 2016).  While the words “sentiment” and “opinion” have similar definitions, sentiment is 

more closely associated with a feeling, whereas opinion is more of a concrete view (Liu, 2016).  

For the purpose of this research, I used sentiment analysis to identify feelings (i.e., emotions) 

conveyed in online comments, and qualitative content analysis to identify and describe broad 

opinion themes within the online conversation.   

 

Social Psychologist and Distinguished Professor James Pennebaker (2011) asserts “the 

words people generate in their lifetimes are like fingerprints” (p. x).  He believes there is “a 

revolution under way in the analysis of language that will have a profound effect on the social 

sciences and humanities” (p. x).  Pennebaker, whose work focuses on natural language use and 

the psychology revealed through one’s words, believes words “can be thought of as powerful 

tools to excavate people’s thoughts, feelings, motivations, and connections with others” (p. xi).  

Research has shown that basic word count analysis can provide much greater insight into the 

psychological realities participants exist within than what multiple-choice questionnaires 

typically reveal (Mehl, 2006).      

 

The reliance on judges to rate people’s writing based on a set of dimensions results in 

frequent disagreements on ratings, increased expenses in both time and money, and can even 

negatively affect the judges’ emotional states (Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010).  To address these 

challenges, James Pennebaker and Martha Francis developed the pioneering text analysis 

program called Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count, or LIWC (pronounced “Luke”) for short 

(Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010).  LIWC is a simplistic and yet powerful tool for understanding 

the emotional states people convey in the words they use.  Mehl (2006) contends LIWC is “an 

extensively validated solution” for researchers interested in “low-level psychological constructs” 

130 

 

(p. 152), such as emotions, and considers it to be one of the most influential quantitative text 

analysis approaches in psychological research.  The program utilizes a predetermined dictionary 

resulting from a rigorous multi-step, multi-year development process.  Please see Pennebaker, 

Boyd, Jordan, and Blackburn (2015) for a thorough explanation of the process, as well as 

corresponding reliability statistics.  Within the dictionary, words fall under one or more 

categories and subcategories, such as negative emotion.  By comparing each individual word 

within a text against a predetermined dictionary, the program is able to produce word counts for 

various dimensions, such as words conveying positive or negative emotions (Pennebaker, Boyd, 

Jordan, & Blackburn, 2015).   

The original purpose of the program was to determine percentages of positive and 

negative emotion words and basic cognitive dimensions within a given text (Pennebaker, Boyd, 

Jordan, & Blackburn, 2015; Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010), but the number of dimensions 

capable of being analyzed by the program quickly grew.  Now in its fourth edition called 

LIWC2015, the program’s dictionary consists of “almost 6,400 words, word stems, and select 

emoticons” (Pennebaker, Boyd, Jordan, & Blackburn, 2015, p. 2), and produces almost ninety 

output variables per data file.  New to the 2015 version are four summary variables, including 

one for emotional tone (Pennebaker, Boyd, Jordan, & Blackburn, 2015).  Apart from the 

summary variables and the total word count and word count per sentence variables, LIWC 

calculates all variables as a percentage of total words (Pennebaker, Booth, Boyd, & Francis, 

2015).  Pennebaker, Boyd, Jordan, and Blackburn (2015) emphasize “the summary variables are 

the only non-transparent dimensions in the LIWC2015 output” (p. 6).       

The use of LIWC is more reliable than the use of human experts in the analysis of text, in 

that experts may disagree in their analysis, whereas LIWC produces the same results regardless 

131 

 

of who runs the analysis (Pennebaker, 2011).  This does not mean the software program is 

perfect in its analysis.  LIWC, like other word count programs, does not consider context and is 

unable to detect sarcasm or irony (Mehl, 2006; Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010).  And while 

LIWC has been found to accurately identify emotions in writing (Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010),  

Tausczik and Pennebaker urge caution on relying “too heavily on accurately detecting people’s 

true selves through their use of words” given “the study of word use as a reflection of 

psychological state is in its earliest stages” (p.30).  Despite these limitations, Mehl (2006) 

contends over the past fifty years “word-count approaches have repeatedly demonstrated their 

potentials in virtually all domains of psychology” (p. 154).   

 

For my study I utilized the aptly named summary variable emotional tone.  Pennebaker 

Lab developed an algorithm derived from extensive prior research, which calculates the 

emotional tone of a given text (Pennebaker, Boyd, Jordan, & Blackburn, 2015).  The precise 

algorithm is not available “due to prior commercial agreements” (Pennebaker, Booth, Boyd, & 

Francis, 2015).  Pennebaker, Booth, Boyd, and Francis (2015) describe the emotional tone 

summary variable as follows: 

Emotional tone -- a high number is associated with a more positive, upbeat style; a low 
number reveals greater anxiety, sadness, or hostility. A number around 50 suggests either 
a lack of emotionality or different levels of ambivalence. (p. 22) 

 
I used the emotional tone variable in LIWC to assess the emotional intensity within the online 

comments.   

The scores I calculated via LIWC do not represent negative or positive emotions within 

any particular theme I identified while addressing my second research question. Such an 

allocation of scores would involve a level of complexity outside the scope of this study. This is 

because of the data reduction inherent to qualitative content analysis (Drisko & Maschi, 2016; 

132 

 

Schreier, 2012, 2014).  Regarding my research, I distilled the numerous opinions expressed 

within the comments down to set of salient themes. A level of detail and nuance within the 

comments was, of course, lost during this process. This lost detail and nuance, which is inherent 

to QCA, makes applying LIWC scores to particular themes within my research potentially 

problematic. This is because the lost nuance could affect the LIWC scores in not readily apparent 

ways if applied at the opinion theme level, which could result in misleading findings.   

My emotional tone findings also do not reveal the focus of the sentiment within a given 

comment.  In other words, the way I applied LIWC to address my third research question do not 

indicate whether one’s emotions, positive or negative, are directed at another commenter, a 

particular point made within the forum, the author(s) of the article, the news outlet, or some other 

aspect one might express feelings on.  While such an analysis is within the realm of possibility, it 

was outside the scope of my study.  My use of LIWC was simply to determine the basic 

prevalence and intensity of emotions within the online comment forums I investigated, which 

Bernays (1928a) argued is a crucial step if one wants to proactively sway public opinion. 

Limitations 

 

With any study come limitations.  I have already alluded to some of the limitations to my 

research within the descriptions of my methods I provided.  For example, regarding the 

deliberation index I use to address my first research question I indicated I made no attempt to 

verify the legitimacy of evidence commenters provided.  My decision not to do so is in line with 

similar work done by Chen (2017).  This means commenters may be providing false evidence, 

which is still included in my deliberation index calculations.  Future research might differentiate 

legitimate from illegitimate evidence, as well as to try to determine if commenters intentionally 

gave false information.   

133 

 

 

Regarding my second question, my interpretive description inspired approach also has 

limitations.  Thorne, Kirkham, and O’Flynn-Magee (2004) assert, “By virtue of its reliance on 

interpretation, interpretive description cannot yield ‘facts’ but rather ‘constructed truths’” (p. 6).  

In other words, another person may very well arrive at a different interpretation or constructed 

truth than mine.  According to Thorne, Kirkham, and O’Flynn-Magee (2004), “The degree to 

which those constructions are viable and defensible for their intended purpose (that of offering 

the practice disciplines an extended or alternative understanding) will depend on the researcher’s 

capacity to present them in a manner that transforms raw data into a structure that makes aspects 

of the phenomenon meaningful in some new and useful way” (p. 6).  As such, I have strived to 

provide meaningful thematic summarizations of the data, supported by quotes from the 

comments, to enhance the viability and defensibility of my interpretations.     

 

My use of automated sentiment analysis to address my third question also comes with 

limitations.  Sentiment analysis is not perfect.  While I am using one of the most influential 

quantitative text analysis approaches in psychological research, LIWC, as well as sentiment 

analysis in general, is not perfect (Mehl, 2006).  As I indicated earlier, the program is unable to 

consider context and is unable to detect sarcasm or irony (Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010).  

Additionally, Tausczik and Pennebaker (2010) urge caution against reading too much into 

LIWC’s results, given “the study of word use as a reflection of psychological state is in its 

earliest stages” (p.30).  My use of LIWC in my research is in the most basic sense.  I am using it 

to provide a general indication as to the overall emotional tone within the comments.   

As with any public, there are of course people who are members, as well as those who are 

not.  For example, the digital audience of The Times consists of forty-seven percent male and 

fifty-three percent female, with a median age of 48 and median household income of $96,000 

134 

 

(The New York Times media kit, 2019).  Whereas the WSJ consists of sixty-two percent male 

and thirty-eight percent female, with a median age of 43 and average household income of 

$242,007 (The Wall Street Journal, 2017).  The gender, age, and income metrics alone provide 

us a glimpse as to who is part of, as well as excluded from these particular publics.  Not to 

mention, to be part of these digital publics one needs an internet connection and there remains a 

persistent digital divide.   

The lack of generalizability of my findings is a limitation.  My work is informed by 

public opinion scholarship, as well as by other scholarly disciplines.  However, nowhere within 

my dissertation do I make the claim that the opinions expressed within the comments are 

representative of public opinion in the grandest sense of the word “public.”  Instead, I have gone 

to great lengths to demonstrate via the literature that society is made up of a multitude of publics.  

Readers, or in my case, commenters, of a particular news organization represent a kind of public.  

Even still, I make no claim of my results being generalizable to commenters as a whole for The 

Times or the WSJ.  A more extensive study of commenters within both news venues might be 

able to make legitimate generalizations as to their tendencies, whether from a deliberation, 

opinion, or emotional perspective.  Such generalizations might add value to our understanding of 

opinion, sentiment, and conversation within The Times’s and WSJ’s digital public spheres.  

Generalizability was never the intent of my study.  However, that does not mean we cannot glean 

valuable insight from such publics, which may assist us when engaging with the broader public 

in general.   

 

 

135 

 

CHAPTER 6: 

THE EVOLUTION OF A DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE: THE CASE OF THE NY TIMES 

ONLINE COMMENTS 

The print edition of The New York Times began in 1851 and in 1996 the company 

launched its website (The New York Times Company, 2019).  Last year its website had a 

monthly average of 94 million unique visitors within the U.S. and 134 million globally 

(including the U.S.) (The New York Times Company, 2019).  Annual revenues decreased from 

3.29 billion dollars in 2006 to 1.55 billion in 2011 (New York Times Revenue, 2019).  The 

company reported increases in revenues over the past two years, reporting 1.74 billion dollars for 

2018 (New York Times Revenue, 2019).  Today, the newspaper has approximately 4.3 million 

print and digital subscriptions, spanning 217 countries and territories (The New York Times 

Company, 2019).  Digital-only subscriptions increased by 716,000 last year, and are now at 

roughly 3,360,000 (The New York Times Company, 2019).  As one of the most acclaimed 

newspapers, The New York Times has amassed more Pulitzer Prizes and citations than any other 

news organization, with 127 as of 2019 (Awards and recognition, 2019).    

 

As of April 2018, 39% of people find The Times to be either very trustworthy or 

trustworthy, while 30% find it to be untrustworthy or very untrustworthy (YouGov, 2018b).  The 

Times is the fifth most popular news website, based on unique monthly visitors (eBizMBA, 

2018).  Only Yahoo News, Google News, The Huffington Post, and CNN rank higher (eBizMBA, 

2018).  It is the most popular news brand in the U.S., reaching 26% of consumers (Verto 

Analytics, 2018).  In comparison, CNN, Fox News, and The Washington Post reach 25%, 22%, 

and 21% respectively (Verto Analytics, 2018).  When asked if The Times is a friend or an enemy 

of America, 19% of people said “ally”, 25% said “friendly”, 19% said “unfriendly”, 16% said 

136 

 

“enemy”, with the rest indicating they were “not sure” (YouGov, 2018a).  The Times is by far the 

most popular daily newspaper on Facebook, having received 14.8 million likes as of October 

2017 (Cision, 2018).  USA Today is the second most popular, with 8.61 million likes (Cision, 

2018).  77% of Democrats and 45% of Republicans consider The Times to be very/somewhat 

credible (Richter, 2017).  In a public opinion poll conducted by Gallup and the Knight 

Foundation (2018), when asked to identify an objective source of news, 3% of people mentioned 

The Times, whereas 24% mentioned Fox News.   

The digital audience of The Times, which is the population of interest in this study, 

consists of forty-seven percent male and fifty-three percent female, with a median age of 48 and 

median household income of $96,000 (The New York Times media kit, 2019).  Seventy-five 

percent of The Times digital audience consumes content exclusively on mobile devices (The 

New York Times media kit, 2019).  Millennials represent one third of the digital readership (The 

New York Times media kit, 2019).  The Times offers discounted subscription rates for students, 

faculty, and entire educational institutions.  Even if one is not a reader of The Times, it is difficult 

to escape its influence as their journalists and other contributors are frequent guests on twenty-

four hour news networks and talk shows, and its content is widely shared via various forms of 

social media.      

 

The Times has established a strong and robust digital foothold on the internet, both in 

terms of website popularity, digital community, and social media reach.  It is an accomplishment 

that was not free of growing pains.  Online commenting at The Times began in late 2007 (Long, 

2017a).  The organization only allows commenting on certain articles, typically for no longer 

than twenty-four hours on any given article, and up until 2017 a team of twelve to fourteen staff 

manually reviewed the majority of comments (Etim, 2017a; Long, 2017a; The NY Times Co., 

137 

 

2016).  They do so to help foster and ensure civil discussions (Comments, 2019; Etim, 2017a).  

And while today the global news industry considers The Times to be an organization that has 

reaped benefits from proactively maintaining its online conversations, such as reader loyalty and 

revenues (Huang, 2016), it too is a digital feat that took time and concerted effort throughout the 

organization.  One scholar’s ethnographic study provides us with insight into The Times as it 

sought to begin online conversations and build relationships with its digital audience.    

A detailed account of the inner workings of The Times and the challenges it faced during 

the beginning of its digital transformation comes from Nikki Usher, Associate Professor of 

Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University.  For five months at the beginning of 

2010, she embedded herself in The Times newsroom, spending over seven hundred hours 

observing, interviewing management, journalists, and support staff, and attending meetings 

(Usher, 2014).  Through her ethnographic research, Usher (2014) explored how the new values 

of immediacy, interactivity, and participation were orienting the work of journalists in an online 

world.  Immediacy being the pressure to get fresh content online fast and often, interactivity 

being user-computer interaction, and participation being “user-to-user communication and actual 

content creation” (Usher, 2014, p. 16).  And while Usher’s account of the emergence and 

struggle with all three values within the newsroom is fascinating, it is her account of the value of 

participation that is most pertinent within the context of online commenting.   

Back in 2010, participation with its audience was a contentious matter at The Times.  

Usher described the situation as follows:  

Inside the newsroom, participation was contested in a variety of ways. Many journalists 
acknowledged this supposedly new relationship with the audience but did not deem it 
worth their time. I want to stress that inside The Times, participation was almost entirely 
understood as engagement on social media platforms, not as commenting, not as 
blogging, not as live-chats, not as emails, and not as user-generated content. But perhaps 
more significantly, the actual implementation of participation as a value at work in the 

138 

 

newsroom suggested that journalists did have far more power than the ordinary person to 
contribute to creating and shaping the conversation. Journalists at The Times, at least, 
weren’t too sold on this two-way conversation. The conversation was for them, not for us. 
(Usher, 2014, p. 20) 

 
Usher (2014) went so far as to say, “Journalists, for the most part, seemed fairly ignorant that 

audiences could quite possibly be citizen contributors to the news-making process” (p. 214).  For 

the most part, journalists viewed participation simply as a means to raise their profile within the 

news world, and not to actually engage in dialogue with their readers (Usher, 2014).   

Usher shares a story about journalist Graham Bowley, a financial news reporter at The 

Times, as he frantically worked on a 2010 online piece about Goldman Sachs.  Bowley requested 

commenting be turned on for his article because he knew it would mean his piece would remain 

on the homepage longer than if it did not allow commenting (Usher, 2014).  One of the reasons 

being the amount of work The Times puts into moderating its comment forums (Usher, 2014).  

The following vignette from Usher illustrates Bowley’s conception and struggle with 

participation as a new value within the organization:    

Bowley knew that people wanted to talk about the Goldman story and that The Times 
could be the place for them to air their views. But part of his reason for requesting that 
comments be turned on had more to do with knowing that the story would then stay up 
longer on the home page. It didn’t seem to me as though Bowley had much interest in 
what the comments might say (though they weren’t turned on, so I couldn’t actually be 
sure), just so long as they were there. Thus, Bowley seemed to understand the idea of the 
active reader, but to him, participation didn’t include actually talking back. Participation 
was messy, too: Should he answer all those emails? When should comments be turned 
on? What was his role in all of this? (Usher, 2014, p. 64) 

 
Part of what made participation messy and prevented two-way participation at The Times from 

happening was a lack of messaging “from the top of the editorial food chain” (Usher, 2014, p. 

196).  Usher (2014) shares, “As community editor Vanessa Schneider explained to me, 

journalists could go all day without engaging in any kind of interaction with readers (even just 

139 

 

the basics, from comments to emails or newer tools like Twitter), in part because the institutional 

buy-in at the top hadn’t been made clear” (p. 196).    

 

Usher’s (2014) stay at The Times made her concerned that the journalists were missing 

“an excellent opportunity to get to know their audience better” (p. 204).  She was critical of the 

organization for doing very little regarding “bringing the audience into the newsroom as 

participants, learning what they might have to say about the news, or taking advantage of this 

new forum to improve coverage” (p. 204).  Usher clearly sees the value and insight the public 

has to offer on topics of concern.  Upon completing her ethnographic study, she offered her 

following vision for the newsroom:   

In my ideal world, this newsroom would be one where more than just one editor would 
be assigned the job of community editing, with the role of aggregating and creating 
community conversation. Instead of pushing out questions and articles on Facebook, 
someone would actually answer questions and guide conversation on these platforms—
and respond to comments, as well. (Usher, 2014, p. 235) 

 
Usher went so far as to issue a forceful recommendation to The Times as to how it views and 

treats its audience:  

The Times is going to have to rethink its relationship with this audience. The newspaper 
is going to have to balance its desire for control over the brand with the need to have 
genuine, personal relationships with readers. And somehow, this has to be scalable for an 
audience of thirty million, so this relationship can feel authentic to each member. This is 
a tricky proposition. (Usher, 2014, p. 239) 

 
She saw the value of participation as critical to The Times’s, or any news organization for that 

matter, success in a digital world. 

Usher’s description of The Times is of how things were nine years ago.  At that time 

online commenting on a small number of articles had only been present on The Times website for 

a little over 2 years (Long, 2017a).  Things change and in the digital age they often change 

rapidly.  Usher (2014) said it herself that when she would speak to people at The Times about her 

140 

 

ethnographic work after she departed the newsroom “at least half would pause and then say, ‘But 

wait, everything has changed’” (p. 216), while the rest would point out “small but still noticeable 

differences” (p. 216).  The Times communicated one such marked change in a statement released 

in 2015.   

 

In a document titled Our Path Forward (2015), The Times made clear the value of 

participation, as described by Usher, is front and center to the company’s immediate and long-

term success.  Recognizing its digital readers as the primary force behind most of its “advertising 

revenue through their deep engagement”, the company declared “These deep reader relationships 

are our most valuable asset” (Our Path Forward, 2015, p. 4).  The company also announced the 

priority of hiring journalists with new skills, such as technology and audience engagement (Our 

Path Forward, 2015).  Whereas in 2010 the messaging from the top on the importance of 

participation was lacking (Usher, 2014), The Times made its importance clear in its 2015 Our 

Path Forward statement.   

 

Fast forward a year later.  By 2016, online commenting was occurring on a select number 

of articles at The Times for over eight years.  During April of 2016, The Times had a sort of 

virtual debate on the topic of the success or failure of online news comment sections.  The debate 

consisted of four opinion pieces by the following guest authors: senior editor at Ebony Magazine 

Jamilah Lemieux, chair of the Anti-Cyberhate Committee of the Anti-Defamation League 

Christopher Wolf, editorial director at Mic Samhita Mukhopadhyay, and professor of 

communication and editor-in-chief of the journal Human Communication Research Eun-Ju Lee.  

Lemieux (2016) made her argument clear in the title of her piece, Get Rid of Comment Sections.  

Referring to comment spaces as “once a fantastic space for a meeting of the minds scattered 

across the globe”, Lemieux (2016) contends they have devolved into “rest havens for racists, 

141 

 

sexists and homophobes”.  Also critical of online comments, Wolf (2016) points to a lack of 

accountability as the culprit in online incivility.  He believes “the benefits of anonymity online 

are greatly outweighed by the abuse”, and suggests “a reboot of online comment sections” (Wolf, 

2016) making personal identification central to the forums.  Mukhopadhyay (2016) and Lee 

(2016), while acknowledging the negative aspects of online commenting, believe comments to 

be beneficial to reader engagement and public discourse.  Lee (2016) contends online comments 

can “shape how a reader interprets public opinion more broadly” resulting in distortions in how 

people perceive reality.  And yet, in most situations she does not advocate for shutting comments 

down because she believes they “can showcase competing viewpoints, arouse the public’s 

interest in important issues and facilitate arguments around them”.       

It appears The Times do not view its comment sections to be a failure.  A year after the 

newspaper hosted the virtual debate, The Times not only continued to allow online comments, it 

announced a significant expansion of commenting on its website (Etim, 2017a).  With the 

implementation of machine learning program Moderator, created in partnership with Google’s 

parent company Alphabet, the newspaper leveraged the power of artificial intelligence (AI) to 

achieve massive efficiencies in what had previously been a labor-intensive comment moderation 

process (Adams, 2018; Etim, 2017a; Moderator, 2019).  Utilizing powerful algorithms, 

Moderator utilizes and learns from the over sixteen million comments The Times had moderated 

since 2007 in order to be able to predict the kinds of decisions the human staff would make in the 

future (Etim, 2017a; Moderator, 2019).  It then scores each comment on the likelihood a human 

moderator would approve or reject it, plotting the scores on a histogram (Etim, 2017a).  Staff at 

The Times can then make decisions on comments by reviewing a relatively small sample of 

comments within a given scoring range produced by Moderator (Etim, 2017a).  Moderator can 

142 

 

also automatically approve comments if it deems them to be overwhelmingly likely to be 

acceptable by staff (Etim, 2017a).  The underlying software behind Moderator is available for 

use by other organizations, and its creators hope it will lead to more civil and constructive 

conversations across the internet (Adams, 2018; Marvin, 2019).                 

 

The Time’s implementation of AI to expand and accelerate its comment moderation 

coincided with the release of its strategic report titled Journalism That Stands Apart: The Report 

of the 2020 Group (2017).  Executive editor, Dean Baquet, and managing editor, Joe Kahn of 

The Times announced in January of 2017 the release of the report.  The 2020 group, which 

produced the report, included journalist, David Leonhardt, newsroom strategy director, Jon 

Galinsky, associate managing editors, Jodi Rudoren and Karron Skog, national editor, Marc 

Lacey, assistant graphics editor, Tom Giratikanon, and senior editor, Tyson Evans (Baquet & 

Kahn, 2017).  The team spent much of 2016 examining The Times’s “digital and print report, 

talking with people throughout the newsroom, the company and the wider industry”, and 

consulting with Baquet and Kahn (2017) to determine a strategy for the next three years of 

digital transformation of its journalism.  The group declared several imperatives for the 

organizations, including one it stated as “Our readers must become a bigger part of our report” 

(Journalism that stands apart, 2017).  They described the value and critical importance of 

providing their readers with opportunities to engage in conversation as follows:  

 

Perhaps nothing builds reader loyalty as much as engagement — the feeling of being part 
of a community. And the readers of The New York Times are very much a community. 
They want to talk with each other and learn from each other, not only about food, books, 
travel, technology and crossword puzzles but about politics and foreign affairs, too. 

We have developed one of the most civil and successful comment sections in the news 
business, but we still don’t do nearly enough to allow our readers to have these 
interactions. 
 

143 

 

Our richest community engagement right now is mainly in nooks and crannies of the site: 
the robust discussion of philosophers on Opinion’s “The Stone” series; the crossword 
fanatics on the Wordplay column; the stories of cancer survivors on Well; or the helpful 
notes on Cooking’s best recipe for chocolate chip cookies. 
 
We know from research and anecdotes that readers value the limited opportunities we 
provide to engage in discussion. (Journalism that stands apart, 2017) 

 
The Time’s implementation of AI to expand its capability for digital conversation with its 

audience fits within its strategic imperative to make its readers a bigger part of its journalism.  

For example, associate managing editor, Clifford Levy (2017) described the expansion of online 

commenting as “a sea change in our ability to serve our readers, to hear from them, and to 

respond to them”.  He went on to proclaim that The Times “will work hard to curate and respond 

to thousands of daily comments” (Levy, 2017).  Along with the 2017 expansion of online 

commenting, The Times announced the creation of its Reader Center (Hiltner, 2017).  Its mission 

is to “build deeper ties with our audience” and “to amplify reader voices and to build trust 

through transparency” (Hiltner, 2017).  The center began as a group of eight journalists (Hiltner, 

2017), but has since grown to a staff of twenty-two people (Willens, 2018). 

Prior to the utilization of artificial intelligence, The Times enabled commenting on 

approximately ten percent of its articles (Adams, 2018; Long, 2017a; Moderator, 2019; The NY 

Times Co., 2016).  Now, the company allows commenting on eighty percent of articles and 

approves about eighty-five percent of comments submitted (Long, 2017a).  Perhaps at some 

point The Times will make available all comments, including the rejected ones, for social science 

research or simply for readers to view the conversation in its entirety, civil and uncivil remarks, 

if they so choose.  In 2019 The Times won a Webby Award for its use of AI to improve the 

quality of its online conversations (New York Times: Using AI to host better conversations, 

2019).  Even with AI, commenting is still only available on certain articles, and the comment 

144 

 

forums typically remain open for twenty-four hours (Comments, 2019).  Readers regularly 

complain about not being able to comment on articles (Etim, 2017b; Sullivan, 2015).  The Times 

acknowledges that “it is unfortunate that some of these discussions do not have the chance to 

further evolve” (Comments, 2019).  However, they believe the benefit of closing conversations is 

that they can focus their moderation efforts on discussions pertaining to more current news 

(Comments, 2019).   

Even with the help of AI, the moderating of comments still involves human moderators 

who invest considerable time and energy to help foster civil and constructive conversation 

spaces.  Online commenters at The Times express strong feelings via their digital conversations 

(Etim, 2015b; Williams, 2014).  Etim (2015b) describes the forums as “a sea of emotions, 

insights, and opinions”.  It is therefore not a surprise that moderating takes an emotional toll on 

staff (Long, 2017a).  However, The Times and its staff believe it is worth it, as made evident by 

their continuing moderating efforts of twelve plus years.  Why?  Well as community desk staff 

member at The Times Rachel Harris puts it, “We want people to be heard” (as cited in Long, 

2017a).  According to their website, the kinds of comments the newspaper is looking for are as 

follows:   

We are interested in articulate, well-informed remarks that are relevant to the article. We 
welcome your advice, your criticism and your unique insights into the issues of the day. 
To be approved for publication, your comments should be civil and avoid name-calling. 
 
Our standards for taste are reflected in the articles we publish in the newspaper and on 
NYTimes.com; we expect your comments to follow that example. A few things we won't 
tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters 
followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence and 
SHOUTING. (Comments, 2019) 

 

145 

 

Its approach to comment threads and moderation appears to be working.  The World Editors 

Forum (Huang, 2016) recognizes The Times as an example of an organization effectively 

managing its online discussions. 

Online commenters and their commenting are clearly impacting journalism at The Times.  

To think otherwise is nonsensical.  In its most basic sense, any resources The Times allocates to 

online commenting are resources they are not allocating to journalism.  For example, the salaries 

spent on comment moderators is money not spent on hiring more or retaining existing 

journalists.  This simple fact is not lost on commenter Dan Stackhouse of New York City.  In 

response to a fellow commenter asking, “why cannot we comment on all articles and pieces?” 

Dan replied, “If they opened up everything to comments they’d have to about quadruple that 

staff and salaries cost companies a great deal” (comment made in response to Etim, 2015a).  The 

Times is a business.  More precisely, it is part of a publicly traded corporation.  One can 

speculate, The Times believes there is value to the company and its shareholders to invest in 

opening up and maintaining online comment threads within its news website.  As Usher (2014) 

contends, a news organization’s participation with its audience “addresses underlying concerns 

with how to raise revenue and increase brand loyalty” (p. 20).  She argues “Engagement was 

money, whether The Times said so directly or not” (p. 191).   

Top management at The Times knows this and are constantly working to make its website 

sticky, spreadable, and thereby a revenue generating machine (Usher, 2014).  By “sticky” Usher 

(2014) is referring to “the principle of getting people to stay on a site for as long as possible—as 

opposed to conducive for bouncing from site to site” (p. 153).  And by “spreadable” she means a 

website “that takes advantage of social content that people can share, comment on, spread across 

their social networks, augment by adding user-generated content, and even remix—though 

146 

 

maybe not all of those things at once” (p. 189).  The most valuable website, or that is the one 

with the highest revenue generating potential, is a site that is both sticky and spreadable (Usher, 

2014).  Online commenting, if done right, can keep users on the website longer and allows them 

to generate and spread content from The Times across the web.  By all accounts, The Times 

online commenting appears to be a success, in terms of making its website both sticky and 

spreadable.  Nearly 7,000 people per day post comments to its website (Long, 2017b), and close 

to two million comment recommendations are made per month (Etim, 2015b).  So, another way 

to look at the financial impact of commenting on journalism at The Times is that whatever 

revenue stemming from sticky and spreadable characteristics of its online forums is money that 

helps keep the company solvent and it can use to strengthen its journalism in various ways (e.g., 

hiring additional journalists).   

There is evidence that allows us to dive deeper into the impact commenting is having on 

The Times and its work beyond just a financial perspective.  For example, at The Times, 

comments have become source material for its articles.  Etim (2017a) argues, “If The Times has 

innovated in the comments space, it is by treating reader submissions like content”.  As the 

company makes clear, The Times reserves “the right to display comments in a variety of ways, 

including within the text of articles or in advertisements” (Comments, 2019).  From articles that 

review the most commented stories of the year (McDermott, 2015b & 2017b), to profiles of 

some of its most prolific commenters (Etim, 2015a & 2015b; Long, 2017b; Wartik, 2018), The 

Times has put its commenters front and center.  One of The Times most well-known commenters, 

Richard Luettgen, wrote close to 30,000 comments (Wartik, 2018).  Luettgen died on December 

1, 2018.  A fellow commenter at The Times announced his passing in a comment on an article 

about Elizabeth Warren (Wartik, 2018).  The comment, characterized as “the comment version 

147 

 

of an obituary”, linked to Luettgen’s actual obituary notice at the funeral home where he was 

described as “an avid commenter to The New York Times” (Wartik, 2018).  In response to the 

comment announcing the death of Luettgen, another fellow commenter posted the following:  

I almost never agreed with him, but appreciated his contribution to the discussion. He 
provided a lot of grist for the mill. (as cited in Wartik, 2018) 

 
Commenter Memi von Gaza from Canada also expressed sorrow in the following comment she 

posted on January 10, 2019: 

I just found out that Richard has died. I am heartbroken. I will miss him deeply. Although 
I only knew him from the commentariat in the New York Times, he showed a side of 
himself to me and many others that transcended the bitter politics he commented on. It 
was there in his humor, YES his HUMOR. It was there in his replies to his detractors and 
his fans of which I was one. He told me once or twice that he would meet me on the other 
side, his bourbon and my Canadian Club. Rest in peace Richard. I'll meet you on the 
other side, your bourbon, my Canadian marijuana, cause I don't drink. Hope that's OK. 
(comment made in response to Etim, 2015a) 

 
She posted here comment on an article published on November 23, 2015, which featured Richard 

as one of The Times’s top commenters.  The article titled Meet Some of Our Top Commenters 

(Etim, 2015a) received 1,431 comments spanning over three years.  In a somewhat eerie 

demonstration of the potentially limitless temporal nature of online conversations, Richard 

Luettgen participated numerous times in the very same digital conversation where Memi von 

Gaza mourned his passing.       

The staff at The Times also felt the loss of their frequent contributor, as made clear by 

Wartik’s (2018) following remark and fellow colleague Etim’s reflection:  

The ripples also spread through our department. “One of the things I really respected 
about Richard,” said Bassey Etim, our Community Editor, “is that he would email me 
when we took down some rude replies to his comments and say, ‘Hey, what are you 
doing, put that back up.’ He was not afraid of mixing it up.” (Wartik, 2018) 

 

148 

 

Luettgen was just one of many commenters in an online community “that has its own 

luminaries” (Etim, 2015a), and in which over 60,000 unique contributors participate each month 

(Etim, 2015b).    

 

The Times’s commenters and comments as content goes well beyond profiles of 

commenters and listings of most commented on stories.  The actual digital conversations taking 

place within the comments also become content.  For example, McDermott has written articles 

about online commenters’ discussions about the workplace environment at Amazon 

(McDermott, 2015a) and the indictment of Paul Manafort (McDermott, 2017a).  The following 

excerpt from her article about commenters’ reaction shows how online sentiment via comments 

can take on a life of its own:  

While current and former employees of Amazon weighed in on the depictions in the 
article, many New York Times readers identified as regular Amazon customers. Appalled 
by the treatment of workers, many went on to say they would cancel their Amazon Prime 
subscriptions. Others vowed to never patronize the online retailer again. 
 
Halfway into reading the article, Katie in Georgia had already canceled her Audible 
membership, deleted her Kindle application and decided to boycott Amazon. “I cannot 
support a company that so purposefully creates a negative environment for its 
employees,” she wrote. “It’s disgusting, it’s immoral, and I hope others feel the same 
after reading this article.” Her comment — the most popular one in the story by far — 
was recommended by over 4,000 readers. (McDermott, 2015a)  

 
McDermott’s article about the Amazon discussion not only highlighted aspects of the online 

conversation, but it also linked back to the original comments and online conversation in the 

corresponding article.  Similar to McDermott’s articles, Moore, Baruchman, and Patel (2016) 

wrote an article that focused exclusively on the comments made in response to another article at 

The Times about Trump calling upon Russia to find Clinton’s emails.  At the time, the article was 

“the most-commented on in The Times’s history” (Moore, Baruchman, & Patel).  Moore, 

Baruchman, and Patel’s article brought attention to the dynamic conversation occurring within 

149 

 

the comments regarding Trump’s controversial remarks.  Like McDermott’s articles, their article 

also linked back to the original comments in the corresponding article.     

All the writers I just mentioned are professionals who specialize in engaging with the 

audience.  According to their byline pages at The Times, “Marie Tae McDermott writes about 

reader reactions to issues covered in The New York Times” (Marie Tae McDermott, 2019) and 

“Leela Moore is an audience writer for the New York Times Reader Center” (Lela Moore, 

2019).  Baruchman (2019) was an Audience Engagement Intern at The Times, who described her 

internship experience as having “Increased and drove reader engagement by creating 

opportunities for comments, expression and discussion, contributing to the company’s goal of 

improving audience relations”.  Patel (2019) is the Senior Social Strategy and UGC Editor at The 

Times.  She describes her role at the company as follows: 

I lead The Times's efforts around reader-sourced reporting, crowdsourcing and audience 
engagement. I work with various desks across the newsroom, training journalists in New 
York and abroad on the latest tactics for developing long-term and lasting relationships 
with our readers. (Patel, 2019)     

 
A recent job posting for a social media strategy editor at The Times shows it is looking to add to 

its audience engagement team.  The position description states, “engaging our readers, 

monitoring on-site and off-platform conversations for story ideas and integrating readers’ 

contributions into our daily and enterprise report is essential” (New York Times, 2019).  It 

appears Usher’s (2014) vision for The Times—“one where more than just one editor would be 

assigned the job of community editing, with the role of aggregating and creating community 

conversation” (p. 235)—has, to at least an extent, come to fruition.   

Nine years ago, Usher called into question the public sphere like qualities of The Times’ 

online communities.  While reporting on her 2010 ethnographic research conducted at the 

newsroom, she claimed “Significantly, though, participation inside The Times certainly did not 

150 

 

embody the idea espoused by many Internet theorists about the nature of journalism in the 

networked public sphere” (Usher, 2014, p. 187).  At that time, top management’s views on 

participation implied “a limited vision of the user as anything other than a way to make money”, 

whereas “top editors failed to consider what participation might add to the conversation” (Usher, 

2014, p. 188).  Since that time, the online comment threads at The Times have taken on public 

sphere like characteristics.  They have become online communities with virtual relationships 

spanning the country and the world (Etim, 2015a & 2015b; Long, 2017b; McDermott, 2019; 

Wartik, 2018).  In one of his comments, commenter Mike from San Diego, California 

proclaimed “The comments are what makes the NYT a community” (comment made in response 

to Etim, 2015a).  He went on to say, “When I read the thoughtful responses, I tell myself that is a 

$15/month well spent”.  Mary T of Orleans expressed similar sentiment, asserting “This new 

world community, where each of us has access to speak/write our opinion, is utterly fabulous” 

(comment made in response to Etim, 2015a).  Reader from Chicago, Illinois admits he has 

“always been surprised by how difficult it can be to openly express an opinion” (comment made 

in response to Etim, 2015a) and expose oneself, even if anonymously, to support and criticism 

from the digital world.  While asking himself “why do I keep doing this?”, he realized “it’s nice 

to have a community of others to discuss these issues with, even if in this kind of weird way” 

(comment made in response to Etim, 2015a).  Yet another commenter, JoAnne from Georgia, 

thanked her fellow commenters for making her feel “less alone in this crazy world” (comment 

made in response to Etim, 2015a). 

A group of The Times’s most active commenters have earned titles, such as “super-

commenters” (Long, 2017b) and “celebrity class of commenters” (Sullivan, 2015).  Some 

commenters see commenting as a “civic duty” and as a means to help “make sense of their own 

151 

 

thoughts and reactions to the political climate” (Long, 2017b).  For example, alfdkf contends the 

reason he or she comments is “To participate in democracy, exercise my free speech rights, & 

compete in the marketplace of ideas” (comment made in response to Etim, 2015a).  Meanwhile 

Capt. Penny of Silicon Valley is appreciative of comment spaces for helping him “maintain a bit 

of sanity when confronting the daily cognitive dissonance that is the US news media” (comment 

made in response to Etim, 2015a).  According to him, “The thoughtful comments from all 

viewpoints are invaluable to understanding issues and finding possible solutions” (comment 

made in response to Etim, 2015a).  Sterling of New York sees the value in multiple viewpoints 

and admits that “Sometimes commenters can change my reaction to a story, sometimes even my 

opinion” (comment made in response to Etim, 2015a).  “What I like in many ways best about the 

comment section are the surprising number of people who have all these opinions that keep 

surprising me for being so unantiicipated which experience then keeps disabusing my of the 

sense of living in a uniform world”, proclaims michael roloff of Seattle.  While not devoid of 

typos, michael’s comment conveys a deep appreciation for the diversity of views present in the 

online conversations.   

 

Of course, there are detractors over the quality of conversation and level of community 

within the online comments, even from commenters themselves.  For example, Susan Brooks of 

Ohio argues that “Comment sections are click bait that give the illusion of dialogue”, offer 

nothing more than “entrenched views”, and are filled with people seeking “validation” and 

“commenting ‘fame’” (comment made in response to Etim, 2015a).  Interestingly, she 

participated and made her opinions known in the very same forum in which she apparently does 

not hold in very high regard.  A fellow commenter replied to Susan challenging her assertions.  

Josh Hill of New London, Connecticut said “Susan, I can’t speak for others, but I’m not seeking 

152 

 

commenting fame!” (comment made in response to Etim, 2015a).  He went onto say, “I generally 

comment because I think I have something useful to say, often about something I feel 

passionately about, like we shouldn't melt our planet or export all of our jobs to China” 

(comment made in response to Etim, 2015a).     

 

People can be quick to dismiss or completely ignore online comments and the power and 

opportunity they represent.  As commenter Alice of North Dakota states, “one of the first rules of 

the internet: Never read the comments” (comment made in response to Etim, 2015a).  And yet, 

she recognizes The Times comment forums “is usually an exception” to that rule.  Walter Rhett 

of Charleston, South Carolina recognizes the power of online commenting, as he eloquently 

defends the digital building block to online conversation—the online comment—in his following 

post:   

What is called a “comment” is really a blank canvas! A limited digital and visual space 
that opens up quickly to become an unlimited range of imaginative possibilities. The 
comment space reflects its writers and readers, but it is not a “lesser” space, as some 
imply. It is mighty space of unbounded responsibilities, a freedom whose only obligation 
is to be busy, just, and quick--and marvel at its high freedom and the many ways that it 
becomes manifest! (comment made in response to Etim, 2015a) 

 
For those people who might imply, or perhaps directly assert, as Walter suggests, that online 

comments are a lesser space, I have a question for you.  Of the millions, likely billions, of online 

comments made across the world via a whole host of news outlets and other venues, across a 

wide array of topics, how many have you read?  And even if you have read hundreds or 

thousands of comments across a variety of dimensions, is that a large enough sample size to 

imply or directly assert that online comments are a lesser space?  Of course, these are rhetorical 

questions at this point, but nevertheless, worth pondering.     

Regardless of what the skeptics and critics might say, communities are forming and 

conversations are occurring within the online comment sections of The Times.  Some of these 

153 

 

conversations are huge!  For example, there were 13,138 comments posted to the article I Am 

Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration (2018).  And while conversations with a 

high volume of comments or recommendations might receive the most attention, commenter 

MTF Tobin reminds us in her following comment that even the smallest of online conversations, 

that is, ones consisting of a small number of comments, can be of value:   

…Many people choose to Comment on pieces that get low readership. If a piece gets low 
readership, few will read the Comments; if few read the Comments, the number of 
"Recommends" will be low, even if every reader of the piece clicks Recommend. But 
those Comments may well be worthy. (By way of analogy: In mid-September 2013, I 
posted a Comment on a Public Editor Sunday Column under my old screen name, 
"Maura T. Fan". It was one of 16 Comments posted for that column in the first 72 hours, 
and 2 people clicked "Recommend". Yet, the Public Editor considered it worthy of 
written reply both in email and in a blog post, in which she also replied to the best of of 
the 16 Comments. http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/responding-to-
reader-co... That blog post received 7 Comments.) So raw numbers of "Recommends" do 
not always define the most worthy Comments… (comment made in response to Etim, 
2015a) 

 
Taking MTF Tobin’s point a bit further, the rippling and cumulative effect of small online 

conversations, and seemingly overlooked comments, while perhaps not easily measureable, 

might be grand in scale.    

The public sphere like nature of the online comment forums extends beyond just the 

readers.  At times, journalists and staff at The Times participate in the commenting (Etim, 2015b; 

McDermott, 2019), the following being one example:    

Elizabeth Dias, our National religion correspondent, joined a conversation on her article 
about gay Catholic priests after readers wondered why the priests in the story joined the 
church in the first place. She wrote a comment that provided additional insight into their 
lives: “Many were barely at the age of puberty, and were not able to understand their 
sexuality for years, or how the church would structurally restrict it.” (McDermott, 2019) 

 
Yet another example comes from op-ed columnist Joe Quinn.  Quinn, who is an Army veteran, 

released a piece on September 10, 2018 titled The Real Lesson of Sept. 11.  It received 1,006 

comments (Quinn, 2018b).  Less than a month later, with the encouraging of senior editorial 

154 

 

assistants Harris and Tarchak, Quinn (2018a) released a follow-up piece titled ‘I’d Trade It All In 

to Be With My Brother and Friends Again’.  In it he addressed a number of ideas and questions 

commenters raised in response to his September piece.  His second piece received 100 comments 

(Quinn, 2018a).  Whereas Usher (2014) once described the journalists at The Times as being 

“fairly ignorant” (p. 214) of the fact that everyday citizens had something valuable to contribute 

to journalism, it appears as though now, at least to an extent, things have changed.  It appears 

more staff recognize what Etim (2015a) asserted, that when it comes to online commenters, 

“Their voices have enhanced our journalism, offering new information, insight and analysis on 

many of the day’s most pressing issues”.   

Perhaps the most interesting attempt by The Times to foster an online public sphere is its 

Learning Network.  According to McDermott (2019), “The New York Times Learning Network 

gives middle and high school students the space to respond to news articles, participate in 

contests and engage in a dialogue that extends beyond the classroom”.  A recent piece in the 

Learning Network titled What Is Your Reaction to the College Admission’s Cheating Scandal? 

by Natalie Proulx (2019) received 527 comments.  Her piece begins with the following note:   

Note: Students 13 and older are invited to comment here. Adults should post their 
comments elsewhere on NYTimes.com. (Proulx, 2019) 

 
In the article Proulx encourages readers to watch a brief video about the indictment, provides 

them with excerpts from supporting articles, while also linking them to the original pieces.  One 

of the articles she provides an excerpt from—Actresses, Business Leaders and Other Wealthy 

Parents Charged in U.S. College Entry Fraud (Medina, Benner, & Taylor, 2019)—received 

4,524 comments!  Proulx encourages her readers to read the full article and then respond to 

various questions, such as the following: 

155 

 

The authors write: “The charges also underscored how college admissions have become 
so cutthroat and competitive that some have sought to break the rules.” Do you agree? 
What do you think this case tells us about the college admissions process today? (Proulx, 
2019) 

 
She then links her readers to a second article—Bribes to Get Into Yale and Stanford? What Else 

Is New? (Bruni, 2019), which received 1,918 comments.  Proulx (2019) encourages them to read 

it as well and respond to additional questions, such as “Do you think the college admissions 

process is rigged to favor the wealthy?”.  A cursory look through the comments made in 

response to Proulx’s Learning Network piece reveals commenters are not only posting stand-

alone comments, but are at times also replying to each other.  

With The Learning Network, The Times is in a sense fostering a culture of online news 

commenting among teenagers.  Perhaps this is a type of pedagogy that is needed to help foster 

constructive and critical online conversations, ones that embody the ideals of a public sphere.  

Take for example, the following way a teacher describes how she utilizes The Times in her 

teaching: 

Susan Carney, a teacher in New Jersey, says she uses The Learning Network in her 
classroom by having her students respond to its writing prompts in The Times’s comment 
sections. “My students not only consider how their words might be received by a writer at 
The New York Times, but also by the wider audience of readers,” Ms. Carney wrote to 
Learning Network editors. “It makes them aware that their voice was heard and their 
words might resonate with someone.” (McDermott, 2019) 

 
As it turns out, staff editor of The Learning Network Proulx herself used to be an English 

language arts teacher and curriculum writer (Natalie Proulx, 2019).   

 

The Learning Network appears to be a means to fulfill one of The Time’s key aspirations.  

In its 2015 Our Path Forward document, The Times made clear the importance of young readers 

to its business model:   

Our overarching aspiration is to cultivate another generation of readers who can’t 
imagine a day without The New York Times. Our first two million subscribers — 

156 

 

including our more than one million newspaper subscribers — grew up with The New 
York Times spread out over their kitchen tables. The next million must be fought for and 
won over with The Times on their phones. (Our Path Forward, 2015) 

 
Now consider for a moment that the students reading and participating in The Learning Network 

might not be growing up with a paper copy of The Times spread out over their kitchen tables at 

home.  But they are growing up with it as part of their educational experience, and some are 

learning to actively participate in digital conversations about the news.  Not only do they see 

other students participating in the comments, but if they are paying close enough attention to the 

comment counts on the corresponding articles they are reading, they see many more people are 

commenting.  Perhaps some of the students will eventually become subscribers as adults and 

continue engaging in the online comments.     

 

The public sphere like nature of The Times’s comments will most likely continue to 

evolve.  As a model example as to how to successfully foster civil online conversations, it should 

come as no surprise if other news organizations begin to follow suit.  Advances in AI have the 

potential to make comment moderation a highly efficient and affordable process for 

organizations with less resources than The Times has at its disposal.  The Times has clearly made 

audience engagement via online commenting a key pillar in its current and long-term success.  It 

has come a long way since it first allowed commenting on just a small number of articles back in 

2007.  Today, it allows commenting on eighty percent of its articles and its commenters and their 

online conversations have become an integral part of its journalism.  The Times went so far as to 

develop and make available an application programming interface (API), which allows users to 

data mine comments on its website (Gerst, 2008).  Online comments represent a wealth of 

information on people’s thoughts, opinions, and conversations.   

157 

 

The case of commenting at The Times shows us how one prestigious organization has 

operationalized this novel form of conversation to cultivate deeper relationships with and 

understandings of its publics.  The evolution of its digital public sphere did not come without 

growing pains and resistance from within.  However, with time and concerted effort from top-

level management to the editors and journalists, The Times has shown it wants to hear what 

commenters think and have to say about the issues it covers in the news each day.  Simply 

listening to, as well as at times conversing with its online commenters, has resulted in news 

stories stemming from the comments, tightknit online communities that mourn the passing of 

fellow members, as well as changes in perceptions.  Rather than something to avoid, The Times 

values, cultivates, and learns from the conversations within the comments.   

The Times already has a Learning Network that “gives middle and high school students 

the space to respond to news articles, participate in contests and engage in dialogue that extends 

beyond the classroom” (McDermott, 2019).  Perhaps what we need in higher education is a sort 

of learning network to explore these virtual conversations, at The Times as well as other news 

outlets, as a means to listen and better understand some of academia’s many publics beyond the 

ivory tower.  To begin that process, in the next chapter I share what I discovered about how 

people are utilizing four such online conversation spaces accompanying articles about higher 

education, as well as about the opinions and emotions people convey within.   

 

158 

 

 

CHAPTER 7: CASES AND FINDINGS  

In this chapter I present the findings for each of my four cases in the order of the 

following higher education themes: technological transformation, international students, and free 

college.  For each case I first provide a summary of the article, followed by a presentation of 

descriptive statistics of the respective dataset.  I then present my findings for each of my 

following three research questions:    

-  R1: (Public Sphere) To what extent do people appear to engage in conversation with one 

another in online news comment forums?   

-  R2: (Public Opinion) What opinions do people express about higher education in online 

news comment forums and what do such opinions reveal about public views of higher 

education that are not apparent via traditional opinion polling? 

-  R3: (Emotion) What emotions do people convey via online news comments? 

The order I present my findings for my research questions is in alignment with my framework.  

To recap, my framework begins with the idea that a public sphere is “a realm of our social life in 

which something approaching public opinion can be formed” (Habermas, 2006, p. 73) in which 

all citizens can access.  My framework then moves to public opinion.  The process of public 

opinion formation is social in nature (Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, & Shapiro, 2015; 

Habermas, 1996; Herbst, 2011b), derived via dialogue within the public sphere (Habermas, 

1996).  From there I move to emotion, which public opinion scholars Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, 

O’Keefe, and Shapiro (2015) claim “is increasingly playing an important role in public opinion 

research” (p. 133).     

 

159 

 

 

Case 1: Technological Transformation  

Article Summary 

On March 5, 2015, The New York Times published an article by Kevin Carey titled 

“Here’s What Will Truly Change Higher Education: Online Degrees That Are Seen As Official.”  

Carey works for New America, a Washington, D.C. based public policy think tank, serving as its 

vice president for education policy and knowledge management.  In addition to being a regular 

contributor to The Upshot section of The New York Times, he has also written articles for several 

other periodicals, such as Wired, The New Republic, and The Chronicle of Higher Education 

(Kevin Carey, n.d.).  Carey based his 2015 article in The Times off his bestselling book The End 

of College: Creating the Future of Learning and the University of Everywhere, which came out 

two days earlier.    His article and book are but a small part of a much larger and prominent 

narrative within higher education, one that continues to this day, regarding the technological 

disruption of colleges and universities.     

Carey (2015a) begins his article by claiming “Three years ago, technology was going to 

transform higher education”, followed by the question “What happened?”  His argument in his 

essay, as well as in his book, rely heavily on the advent of Massive Open Online Courses 

(MOOCs) as a potentially disruptive force within higher education.  According to Carey (2015a), 

“The failure of MOOCs to disrupt higher education has nothing to do with the quality of the 

courses themselves, many of which are quite good and getting better.”  Instead, he blames 

MOOCs failure to disrupt on colleges, which he claims “are holding technology at bay because 

the only thing MOOCs provide is access to world-class professors at an unbeatable price” 

(2015a).  Carey views higher education’s near monopoly on conferring what society considers to 

be official degrees that lead to jobs as the ultimate barrier to overcome for disruption to take 

160 

 

place.  He claims technological innovators are at work on delivering a new digital system of free 

or low-fee credentials, which will dismantle the higher education credentialing cartel.   

Carey (2015a) points to the Mozilla Foundation’s Open Badges project, as well as 

notable universities, such as Michigan State University, experimenting with issuing badges, as 

evidence of the looming digital credential revolution.  Coursera’s verified certificates are yet 

another example he cites (Carey, 2015a).  These new digital credentials will provide 

“exponentially more information” as compared to the traditional college transcript, which Carey 

(2015a) contends have “roughly the same amount of information that prisoners of war are 

required to divulge under the Geneva Conventions.”  He believes an open digital credentialing 

system will be a boon for learners by allowing them to control their own information, as well as 

for employers once they develop effective and efficient means to sift through the new wealth 

data available to them.  Carey (2015a) concludes his article by saying once the new system is in 

place, students will “be able to acquire skills and get jobs for a fraction of what colleges cost 

today.”  

Findings 

 

Carey’s article received 292 online comments, of which 282 were retrievable at the time 

of my data collection.  232 commenters participated in the forum, thirty-three of which posted 

multiple comments.  The most posts by a single commenter was seven and the most words 

posted a single commenter across all their comments was 777.  On average each commenter 

posted 134 words.  252 of the comments received recommendations.  The following table 

provides additional descriptive statistics on the data set: 

 
Total 
4,369  
Recommendations 
Comment Word Count  31,061  
Table 1. Case 1 descriptive statistics. 

Maximum  Minimum  Mean 
243 
15.49 
110.15 
270 

0 
3 

161 

 

R1: (Public Sphere) 
 
 

I utilized Chen’s (2017) deliberation index to address my first research question.  I 

calculated the deliberation index for my dataset at the comment level, which is in line with prior 

research (Chen, 2017).  Seventy-five comments asked legitimate questions and 152 provided 

evidence.  Ninety-five comments did not ask any legitimate questions or provide evidence, 147 

provided one or the other, and forty asked a legitimate question and provided evidence, resulting 

in a deliberation index of .805 for the entire dataset.  Another way of stating it is sixty-six 

percent of comments had deliberative elements in the form of either a legitimate question, 

evidence, or both.  The deliberation index provides us with a basic understanding of the extent to 

which commenters appear to be attempting to engage in conversation with one another.  

However, if we look closer at each deliberation attribute separately, we learn more.   

 

Looking at the legitimate questions we see commenters inquiring about such things as 

cheating in online courses, quality of MOOCs, when and where to utilize technology in 

education, and the purpose of higher education, to name just a few.  Some commenters even 

questioned Carey’s motivations for writing such an article, such as MTDougC from Missoula, 

Montana who claims, “The NYT fills their op-ed pages with schemes for replacing college” and 

goes on to ask, “What did your professors ever do to make you so resentful?”  At times, 

commenters directed their questions at specific fellow commenters.  For example, in one 

comment Carol of Minneapolis indicates she is an adjunct instructor who teaches both in-person 

and online.  Critical of online education, Carol claims “You can’t replace that human interaction 

with a machine, no matter how much we pretend.”  Nancy of New Haven, CT replied to Carol 

asking, “Do you have online group interaction or is the online class only asynchronous?”  Nancy 

then said, “I agree that personal interaction is crucial but it is also possible online.”  Other 

162 

 

commenters posed general questions, such as Amelia from Massachusetts who asked, “what if 

community colleges provided general education in a classroom setting, then students honed their 

specializations in online courses?”  Broadly speaking, questions in the comments give us a sense 

of what people want to know more about and that they are willing to ask them in a public realm 

for other people to potentially respond to.    

Examining the evidence, we see commenters are providing external sources, citing the 

source article, as well as sharing personal stories to bolster their points.  Regarding external 

sources, we have ras from Chicago referring to the book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning 

on College Campuses by Arum and Roska in three separate comments in support of his 

criticisms of higher education, the following being just one example: 

Nobody in these comments, not a single person, has refuted the carefully documented 
evidence, in "Academically Adrift" and many other places, that colleges currently do a 
lousy job in educating students and provide abysmal value for money.  (So many 
commenters are so proud of their traditional educations, but none of them want to analyze 
the relevant data-what does that tell you ?). 

 
In one of ras’s other comments he includes the book’s authors’ names, Arum and Roska.  He 

also includes a link to a U.S. Department of Education report to support his claim that online and 

face-to-face education are “roughly comparable.” Contrary to ras’s evidence, devdas of MA 

provides a link to another article in The New York Times titled “After Setbacks, Online Courses 

Are Rethought”, which by the way, garnered 337 online comments.  One more example of 

verifiable evidence comes from Mark Feldman of Kirkwood, CO.  Mark cites his blog on 

InsideHigherEd.com as additional evidence to his claim that “Many traditional colleges, seeing 

students as ‘customers’, teach only what those customers ‘think they need to know’, not what 

‘they need to know.’”   

163 

 

 

Additional evidence included referring to, as well as quoting the source article, and 

sharing personal stories.  Citing Carey’s article was not only a form of evidence commenters 

used, but it also provides evidence that commenters are reading the source article.  Meanwhile 

personal stories provide a glimpse into commenters’ experiences and were at times used to refute 

other commenters’ arguments.  Case in point, we have an exchange between Chris of Highland 

Park, NJ and Tamar of California.  First, Chris states “I am certain that going to college and 

interacting with other students and with faculty members remains a valuable experience, one that 

cannot be replicated online.”  In reply, Tamar says “I just completed an online MOOC course 

with Coursera/Johns Hopkins and there was a tremendous amount of interaction. More so than I 

had in college in 1984.”   

R2: (Public Opinion) 
 

After several rounds of coding, I arrived at the following salient opinion themes: Higher 

education is not simply job training!, Public Disinvestment, Greedy Higher Education, The True 

Higher Education Experience, Online is inferior, There is a place for online education, MOOCs: 

Failure, Nothing Special, or Potential?, and Challenging the opinions of others.  The last 

theme—challenging the opinions of others—is not an opinion theme per se.  However, it is a 

theme that goes further to the heart of public opinion and what the comments reveal that is not 

apparent via traditional polling.  This theme is also a continuation of my findings from my first 

research question.  This overlap of findings is not incidental, but instead is reflective of the idea 

that public opinion is derived via conversation within the public sphere. 

In the following sections I share findings for each theme.  What I provide within each 

respective opinion theme are vignettes from the online conversation that depict the given 

sentiment.  Some are comments shared in full, whereas others are excerpts.  My intent behind 

164 

 

doing so was to provide thick description (Thorne, 2016), as well as to depict some of the 

varying shades of sentiment and rationale for one’s opinions.   

Higher education is not simply job training! 

 

In his article, Carey makes the assertion that college students are mostly paying for 

college degrees because they lead to jobs.  Commenters within this theme appear to be of the 

opinion that Carey’s assertion is wrongheaded.  For example, Emile claims, “What never 

changes is Mr. Carey’s chirpy, utilitarian vision that sees higher education as a vehicle for 

turning human beings into corporate cogs.”  She goes on to lament, “His vision is one of an 

egalitarian and atomistic education where each student, isolated from others, works at a 

computer terminal until ready for the job market.”  Likewise, Michael Lavin states, “Seldom 

have I seen so bald an assertion of the thesis that education is vocational training.”  And while 

for the most part commenters within this opinion theme focused their angst on Carey’s apparent 

narrow vision of higher education’s purpose, colleges and universities did not receive a complete 

pardon.  For example, M. Gamel-McCormick believes “Many public universities have forsaken 

their mission to serve their states and to educate their citizens.”  He urges us to “return to the 

mission of public higher education: discover new knowledge, teach that knowledge to the 

citizens of the state (ALL citizens of the state as the 1890 Morrill Act requires), and ensure a 

populace that ready for the future.”   

Public Disinvestment 

 

A small group of commenters are of the opinion that much of the higher education 

transformation talk is the result of declining public support for colleges and universities.  For 

example, Concerned American argues, “The elephant in the room is states, counties and cities 

support over 80% of all higher education and they have been substantially cutting these 

165 

 

expenditures for about a generation.”  He went on to say “So, much of this ‘tech solution’ is 

about states bowing out of their traditional role in supporting higher education.”  Meanwhile, 

Carrie believes Carey should have discussed public disinvestment in his article.  From her 

perspective, “Articles that casually mention rising tuition in passing without acknowledging the 

massive ongoing disinvestment in public universities in many states do readers a major 

disservice, even if this isn't the core argument of the piece.”  If we look at Carey’s article, we see 

he did not even mention declines in public funding.  Instead, he claims “The fact that colleges 

currently have a near-monopoly on degrees that lead to jobs goes a long way toward explaining 

how they can continue raising prices every year” (Carey, 2015a).  One can see how some people 

might construe such a claim as misleading without at least some indication of trends in public 

funding.      

Greedy Higher Education 

 

Running opposite of the opinion that public disinvestment is a problem, another group of 

commenters are of the opinion that higher education being greedy is the real issue.  Case in 

point, bk’s following comment: 

I can't wait for the day when the greedy higher education bubble bursts. The time has 
come. The consumer has been bled dry, and gotten very little in return. 

 
It does not sound as though bk would be supportive of more public funding for colleges and 

universities.  And while we can speculate as to bk’s likely opposition to public funding, Steve 

Singer goes so far as to argue that congress should cut more of higher education’s funding in his 

following rather lengthy comment: 

I tried to start an online program at my alma mater twenty-two years ago, when the 
internet was still a lab rat and personal computers were still toys. I met with senior 
administrators and told them this was coming, they couldn't stop it and it was no threat 
but their salvation. But they had to pioneer the transition. They refused, balking at taking 
even the first tentative baby-steps in that direction; a decision so wrong-headed it 

166 

 

 

reminded me of how the War Department recoiled at the idea of equipping the Union 
Army with repeating rifles in 1862. 

Looking from afar at the mess they've made of online education since, I must conclude 
that university administrators (most drawn from senior tenured faculty) still regard it as a 
threat to their institutions and especially to their privileged positions, which they intend to 
preserve at all cost. Thus degree-track online education remains verboten, regarded as 
“experimental” and in this experiment their thumbs are on the scale. As Henry Kissinger, 
Harvard professor and no stranger to the ways of academe, observed, “no idea is too good 
or pure that an academic committee cannot kill it”. 
 
Part of the solution at public universities is for state legislatures and Congress to 
intervene. Mandate it, in part by cutting funds for traditional lecture hall methods we 
associate with “college”. Private institutions should blaze the trail that their public 
competitors fear to tread; eat their lunch; leave them far behind eating their dust. 

 
Steve paints a depressing picture of higher education, or at least of his alma mater.  His proposed 

funding cuts might be a welcomed suggestion for fellow commenters Ras and JC, both of whom 

referred to higher education funding as a “gravy train.”   

The True Higher Education Experience 

 

Some commenters seem to think they know what typifies a true college experience.  

What is most striking is that they appear to view their opinions as truth.  For example, according 

to treabeton, “the true college experience is in meeting your peers in formal and informal settings 

(yes, pizza and bars and other social activities) and forming life-long friendships.”  In a similar 

vein, Matthew James provides his criteria for a “real college education” in the following 

comment: 

In the course of a real college education, you have the opportunity to emulate both your 
professors and your classmates. You have the chance to make relationships which last a 
lifetime with real people, a.k.a networks. You will feel the fear of standing up in front of 
a lecture hall and giving a presentation, and hopefully overcome it. You will work on 
teams with people from diverse backgrounds, and learn how to work together as adults. 
In the process, you may even find a mentor who will change the course of your life 
forever. You will be accountable to people face to face for your performance. Pretending 
that any of this can be done online is laughable. 

 

167 

 

Both treabeton and Mathew’s opinions stated as truths imply that if your higher education 

experience does not fit within their criteria it is a false or bogus experience.  Leading Edge 

Boomer makes this implication clear when he says, “I despair of online undergraduate degrees 

that could be thought of as equivalent to a true undergraduate experience.”  He goes on to claim, 

“There is no substitute for face-to-face argument followed by going out for pizza, collaborative 

work using a real whiteboard, pulling an all-nighter in a computer lab with your project 

teammates.”  

 

Not everyone agreed with commenters, such as treabeton, Matthew, and Leading Edge 

Boomer, who imposed definitions as to what constitutes a true higher education experience.  

Tired of hearing all the nostalgia, Harrison pushed back asserting, “To me some of the comments 

here smack of what I see as a mystique of the college class environment.”  Regarding 

commenters reminiscing about the irreplaceable and profound social aspects of brick-n-mortar 

experiences—at least in their view—HSN had the following rebuttal: 

One more addition to my earlier comment. A lot of folks who talk of socialization must 
have attended college in pre-smartphone era. Many classrooms today have the students 
just physically present but isolated with their attention split between their laptops and 
smartphones. 

 
Comments, such as HSN and Harrison’s, appear to convey the opinion that what constitutes a 

true higher education experience varies from person to person.   

Online is inferior 

 

Given Carey’s article is about online degrees, it was not surprising to find commenters 

expressing opinions about online programs in comparison to traditional face-to-face education.  

What was surprising were the extremes to which people expressed their sentiment in opposition 

to online.  Take Laura as an example.  She claims, “The fact that online degrees aren’t worth 

anything isn’t an accident or a mistake”, but is due to “the fact that the education is inferior.”  

168 

 

Joe took the negative sentiment further.  According to him, “To think one could get a ‘degree’ 

online is a sick joke.”  Joe was not alone in his thinking.  Both PG and JC also claimed online 

education is a joke.  Meanwhile, Ed used a more colorful descriptor for online education in his 

following comment: 

It’s good that the legitimate schools are experimenting with the “badges” instead of 
issuing regular degrees for online students.  Since I consider most online degrees to be 
crap, and wouldn’t hire someone with an online-only degree, it’s important to me that 
there be a distinction between online and traditional studies. 

 
Sentiment like Ed, PG, JC, and Laura’s leaves little room for recognizing any value in online 

offerings, value which other commenters clearly recognized.   

There is a place for online education 

 

What I found to be the more fruitful, middle-ground opinion on online education, is one 

that recognizes there is a place for it among the many higher education offerings.   Perhaps the 

best example of a commenter recognizing the value of online degrees comes from a parent.  

Tired of hearing people label online education as inferior, DadOfTwoInCollege made the 

following comment: 

As a father with two already in college and one more about to be, it’s somewhat amusing 
reading the comments disparaging online delivery for education. My two daughters are 
enrolled in fully accredited, large, state schools where at least two courses each semester 
are delivered online. Major colleges all over the US are beginning to offer 100% online 
education in a host of majors and the diploma says nothing about online. How are you 
going to know someone worked at Starbucks in your state while completing a degree 
from a state institution located in another ... and the degree says nothing about online? 
 
I completed an MBA from a major state university 100% online in two years while 
overseeing 23 stores in 8 states (hardest thing I ever did). Neither my diploma not my 
transcript says anything about online. I went to graduation and walked with the other 
students who attended traditional classes. 
 
As far as online education being considered inferior ... welcome to the 21st Century and 
realize that online students will eventually outnumber traditional brick and mortar 
students. 

 

169 

 

For DadOfTwoInCollege and his daughters, there is already a place for online education, one 

that is not worthless or a joke.  Same is true for EG who announced she is “about to receive a 

Master in the Art of Teaching diploma and a California teaching credential” all online, which her 

employer deems both as valid.  Meanwhile, PogoWasRight simply said, “Online will certainly 

never replace on-site academics, but room for it should be made at the table of college 

educations.”  Rather than dismissing online education wholesale, commenters within this opinion 

theme recognize its ability to serve various educational needs.   

MOOCs: Failure, Nothing Special, or Potential? 

 

Given much of Carey’s article hinged on MOOCs, it was not surprising to find 

commenters expressing opinions about the massive open online courses.  On the most negative 

end of the sentiment spectrum are commenters who believe MOOCs are a failure.  For example, 

James Tobias noted, “As others have commented, the research to date shows MOOCs failing, not 

succeeding.”  One of the other people commenting was James Willis who argued, “MOOCs have 

had such abysmal completion rates that they have already become an afterthought among those 

actually engaged in trying to give a larger cross-section of the population access to the real 

benefits a traditional degree.”  Such sentiment might not bode well for Carey’s thesis, which is 

greatly dependent on the success of MOOCs.   

 

Another opinion commenters expressed was that MOOCs are nothing special.  In an 

attempt to obtain evidence to the contrary Paul asked, “What can MOOCs do that 

correspondence courses, books on tape, etc. couldn't do?”  In a similar fashion, Wanda claimed 

“The promise of MOOCs is overblown” and argued “People also expected correspondence 

courses to be a revolution a century ago.”  Meanwhile, other commenters, such as JW, Common 

Sense, and PhysicsProf equated MOOCs with textbooks.  Rather than a transformational 

170 

 

innovation, these commenters see massive open online courses as just the latest incarnation of 

other technologies once believed to have the same potential.   

Not all the commenters were of the opinion that MOOCs are a failure or are nothing new.  

Instead, some were of the opinion that MOOCs have potential, at least from their own 

experiences.  Take Ron Amundson’s following comment made in response to PhysicsProf, who 

equated MOOCs to textbooks, as an example: 

Reading and doing the problems in a good textbook in isolation doesn't always work out 
too well as its pretty difficult to find anyone to bounce ideas off of. Some MOOCs on the 
other hand create a community of learners, which if critical scale is reached not only run 
circles around the textbook and problems sets, but also put a number of face to face 
classes to shame. As far as professor interaction goes, some of the MOOCs I've 
participated in again have run circles around whats been available in a face to face class. 
Alas, not all MOOCs develop a community of learners, not all MOOCs have professors 
interact with students, or even TAs for that matter.    

 
From Ron’s perspective, MOOCs are not the sweeping failure that others believe them to be, nor 

are they simply a new kind of book.  Tracymar appears to share Ron’s sentiment having claimed 

“It may well be that many online courses involve little learning through interaction but I've 

participated actively in more than half a dozen Moocs (mostly related to literature, psychology 

and education) that were far more active and richer learning experiences that many classes I've 

taken or taught.”  Both Ron and Tracymar recognize not all MOOCs are great.   

While MOOCs might not be the end of college, there exists potential for them to replace 

or enhance portions of traditional higher education.  For example, Mike Smith claimed “During 

the course of my 2 degrees I'd say that 1/3 of the courses I took would easily be replaceable by 

online delivery of the kind I've taken on EdX while still delivering higher quality.”  Regarding 

enhancing education, Bejay said, “I can see a professor saying, ‘Okay class, before our next 

session, watch Professor Harvard’s lecture on Whatever, and when we get together we'll discuss 

171 

 

it.’”  Meanwhile, Sandra, Viper Tongue, and AS see MOOCs as a powerful means to extend 

education to those whose schedules do not allow them to take more traditional offerings.   

Commenters who see potential in MOOCs are not all blindly euphoric in their optimism.  

Many of them realize the courses are far from perfect and have many challenges to overcome.  

For example, while touting the potential of MOOCs, AS expressed reservations and said, “The 

high drop-out rates are discouraging.”  Meanwhile, Richard H. Serlin points to proctoring and 

Bruce points to course standardization as challenges to overcome.   

Challenging the opinions of others 

 

By far, what I found to be most interesting within the comment forum accompanying 

Carey’s article came in the form of people challenging the opinions of others.  To me, such 

challenges represent a level of critical thinking and deliberation I did not expect to find in such a 

short form textual conversational exchange.  Beyond the various shades of opinion not captured 

by polls, they represent a crucial element missing from opinion survey results.  I have already 

shared glimpses of people challenging the opinions of others within my findings for my first 

research question, as well as within some of the opinion themes just discussed.  Here I bring 

specific attention to several examples of deliberation within the comments.    

 

The first example begins with a comment from Vincenzo.  Vincenzo begins his comment 

by saying “Group learning --- where a group of students expends the time to meet with a 

professor is of tremendous benefit, especially in science, as a variety of student misconceptions 

emerge for all present to consider and query.”  He goes onto reveal he is or was a biology 

professor and that he has participated in MOOCs, which he found useful.  However, according to 

Vincenzo, “they were no substitute for the kind of direct-exchange Socrattic dialogue groups that 

172 

 

I ran as a biology professor in the 90s.”  His comment prompted the following response from Hb 

Freddie: 

When I was in college, “group learning” was often hundreds of students in a lecture hall, 
mechanically and frantically copying down notes as the professor wrote them on a far 
away blackboard. What if I could have hit “pause” to have time to think about what was 
being taught? 
 

 
Hb Freddie is not dismissing the value of Socratic dialogue groups that Vincenzo praises.  

However, he is bringing to attention the fact that not all face-to-face class environments easily 

lend themselves to such an approach.  In those cases, a MOOC might be advantageous.  

Interestingly, HB Freddie brings in the perspective of a student into the conversation, which is 

helpful in exploring the sentiment in these two comments.  It is helpful because in Vincenzo’s 

comment there appears to be an absence of consideration that perhaps some of his students did 

not find his Socratic dialogue groups as helpful as he perceived them to be.  Perhaps, some of his 

students would have preferred to be able to hit pause and take more time to think about the 

lesson at hand.   

 

Another example began with a comment from Barbara McG where she expressed 

frustration regarding Carey’s thesis, calling it “an absurd premise.”  In her three paragraph 

comment she questions his motivations and proclaimed, “In the interests of the people in this 

picture who matter most--the students--I think it would be a good idea for pundits who are not 

actually involved in education on a day-to-day basis to take a break from coming up with wacky 

new schemes that don't address the real issues at the heart of the problem: economic inequality 

and a lack of ordinary jobs due to outsourcing.”  Her argument prompted the following response 

from Steve Singer, worth sharing in full, in which he proceeded to dissect her contentions one by 

one:   

“Why is this man (... this man ...) getting so much publicity?” 

173 

 

 
Perhaps because he speaks truth to power; always hazardous in academe, knowing that 
firsthand. But, as we both know, his true crime is challenging privilege, yours; and 
trespassing. He’s an interloper who proposes change, of all things: change in 
institutionalized education, the greatest threat to it under the sun. 
 
“I don’t know what motivates Carey”.  
 
Maybe it’s what motivates me: we’re both appalled by waste. Wasted taxpayer money. 
Wasted time. Squandered talent; student talent especially. Einstein urged a graduate 
student he was advising: “Don’t go back to school. They will try to crush every bit of 
originality out of you. Don’t go back to graduate school.” Albert Einstein. That Einstein. 
 
I can attest to that, too. 
 
“In the interests of the people ... who matter most--the students ...”. Students matter 
most? Not at any college I know about. Students are adjuncts, distractions, especially at 
research-teaching universities. Note the word order: research-teaching. The priority is 
research and publication; teaching, secondary. It’s regarded as a burden and a bore, why 
it’s palmed off on graduate students and junior “adjunct” faculty hired by the tenured 
professoriate to relieve them of that burden -- especially lecturing introductory courses 
freshmen and junior-transfers are required to take. 
 
As for your take on politics, academic politics is the most corrupted by selfish self-
interest of them all. 

 
One by one, Steve pushes back on Barbara’s opinions, using her own words as prompts for his 

response.  And while we do not know exactly what role within higher education Steve may have 

had, it does sound as though he was a graduate student, given his “I can attest to that, too” 

remark.    

 

Another commenter, Ras appears to share similar sentiment as Steve.  In three different 

comments he references the book Academically Adrift by Arum and Roska to support his 

criticism of higher education.  For example, in one comment Ras begins by claiming, “Nobody 

in these comments, not a single person, has refuted the carefully documented evidence, in 

‘Academically Adrift’ and many other places, that colleges currently do a lousy job in educating 

students and provide abysmal value for money.”  He then suggests the government should create 

174 

 

“a free, comprehensive online university as a public good.”  Ras’s comment prompted the 

following rebuttal by RDeanB:   

You are right that evidence needs to be taken seriously, and sentimentality should be 
eschewed.  But you are hyperbolic in your conclusions.  First you take evidence of failure 
as evidence of total failure (and by the way, the jury is still out on comparative studies), 
and then jump to the conclusion that any system that replaces the current one, and is 
cheaper, will be better.  There is of course no guarantee in MOOC-land.  If traditional 
schools are not doing a good-enough job of improving critical thinking skills, it is no 
more likely that MOOCs, which are little more than media-rich textbooks, will do any 
better.  And believe me, a “vibrant industry” for tutors is not going to happen: they will 
likely be poorly paid and have little or no job security.  Nor will they be required to 
produce any meaningful research or scholarship. 

 
In similar fashion as Steve Singer in the prior example, RDeanB refutes Ras’s opinion point by 

point, albeit in a less aggressive manner.   

 

In her comment, RDeanB makes a sweeping generalization about MOOCs, equating 

them to “little more than media-rich textbooks.”  It is unclear from the two comments she posted 

if she has ever taken a MOOC or what role she may have within higher education.  She does 

sound as though she might be a professor or a researcher, given that in both her postings she 

emphasizes the importance of research.  On the other hand, fellow commenter Chris identifies 

himself as a professor, as well as indicating he has “no objection to students learning online or to 

‘badges’ or other means of verifying that students possess particular skills or knowledge.”  

However, he is “certain that going to college and interacting with other students and with faculty 

members remains a valuable experience, one that cannot be replicated online.”  Tamar took issue 

with Chris stating his opinion in the absolute, as if it were fact, and replied as follows: 

You’re highly misinformed. I just completed an online MOOC course with 
Coursera/Johns Hopkins and there was a tremendous amount of interaction. More so than 
I had in college in 1984. Unless you have actually experienced it yourself, you have no 
idea what you're talking about. 

 

175 

 

Perhaps Chris has participated in a MOOC.  We do not know from his one comment.  But even if 

he took one or a thousand it would not be conclusive evidence that the interaction he describes 

cannot be replicated online.  Tamar’s experience, at least from her perspective, is evidence to the 

contrary.   

 

Tamar was not alone in pushing back against the online education and MOOC naysayers.  

BlueHawk began his comment by saying, “Interesting the number of people commenting on 

online courses who seem to have never undertaken something at Coursera or edX.”  He then 

proceeds to point people to a scholarly article on lessons learned from a hybrid MOOC in ACM 

Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, while arguing that the massive courses are not 

the failure or simply high-tech books many people claim them to be.  Likewise, Ndasgupt 

observed, “It seems that most of the comments are from people who have never actually taken a 

MOOC Course.”  He went on to argue, “A MOOC Course can be as engaging, as difficult, as 

time consuming as any other course in an actual university.”  Neither BlueHawk nor Ndasgupt 

made their comments in reply to any specific commenter, but instead were pushing back against 

the critics in general.   

R3: (Emotion) 
 

I utilized the software program Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) to calculate 

the emotional tone for each comment made in response to Carey’s article.  I then used Microsoft 

Excel to generate the boxplot depicted in Figure 2.  The value 52.60 marked by an “x” is the 

mean score.  The scores do not represent negative or positive emotions within any particular 

theme I identified while addressing my second research question.  Such an allocation of scores 

among themes would involve a level of complexity outside the scope of this study.  This is 

because of the data reduction that inherently occurs during qualitative content analysis (Drisko & 

176 

 

Maschi, 2016; Schreier, 2012, 2014).  Schreier (2012) contends, “QCA does not allow you to 

describe the full meaning of your material in each and every respect” (p. 3).  In my research I 

distilled the numerous opinions expressed within the comments down to set of salient themes.  A 

level of detail and nuance within the comments was, of course, lost during this process.  This lost 

detail and nuance, which is inherent to QCA, makes applying LIWC scores to particular themes 

within my research potentially problematic.  This is because the lost nuance could affect the 

LIWC scores in not readily apparent ways if applied at the opinion theme level, which could 

result in misleading findings.   

The emotional tone scores and their distribution provide a high-level indication of the 

emotions conveyed within the comment forum accompanying Carey’s article.  As a reminder, an 

emotional tone score “around 50 suggests either a lack of emotionality or different levels of 

ambivalence” (Pennebaker, Booth, Boyd, & Francis , 2015, p. 22).  Numbers above 50 indicate 

more positivity, whereas numbers below 50 indicate “greater anxiety, sadness, or hostility” 

(Pennebaker, Booth, Boyd, & Francis , 2015, p. 22).  Based on the results, we see the tone of 

comments to be overall slightly more positive than negative, with half of the comments scoring 

53.10 or higher.     

Figure 2. Case 1 distribution of LIWC emotional tone scores.  

 

177 

 

 

Case 2: International Students  

Article Summary 

On March 17, 2016, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an article by Douglas 

Belkin and Miriam Jordan titled “Heavy Recruitment of Chinese Students Sows Discord on U.S. 

Campuses.”  Belkin covers higher education for WSJ.  Jordan is a former senior special writer at 

WSJ and currently works as the national immigration correspondent for The New York Times.  

Their 2016 article focuses on Chinese International Students, a student population that has grown 

significantly over the past ten years.  In the 2008/09 academic year there were 98,235 Chinese 

students at U.S. colleges and universities (Open Doors, 2019b).  By the 2018/19 academic year, 

that number had grown to 369,548 (Open Doors, 2019b).  While the annual growth in Chinese 

student enrollments in the U.S. has slowed (Open Doors, 2019a), they are still by far the largest 

international student population in the U.S., surpassing the next two largest cohorts from India 

and South Korea by 167,534 and 317,298 students respectively (Institute of International 

Education, 2019).  Seen as a potent source of revenue by U.S. colleges and universities, 

International students pay upwards of two to three times as much as in-state students (Belkin & 

Jordan, 2016).  Belkin and Jordan’s article are but a small part of a much larger and prominent 

narrative within higher education, one that continues to this day, regarding international students 

at U.S. colleges and universities, with a focus on Chinese students.   

 

 In their article, Belkin and Jordan depict struggles American campuses face as a result of 

the rapid growth of Chinese students.  According to their reporting, “School administrators and 

teachers bluntly say a significant portion of international students are ill prepared for an 

American college education, and resent having to amend their lectures as a result” (Belkin & 

Jordan, 2016).  One specific administrator, director of international students at the University of 

178 

 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Martin McFarlane, describes his university’s efforts to integrate 

Chinese students as a “work in progress” (Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Meanwhile, University of 

California, Irvine professor Catherine Liu admits “we’re getting students here without thinking 

enough about the quality of their experience” (Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  One university, Oregon 

State, “has decided to ‘slow down’ its intake of Chinese students and tap new markets, such as 

Africa, Europe and Latin America, to make the campus more diverse” (Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  

Whereas the University of Pittsburgh raised its English-language requirement, resulting in a 

twenty-five percent drop in international student enrollments (Belkin & Jordan, 2016).     

 

U.S. faculty, administrators, and staff are not the only ones struggling.  Chinese students 

are struggling as well.  While colleges and universities market the idea of cultural exchange, the 

on the ground reality is quite different (Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  For example, Belkin and Jordan 

(2016) contend that with such large numbers on campuses it is likely for Chinese students “to 

have a fairly insular campus experience, compared with students from countries with fewer 

numbers.”  Differences in language and culture prove to be difficult barriers to overcome (Belkin 

& Jordan, 2016).  Making matters worse, some “wealthy Chinese students stand out for their 

opulence—and fuel resentment in the process” (Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Universities, such as 

the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, have made concerted efforts to improve campus 

socializing for international students, but there remains much room for improvement (Belkin & 

Jordan, 2016).   

Findings 

 

Belkin and Jordan’s article received 669 comments, of which 612 were retrievable at the 

time of my data collection.  308 commenters participated in the forum, 109 of which posted 

multiple comments.  The most posts by a single commenter was twenty-three and the most words 

179 

 

posted a single commenter across all their comments was 1,674.  On average each commenter 

posted 133 words.  The WSJ’s comments have an option for commenters to “like” a comment.  

However, none of the comments for this article received any likes.  One potential reason for the 

absence of likes is that the “like” functionality was added to the WSJ’s commenting forums after 

this particular forum closed.  The following table provides additional descriptive statistics on the 

data set: 

Maximum  Minimum  Average 
275 
67.1716 

2 

Total 

 
Comment Word Count  41,109  
Table 2. Case 2 descriptive statistics. 
 
R1: (Public Sphere) 
 
 

I utilized Chen’s (2017) deliberation index to address my first research question.  I 

calculated the deliberation index for my dataset at the comment level, which is in line with prior 

research (Chen, 2017).  150 comments asked legitimate questions and 218 provided evidence.  

295 comments did not ask any legitimate questions or provide evidence, 266 provided one or the 

other, and fifty-one asked a legitimate question and provided evidence, resulting in a deliberation 

index of .601 for the entire dataset.  Another way of stating it is fifty-two percent of comments 

had deliberative elements in the form of either a legitimate question, evidence, or both.  The 

deliberation index provides us with a basic understanding of the extent to which commenters 

appear to be attempting to engage in conversation with one another.  However, if we look closer 

at each deliberation attribute separately, we learn more.   

Looking at the legitimate questions we see commenters inquiring about such things as 

higher education’s real motivation in recruiting international students, whether it is a good idea 

to be educating students from a country who some people view as an economic competitor and 

even as an enemy, and displacement of domestic students, to name just a few.  Some 

180 

 

commenters used their questions to push back on educators cited in the article that complained 

about having to adjust their teaching approach to accommodate Chinese students.  One such 

example comes from Aron Corbett who bluntly asks, “If the school wants to take tuition dollars 

to educate Chinese students don't you think they have an obligation to educate them?”  Some 

commenters directed their questions at fellow commenters, as well as used their questions to 

offer suggestions.  Case in point, David Nour’s reply to Charles Palson.  The exchange began 

with a comment from David where he shared that he was an international student.  He then 

expressed concern about universities eager to accept foreign student money, but seemingly do 

little to ensure the success of such students.  Charles replied offering the suggestion that “Some 

of the extra $ universities gain should be reserved for financing FULL TIME ESL tailored for 

Chinese for a year.”  To which David replied with the following litany of questions containing 

suggestions:         

So why not create a “pre-program” back in China before they come or say their 
first semester here, where it's all focused on ESL, but also the cultural nuances of 
living, studying, and working here? Why not bring successful international alums to 
speak with first year students to help them really understand the challenges ahead? 
Why not better educate the professors and other students into the nuances of here is 
what to expect from a Chinese student vs. a Korean one vs. one from Nigeria? 
[emphasis added] I refuse to abdicate the “total” education of these students from the 
university. Otherwise, why are they paying 2-3x the same fee as the student sitting 
next to them who cares a great deal less about that education? [emphasis added] We 
also seem to forget that education is a privilege and not a right and not every American 
student is a right fit for a four-year university! 

 
Other commenters posed general questions, such as Dan Chambers who asked, “Why should 

anyone be surprised that to sustain the current disgustingly overpriced system colleges have 

expanded the numbers of foreign students willing and able to pay ‘out of state’ tuition rates?”  

Broadly speaking, questions in the comments give us a sense of what people want to know more 

181 

 

about and that they are willing to ask them in a public realm for other people to potentially 

respond to or ponder.    

Examining the evidence, we see commenters are providing external sources, citing the 

source article, as well as sharing personal stories to bolster their points.  Regarding external 

sources, we have rita Silver encouraging higher education administrators to read Michael 

Pillsbury’s book The 100-Year Marathon.  She goes on to contend “It would be far better for 

America and its security for the colleges and universities to cut their excessive costs before 

chasing foreign countries for their students.”  Meanwhile, commenter Lance Johnson pointed 

people to the book What Foreigners Need to Know About America From A to Z: How to 

Understand Crazy American Culture, People, Government, Business, Language and More as a 

useful resource to international students.  As it turns out, the author of the book is also named 

Lance Johnson, but it is not clear from the comment if the commenter and book author are one in 

the same.  Additional external sources of evidence include links to news articles from other 

outlets, such as Forbes, Bloomberg, CBS 60 Minutes, Los Angeles Times, and Minnesota Public 

Radio, as well as various figures and percentages, one example being average SAT and GPA by 

race.   

Additional evidence included referring to, as well as quoting the source article, and 

sharing personal stories.  Citing Belkin and Jordan’s article was not only a form of evidence 

commenters used, but it also provides evidence that commenters are reading the source article.  

Meanwhile personal stories provide a glimpse into commenters’ experiences and were at times 

used to support other commenters’ arguments.  Case in point, an exchange between commenters 

CHRISTOPHER PRYSTALSKI and Cindy Rondino.  The exchange began with 

182 

 

CHRISTOPHER’s following initial comment where he offers personal evidence followed by a 

series of questions for people to consider: 

Funny you mention the University of Illinois -- Champaign in this article.  I returned 
there last spring for the first time in over 20 years.  The Engineering campus was 
gorgeous -- totally brand new and state of the art and a radically different place from 
when I graduated in the early 80's.  It amazed me that easily over half of the students I 
passed and heard on the Engineering Quad and in the Grainger Library were speaking a 
language other than English.  We have to ask, are the children (and their tax-paying 
parents) of Illinois being well served when they are crowded out from admission to 
the Engineering College by foreign students? [emphasis added]  Are we training our 
future economic and military rivals in the technologies of the future? How much does 
this contribute to the shortage of American STEM graduates about which 
corporations so often complain. [emphasis added]  Some things to think about...... 

 
Cindy replied to Christopher, posting the following comment where she shared her own personal 

evidence to answer two of his questions: 

Having just sent an electrical engineering major to college, it is extremely difficult to get 
accepted to the state schools for engineering. I tell friends NOT to declare an engineering 
major on their application, but to remain "undecided" until accepted. On the flip side, my 
son was easily accepted to the out of state schools with excellent engineering programs 
where his tuition would be triple the amount of the in state school. He was accepted to 
one top notch competitive program without having completed the application. It's all 
about the money. And, yes, as you mentioned, the STEM shortage among American 
grads is created by the above! 

 
Granted, Cindy’s story is anecdotal evidence, but evidently from her comment she not only 

shared it with Christopher, but with her friends as well.   

R2: (Public Opinion) 
 
 

After several rounds of coding, I arrived at the following salient opinion themes: 

Welcome to the U.S.!, America First!, Chinese are rich, a distraction, and are cheaters, Why are 

we teaching our enemy?, U.S. students are lazy, It’s all about the Benjamins, and Challenging 

the opinions of others.  The last theme—challenging the opinions of others—is not an opinion 

theme per se.  However, it is a theme that goes further to the heart of public opinion and what the 

comments reveal that is not apparent via traditional polling.  This theme is also a continuation of 

183 

 

my findings from my first research question.  This overlap of findings is not incidental, but 

instead is reflective of the idea that public opinion is derived via conversation within the public 

sphere. 

 

In the following sections I share findings for each theme.  What I provide within each 

respective opinion theme are vignettes from the online conversation that depict the given 

sentiment.  Some are comments shared in full, whereas others are excerpts.  My intent behind 

doing so was to provide thick description (Thorne, 2016), as well as to depict some of the 

varying shades of sentiment and rationale for one’s opinions.   

Welcome to the U.S.!   

 

Unfortunately, most of the opinion themes within the comments were negative, whether 

commenters aimed their sentiment at students, universities, faculty, or some other aspect of 

higher education.  However, there were some commenters who welcome Chinese international 

students with open arms.  For example, Kalpesh Kapadia shouted “I believe the US universities 

are the new Ellis Island, attracting the best and the brightest from around the world” (comment 

made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Rather than seeing the rise of international students 

as a source of discord, they see them as a great learning opportunity.  From a student perspective, 

Bill Fotsch believes “Chinese students are a huge positive, both in building understanding and 

enabling our sons and daughters what the real world of competition is all about” (comment made 

in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  From a faculty standpoint, Aron Corbett believes the 

increased numbers of Chinese students presents “a great opportunity to improve instruction” 

(comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Self-identified university professor, Ed 

Bukszar agrees with Aron claiming, “You become a better instructor when you reflect on how 

184 

 

you can convey your course material to different cultural groups, possessing different language 

competencies” (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  

America First!  

 

Whereas a small group of commenters welcome the large numbers of Chinese students 

on American campuses, many more commenters think U.S. colleges and universities should be 

putting American students first.  Commenters like Greg Staton wondered “How many spots are 

International students taking from domestic students for the sake of diversity or tuition - i.e., the 

standard is no longer merit based” (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  

Robert LaPorta shared similar sentiment when he said, “It seems to me that for every foreign 

student, an American citizen fails to get into college” and asked, “Where does this end?” 

(comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Other commenters focused their 

frustration at specific institutions, such as Joyce Cordi did in her following comment: 

$500 million of Oregon tax payer's money and outrageous tuition for Oregon students 
spent to attract Chinese students! Heads at U of O should roll. At University of California 
-- instate students have been turned away in favor of foreign students.  The explanation 
has nothing to do with culture.  It is simple, the administrator's tell us -- foreign students 
pay higher tuition. Before we talk about free tuition for American students at our public 
universities -- state governments and the federal government should insure that land grant 
state universities are spending every dollar of taxes and tuition on educating American 
students -- undergraduate and graduate alike! (comment made in response to Belkin & 
Jordan, 2016) 

  
Joyce made her comment during 2016, the year U.S. Presidential primary candidate Bernie 

Sanders made tuition-free public universities a prominent part of his campaign platform and has 

done so again in his 2020 run.   

The America first opinion theme is particularly interesting, given people commented on 

Belkin and Jordan’s article a little less than eight months prior the 2016 U.S. Presidential 

election.  It was an election where the eventual winner, Donald Trump, made his campaign all 

185 

 

about putting America first, or as he put it, make America great again.  And while Belkin and 

Jordan’s article was not about the election, commenters linked the discord on U.S. campuses to 

Trump’s appeal, as did Laird Wilcox in his following statement:   

This sounds like a kind of cultural imperialism on campuses around the country as they 
accommodate more and more to the needs of students with vastly different cultures and 
systematically ignore the culture, traditions and needs of the American citizens with 
generations of roots in our country who created the institutions in the first place.  What 
they are experiencing is theft of culture and a way of life that was theirs to enjoy, all to 
make money for universities in order to fund their grandiose campuses and pay the 
inflated salaries of staff -- many of whom are hired to deal with the problems mentioned 
in the article. The cult of “diversity” -- and it does have a profoundly cultish nature along 
with a raft of ideological baggage inflicted upon American students -- is undermining  
our heritage, culture, traditions and sense of identity.  A little is a good thing and goes a 
long way.  What we are experiencing is an alien invasion.  It makes Donald Trump easy 
to explain. 

 
Whereas Laird used his comment as an explanation to Trump appeal, Gary Best ended his 

comment with “TRUMP 2016”, which received a reply from Billy Bean who started his 

comment with “Gary Best ....Trump, yes :-)” (comments made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 

2016).  Billy went on to say, “I'd be more concerned about illegal immigrants, or children 

thereof, who are not qualified but are getting into universities at the expense and cost of 

Americans” (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Granted, Belkin and 

Jordan’s article, as well as the corresponding comments are from 2016.  However, catch a 

glimpse of any Trump rally on the news today and it does not appear as though the America first 

sentiment has disappeared.   

Chinese are rich, a distraction, and are cheaters  

 

Generalizations about Chinese students being rich, ungrateful, and cheaters was another 

opinion theme within the comments.  Belkin and Jordan’s (2016) article did touch on how “On 

some campuses, wealthy Chinese students stand out for their extraordinary opulence—and fuel 

resentment in the process”, so it was not surprising to see commenters share in this sentiment.  

186 

 

However, the degree to which some commenters expressed their opinion was rather alarming.  

Case in point, DAVID RAMSEY who asserted, “My position is not that all Chinese students 

who have been in my Psychiatry courses are worthless .. my position is that there is a 

disproportionate % of them that are shipped here by wealthy families that have no intention of 

learning anything or melding into our culture .. it is what it is and its getting more pronounced 

rapidly” (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  By the way, in an earlier 

comment DAVID identified himself as a “Prof in Psychiatry in Tennessee” and regarding 

Chinese students claimed “many many times it appears to me they are on a high dollar paid 

vacation with unlimited financial backing .. just my personal opinion” (comment made in 

response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Rather sad to think he considers some students to be 

worthless, whether international or domestic.  Unfortunately, David is not alone in his sentiment, 

as Dan Laroque claimed he “never saw an instance where Chinese students benefited a class 

room experience” (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  In another one of his 

eight comments, Dan made the following rant:  

Oregon State University went in over its head with Chinese students starting many years 
ago.  What it got was a ton of money.  The problem with Chinese students is that they 
come as only children, they are spoiled, they keep entirely to their own group, they buy 
very expensive cars in some cases, they see America as a place to exploit, and they don't 
want to integrate.  They also rob in-state students of a chance to go to college because 
OSU wants the Chinese money. Their parents also use the local banks to stash cash 
outside of China...and I mean lots of cash! OSU has also been taking in a number of 
sabbatical professors from China.  They, too, keep pretty much to their own groups.  
Coming to the US is a “big face” move for which they get credit when they go home. As 
for being “brilliant”, no!  Their system of learning in China is memorization. Many of 
them spend hours in the library looking for answers to copy.  Some want to jump their 
visa. (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016) 

 
Based on another comment of his, it sounds as though Dan may have worked at a university, as 

to in what role is unclear.   

187 

 

Meanwhile, from the student perspective we have Lara Price offering the following 

opinion:  

As a 2015 grad of one of the universities mentioned in this article, I can comment fully 
on how much these international students have affected my and my fellow students’ 
academic experiences.  The issue is not with high level classes or grad programs, it is 
with the introductory weed-out classes like Accounting 101 where the international 
students are a distraction in the classroom (on their phones, talking in Chinese), they do 
not participate in group work, and they blatantly cheat on tests.  Teachers and they 
administration do not take measures to stop this behavior because they are paying more, 
putting other students behind and limiting opportunities for those who are actually putting 
effort in. 

 
Another student, this time self-identified graduate student Jim Anderson asserted “One problem 

they didn't mention in the article is that the Chinese students bring their Chinese ethical 

framework with them” (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  He then went on 

to claim “they all cheat like crazy” (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  And 

while Belkin and Jordan’s article did not mention cheating, commenter Mark Johnson pointed 

people to an article in Forbes titled “How Chinese Students Are ‘Cheating’ To Get Into U.S. 

Universities.”  He provided a link to a second article apparently about cheating as well, but the 

link is no longer valid.  Whether they are cheating or not, some commenters question whether we 

should be teaching Chinese students at all, as we will see in the next opinion theme.   

Why are we teaching our enemy? 

 

Perhaps the most disturbing opinion theme pertains to commenters who view China as an 

enemy and were questioning why the U.S. is educating them.  For example, MITCHEL 

GALISHOFF simply asked “Why are we educating people from a country who is an enemy?” 

(comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  While not condoning the opinion, it is 

not difficult to understand such sentiment, given various tensions between the U.S. and China, 

whether economic, military, or some other facet. Tensions are in fact what appear to have 

188 

 

prompted some to comment, such as Ravi Kumar who said, “I find it ironic (or foolish?) that 

when there are military tensions between China and the US over the South China sea and other 

issues in East Asia, US universities are educating thousands of Chinese in science and 

engineering” (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).   

The opinion that we might be educating enemies was not limited to just Chinese students.  

Case in point, Hope Trimarco’s following comment where she focuses on a different 

international student population: 

In the 1970s at Uof I Champaign it was Iranian engineering students huddling in corners, 
leering at girls with uncomfortable stares, smoking cigarettes, and murmuring under their 
breath betweeen classes. Were they saying “death to the infidels” in Farsi? Did they go 
back home and work on the centrifuges for the nuclear weapons project? Maybe. Just 
saying.There is virtually a 100% probability that an enemy will attack us with an 
advanced technology that they learned while attending a University on U.S. soil. Who 
wants to bet? (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016) 

 
Comments, such as Mitchel, Ravi, and Hope’s make me wonder how some people might view 

international students from other countries, let’s say from Russia.   

While the comments to this article are several years old, consider them for a moment 

from the perspective of today where the U.S. finds itself in a trade war with China.  While enemy 

might not be the appropriate word to use in a trade war, China as a fierce economic competitor 

was another concern among some commenters.  For example, Richard Modecki pointed out the 

article had “not one mention about if it’s in our national interest to be educating our current and 

future competitors” (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Meanwhile, Martin 

Morfeld lamented the thinking of U.S. leaders, claiming “Those at the top seem to be making 

short-sighted, ‘how can we shoot our citizens, states and country in the foot today’ decisions by 

taking money to train the citizens of the US' international competitors instead of our own 

citizens” (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Martin was not alone in his 

189 

 

sentiment.  Carl Levinson had the then upcoming 2016 presidential election on his mind, when 

he shared the following similar viewpoint: 

I know China as both a businessman and tourist. Generalizing these people are out to 
conquer the world - at their pace since “time” is irrelevant. The stupidity of our country 
to sell them technology, fill our schools with their students, and covert their goodwill, all 
in the name of getting them to finance our deficit is a national disgrace. I may not be a 
Trump fan, but his level playing field comments are right. How many people, industries, 
governments and countries want fairness in their dealings with others. Except for 
politicos who enrich themselves through bribes, payoffs and off the record gratuities, we 
ordinary American citizens get screwed through Chinese smiling and then underhanded 
deals and broken promises. We are at economic war and are losing because our people 
are too timid to stick up for our rights. Lesson: until you stand up to a bully you will 
always be fearful of what they will do to you. We need to act before it is too late - if it 
isn't already. (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016) 

 
Carl’s comment, as well as the others I just shared within this theme, echo tenets of the America 

first sentiment shared earlier.   

U.S. students are lazy  

 

A surprising opinion theme within the comments came from commenters who view U.S. 

students as being lazy.  Rather than seeing the large numbers of Chinese students being a 

problem, they see U.S. students and their work ethic as the issue.  For example, Fred 

Higgenbottom claimed “Although Chinese and oriental students sometimes struggle with the 

language and culture in this country they're generally far more proficient in Math and Science 

than their spoiled and ambitionally challenged American counterparts” (comment made in 

response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Clint Tarkoe asked the rhetorical question “the Chinese 

students a burden?” and answered “the burden is the ill-prepared American public high school” 

(comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Clint’s comment prompted Haighar 

Baeuerle to reply saying “you should also add that very few parents care to get involved in the 

PTA and/or run for school ed. boards” followed by “Most parents show very little interest in 

their children's education and do not push teachers to do better/more” (comment made in 

190 

 

response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Meanwhile, Judith Grayson said “we are in decline and so 

deeply in denial that just reading most of these comments gives one the shivers” (comment made 

in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  She went on to make the following observation about 

domestic students: 

Matthew Ondre Steve Ross yes. it's sad and tragic and hilarious all at the same time. 
imagine how american students would fare having to learn and communicate in chinese 
when they can't even speak or write american english. I am amused at how having real 
students has put our system of higher education into a tailspin. we can look forward to the 
frenzied protests of those who are outraged at the unfairness of admitting those who do 
their homework. (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016) 

 
One can wonder, just how supportive people would be of free college proposals if they consider 

U.S. students to be lazy.   

It’s all about the Benjamins  

 

A prominent opinion theme was that colleges and universities are admitting large 

numbers of Chinese students simply for their money.  They see higher education touting benefits 

of diversity and global learning as just a façade.  Take Thomas Delaney’s following comment as 

an example: 

I think the comments for this article are quite interesting.  There is no doubt in my mind 
that this is a classic example of people, in this case very educated people, presenting to 
society one socially acceptable motive when in reality the real motive is something else 
entirely.  These universities are increasing “diversity” because they covet the money, 
plain and simple.  A motive as old as history itself. (comment made in response to Belkin 
& Jordan, 2016) 

 
The hypocrisy of higher education’s motives, at least as Thomas Delaney describes it, could be 

costing universities credibility with the public.  It appears to be doing just that for Albert 

Gelsthorpe, as evident by his following remarks: 

Oh, there is some bloviation about international understanding and academic freedom, 
etc. But what is it really? “When somebody says it’s not about the money, it’s about the 
money.”― H.L. Mencken From U of IL, Urbana's web site: Tuition for in-state under 
grad, IL resident students: $15.6K-$20.6KTuition for international under grad students: 

191 

 

$32K-$42K Int'l students generate more than 2x the revenue of in-state students. Cut out 
the Trumpster talk and “Man up” University of Illinois and other colleges and 
universities. Why hide behind some dysfunctional rationalization that misrepresents 
reality and misleads the taxpayers and benefactors of the school.  It costs you credibility 
and prostitutes the standards of “higher education.” Aren't you supposed to set the 
standard for truth and honesty? (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016) 

 
Albert compares what higher education is doing to prostitution!  And he is not the only one.  

Kevin Merritt argued, “Maybe, just maybe, Universities wouldn't feel the need to prostitute 

themselves to foreign money if the cost of a college degree hadn’t skyrocketed due to a ‘bubble’ 

of federal student loans” (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Meanwhile, 

John Galt called academic elites “academic hookers”, whereas Barry Borella labeled what 

universities are doing as “academic prostitution” (comment made in response to Belkin & 

Jordan, 2016).   

 

Some of the commenters believe this so-called academic prostitution center around 

administrative bloat and poor fiscal management.  For example, Andrew Thompson contends 

“this campus revenue problem wouldn’t exist if schools could stop having 100 deans/associate 

deans and bureaucrats” (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Andrew’s 

comment prompted five replies, including one by C Cook who claimed, “One major California 

UC has 18 people on staff, each making $100K+ a year, with the word ‘Diversity’ in the job 

title” and concluded, “There in lies the funding problem” (comment made in response to Belkin 

& Jordan, 2016).  In another comment C Cook made the following suggestion to university 

presidents: “Cut back on useless degree programs, and you might find there is plenty of money” 

(comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Speaking as a higher education insider, 

Mahomet Library conveys frustration within her university regarding administration’s actions in 

her following comment:  

192 

 

Having grown up in and around Champaign, IL, graduated from the U of I, worked there 
as an undergraduate and as a professional in the University Counsel Office, I can attest to 
the uneasiness of staff and faculty with the University Administration’s course recruiting 
Chinese students.  Even to the point where Illinois’ Land Grant Institution turns away the 
top students from Illinois for more money from abroad.  I don't think that was Morrill's 
idea back in the day.  Of course, Illinois is in a precarious position with no pension 
funding or a budget.  Decades of neglect to Illinois taxpayers by those in charge for 30 
plus years are clearly to blame.  Learning & Labor?  I haven't seen that cooperation out of 
the state capitol in my lifetime. (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016) 

 
One can begin to understand why some people might be opposed to publicly supporting higher 

education, especially if they view colleges and universities as wasting money.  Or if an 

institution’s actions do not support its words.   

Challenging the opinions of others 

 

The online comments provide people with a venue to not only agree with others, but to 

challenge their opinions as well.  One such example of this occurring came in multiple 

exchanges between Sidhant Dash and Marc Jones.  The exchange began with Sidhant claiming 

universities are not doing enough to support international students and that “these students are 

paying more than their U.S. counterparts, and so deserve a little more help than their domestic 

counterparts” (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Marc took issue with 

Sidhant’s claim and argued domestic students should be the focus, while urging Sidhant to read 

the U.S. Land Grant Act.  Marc said to Sidhant, “You will find that those institutions were 

created to serve the people of their states and the Land Grant, a vital piece of federal legislations, 

was clearly passed to serve the US taxpayers” (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 

2016).  Sidhant countered by arguing that “universities are always free to go back to the altruistic 

ideals behind their establishment and stop admitting international students all together” 

(comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  He then asked Marc, “They aren’t going 

193 

 

to do that, are they?” (comment made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016).  Marc answered 

Sidhant’s question as follows: 

My point is universities like many American institutions, have lost sight of what they 
were created to accomplish.  In doing so, they have put themselves at risk.  The current 
approach to admitting foreign students just to raise revenue is already backfiring.  Online 
universities have entered the training-for-pay market and through simple economics, will 
eventually overwhelm brick and mortar institutions with more customer oriented 
products.  To answer your question, since in large part, the public universities have 
already alienated their original supporters, the taxpayers, and as a result are desperately 
seeking new sources of revenue in a very limited market, they have a choice to make.  
They can return to the missions mandated by their charters and reestablish a productive 
relationship with the states that produced and funded them or they can starve to death in 
the new, digital world.  So, in short, they had better refocus or they will die. (comment 
made in response to Belkin & Jordan, 2016) 

 
Sidhant did not reply to Marc’s answer.  However, in this exchange both were able to challenge 

the other’s opinion and further explain each of theirs position. 

R3: (Emotion) 
 

I utilized the software program Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) to calculate 

the emotional tone for each comment made in response to Belkin and Jordan’s article.  I then 

used Microsoft Excel to generate the boxplot depicted in Figure 3.  The value 45.54 marked by 

an “x” is the mean score.  The median and twenty-fifth percentile for the dataset is 25.77.  The 

scores do not represent negative or positive emotions within any particular theme I identified 

while addressing my second research question.  Such an allocation of scores among themes 

would involve a level of complexity outside the scope of this study.  This is because of the data 

reduction that inherently occurs during qualitative content analysis (Drisko & Maschi, 2016; 

Schreier, 2012, 2014).  Schreier (2012) contends, “QCA does not allow you to describe the full 

meaning of your material in each and every respect” (p. 3).  In my research I distilled the 

numerous opinions expressed within the comments down to set of salient themes.  A level of 

detail and nuance within the comments was, of course, lost during this process.  This lost detail 

194 

 

and nuance, which is inherent to QCA, makes applying LIWC scores to particular themes within 

my research potentially problematic.  This is because the lost nuance could affect the LIWC 

scores in not readily apparent ways if applied at the opinion theme level, which could result in 

misleading findings.   

The emotional tone scores and their distribution provide a high-level indication of the 

emotions conveyed within the comment forum accompanying Belkin and Jordan’s article.  As a 

reminder, an emotional tone score “around 50 suggests either a lack of emotionality or different 

levels of ambivalence” (Pennebaker, Booth, Boyd, & Francis , 2015, p. 22).  Numbers above 50 

indicate more positivity, whereas numbers below 50 indicate “greater anxiety, sadness, or 

hostility” (Pennebaker, Booth, Boyd, & Francis , 2015, p. 22).  Based on the results, we see the 

tone of comments to be overall more negative than positive, with half of the comments scoring 

25.77 or lower.  Even the mean emotional tone score for the dataset is on the negative end of the 

emotion spectrum.   

Figure 3. Case 2 distribution of LIWC emotional tone scores. 
 
 

 

195 

 

 

Case 3: Free College  

Article Summaries 

 On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 the governor of New Mexico announced a plan for 

free college to all state residents.  That same day The Wall Street Journal published an article by 

Talal Ansari titled “New Mexico Unveils Plan to Offer Free College Tuition.”  The New York 

Times also published an article by Simon Romero and Dana Goldstein titled “New Mexico 

Announces Plan for Free College for State Residents.”  Ansari covers U.S. News at large at the 

WSJ.  Romero covers immigration, as well as other topics, and Goldstein writes about education 

policies and their impact on society.  While their articles focus on plans within the state of New 

Mexico, the topic of “free” college is of national attention, even making it into U.S. Presidential 

debates.  Ansari’s and Romero and Goldstein’s articles are but a small part of a much larger and 

prominent narrative within higher education, regarding who should pay for higher education.       

 

Ansari’s (2019) article is a brief piece reporting on New Mexico’s Governor Michelle 

Lujan Grisham’s “ambitious new plan that would provide free college tuition to all in-state 

students”, regardless of one’s income level.  According to his reporting, “New Mexico’s plan 

would apply to students at two and four-year colleges regardless of their immigration status” 

(Ansari, 2019).  While the State Governor is a Democrat and both houses of the state government 

are under democratic control, it is not a guarantee the plan called New Mexico Opportunity 

Scholarship will pass (Ansari, 2019).  However, Ansari (2019) states, “If the legislature passes 

the plan, New Mexico would join 20 states that have similar programs, including New York’s 

Excelsior Scholarship, which provides free tuition to students attending state colleges for 

families making up to $125,000.” 

196 

 

 

Romero and Goldstein’s article is a markedly more in-depth piece of reporting than 

Ansari’s.  They too report on the Governor’s announcement and are quick to note “The move 

comes as many American families grapple with the rising cost of higher education and as 

discussions about free public college gain momentum in state legislatures and on the presidential 

debate stage” (Romero & Goldstein, 2019).  Whereas Ansari’s article did not provide any details 

as to how New Mexico will fund the plan, Romero and Goldstein indicate the state will largely 

fund it via “climbing revenues from oil production.”  They also provide data to support their 

reporting, such as the tuition costs at the University of New Mexico and Central New Mexico 

Community College, as well as median household income and student debt for the state and for 

the country.  Additionally, they note the state’s $135 million increase from the prior year in 

“State and federal spending on early childhood programs, including prekindergarten” (Romero & 

Goldstein, 2019).  Like Ansari, Romero and Goldstein also offer New York’s Excelsior 

Scholarship as comparable program.   

 

Beyond just providing more detail than Ansari, Romero and Goldstein also place New 

Mexico’s plan within the much larger national debate over the costs of higher education.  

According to their reporting, “Some education experts, presidential candidates and policymakers 

consider universal free college to be a squandering of scarce public dollars, which might be 

better spent offering more support to the neediest students” (Romero & Goldstein, 2019).  On the 

other end of the debate there are other people who “say college costs have become too 

overwhelming and hail the many drives toward free tuition” (Romero & Goldstein, 2019).  Not 

only do Romero and Goldstein refer to democratic presidential primary candidates Bernie 

Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden, they also link their text to corresponding articles in 

The Times reporting on their respective positions on higher education.  In total they hyperlink 

197 

 

their article to six articles in The Times, three from both 2017 and 2019, as well as to eight 

external sites detailing additional information on higher education costs and accessibility.  

Ansari’s article text did not include any hyperlinks.                   

Findings 

 

Ansari’s article received 143 online comments, of which 139 were retrievable at the time 

of my data collection.  Eighty-eight commenters participated in the forum, twenty-eight of which 

posted multiple comments.  The most posts by a single commenter was nine and the most words 

posted a single commenter across all their comments was 426.  On average each commenter 

posted seventy-nine words.  114 of the comments received likes.  The following table provides 

additional descriptive statistics on the data set: 

Total 
680 

 
0 
Likes 
Comment Word Count  6,983 
0 
Table 3. Case 3 (Ansari – WSJ) descriptive statistics. 
 

Maximum  Minimum  Average 
45 
186 

4 
50.2374 

Romero and Goldstein’s article received 428 online comments, all of which were 

retrievable at the time of my data collection.  262 commenters participated in the forum, sixty-

five of which posted multiple comments.  The most posts by a single commenter was eighteen 

and the most words posted a single commenter across all their comments was 1,623.  On average 

each commenter posted 110 words.  348 of the comments received recommendations.  The 

following table provides additional descriptive statistics on the data set: 

Maximum  Minimum  Average 
168 
290 

 
Total 
3,131 
Recommendations 
Comment Word Count  28,932 
Table 4. Case 3 (Romero & Goldstein – NYT) descriptive statistics. 
 
 
 
 
 

7 
67.5981 

0 
1 

198 

 

R1: (Public Sphere) 
 

I utilized Chen’s (2017) deliberation index to address my first research question.  I 

calculated the deliberation index for my dataset at the comment level, which is in line with prior 

research (Chen, 2017).  In the following two sections I share my findings for both articles 

starting with Ansari’s:  

Ansari’s article in The Wall Street Journal 

 

Fifty-nine comments asked legitimate questions and forty provided evidence.  Fifty-three 

comments did not ask any legitimate questions or provide evidence, seventy-three provided one 

or the other, and thirteen asked a legitimate question and provided evidence, resulting in a 

deliberation index of .712 for the entire dataset.  Another way of stating it is sixty-two percent of 

comments had deliberative elements in the form of either a legitimate question, evidence, or 

both.  The deliberation index provides us with a basic understanding of the extent to which 

commenters appear to be attempting to engage in conversation with one another.  However, if we 

look closer at each deliberation attribute separately, we learn more.   

Looking at the legitimate questions we see commenters inquiring about such things as 

who will pay for the plan, whether it will be retroactive, and student motivation, to name just a 

few.  At times, commenters directed their questions at specific fellow commenters.  For example, 

when Paul Kaplan said, “You know you are a Trump supporter if you believe education is a 

threat to your political agenda”, fellow commenter Lyn Robins replied with the following series 

of questions:  

Paul...after students graduate, what is the next step of the plan? What happens if the 
students can't find a job in their chosen field of study? What if they attend college, 
but don't find a job or are underemployed for a lifetime? Is there any oversight 
built into this plan to minimize the number of students who start college, but don't 
graduate [emphasis added]. Fyi....just passing everyone to boost graduation metrics is a 
REALLY bad idea. What metrics will be in place to allow the TAXPAYERS to 

199 

 

determine if their money has been allocated to a program that is value added? What 
will happen to the salary structures for the processors? [emphasis added]  

 
Paul did not reply to Lyn, having only posted the one comment to the forum.  However, based on 

Lyn’s questions she appears to be pushing back on the simplistic assertion that if one is not for 

the free college plan one is automatically a Trump Supporter.  Other commenters posed general 

questions, such as Barbara B Mazzarella who asked “Are the taxpayers of New Mexico all on 

board with this plan?  Especially those who have already paid for their own college education?”  

Broadly speaking, questions in the comments give us a sense of what people want to know more 

about and that they are willing to ask them in a public realm for other people to potentially 

respond to.    

Examining the evidence, we see commenters are providing external sources, citing the 

source article, as well as sharing personal stories to bolster their points.  Regarding external 

sources, we have steven seeger who provided a link to the College Tuition Compare website, 

along with an excerpt stating, “At Central New Mexico Community College, the graduation rate 

is 24% within 150% normal time.”  In the same comment Steven questioned just how long the 

state will provide students with free college and to push back on fellow commenter Erick 

Staedicke’s claims about free college and time to degree completion.  A couple more examples 

of external evidence come from Fred Vincent and Steven Chen.  Fred pointed to Kalamazoo, 

Michigan as an example of a city that has tried a free tuition plan, while Steven pointed to New 

York’s Excelsior Scholarship.   

Additional evidence included referring to, as well as quoting the source article, and 

sharing personal stories.  Citing Ansari’s article was not only a form of evidence commenters 

used, but it also provides evidence that commenters are reading the source article.  Meanwhile 

personal stories provide a glimpse into commenters’ experiences and were at times used to refute 

200 

 

other commenters’ arguments.  Case in point, we have an exchange between Eric Clark and 

David Mcmahon.  First, Eric posted a comment that began as follows: 

“How are we going to pay for it” is the easiest rally cry for all those opposed to doing 
anything positive that moves the human race forward in thinking and mindset.  Let’s just 
continue to reinforce fear, greed and ignorance?  That is working so well for everyone 
and the planet at large… 

 
Eric’s comment seems to have struck a nerve with David who replied as follows: 

“How are we going to pay for it” is the easiest rally cry for all those opposed to doing 
anything positive that moves the human race forward in thinking and mindset.  
 
Yeah why worry about costs? 
 
Funny, I paid my own tuition - and I got multiple degrees! I wasn't in a place of fear, 
greed, and ignorance! 

 
In similar fashion to David, John Loesch reflected on his experience paying for a Ph.D. at the 

University of New Mexico while raising a family to also push back on Eric’s assertions.   

Romero and Goldstein’s article in The New York Times 

102 comments asked legitimate questions and 182 provided evidence.  177 comments did 

not ask any legitimate questions or provide evidence, 218 provided one or the other, and thirty-

three asked a legitimate question and provided evidence, resulting in a deliberation index of .664 

for the entire dataset.  Another way of stating it is fifty-nine percent of comments had 

deliberative elements in the form of either a legitimate question, evidence, or both.  The 

deliberation index provides us with a basic understanding of the extent to which commenters 

appear to be attempting to engage in conversation with one another.  However, if we look closer 

at each deliberation attribute separately, we learn more.   

Looking at the legitimate questions we see commenters inquiring about such things as the 

employment prospects of certain degrees, rising tuition, climate change, and the sustainability of 

the plan, to name just a few.  At times, commenters directed their questions at specific fellow 

201 

 

commenters. For example, when Joe of Jackson suggested the plan be means tested “otherwise, 

this scheme will drive income inequality, not fix it”, Alex of Albuquerque, NM replied with the 

following counter-argument and series of questions:    

@Joe-Means tested public goods are perhaps the worst way to run a society.  Imagine if 
those who made over $100k had to pay a toll on the freeway, while those who made 
below that were exempt.  Do you think this would stimulate class resentment? What 
about firefighters charging upper middle class citizens and above money for their 
services? Do you think this would lead to the election of social safety net slashing 
politicians by the upper class out of spite? [emphasis added] I sure think so.  Why 
should education be different than these public goods? [emphasis added]... 

 
Alex was not alone in his questioning of Joe’s mean’s testing suggestion.  Ken from California 

joined in by asking “What if the parents are not willing to help? Do we say too bad to the child?”  

Other commenters posed general questions, such as HLP from Chicago, IL who asked “After 

reading an article yesterday that addresses the paltry pay adjunct professors receive and lack of 

benefits, I’m wondering how the current system is sustainable?”  Broadly speaking, questions in 

the comments give us a sense of what people want to know more about and that they are willing 

to ask them in a public realm for other people to potentially respond to. 

Examining the evidence, we see commenters are providing external sources, citing the 

source article, as well as sharing personal stories to bolster their points.  Regarding external 

sources, we have Kalith Smith from Roswell, NM pointing people to a dissertation in support of 

his following argument: 

This is awesome news, but as is noted in the attached dissertation, we have to support 
them once they arrive. If the money colleges save is diverted to effective student success 
programs this could be a win, win! Several colleges and universities in the state have 
already made improving graduation rates a priority. 
 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1311&context=cehsedaddiss 

 
As it turns out, the name of the author of the doctoral dissertation is also Kalith Smith.  The title 

of his dissertation is Responding to the College Completion Crisis in New Mexico: A Case Study 

202 

 

of the University of New Mexico, which he completed as part of a Doctor of Education degree 

from the University of Nebraska.  Additional examples of external evidence include referencing 

sources, such as The Chronicle of Higher Education, CBS News, and even the New Mexico State 

Constitution, as well as citing various metrics. 

Additional evidence included referring to, as well as quoting the source article, and 

sharing personal stories.  Citing Romero and Goldstein’s article was not only a form of evidence 

commenters used, but it also provides evidence that commenters are reading the source article.  

Meanwhile personal stories provide a glimpse into commenters’ experiences.  For example, in 

the following comment Imohf of Albuquerque shares his experience at the University of New 

Mexico as a means to convey his frustration with the free college tuition plan, or at least with 

how it was communicated:   

I’m a faculty member at the University of New Mexico and I hadn’t heard ANYTHING 
about this! You’d think they’d consult us or inform us before they announce plans! ALL 
that we hear is budget shortages, classes not making, inability to support travel and 
research! Where are they getting the money, when daily they tell us there isn’t enough to 
pay us or hire new faculty or renovate aging bathrooms??? This has got to be totally 
absurd!   

 
Other commenters, such as Bob of Easton, MD and Alex of Albuquerque, NM, shared their 

experiences of benefiting from tuition-free higher education.  Meanwhile, Jim of Pennsylvania 

claimed “A solid number of students in my college classes simply don't belong there, but have 

been accepted simply to keep tuition dollars (not from the state) rolling in.”  He went onto assert, 

“It has gotten to the point where I now feel that I am merely teaching AT a college, but not at 

college level.”  

R2: (Public Opinion) 
 

After several rounds of coding, I arrived at the following salient opinion themes: Hell yes 

to free college!, Yes, but not funded via fossil fuels, No such thing as free, Higher Education’s 

203 

 

Unnecessary and Irresponsible Expenses, Useful and Useless Degrees, Fix K-12 first!, and 

Challenging the opinions of others.  All the themes except for one were present within both 

forums that accompanying the two articles.  The theme Yes, but not funded via fossil fuels was 

present within Romero and Goldstein’s article, but not within Ansari’s.       

The last theme—challenging the opinions of others—is not an opinion theme per se.  

However, it is a theme that goes further to the heart of public opinion and what the comments 

reveal that is not apparent via traditional polling.  This theme is also a continuation of my 

findings from my first research question.  This overlap of findings is not incidental, but instead is 

reflective of the idea that public opinion is derived via conversation within the public sphere. 

In the following sections I share findings for each theme from both articles.  What I 

provide within each respective opinion theme are vignettes from the online conversation that 

depict the given sentiment.  Some are comments shared in full, whereas others are excerpts.  My 

intent behind doing so was to provide thick description (Thorne, 2016), as well as to depict some 

of the varying shades of sentiment and rationale for one’s opinions.        

Hell yes to free college!   

 

In both the WSJ and NYT comment forums there were people who appear to be all for 

New Mexico’s free college plan.  The support ranged from commenters viewing the plan as a 

step in the right direction, pride in the state’s actions, and all the way to calls to take free college 

national.  As for the plan being a step in the right direction, we have BRUCE GALE who 

believes “it makes sense to try it at a state level and see if it succeeds or fails” (comment made in 

response to Ansari, 2020).  Pride came in the form of comments like that of Jonathan Rossman 

of New York, NY who said, “So proud to see my home state making this bold move to expand 

access to higher education for all” (comment made in response to Romero & Goldstein, 2020).  

204 

 

Taking the excitement even further, DYLAN CIRALDO insists “now we just need this at a 

national level” (comment made in response to Ansari, 2020).   

Yes, but not funded via fossil fuels 

 

A notable difference between the two forums was a group of commenters within NYT 

who appear to be for free college, but not if it is funded by fossil fuel revenues.  They see it as 

counterintuitive to try to solve one problem, costs of going to college, by adding to another, 

climate change.  Case in point, the following comment from Alycee Lane of Oakland: 

No mention of climate change? 
 
 I am all in for free college, but what a cynical ploy to bind people to fossil fuels. Free 
education? Sure. But only if you commit to life-killing greenhouse gas emissions.             
 
The reporter notes that the oil revenues are rolling in from the Permian Basin, but fails to 
point out that it has enough oil reserves to lock us into catastrophic climate changes. The 
continued efforts to exploit the reserves will guarantee that the world into which the debt-
free graduates will enter will be radically diminished. Food scarcity, extreme weather, 
massive infrastructure destruction, water scarcity - you name it. 
 
I have a better idea: tax the wealthy to fund education and leave the fossil fuels in the 
ground. (comment made in response to Romero & Goldstein, 2020) 

 
Sharing similar sentiment, Bella from The City Different sees free college via fossil fuel profits 

as a “double edged sword” (comment made in response to Romero & Goldstein, 2020).   

 

As indicated earlier, Romero and Goldstein’s is a considerably more in-depth article than 

Ansari’s.  Their article indicates “New Mexico plans to use climbing revenues from oil 

production to pay for much of the costs” (Romero & Goldstein, 2020).  Ansari’s article makes no 

mention of how the state plans to fund the program, nor does it mention any type of fossil fuel.  

Whether or not this difference of detail in reporting attributed to the absence of this opinion 

theme within the comments accompanying Ansari’s article is unknown, but it is an important 

point to keep in mind.     

205 

 

 

No such thing as free 

The opinion that there is no such thing as free was a theme among people pushing back 

against the New Mexico plan within both forums.  For example, claiming “there is no such thing 

as free”, John Crocker goes on to “wonder why anyone still uses the word ‘free’” (comment 

made in response to Ansari, 2020).  In a similar vein, Blackmamba from Illinois contends 

“calling this ‘free’ is deceptive and misleading” (comment made in response to Romero & 

Goldstein, 2020).  He believes “New Mexico taxpayers will pay for these college educations 

whether or not they or their family members benefit” (comment made in response to Romero & 

Goldstein, 2020).  One of the more vocal opinions, metaphorically speaking, came from Imohf of 

Albuquerque who made the following rant: 

I’m a faculty member at the University of New Mexico and I hadn’t heard ANYTHING 
about this! You’d think they’d consult us or inform us before they announce plans! ALL 
that we hear is budget shortages, classes not making, inability to support travel and 
research! Where are they getting the money, when daily they tell us there isn’t enough to 
pay us or hire new faculty or renovate aging bathrooms??? This has got to be totally 
absurd! (comment made in response to Romero & Goldstein, 2020) 

 
Additionally, in a later comment Imohf proclaimed, “The most egregious part of this is the total 

ignoring of Faculty Governance!” (comment made in response to Romero & Goldstein, 2020).   

Fellow commenter Harvey Green replied to Imohf informing him the money will come 

from “oil and gas revenues from the Permian Basin” (comment made in response to Romero & 

Goldstein, 2020).  Granted, Romero and Goldstein (2020) also indicated “New Mexico plans to 

use climbing revenues from oil production to pay for much of the costs.”  However, commenters 

in both forums pointed out fossil fuel revenues are not inexhaustible.  Case in point, Eric 

Stanfield’s following comment:  

This is the real head-scratching part of it to me.  They are planning to fund this based on 
oil/gas revenue which is weighing in at historic highs (for NM).  That's great for right 

206 

 

now, but anyone who can read has to realize that oil/gas monies come and go with the 
wind and feast now will inevitably be famine later. 
 
What happens then?  Roll it all back?  Doubt that.  Fill the gap with tax increases more 
likely.  Same short-sighted, vote pandering idiocy that's been filling the debate podiums 
all summer. (comment made in response to Ansari, 2020) 

 
Meanwhile, fellow WSJ commenters Catherine Dempsey and Kathleen Mccarty, as well as 

fellow Times commenters samten171, Jay, and Sausca wonder what will happen if a new 

administration, whether at the state or federal level, enacts policies that severely limit fossil fuel 

revenues (Ansari, 2020; Romero & Goldstein, 2020).   

Higher Education’s Unnecessary and Irresponsible Expenses  

 

Consider for a moment, you are of the opinion colleges and universities waste money.  

Then, suddenly you hear people calling for higher education to be free.  The idea of making it 

free might not sit well with you if you think its spending is already out of control.  As it turns 

out, another theme within both forums was aimed at what JSD of New York labeled as 

“unnecessary and irresponsible expenses” at state-funded universities, such as on “sports 

programs, obscenely opulent campuses and athletic facilities, luxurious dorms, concierge-level 

services for students” (comment made in response to Romero & Goldstein, 2020).  Peter I 

Berman of Norwalk, CT went so far as to proclaim, “This program will provide further income 

boosts for already highly paid college Profs and Administrators - among the nations most 

privileged entitlements - at the expense of providing education where its truly needed - our 

impoverished cities” (comment made in response to Romero & Goldstein, 2020).   

 

What some commenters deem as irresponsible spending by colleges and universities, they 

also view as having nothing to do with education.  Irresponsible spending does not sound good in 

general, but one might view it in a different light if it were done in attempt to improve student 

207 

 

learning (i.e., noble intent, just not fiscally responsible).  However, that is not the case from 

Steve Regal’s perspective, which he makes clear in his following comment:  

However, universities have to get their spending under control - they spend money 
without a care in the world and know that they can basically raise tuition as much as they 
want, so they spend and spend and spend. They say they have to in order to provide a 
high quality education, but that is not true - substantial numbers of lower level classes are 
taught by adjuncts or grad students, all the while tenured faculty teach 2 classes a term. 
(comment made in response to Ansari, 2020) 

 
Rochelle Flynn shares in Steve’s sentiment, while also pointing to administrative bloat and 

needless amenities:  

College isn't expensive because of the cost of one’s education. It is expensive because 
there is an administrator for one or two dozen different diversity initiatives that all do the 
same thing; a rock-climbing wall at most colleges; luxury dorm rooms; food courts that 
cater to every fad diet; 3,470 student activities, clubs, and events at NMSU alone; a half 
dozen hundred dollar textbooks for every class (many of which should be electives for 
those who do not need to work for a living); academic research; and a wealth of other 
“amenities” that do not necessarily correlate with a good education. (comment made in 
response to Ansari, 2020) 

 
One can imagine the idea of free college being a tough pill to swallow for people who, like JSD, 

Peter, Steve, and Rochelle, think colleges and universities are wasting money.    

Useful and Useless Degrees 

 

It is no secret that many people view higher education degrees as a pathway to gainful 

employment.  When free college enters the conversation, we have people picking and choosing 

which degrees they view as useful as compared to useless.  For example, in the following 

comment by Loren Walch she provides a list of degrees she deems worthwhile:       

 

From those who live in the real world, to the elites in state government:    New Mexico 
does not need more liberal arts and social science graduates.  Those degrees are now 
obsolete.  The state needs more electricians, heavy equipment operators, skilled 
woodworkers, electricians, mechanics, and those in the STEM colleges.   So many 
college graduates go on to fulfilling careers as baristas, bartenders and wait staff. 
(comment made in response to Ansari, 2020) 

 

208 

 

Loren was not alone in her thinking that certain degrees are a direct pathway to employment as a 

barista.  Fellow WSJ commenter Dean Wichchester and NYT commenter ehillesum also think we 

have too many baristas, with Dean complaining that “many people choose to go into less 

rigorous, and mostly useless, majors like ‘xyz studies’” (comment made in response to Ansari, 

2020).  Regarding New Mexico providing free college, ehillesum of Michigan said, “It’s great if 

they spend the money on STEM students and not the liberal arts programs that prepare many 

college students for under- or unemployment” (comment made in response to Romero & 

Goldstein, 2020).  Within the same conversation thread as ehillesum, Jerry from Colorado 

chimed in with the following comment:    

@JLT My guess is there will be pretty strict residency requirements, if not, I say good 
luck NM taxpayers. I suggest they eliminate certain degrees from the program. I have no 
issue with Liberal Arts Degrees as long as the degree is real and provides an opportunity 
to earn a living after school. A lot of the new Liberal Arts Degrees being offered are the 
issue. Why take on thousands in debt for a Women's Studies Degree? May as well take 
basket weaving. (comment made in response to Romero & Goldstein, 2020) 

 
Jerry was replying to JLT who posted the initial comment in the thread and garnered ten replies 

by nine fellow commenters.   

Fix K-12 first! 

 

Perhaps the most interesting theme among people pushing back against the free college 

plan within both forums was that we should focus on fixing K-12 education first.  They believe 

many colleges and universities are providing education students should be receiving in high 

school or are watering down their curriculums for less prepared students.  For example, Richard 

Lueders asserts, “the first courses NM colleges teach incoming students are high school level” 

and went on to say “the Gov should focus on the public K-12 schools!” (comment made in 

response to Ansari, 2020).  Meanwhile, Nominae from Santa Fe, NM claims “K-12 in many 

places is *not doing their job, and colleges are *forced to ‘dumb down’ their classes 

209 

 

accordingly” (comment made in response to Romero & Goldstein, 2020).  Steve Tebbets went so 

far as to say “it’s just plain irresponsible to be considering free college at this time” without first 

fixing “the abhorrent K-12 education system” (comment made in response to Ansari, 2020).    

 

Simply being of the opinion that we should focus on fixing K-12 education first does not 

necessarily mean one is completely opposed to the idea of free college.  Perhaps Steve Tebbets 

would be open to the idea after K-12 is fixed, given he qualified his current opposition with the 

words “at this time.”   A clearer example of wanting to focus on K-12 education first, while 

remaining open to the possibility of free college or some version of it comes from Lionrock48 

from Wayne, PA in her following comment:     

On one hand I applaud the sentiment of the Governor of NM but on the other I decry the 
emphasis, over emphasis on a college education. Lets be frank, we are NOT talking about 
education but a credential - in this case a college diploma. We need to edcuate our kids 
from K-12 so that they can do math needed for most jobs other than a rocket scientist, so 
they can read a book or article to be informed citizens. We have so devalued "university 
education" that we allow diploma mills to proliferate. We let folks into university who 
cannot read, write, spell or even speak claiming we are providing opportunity. Then they 
show up at our workplaces and still have that same set of deficiencies. We are not 
providing opportunity, we are rewarding failure. It should be damn hard to get into 
university and be free if you maintain say a B-minus GPA. Below that you have to pay, 
all students, athletes, part timers, etc. all alike.  We need to restablish excellence in our 
HS not AP classes but tough classes for all kids and not let kids skate through. Europe 
has a pretty tough bar - the BAC before one gets to go to university and only about 25% 
do. Would it be asking our kids to much to do the same as long as we really did provide 
excellance in every single school system in the country.? Take the dollars for free collge 
and put it back into education where it belongs in K-12 , please for all of us. (comment 
made in response to Romero & Goldstein, 2020) 

 
Lionrock48 reveals a whole host of opinions within her comment, including the belief people 

place too much emphasis on college educations, we are devaluing higher education, and 

graduates are unprepared for the workplace, to name just a few.  And while it is clear she wants 

the focus and the money to go to improving K-12, Lionrock48 appears to remain open to the idea 

of a merit-based form of free college.   

210 

 

 

Challenging the opinions of others 

The online comments provide people with a venue to not only agree with others, but to 

challenge their opinions as well.  A clear example of this happening is in the conversation that 

ensued after JLT’s following initial post:   

That is great! With college costing $65,000 +, I'll bet a lot of people move there to avoid 
a lifetime of debt. 
 
By the way, my cousin in Denmark gets paid about $900/month to go to college. 
(comment made in response to Romero & Goldstein, 2020) 

 
JLT’s comment made no mention of certain degrees being of more value than others.  However, 

ehillesum did just that in his following reply:  

@JLT. It’s great if they spend the money on STEM students and not the liberal arts 
programs that prepare many college students for under- or unemployment. But they 
won’t and millions will be wasted. New Mexico will still have too few doctors and 
engineers and too many baristas. (comment made in response to Romero & Goldstein, 
2020) 

 
Ehillesum’s reply was one of ten replies sparked by JLT’s initial remarks, which all but one 

debated whether certain degrees—namely liberal arts—were of no value.  For example, Alex of 

Albuquerque, NM chimed in with the following thoughtful and constructive counter-argument: 

@ehillesum-I am a practicing Doctor in NM with a STEM undergraduate degree from the 
University of New Mexico (my undergrad tuition was paid for by the Lottery Scholarship 
which funded my full tuition).  Though I may not have a liberal arts degree, I understand 
the value in one.  My NM peers from a decade ago with a liberal arts education have 
gone on to become lawyers, business men and women, teachers, and yes, even doctors.  
Even if someone is underemployed after college, higher education has a protective effect 
against crime, drug use and unplanned pregnancy.  This in itself should be a major reason 
for funding our Universities, as it prevents the American public from having to pay for 
the costs of later incarceration, unwanted pregnancies, and the ills of drug crime.  Finally, 
the liberal arts attempts to describe and contemplate the world around us.  Though I too 
have criticisms with some of the methodology, this is invaluable in our educated world.  
We need individuals to push the boundaries, research what constitutes our society, and 
create critical thinkers in the global economy. (comment made in response to Romero & 
Goldstein, 2020) 

 

211 

 

Alex was not alone in his sentiment.  Ellen from San Diego clearly agrees with him, as made 

clear by her following reply where she also offers an opinion about adjunct pay:   

@Alex 
Great comment! My daughter chose an “impractical” bachelor’s - Peace and Global 
Studies. She went on to get a Master’s degree in Deaf Education, and a doctorate in 
Education. She teaches deaf students and American Sign Language to hearing students 
and has a great career (though adjunct pay at the college level is a national disgrace). 
(comment made in response to Romero & Goldstein, 2020) 

 
One more example from the discussion, this time on the side of JLT, comes from Jerry of 

Colorado.  After Jay of Ohio sided with Alex and Ellen as to the value of liberal arts, Jerry 

pushed back as follows: 

@Jay A number of Liberal Art courses already need to be taken by BS majors. I suggest 
that a minor in a Liberal Art is ok, majors? Unless the degree has a purpose I see no 
reason to subsidize it. Sorry, but a major in Dead Poets of the 19th Century is not a 
degree worth paying for. (comment made in response to Romero & Goldstein, 2020) 

 
Within this one example discussion thread we see people sharing their opinions while 

challenging the sentiment of others.     

 

Meanwhile, within the comments accompanying Ansari’s article an example of 

commenters challenging one another’s opinions was kicked off by Eric Clark’s comment where 

he argued, “‘How are we going to pay for it’ is the easiest rally cry for all those opposed to doing 

anything positive that moves the human race forward in thinking and mindset” (comment made 

in response to Ansari, 2020).  He went on to claim anyone who believes things like tuition free 

education and universal health care are not good things has “a mindset that is far outdated and 

narrow in scope to the understanding of a much bigger picture: an intrinsic relationship between 

all things” (comment made in response to Ansari, 2020).  Eric was not finished, as he went on to 

indicate the real problem as being “the narcissistic and greed culture”, which he believes is 

reinforced by the current curriculum (comment made in response to Ansari, 2020).  His comment 

212 

 

resulted in ten replies.  The first came from David Mcmahon who made it clear the question as to 

who we are going to pay for it is not an inconsequential question, while revealing he paid his 

own tuition and received multiple degrees (comment made in response to Ansari, 2020).  Eric 

replied to David letting him know that he too paid for his own higher education and that his point 

still holds (comment made in response to Ansari, 2020).  David countered by asking Eric “What 

point could that possibly be?” (comment made in response to Ansari, 2020).  He then stated the 

following:  

Fiscal reality means that things have to be paid for. There are real buildings on college 
campuses, classes are taught be real professors that need salaries. The buildings have to 
be heated in the winter. These are real expenses. (comment made in response to Ansari, 
2020) 

 
Eric did not reply to David second rebuttal.  However, seven more commenters chimed in 

making similar counter arguments as did David.  The online comments within both forums 

provided commenters a venue to converse with other people, some sharing in sentiment and 

others that do not. 

R3: (Emotion) 
 

I utilized the software program Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) to calculate 

the emotional tone for each comment made in response to Ansari’s and Romero and Goldstein’s 

articles.  I then used Microsoft Excel to generate the boxplots depicted in Figures 4 and 5.  The 

values marked by an “x” in both boxplots are the mean scores for the respective datasets.  The 

median and twenty-fifth percentile for the Ansari dataset is 25.77.  The scores do not represent 

negative or positive emotions within any particular theme I identified while addressing my 

second research question.  Such an allocation of scores among themes would involve a level of 

complexity outside the scope of this study.  This is because of the data reduction that inherently 

occurs during qualitative content analysis (Drisko & Maschi, 2016; Schreier, 2012, 2014).  

213 

 

Schreier (2012) contends, “QCA does not allow you to describe the full meaning of your 

material in each and every respect” (p. 3).  In my research I distilled the numerous opinions 

expressed within the comments down to set of salient themes.  A level of detail and nuance 

within the comments was, of course, lost during this process.  This lost detail and nuance, which 

is inherent to QCA, makes applying LIWC scores to particular themes within my research 

potentially problematic.  This is because the lost nuance could affect the LIWC scores in not 

readily apparent ways if applied at the opinion theme level, which could result in misleading 

findings.   

The emotional tone scores and their distribution provide a high-level indication of the 

emotions conveyed within the comment forums accompanying Ansari’s and Romero and 

Goldstein’s articles.  As a reminder, an emotional tone score “around 50 suggests either a lack of 

emotionality or different levels of ambivalence” (Pennebaker, Booth, Boyd, & Francis , 2015, p. 

22).  Numbers above 50 indicate more positivity, whereas numbers below 50 indicate “greater 

anxiety, sadness, or hostility” (Pennebaker, Booth, Boyd, & Francis , 2015, p. 22).  Based on the 

results, we see the tone of comments accompanying Ansari’s article to be overall more negative 

than positive, with half of the comments scoring 25.77 or lower.  Regarding the comments 

accompanying Romero and Goldstein’s article, we see the tone to be overall more positive than 

negative, with half of the comments scoring 65.12 or higher.   

While the emotional tone for the two forums is quite different, there are a couple 

important points to keep in mind.  First, the dataset for Romero and Goldstein’s article was more 

than three times the size of the dataset for Ansari’s article in terms of total number of comments, 

and over four times in size in terms of total word count.  Second, Romero and Goldstein’s article 

is a markedly more in-depth piece of reporting than Ansari’s.  While I did not design my study to 

214 

 

account for the effect such differences in dataset size and reporting depth of article might have 

on resulting comments, they are still important considerations to keep in mind when interpreting 

the results.   

Figure 4. Case 3 (Ansari – WSJ) distribution of LIWC emotional tone scores.  
 
 

 

Figure 5. Case 3 (Romero & Goldstein – NYT) distribution of LIWC emotional tone scores.  

 

215 

 

 

CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION, SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH, AND 

CONCLUSION  

Introduction 

The purpose of my dissertation was to investigate online news comments to learn what 

they might tell us about the conversations people are having and what they think about higher 

education.  My conceptual framework for my study consisted of the following components: 

public sphere, public opinion, emotion, influence, and online comments. The logic behind my 

framework for my dissertation begins with the public sphere.  The public sphere being “a realm 

of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed” (Habermas, 

2006, p. 73).  For my research I took the perspective that public opinion is something richer than 

common poll results.  Instead, conversation within the public sphere is at the root of public 

opinion.  Emotion is a part of my framework because emotion is an integral part of opinion.  My 

following research questions address the first three parts of my framework:    

-  R1: (Public Sphere) To what extent do people appear to engage in conversation with one 

another in online news comment forums? 

-  R2: (Public Opinion) What opinions do people express about higher education in online 

news comment forums and what do such opinions reveal about public views of higher 

education that are not apparent via traditional opinion polling? 

-  R3: (Emotion) What emotions do people convey via online news comments? 

The influence component of my framework was not under investigation per se within my study.  

However, it gets at the importance of my research and implications for higher education, which I 

weave into my discussion.  In the following sections I first discuss my findings and what they 

216 

 

mean for higher education.  I then offer suggestions for future research followed by concluding 

remarks.   

Discussion 

 

In chapter 6 I shared an in-depth exploration of the evolution of online commenting at 

The New York Times.  Comments have what Reagle (2015) describes as a “tarnished reputation 

as something best avoided” (p. 2).  My examination of commenting at The Times serves as a 

means to begin rehabilitating commenting’s character by showing its importance at one of the 

most prestigious news organizations in the world.  While the priority The Times places on its 

commenting and quality of its forums is not representative of online news outlets as a whole, its 

commitment certainly runs counter to the adage of online comments as something best avoided.  

For an organization that reported a financial loss of $543.44 million the year before it launched 

its online commenting (New York Times, 2020), The Times has made a substantial financial 

investment in its online conversations, employing a dedicated staff for moderation and having its 

journalists participate in the ongoing dialogue.  In 2017, ten years after it first launched online 

commenting on its website, The Times announced a significant expansion of its online 

conversations (Etim, 2017a).  Rather than something to be avoided, my exploration of 

commenting at The Times shows commenting as a form of dialogue to be valued, cultivated and 

learned from.     

 

In chapter 7 I shared my findings for each of my four cases from the following higher 

education themes: technological transformation, international students, and free college.  In my 

research I analyzed online news comments accompanying four popular press articles, two from 

The Times and two from the WSJ.  I did so to determine the extent people are utilizing these 

digital forums as a means to engage in conversation and to explore what online comments might 

217 

 

reveal about the opinions and emotions people express while talking about higher education.  I 

realize the term “higher education” is a general one.  Whereas scholarly conversations and 

research may home in on a specific finite aspect of a much larger and complicated phenomenon, 

ordinary day-to-day conversations are often general in nature covering diverse aspects.  I utilized 

the articles and accompanying online comments as four occasions to examine the online 

deliberations of different publics.  In the following sections I discuss my findings as they pertain 

to the public sphere, public opinion, and emotion components of my framework, as well 

implications for higher education.   

Public Sphere 

 

Researchers of the internet and online discourse regularly invoke Jürgen Habermas’s 

concept of the public sphere (see Chen, 2017; Dahlberg, 1998, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2004a, 

2004b, 2005, 2007, 2013; Debatin, 2008; Durham & Kellner, 2006; Harlow, 2015; Jackson & 

Valentine, 2014; McCluskey & Hmielowski, 2012; McDermott, 2016; Papacharissi, 2002; 

Shanahan, 2018; Trice, 2011).  Habermas (2006) defines the public sphere as follows: 

By “the public sphere” we mean first of all a realm of our social life in which something 
approaching public opinion can be formed. Access is guaranteed to all citizens. (p. 73)  

 
Whenever people join in unrestricted conversation on matters of general interest a part of the 

public sphere is realized (Habermas, 2006).  In this sense, there is not a size requirement for the 

public sphere to begin to be realized, other than it must include more than just an individual.  The 

people convening in this type of conversation constitute what Habermas (2006) refers to as a 

public body.  The public sphere is more so an ideal to be strived for than something attainable in 

its purest sense (Dahlberg, 2005, 2014; Finlayson, 2005; Papacharissi, 2002).  The purpose of 

my first research question—to what extent do people appear to engage in conversation with one 

another in online news comment forums?—was to determine the extent in which public sphere 

218 

 

like characteristics manifested within the online comment forums I investigated.  By public 

sphere like characteristics I mean evidence of deliberation.     

Gastil (2008) contends “people deliberate when they carefully examine a problem and a 

range of solutions through an open, inclusive exchange that incorporates and respects diverse 

points of view” (p. xi).  He claims, “Conversations and discussions are the simplest and most 

familiar forms of deliberation” (Gastil, 2008, p. xii).  In a similar vein, Dutwin (2003) asserts 

“conversation is an integral aspect in the formation of public opinion and underscores the 

importance of facilitating its prevalence in the polity through deliberation and other means” (p. 

260).  Recognizing online news comments as a potential place for conversation, Chen (2017) 

developed an index to measure deliberation within online forums.  She derived her index on what 

she refers to as deliberative moments.  Chen (2017) defines a deliberative moment as “brief 

forms of public deliberation, small bites, if you will, that offer some support for the ideals of free 

debate, inclusiveness of viewpoints, and discussions across difference encompassed by 

democratic deliberation” (Chen, 2017, p. 176).  Deliberative moments are instances of the ideals 

of the public sphere manifesting, if only momentarily. I utilized a version of Chen’s deliberation 

index, as detailed in chapter 5, to assess the level of deliberation within the forums I investigated.  

I coded the presence of evidence in a comment as a one, and the presence of a legitimate 

question(s) also as a one, for a total possible deliberation index of two per comment.  The 

deliberation indexes I calculated for each article’s comment forum I analyzed are listed in Table 

5.    

 

 

 

219 

 

Theme 

Newspaper  Article 

Author 

The New 
York Times 

International 
Students 

The Wall 
Street 
Journal 

Technological 
Transformation 
of Higher 
Education 

Here’s What 
Will Truly 
Change 
Higher 
Education: 
Online 
Degrees 
That Are 
Seen As 
Official 
Heavy 
Recruitment 
of Chinese 
Students 
Sows 
Discord on 
U.S. 
Campuses 
New Mexico 
Unveils Plan 
to Offer Free 
College 
Tuition 
New Mexico 
Announces 
Plan for Free 
College for 
State 
Residents 
Table 5. Deliberation indexes – All cases. 
 
 

Free College 

The New 
York Times 

Free College 

The Wall 
Street 
Journal 

Year  Number of 
Retrievable 
Comments 

2015  282 

Deliberation 
Index 

.805 

2016  612 

.601 

2019  139 

.712 

2019  428 

.664 

Kevin 
Carey 

Douglas 
Belkin 
and 
Miriam 
Jordan 

Talal 
Ansari 

Simon 
Romero 
and Dana 
Goldstein 

The deliberation index for each forum provides a basic understanding of the extent to 

which commenters appear to be attempting to engage in conversation with one another.  Within 

the previous chapter, I further explored the deliberation occurring within each forum by sharing 

examples of legitimate questions commenters asked, as well as evidence they entered into the 

conversation.  In all four cases we see commenters using the conversation space to ask for more 

information, question each other, and in some cases, question the author and the respective news 

220 

 

venue.  At times, fellow commenters engaged in back-and-forth exchanges with one another 

answering inquiries, to express their agreement, or to convey their opposition.  To bolster their 

sentiment, commenters shared personal experiences and additional sources, such as related news 

articles and statistics.   

Granted, not all comments contained elements of deliberation, as measured by Chen’s 

deliberation index as I utilized it.  However, there is evidence of deliberative moments from all 

four of the forums I investigated where commenters are attempting to engage in conversation 

with one another.  Having spent considerable time immersed within the comments and analyzing 

the presence of deliberation, I cannot help but agree with Chen’s following assertion about the 

importance of such moments:   

The value of these moments is that they open the door at least a crack to true discussion, 
even if that door shuts rather quickly if things escalate.  Is opening the door a crack to 
true discussion worth it?  I say, yes.  A partially open door is better than one that is 
perpetually shut.  Speech, even if imperfect, is better than silence. (Chen, 2017, p. 177)  

 
My findings support the idea of online comments as a space for conversation, albeit an imperfect 

one.   

Taking the findings even further, it is important to not forget the expansive spatial and 

temporal nature of online conversations. Even the partially opened doors to conversation within 

the comments may later be opened wider.  As Bohman (2004) reminds us, “the other’s response 

can be understood in a quite expansive spatial and temporal sense, in that someone in the 

indefinite future could give a response, without the speaker even conceivably having intended to 

address that hearer” (p. 133 - 144).  In other words, we can view online comments as part of a 

long conversation that unfolds over time and space (Maybin, 2006; North, 2007).  The extent of 

the online conversations within the comments may extend well beyond the respective online 

forums.  While difficult, if not impossible to accurately measure, we should not ignore this point 

221 

 

when considering the impact of digital public spheres and the conversations occurring within.  It 

could be much more far-reaching than what is apparent by a count of the number of commenters 

and reading of their conversations.     

 

From the perspective of higher education my public sphere findings are important in that 

they show people are using the online comments as a place to converse and deliberate about 

topics pertaining to colleges and universities.  Unlike spoken conversations which we are 

accustomed to that are relatively ephemeral and typically privy to only those directly 

participating, online conversations in the form of online comments are within earshot of anyone 

with an internet connection.  Listening is critical.  Based on the literature I reviewed, there is a 

perception among some within higher education leadership that we must do a better job at 

listening.  While recognizing higher education’s problematic relationship with its publics, 

President of Yale University, Peter Salovey (2018) proclaims, “Leaders in higher education, 

including myself, must work to regain the public’s trust.”  He asserts, “This begins with empathy 

- listening to people’s concerns and trying to understand them.”  If we so choose, we can use 

online comments as a means to listen to people deliberate over challenges facing higher 

education to gain a better sense of publics’ sentiment.  

Yes, listening.  It sounds simple and obvious.  But, how often do we truly listen to people 

outside the proverbial ivory tower on matters pertaining to higher education or on anything else 

we claim so-called expertise?  Sure, there are likely some who are actively in tune with their 

publics, listening and learning.  However, it appears as though we are not listening to people 

outside of higher education anywhere near as much as we might assume.  Rooted in an air of 

superiority, higher education’s idea of public engagement is that of something the academy 

bestows upon the public (Hoffman et al., 2015).  This misguided notion of a one-way dialogue 

222 

 

“has helped engender the growing estrangement between the academy and the world outside it” 

(Hoffman et al., 2015, p. 22).  Finn (1984; 1988) and Smith (2010) shined a spotlight on higher 

education’s self-righteousness while pleading with leadership to genuinely listen to its publics.  

When higher education leaders from across the country gathered at the University of Michigan 

“driven by a deep concern that the academy is facing a crisis of relevance” (Hoffman et al., 2015, 

p. 1), Wright and Lubchenco reminded them of the crucial importance of listening.  Wright 

asserted, “We know it feels good when people listen to us. Now turn that around and think of 

people who want us to listen” (as quoted in Hoffman et al., 2015, p. 22).  Meanwhile, Lubchenco 

stressed “Engagement implies a two-way interaction. It means listening, not just talking” (as 

quoted in Hoffman et al., 2015, p. 23).   

Listening could be as simple as occasionally pulling up a news article on The Times or 

WSJ or some other news outlet and perusing the conversations within the accompanying 

comments, while sitting at one’s desk eating their lunch.  Paying attention to online 

conversations can yield valuable insights, such as identifying emerging issues, as well as 

engagement opportunities (Jones, 2018).  Lubchenco recognizes the power in listening to 

everyday common folk claiming, “I’ve witnessed some fascinating shifts in the problems that 

scholars are tackling because they are listening to the concerns and questions of laypeople and 

have been motivated to seek answers that they were not previously researching” (as quoted in 

Hoffman et al., 2015, p. 76-77).  Consider Lubchenco’s observation in light of my dissertation 

findings.  Commenters are asking questions.  The questions within the cases I explored might not 

result in new research, but at the very least they do point to items people want to know more 

about. 

223 

 

We can even automate our listening.  As you may recall from Chapter 6, The Times 

developed and made available an application programming interface (API), which allows users 

to data mine comments on its website (Gerst, 2008).  With a little programming ingenuity, one 

could devise software that automatically crawls and mines the comments looking for particular 

key words, such as student debt, academic freedom, or the name of a specific institution.  Social 

listening, that is the software aided monitoring and mining of the multitude of online 

conversations occurring every day, can yield robust and valuable insights as to what people are 

thinking (Gross, 2018; Jones, 2018).  According to Jones (2018), “Social listening tools provide 

the ability to capture conversations over time and across channels to provide analysis and a vast 

array of data around the ‘whole’ conversation, offering a comprehensive look at a brand’s digital 

representation.”  And yet, most higher education institutions underutilize the dialogues occurring 

in cyberspace as a means to understanding their publics (Gross, 2018).   

Listening does not mean we must or even should act on everything we hear.  To do so 

could be harmful.  For example, pillars of higher education, such as academic freedom and 

tenure to name just two, routinely face a barrage of assaults.  No doubt, one will find these same 

assaults, as well as others within the online comments.  While the merits of such higher 

education constructs are debatable, people outside of higher education may very well not have 

the intimate knowledge and understanding as to the importance of specific features of academia 

to levy informed opinions or credible suggestions. Lippmann (1993) warned that the members of 

a public “will not know the antecedent events, will not have seen the issue as it developed, will 

not have thought out or willed a program, and will not be able to predict the consequences of 

acting on that program” (p. 54).  And yet, “The public will arrive in the middle of the third act 

and leave before the last curtain, having stayed just long enough perhaps to decide who is the 

224 

 

hero and who the villain of the piece” (Lippmann, 1993, p. 55).  Higher education leadership 

needs to be careful not to bend or yield to the publics’ sentiment when doing so would result in 

more overall harm than good.  Instead, leadership should seek to proactively influence its 

publics’ opinions to more closely align with their own, just as Bernays (1928b) urged higher 

education leadership to do so long ago. 

 

Listening is a great first step, but online comments present us with more than just an 

opportunity to hear what people are saying.  We can also use them to engage with our publics.  

While urging higher education leaders to reclaim their critical role in fostering and sustaining a 

robust public sphere, Smith (2010) points to the internet as affording “the opportunity to 

participate actively in the conversations of the public sphere much more widely than ever before” 

(p. 179).  In her book The Public Professor, Badgett (2015) identifies online comments as a 

promising means of engaging more people.  Perhaps active involvement by higher education in 

online news comments could be the “bold and imaginative engagement with the public” Price 

(2002) has called for.  However, while only an internet connection away, such engagement—

whether simply authentically listening or actively commenting online—will likely not be easy.  

Badgett (2015) shares the following challenging experience of her colleague Nancy Folbre who 

wrote for the New York Times Economix blog:   

Her engagingly written and well-documented posts typically attracted 10,000 hits each 
week, giving her a great platform to comment on a wide range of economic issues. The 
first weeks were rough, though. The harsh and hostile comments posted in response to 
her pieces shocked her. She enlisted some friends to try to keep the comment 
conversation more civil and on point, but without much success. Eventually, she decided 
that she was just a sheltered college professor who needed to “get in the game,” as she 
put it. (Badgett, 2015, p. 182) 

 
Even just listening to the online conversations within the comments is likely a difficult task, one 

requiring thick skin, so to speak.  Posting comments, even if anonymously, will probably require 

225 

 

a person to possess an even higher level of emotional resilience.  A potential steppingstone to 

engaging within the comments would be to simply answer some of the questions fellow 

commenters have.  Or, one might just point fellow commenters to additional resources that might 

be useful to better understanding a particular topic.  We already find commenters doing both.  

Such steps might be less emotionally taxing than outright voicing one’s own opinion or directly 

trying to influence fellow commenters.  Engaging within the comments might not be easy, but in 

the long run it may prove to be worth it.  Chen (2017) believes “The more positive, thoughtful, 

intelligent voices we have in comment streams, the more likely it is that a conversation will not 

digress” (p. 183).  Perhaps higher education leaders could be some of those thoughtful intelligent 

voices within the comments.    

As broader public sphere media goes, Higher education leaders admit “The New York 

Times is the gold standard, but even insiders have little idea how to get onto the op-ed page” 

(Hoffman et al., 2015, p. 90).  We learned in Chapter 6, online comments at The Times have 

evolved into an active conversation that not only includes the newspaper’s readers, but its 

journalists as well.  Here is an idea for people within higher education who have little idea how 

to get onto the op-eds: try participating in the news comments that accompany the articles.  

Whereas it might be very difficult to reach author status on an article within such an acclaimed 

news organization, the ease at which one can contribute to the online comments is as easy for a 

Nobel Prize winning economist and professor, such as Paul Krugman, as it for Joe or Jane 

Anybody.  Online comments, whether posted to The Times or some other news site, might seem 

small as compared to that of a headline article, but it would be unwise to marginalize such 

contributions to much larger ongoing conversations and their potential impact on people’s 

emotional opinions and ways of thinking.  Herbst (1996) warns us not to ignore communications 

226 

 

occurring on the margins of the public sphere because although the effects of such conversations 

might not work quickly, in time they can affect the highest aspects of society.     

 

I realize the idea of using online news comments as a mechanism for listening and 

engaging with our publics is a tough sell.  After all, genuine and reciprocal engagement with 

people outside of higher education in any shape or form is a formidable challenge for a variety of 

reasons.  As Hoffman et al. (2015) point out, “academic scholars are often not trained or given 

the proper incentives to engage with the public” (p. 4).  They went on to assert, “Indeed, many of 

us are culturally biased away from this kind of activity, which is often viewed as a waste of time 

at best and anti-intellectual at worst” (Hoffman et al., 2015, p. 4).  Now imagine trying to 

convince people within higher education to engage within public spheres that have the 

unfortunate label don’t read the comments stamped across them.  Indeed, a tough sell and not 

something most people think of doing.  But as President of Arizona State University Michael 

Crow asserts, “We need to communicate in ways we’ve never even thought about before” (as 

quoted in Hoffman et al., 2015, p. 44).  My public sphere findings show that rather than viewing 

online news comments with indifference or disgust, these online conversations deserve our 

attention as a mechanism to listen and engage with our publics. 

Public Opinion 

Even though public opinion is a term most people are familiar with, it has no universally 

agreed upon definition (Donsbach & Traugott, 2008; Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, & 

Shapiro, 2015; Herbst, 2011b).  Opinion polls are likely the first thing that comes to mind when 

someone says “public opinion”, as they have become synonymous with the term (Ginsberg, 

1986; Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, & Shapiro, 2015; Goidel, 2011; Herbst, 2011a).  

However, as I explored in my literature review, polls are not the only form of public opinion, nor 

227 

 

are they necessarily the best means to gain a sense of it.  Habermas (1996) claims public opinion 

is “not an aggregate of individually gathered, privately expressed opinions held by isolated 

persons”, and therefore “must not be confused with survey results” (p. 362).  The process of 

public opinion formation is social in nature (Glynn, Herbst, Lindeman, O’Keefe, & Shapiro, 

2015; Habermas, 1996; Herbst, 2011b).  Herbst (2011b) insists “that textured talk, dialogue, 

exchange, and conversation—not numbers—are the content of public opinion” (p. 95).  And 

while it might be tempting to focus on mainstream conversations, Herbst (1996) warns us not to 

ignore communications that occur “on the margins of the public sphere” (p. 120).  She believes 

such mechanisms for public expression “can create communication back channels” (p. 124), 

which “enable common citizens to voice opinions that might not ordinarily be heard” (p. 125).  

Online comments have a tarnished reputation, with websites often relegating them to the bottom 

of the web (Reagle, 2015).  They are at the margins of the public sphere.  The purpose of my 

second research question—what opinions do people express about higher education in online 

news comment forums and what do such opinions reveal about public views of higher education 

that are not apparent via traditional opinion polling?—was to investigate these digital 

conversations as a source of opinions.    

To answer my second research question, I utilized qualitative content analysis.  A key 

characteristic of qualitative content analysis is its ability to reduce data (Drisko & Maschi, 2016; 

Schreier, 2012, 2014).  This characteristic of the method made it particularly suitable for taking 

hundreds of comments representing potentially hundreds of opinions and reducing them into a 

more manageable number of opinion themes.  In following with interpretive description 

guidance, I utilized an inductive approach to my analysis (Thorne, 2016; Thorne, Kirkham, & 

MacDonald-Emes, 1997; Thorne, Kirkham, & O’Flynn-Magee, 2004).  That is, I let the opinion 

228 

 

themes emerge from the data.  Table 6 shows the opinion themes from each of the forums I 

Technological 
Transformation of 
Higher Education 
Here’s What Will 
Truly Change Higher 
Education: Online 
Degrees That Are Seen 
As Official by Kevin 
Carey in The Times 

International Students 

Free College 

Heavy Recruitment of 
Chinese Students Sows 
Discord on U.S. 
Campuses by Douglas 
Belkin and Miriam 
Jordan in the WSJ 

New Mexico 
Unveils Plan 
to Offer Free 
College 
Tuition by 
Talal Ansari 
in the WSJ 

investigated.   

Topic 

Article 

Opinion 
Themes 

New Mexico 
Announces 
Plan for Free 
College for 
State 
Residents by 
Simon 
Romero and 
Dana 
Goldstein in 
The Times 

Note: All of the themes 
except for one were present 
within both forums that 
accompanying the two 
articles.  The theme Yes, but 
not funded via fossil fuels was 
present within Romero and 
Goldstein’s article, but not 
within Ansari’s 
 

-  Hell yes to free 

college! 

-  Yes, but not funded 

via fossil fuels 

-  No such thing as free 
-  Higher Education’s 

Unnecessary and 
Irresponsible 
Expenses 

-  Useful and Useless 

Degrees 

-  Fix K-12 first! 
-  Challenging the 

opinions of others 

-  Higher 

education is not 
simply job 
training! 

-  Public 

Disinvestment 
-  Greedy Higher 

Education 
-  The True 

Higher 
Education 
Experience 

-  Online is 
inferior 

-  There is a place 

for online 
education 
-  MOOCs: 
Failure, 
Nothing 
Special, or 
Potential? 

-  Challenging the 

opinions of 
others 

-  Welcome to the 

U.S.! 

-  America First! 
-  Chinese are 

rich, a 
distraction, and 
are cheaters 
-  Why are we 
teaching our 
enemy? 

-  U.S. students 

- 

are lazy 
It’s all about 
the Benjamins 
-  Challenging the 

opinions of 
others 

229 

Table 6. Opinion themes – All cases. 

 

It is important to note, not all opinions that commenters expressed rose to level of an 

opinion theme.  As I indicated within my methods chapter and again within my findings chapter, 

Schreier (2012) contends, qualitative content analysis “does not allow you to describe the full 

meaning of your material in each and every respect” (p. 3).  In my research I distilled the 

numerous opinions expressed within the comments down to set of salient themes.  A level of 

detail and nuance within the comments was, of course, lost during this process.  However, just 

because certain opinions within the forums did not rise to level of a theme during my analysis 

does not mean they are not important.  Consider for a moment, the following assertion by Gastil:     

Even if one person in the minority is reluctant to speak, so long as another speaks up, the 
view is brought into the discussion; in an online discussion, it is not always easy to see 
how many people are present, so it is even more ambiguous whether one view or another 
is being underrepresented in the discussion. Moreover, members of the majority, more so 
than those in the minority, may choose not to speak up simply because they have already 
had their view articulated by others. (Gastil, 2008, p. 31) 

 
The Times and the WSJ do not leave their online comment forums open indefinitely.  The 

curtailing of forums may very well be preventing the prevalence of certain opinions within the 

conversations from increasing or the introducing of more varied sentiment.  Not to mention the 

effect it might have on the level of deliberation within the forums.  Even if an opinion is in the 

minority, it is important not to ignore such sentiment.  Bernays (1945) warned that doing so 

“may lead to explosions later on when minority opinions become articulate, active and overt and 

come suddenly into open conflict with majority opinion” (p. 266a).  By listening to the public 

sphere and the opinions conveyed within, higher education leadership can be in a better position 

to effectively address its publics’ sentiments, whether positive, negative, minority, or majority.      

In my study I selected articles from three different higher education topics: technological 

transformation of higher education, international students, and free college.  It would be unwise 

to view these topics or the issues and challenges higher education faces, as well as the ensuing 

230 

 

conversations, as neatly walled off discrete phenomenon.  Consider for a moment, Edelman’s 

(1993) following warning: 

The media, regimes, and academic studies all typically focus on particular public issues, 
ignoring their close connections to other issues and policies. The treatment of closely 
connected issues as though they were autonomous is itself a major category mistake. 
(Edelman, 1993, p. 236) 

 
Edelman (1993) went on to assert, “The close ties among these public issues are apparent to 

anyone with even a modest understanding of public affairs and social science; but neither the 

media, the government, nor the universities typically present them in a context in which the 

focus is on the analysis of their connections” (p. 236).  A quick look at table 2 and we can a 

connection among all four of the forums.  A portion of the conversation in each case conveyed 

the sentiment that higher education is not so innocent when it comes to its financial challenges.  

That is, the opinion themes of Greedy Higher Education, It’s all about the Benjamins, and 

Higher Education’s Unnecessary and Irresponsible Expenses, while named differently, appear to 

show a connection in sentiment across the three topics explored.  It seems prudent for higher 

education leaders to heed Edelman’s warning and realize that while from an academic standpoint 

we might have the tendency to look at issues in a compartmentalized manner, our publics may 

very well see them as interconnected and having similar if not the same causes.    

My public opinion findings are important in that they begin to show the “textured talk, 

dialogue, exchange, and conversation” that Herbst (2011b) insists “are the content of public 

opinion” (p. 95).  Such textured talk is absent from or at least is not readily apparent via opinion 

polls.  Take as an example a hypothetical opinion poll measuring people for or against free 

higher education.  A person indicating “no” in a poll may very well be doing so because they 

think higher education wastes money.  Or, they might indicate “no” because they think fixing K-

12 should be the focus of any additional public funding.  Yet another reason they might indicate 

231 

 

“no” in a poll might be rooted in the proposed source of the funding, such as fossil fuels.  This 

texture in sentiment representing quite varied rationale for opposition to free college proposals is 

all but lost in the polling process.  But, within the comments we begin to see the various shades 

in sentiment as commenters reveal and challenge one another’s opinions in the arena of the 

online conversation.    

 

This textured talk within the online comments provides us insight into the varying social 

realities people live within.  As you will recall, for my research I adopted a social construction 

perspective for reasons I explained in detail within chapter 2.  Within my explanation I shared 

that public opinion scholars Eveland and Glynn (2008) contend how people perceive reality “has 

been, and likely will continue to be, a central component of the study of public opinion” (p. 161).  

I also shared the following quote from world renowned theoretical physicist and philosopher 

David Bohm, who spent much of his career contemplating and offering profound insights on the 

construction of reality:  

Opinions thus tend to be experienced as “truths,” even though they may only be your own 
assumptions and your own background. You got them from your teacher, your family, or 
by reading, or in yet some other way. Then for one reason or another you are identified 
with them, and you defend them. (Bohm, 2004, p. 10) 

 
Within the opinion themes we see the power of social construction at work.  Take the opinion 

theme The True Higher Education Experience.  Is there really a true higher education experience 

and if so, who gets to decide what constitutes one?  Is the fully online college student’s higher 

education experience less of a true experience than a traditional residential student’s?  Is the 

community college student’s experience less true than the prestigious liberal arts college 

student’s?  These are, of course, rhetorical questions.  Some of the commenters within the forum 

accompanying Carey’s article appear to believe there is a true higher education experience, 

making all others something else.  They seem to be experiencing their opinions as truths.      

232 

 

Yet another example is the opinion that we should welcome Chinese international 

students with open arms versus the opinion that they are our enemy and we should not be 

training them.  Or, how about the idea of free college?  Some people within the comments are of 

the belief there is no such thing as free, whereas others believe there is.  Who is right and who is 

wrong?  In reality, are there free things or does everything have a cost?  Consider for a moment 

how frustrating it might be for you to hear politicians or higher education advocates tout the idea 

of free college when in your social reality there is no such thing as free. Such messaging might 

come across as deceptive or an outright lie in the minds of some people.  Is the idea of free 

college deceptive or a lie? It depends on one’s social reality, as Childs reminds us as follows:      

We live in a world of conflicting ideologies and philosophical systems. All of them start 
with certain assumptions, certain premises incapable of absolute proof. The only certainty 
is that every listing of human values takes us back ultimately to a premise, an 
assumption, a mere opinion. (Childs, 1940, p. 80) 

 
The online comments provide us a glimpse into this world of conflicting ideologies and 

philosophical systems of the commenters.   

 

Bernays (1928b) recognized the critical importance for higher education leadership to be 

in tune with the social realities of its publics as he made clear in his following assertion:  

It may be a new idea that the president of a university will concern himself with the kind 
of mental picture his institution produces on the public mind.  Yet it is part of the 
president’s work to see that his university takes its proper place in the community and 
therefore also in the community mind, and produces the results desired, both in a cultural 
and in a financial sense. (Bernays, 1928b, p. 131). 
 

Does leadership want its publics to view higher education as greedy or its recruitment of 

international students to be all about the Benjamins?  Consider the effect such opinions are likely 

to have on public support in terms of just dollars for institutions.  Those are just a couple 

examples of mental pictures Bernays would most definitely implore leadership to alter.  Bernays 

also recognized that it might be those within higher education whose mental pictures need 

233 

 

altering.  He argued the public might be “getting a correct impression, in which case, very 

possibly, the work of the university itself should be modified” (Bernays, 1928b, p. 132).  The 

sentiment expressed within the online comments provide us with a readily accessible means to 

assess some of the mental pictures our publics have pertaining to higher education, as well as an 

opportunity to reflect on and adjust our own socially constructed realities. 

Emotion 

 

The number one reason people post online comments on news stories is to express an 

emotion or an opinion (Stroud, Van Duyn, Alizor, Alibhai, & Lang, 2017; Stroud, Van Duyn, & 

Peacock, 2016).  We could instead say the number one reason is to post emotional opinions, 

given how interrelated emotion and opinion are.  Bernays knew opinion is interwoven with 

emotion, as he made clear in his following assertion in how to influence public opinion:   

Here the specialist in swaying public opinion avails himself of the, findings of 
introspective psychology. He knows in general the basic emotions and desires of the 
public he intends to reach, and their prevalence and intensity. (Bernays, 1928a, p. 961) 

  
Given Bernays assertion, it is not surprising to see public opinion scholars Glynn, Herbst, 

Lindeman, O’Keefe, and Shapiro (2015) claiming the study of emotion “is increasingly playing 

an important role in public opinion research” (p. 133).  The purpose of my third research 

question—what emotions do people convey via online news comments?—was to determine the 

basic prevalence and intensity of emotions within the online comment forums I investigated. 

For my third question, I used the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program to conduct 

quantitative sentiment analysis.  LIWC is a simplistic and yet powerful tool for understanding 

the emotional states people convey in the words they use.  Mehl (2006) contends LIWC is “an 

extensively validated solution” for researchers interested in “low-level psychological constructs” 

(p. 152), such as emotions, and considers it to be one of the most influential quantitative text 

234 

 

analysis approaches in psychological research.  For my study I utilized the aptly named summary 

variable emotional tone.  Pennebaker Lab developed an algorithm derived from extensive prior 

research, which calculates the emotional tone of a given text (Pennebaker, Boyd, Jordan, & 

Blackburn, 2015).  The precise algorithm is not available “due to prior commercial agreements” 

(Pennebaker, Booth, Boyd, & Francis, 2015).  Pennebaker, Booth, Boyd, and Francis (2015) 

describe the emotional tone summary variable as follows: 

Emotional tone -- a high number is associated with a more positive, upbeat style; a low 
number reveals greater anxiety, sadness, or hostility. A number around 50 suggests either 
a lack of emotionality or different levels of ambivalence. (p. 22) 

 
I used the emotional tone variable in LIWC to assess the emotional intensity within the online 

comments.  The boxplots in Figure 6 show the distribution of LIWC emotional tone scores for all 

comments from each article.   

Technological Transformation of Higher 

Education – The Times 

International Students – WSJ 

Free College – WSJ 

 

Free College – The Times 

Figure 6. Distribution of LIWC emotional tone scores – All cases.  
 

 

235 

 

 

 

As they pertain to higher education, people’s conversations are not devoid of emotion.  

While this observation is perhaps obvious, the implications for colleges and universities are 

likely less apparent.  The traditional view of emotion is one in which it is in opposition to reason 

(Barrett, 2017; Cavanagh, 2016; Damasio, 1994; Frijda, 2008; Haidt, 2013; Isen, 2008; 

Kahneman, 2011; Marcus, 2002; Prinz, 2012; Salovey, Detweiler-Bedell, Detweiler-Bedell, & 

Mayer, 2008; Solomon, 2008; Westen, 2008).  However, as I explored in my literature review, a 

growing body of work spanning multiple disciplines is beginning to recognize and support what 

Hume (1958) proclaimed long ago: “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, 

and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them” (Hume, 1958, p. 313).  

More recently, Barrett echoed Hume’s sentiment in her following assertion: 

Affect is in the driver’s seat and rationality is a passenger. It doesn’t matter whether 
you’re choosing between two snacks, two job offers, two investments, or two heart 
surgeons— your everyday decisions are driven by a loudmouthed, mostly deaf scientist 
who views the world through affect-colored glasses. (Barrett, 2017, p. 79-80) 

 
Meanwhile, Haidt uses the metaphor of a rider on an elephant to make the same point as Hume 

and Barrett.  In a nutshell, the rider is reason and the elephant is automatic processes, such as 

emotion (Haidt, 2013).  And while the elephant (i.e., emotions and other automatic processes) “is 

not an absolute dictator”, Haidt contends, it “is far more powerful than the rider” (p. 79).  In line 

with Hume, Barrett, and Haidt’s assertion, Westen (2008) blames recent Democrat campaign 

failures on what he calls “an irrational emotional commitment to rationality—one that renders 

them ironically impervious to both scientific evidence on how the political mind and brain work 

and to an accurate diagnosis of why their campaigns repeatedly fail” (p. 15).  For higher 

education to be able to proactively and effectively influence its publics’ opinions it seems 

prudent for it to take into account the emotions such opinions and corresponding conversations 

evoke.      

236 

 

 

Take as one example, the emotional tone of the comment forum accompanying Belkin 

and Jordan’s article about Chinese international students on U.S. campuses.  Of the four forums I 

investigated, it had the most negative overall emotional tone.  That forum included the opinion 

theme I referred to as why are we training our enemy.  While I did not assess emotional tone at 

the opinion theme for reasons I discussed within my findings chapter, one can reasonably assume 

people expressing such an opinion are not doing so with positive emotion.  At the very least we 

do know that most of the comments had a negative emotional tone.  If we want to work to 

change people’s opinions it might not be the best approach to purely counter their sentiment with 

facts and figures, such as the economic value international students bring to local communities.  

This is because emotions can override one’s ability in certain situations to consider evidence 

contrary to one’s beliefs (Barrett, 2017; Damasio, 1994; Marcus, 2002).  Haidt (2013) makes this 

point by saying “you can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments” (p. 57).  

Instead, “if you want to change people’s minds, you’ve got to talk to their elephants” (p. 57).  Or, 

as Clark and Zhang (2019) put it, “We have information, but without some degree of emotional 

appeal, reasonable arguments supported by facts do not persuade or move us” (p. 3). 

 

Research shows negative emotions tend to narrow one’s thinking whereas positive 

emotions tend to open one’s thinking (Haidt, 2013; Heath & Heath, 2010; Isen, 2008; Konijn & 

ten Holt, 2010; Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Prinz, 2012).  Konijn and ten Holt (2010) claim “The 

attention-narrowing effects of negative emotions such as fear, appear to lead people to become 

less open minded, less accepting of dissenting opinions, and less accepting of out-group 

members” (p. 52).  Those are just a few examples of the ways in which are emotions might be 

affecting our thinking and opinion formation.  The research on emotion is extensive.  And while 

I included research on emotion within my review, my understanding and command of the topic is 

237 

 

at a beginning level at best.  However, based on the literature it is clear that if we want to 

effectively influence the opinions our publics have about higher education, we need to leverage 

the role of emotion.     

 

Badgett (2015) appears to agree on the important role of emotion in influencing people.  

She claims, “Some debates involve big issues that seem a long way from facts and ideas” (p. 42).  

I will admit some of the opinions expressed within the forums I investigated seemed a long way 

from facts and ideas.  In difficult conversations with “visceral arguments”, Badgett (2015) 

believes “scholars’ contributions might lie in their ability to clarify and understand the emotional 

or moral basis for those opinions so that other participants in the debate are better informed in 

their efforts to change or muster the opinions of those individuals” (p. 42).  She goes on to assert, 

“You can use a personal story, someone else’s story that you have read about (lawsuits and 

newspaper articles are a great source of detailed and compelling stories), or any other anecdotes 

that help to make your point in vivid detail and trigger emotions that will increase your 

audience’s receptiveness to your argument” (p. 121).  The online comments are also a source of 

personal stories and emotions higher education leadership can leverage to make more compelling 

arguments.  A more nuanced analysis of emotions could very well provide more actionable 

insight into negative of positive direction of specific opinions, as well as how deliberation among 

commenters might alter the tone of sentiment.  I suggest such a detailed analysis in the next 

section as a future direction for research.     

Suggestions for Future Research 

 

Of course, an obvious suggestion for future research is simply to investigate additional 

online comment forums within The Times and WSJ, as well as within other online news outlets at 

local, national, and international levels.  It might even be possible to investigate the online 

238 

 

comments of news organizations that have shut them down, such as The Atlantic or a more local 

example, mLive.  Just because an organization gets rid of their online comment sections does not 

necessarily mean they deleted the underlying data (i.e., online comments).  The data may very 

well still exist within the news organizations’ servers or within the servers of the organizations 

that hosted the comment forums.  Regardless of whether they are active or shutdown, the 

inclusion of additional online forums could reveal further insight into the online conversations 

occurring on the topic of higher education, as well as the sentiment commenters express.  Such 

insight could yield a stronger understanding of the publics (local, national, and international) 

higher education leaders are trying to reach and improve their ability to proactively and 

effectively shape opinions.  In the following sections I provide additional suggestions specific to 

each component of my framework: public sphere, public opinion, emotion, and influence.           

Public Sphere 

 

In my research I utilized Chen’s (2017) deliberation index to assess the level of public 

sphere like nature of the comment forums I investigated.  Future research could employ other 

means to further enhance our understanding of online comments as a place of conversation 

regarding the topic of higher education.  For example, in his considerable body of work on the 

possibilities and barriers to public sphere like conditions on the internet, Dahlberg (2001a, 

2001b, 2001c, 2004a, 2004b) has developed a set of evolving detailed criteria to assess the 

Habermas based public sphere characteristics present online.  Likewise, Hauser (1999) 

established five rhetorical norms “by which the defining conditions of any specific public sphere 

may be gauged and criticized” (p. 77).  Future research could apply their criteria to online 

comment forums pertaining to higher education.  The use of additional criteria could provide a 

more robust understanding of online comments as a public sphere.   

239 

 

Public Opinion 

 

In my research I focused specifically on articles about higher education and the online 

comments accompanying them.  However, comments about higher education are not solely the 

province of articles specifically about higher education.  We all probably can think of times we 

have been engaged in conversation where someone goes off on a tangent or begins talking about 

an entirely different topic, even if just for a moment.  Tangents happen in online conversations as 

well, with some scholars noting online commenters’ tendency to go off topic (Henrich & 

Holmes, 2013; Nielsen, 2012; Samuels, 2016; Shanahan, 2018).  These moments might be telling 

of what is on a person’s mind and offer potential insights into their opinions.  Future research 

could investigate comments accompanying articles that are not specifically about higher 

education to see if, when, where, and in what ways people voice opinions about it.  Data mining 

capabilities make such research a real possibility, in particular if one can easily access the 

underlying mechanism (e.g., database) used to store comments.  A researcher could run queries 

on keywords, such as college, university, higher education, student debt, or professor, against an 

enormous dataset spanning numerous articles on unlimited topics to identify comment forums 

where the topic of higher education is part of the online conversation.  Such research could 

reveal in what contexts people introduce the topic of higher education, even if just for a moment, 

into online conversations.  It might also reveal insights into commenters’ sentiment regarding 

higher education who might not be participating within forums accompanying higher education 

specific articles.      

 

Another line of inquiry could explore the consistency of online commenters’ opinions, as 

well as how they change over time.  According to Price and Roberts (1987), “Perhaps the most 

interesting feature of expressed opinions is that they may not for any single person demonstrate 

240 

 

much consistency across occasions” (p. 790).  They claim people may very well express an 

opinion simply as a means to “‘try it on for size’” (Price & Roberts, 1987, p. 790).  Online 

comments provide us an opportunity to explore the consistency or perhaps evolution of the 

opinions people convey.  Consider that Pinker (2008) points to the internet as providing “a 

gigantic corpus of real language used by real people” (p. 20).  This giant corpus opens the door 

to potentially potent longitudinal research of commenters’ sentiment.  Just because a commenter 

expresses a particular sentiment regarding higher education in one comment or in one comment 

forum does not mean they express the same sentiment elsewhere.  For example, Marty of Pacific 

Northwest described the comments at The Times as “a dinner party with fine food & wine and a 

group of acquaintances who appreciate a lively and intelligent conversation” (comment made in 

response to Harris & Tarchak, 2019).  In comparison, he described the comments at The 

Washington Post a “dive bar that some of us retire to afterward to speak a little more freely, 

drink a little more than we should, and laugh at decidedly non-PC and probably more than a little 

juvenile humor” (comment made in response to Harris & Tarchak, 2019).  Perhaps Marty, as 

well as other commenters, offer contradictory sentiment within different contexts and 

environments.  Or, instead of a contradiction, their additional comments might provide nuance to 

their expressed opinions.  Over time, people’s sentiment might change, perhaps via the online 

conversations they are partaking in.  The immense volume of news comments offers an 

opportunity to investigate and track sentiment as it evolves over time and space and across 

contexts.           

 

Another exciting possibility for future research would be to look a given higher education 

topic at different levels of the news, such as local, national, and perhaps even international.  Take 

New Mexico’s free college proposal as an example.  In my research I included articles from The 

241 

 

Times and WSJ, which are national/international news outlets.  Future research might investigate 

online news comments made in response to the same topic, but to an article from a New Mexico 

news outlet, thereby potentially adding more local sentiment into the analysis.  Perhaps an article 

and corresponding online comments from a student newspaper from one of New Mexico’s 

higher education institutions could serve as a source.  Other topics might be school specific, such 

as the horrific sexual abuse scandal at Michigan State University or an admissions scandal at an 

institution, such as at the University of Southern California. Looking at a given higher education 

topic and ensuing comments at different levels of news might reveal comparative insights to 

public opinion useful to higher education leaders as they look to tailor their messaging and 

engagement to different publics.        

Emotion 

 

Within my research I applied the LIWC emotional tone analysis at the level of the entire 

respective forums I investigated and not at the opinion theme level.  Future research could look 

to isolate the emotions commenters express specifically at aspects of higher education from the 

sentiment they might be directing elsewhere.  For example, perhaps a given commenter’s is not 

directing their positive or negative tone at an aspect of higher education, but is instead aiming it 

at another commenter, the author of the article, news outlets, or the forum in general.  Or, a 

commenter might respond differently to the same point made within the forum simply because of 

how a given commenter phrases it.  Isolating emotions within the comments along with their 

apparent triggers would require a much more sophisticated coding approach than what I utilized.  

However, such research could yield deeper insight into what is triggering commenters’ emotions, 

whether it is specific aspects of higher education or something unrelated.     

242 

 

 

LIWC is a robust sentiment analysis program.  In my research, I only utilized the 

emotional tone variable, but LIWC produces numerous other output variables, including “41 

word categories tapping psychological constructs” (Pennebaker, Boyd, Jordan, & Blackburn, 

2015, p. 2).  It has the capability of producing percentage of words signifying positive emotions, 

as well as negative emotions.  In addition to the emotional tone summary variable, LIWC also 

produces summary variables measuring analytical thinking, clout, and authenticity (Pennebaker, 

Boyd, Jordan, & Blackburn, 2015).  Future research could utilize more of LIWC’s capabilities to 

provide a more in-depth sentiment analysis.    

Conclusion 

Father of Public Relations Edward Bernays (1928b) believed “an educator should, in 

addition to his academic duties, bear a definite and wholesome relation to the general public” (p. 

122).  I began my dissertation with this point and I return to it now as I conclude.  Today, we 

find higher education having a problematic relationship with its publics.  Salovey (2018) believes 

higher education “must work to regain the public’s trust” and calls for us to empathetically listen 

to people in order to better understand them.  My research utilized a novel approach to listen to 

people.  Our ability to listen to everyday conversations has grown exponentially with the advent 

of the internet and the birth of the digital public sphere.  And yet, the near ubiquitous form of 

online discourse that is the online comment has largely gone uninvestigated (Henrich & Holmes, 

2013; Li, Mueen, Faloutsos, & Hang, 2016; McDermott, 2016; Reagle, 2015; Santana, 2011; 

Taylor, Al-Hiyari, Lee, Priebe, Guerrero, & Bales, 2016; Trice, 2011).  “Dip into the comments”, 

says New York Times columnist Michael Erard (2013), “and you can sense the currents that move 

American life” (para. 1).  I did just that within the course of my research.  By investigating the 

comment forums accompanying two articles from The Times and two from the WSJ, I was able 

243 

 

to show online comments as a place where people come to deliberate on topics of higher 

education. The comments are a realm of social life where participants not only share their 

opinions and emotions, but also ask questions, offer evidence, and push back on the sentiment of 

others.  At the very least, these online conversations present us with an opportunity to listen to 

some of the concerns of the people within our publics.  Taken further, they present us with an 

avenue to engage with and influence our publics.       

 
 

244 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES 

245 

 

REFERENCES  

 
 
A WSJ commenting experience. (2017, November 8). The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-wsj-commenting-experiment-1510164431 

 
Adams, C.J. (2018, May 23). New York Times: Using AI to host better conversations [Blog 

post]. Retrieved from https://www.blog.google/technology/ai/new-york-times-using-ai-
host-better-conversations/ 

 
Albert, S. (2018). Research methods: Conversational analysis. In M. F. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & 
M. A. Britt (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Processes (pp. 99-108). New 
York, NY: Routledge.    

 
Alejandro, J. (2010). Journalism in the age of social media. Reuters Institute Fellowship Paper, 

University of Oxford, 2009-2010. 

 
Altheide, D. L. (2010). Creating fear: Transforming terrorist attacks into control and 

consumption. In K. Döveling, C. von Scheve, & E. A. Konijn (Eds.), Handbook of 
emotions and mass media (pp. 259-272). New York, NY: Routledge. 

 
Amenabar, T., & Barber, G. (2017, October 6). Changes to Washington Post comments: October 

update. The Washington Post. Retrieved from 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ask-the-post/2017/10/06/changes-to-washington-
post-comments-october-update/ 

 
Ansari, T. (2019, September 18). New Mexico unveils plan to offer free college tuition. The Wall 

Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-mexico-unveils-plan-
to-offer-free-college-tuition-11568832703 

 
Awards and recognition. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes-

awards/ 

 
Badgett, M. V. L. (2015). The public professor: How to use your research to change the world. 

New York, NY: New York University Press. 

 
Baquet, D., & Kahn, J. (2017, January 17). From Dean Baquet and Joe Kahn: The year ahead. 
The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytco.com/press/from-dean-and-joe-
the-year-ahead/ 

 
Barnes, R. (2015). Understanding the affective investment produced through commenting on 
Australian alternative journalism website New Matilda. New Media & Society, 17(5), 
810-826. 

 

246 

 

Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. New York, NY: 

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.   

 
Barthel, M., Mitchell, A., & Holcomb, J. (2016). Many Americans believe fake news is sowing 

confusion. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from 
http://www.journalism.org/2016/12/15/many-americans-believe-fake-news-is-sowing-
confusion/ 

 
Baruchman, M. (2019). Michelle Baruchman [LinkedIn page]. Retrieved from 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/michellebaruchman 

 
Batsell, J. (2015). Engaged journalism : Connecting with digitally empowered news audiences. 

New York, NY: Columbia University Press. 

 
Beckett, C., & Deuze, M. (2016). On the Role of Emotion in the Future of Journalism. Social 

Media+ Society, 2(3), 2056305116662395. 

 
Belkin, D., & Jordan, M. (2016, March 17). Heavy recruitment of Chinese students sows discord 

on U.S. campuses. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/heavy-recruitment-of-chinese-students-sows-discord-on-u-
s-campuses-1458224413 

 
Bell, T. R., & Sanderson, J. (2016). A Hit on American Football: A Case Study of Bottom-up 

Framing Through Op-Ed Readers’ Comments. International Journal of Sport 
Communication, 9(4), 499-518. 

 
Bennett, W. L. (2011). News polls: Constructing an engaged public. In R. Y. Shapiro & L. R. 

Jacobs (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the media (pp. 251-
265). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

 
Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the 

sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Penguin Books. 

 
Bernays, E. L. (1928a). Manipulating public opinion: The why and the how. American Journal 

of Sociology, 33(6), 958-971. 

 
Bernays, E. L. (1928b). Propaganda. New York, NY: Horace Liveright Inc. 
 
Bernays, E. L. (1945). Attitude polls—Servants or masters?. Public Opinion Quarterly, 9(3), 

264-268. 

 
Bernays, E. L. (1947). The engineering of consent. The Annals of the American Academy of 

Political and Social Science, 250(1), 113-120. 

 
Billingham, C. M., & Kimelberg, S. M. (2016). Opinion polling and the measurement of 

Americans’ attitudes regarding education. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 526-548. 

247 

 
Blanchette, I., & Richards, A. (2010). The influence of affect on higher level cognition: A review 
of research on interpretation, judgement, decision making and reasoning. In J.D. Houwer 
& D. Hermans (Eds.), Cognition and emotion: Reviews of current research and 
theories (pp. 276-324). New York, NY: Psychology Press. 

 
Blumer, H. (1948). Public opinion and public opinion polling. American sociological 

review, 13(5), 542-549. 

 
Bohm, D. (1994). Thought as a system. New York, NY: Routledge.  
 
Bohm, D. (2002). Wholeness and the implicate order. New York, NY: Routledge. 
 
Bohm, D. (2004). On Dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge. 
 
Bohman, J. (2004). Expanding dialogue: The Internet, the public sphere and prospects for 

transnational democracy. The sociological review, 52(s1), 131-155. 

 
Boston Globe Media Partners. (2020). Boston.com discussion guidelines. Boston Globe Media 

Partners, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.boston.com/member-agreement 

 
Brader, T., Marcus, G. E., & Miller, K. L. (2011). Emotion and public opinion polling. In R. Y. 
Shapiro & L. R. Jacobs (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the 
media (pp. 384-401). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

 
Bruni, F. (2019, March 12). Bribes to get into Yale and Stanford? What else is new?. The New 

York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/opinion/college-
bribery-admissions.html?module=inline 

 
Bücher, K. (1901). Industrial evolution. New York, NY: H. Holt.  
 
Carey, K. (2015a, March 5). Here’s what will truly change higher education: Online degrees that 

are seen as official. The New York Times. Retrieved from 
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/upshot/true-reform-in-higher-education-when-
online-degrees-are-seen-as-official.html 

 
Carey, K. (2015b). The end of college: Creating the future of learning and the university of 

 

 

everywhere. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. 

 
Cavanagh, S. R. (2016). The spark of learning: Energizing the college classroom with the 

science of emotion. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press.   

 
Chen, G. M. (2017). Online incivility and public debate: Nasty talk [Kindle version]. 

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian. 

248 

892. 

Chen, G. M., & Pain, P. (2016). Normalizing online comments. Journalism Practice, 11(7), 876-

 
Childs, H. L. (1940). An introduction to public opinion. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 
 
Cho, S., & Hong, Y. (2009). Netizens’ evaluations of corporate social responsibility: Content 

analysis of CSR news stories and online readers’ comments. Public relations 
review, 35(2), 147-149. 

 
Chomsky, N. (2002). Understanding power: The indispensable Chomsky. J. Schoeffel & R. 

Mitchell (Eds.). New York, NY: The New Press.    

 
Cision. (2018). Most popular daily newspapers on Facebook in the United States as of October 
2017, by number of likes (in millions). In Statista - The Statistics Portal. Retrieved from 
https://www-statista-com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/statistics/265830/facebook-daily-
newspapers-top-ten/ 

 
Cision Media Research. (2019, January 4). Top 10 U.S. daily newspapers. Retrieved from 

https://www.cision.com/us/2019/01/top-ten-us-daily-newspapers/ 

 
Clark, C., & Zhang, L. (2019). Introduction: Heartfelt reasoning, or why facts and good reasons 
are not enough. In L. Zhang & C. Clark (Eds.), Affect, emotion, and rhetorical persuasion 
in mass communication (pp. 1-13). New York, NY: Routledge.  

 
Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of 

incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658-679. 

 
College Board. (October 27, 2019). Change in state and local higher education funding per FTE 

student in the United States between academic year 2007/08 and 2017/18, by state 
[Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved April 05, 2020, from https://www-statista-
com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/statistics/784482/ten-year-change-in-state-and-local-funding-for-
higher-education-by-state-us/ 

 
Comments. (2019). Retrieved from https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014792387-

 

 

Comments  

 
Cooper, A. (2017, April 9). What is “brain hacking”? Tech insiders on why you should care. 

CBS News. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brain-hacking-tech-insiders-
60-minutes/?ftag=MSF0951a18 

 
Coral Project. (2018). About us. Coral Project. Retrieved from 

https://coralproject.net/about.html 

 
Craft, S., Vos, T. P., & Wolfgang, J. D. (2016). Reader comments as press criticism: 

Implications for the journalistic field. Journalism, 17(6), 677-693. 

249 

Dahlberg, L. (1998). Cyberspace and the public sphere: Exploring the democratic potential of the 

net. Convergence, 4(1), 70-84. 

 
Dahlberg, L. (2001a). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical 

analysis. Journal of Computer-mediated communication, 7(1), JCMC714. 

 
Dahlberg, L. (2001b). Extending the public sphere through cyberspace: The case of Minnesota 

E-Democracy. First Monday, 6(3). 

 
Dahlberg, L. (2001c). The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online 

deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & 
Society, 4(4), 615-633. 

 
Dahlberg, L. (2004a). Net-public sphere research: Beyond the “first phase”. Javnost-The 

Public, 11(1), 27-43. 

 
Dahlberg, L. (2004b). The Habermasian public sphere: A specification of the idealized 

conditions of democratic communication. Studies in Social and Political 
Thought, 10(10), 2-18. 

 
Dahlberg, L. (2005). The Internet as public sphere or culture industry? From pessimism to hope 

and back. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 1(1), 93-96. 

 
Dahlberg, L. (2005). The Habermasian public sphere: Taking difference seriously?. Theory and 

Society, 34(2), 111-136. 

 
Dahlberg, L. (2007). The internet and discursive exclusion: From deliberative to agnostic public 
sphere theory. In L. Dahlberg, & E. Siapera. (Eds.), Radical democracy and the Internet: 
Interrogating theory and practice (pp. 128-147). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 

 
Dahlberg, L. (2014). The Habermasian public sphere and exclusion: An engagement with 

poststructuralist-influenced critics. Communication Theory, 24(1), 21-41. 

 
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: 

 

 

Avon Books.  

 
Dash, A. (2016, January 27). Against “don’t read the comments”. Medium. Retrieved from 
https://medium.com/humane-tech/against-don-t-read-the-comments-aee43ce515b9 

 
Davidson, R. J. (2003). Seven sins in the study of emotion: Correctives from affective 

neuroscience. Brain and Cognition, 52(1), 129-132. 

 
De Houwer, J., & Hermans, D. (2010). Introduction. In J.D. Houwer & D. Hermans (Eds.), 

Cognition and emotion: Reviews of current research and theories (pp. ix-x). New York, 
NY: Psychology Press. 

250 

Dean, J. (2003). Why the Net is not a Public Sphere. Constellations: An International Journal Of 

Critical & Democratic Theory, 10(1), 95-112. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.00315 

 
Dean, J. (2005). Communicative capitalism: Circulation and the foreclosure of politics. Cultural 

Politics, 1(1), 51-74. 

 
Debatin, B. (2008). The internet as a new platform for expressing opinions and as a new public 

sphere. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public opinion 
research (pp. 64-72). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. 

 
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company. 
 
Donsbach, W., & Traugott, M. W. (2008). The SAGE handbook of public opinion research. Los 

 

 

Angeles, CA: SAGE. 

 
Dorsey, J. [jack]. (2018a, March 1). We have witnessed abuse, harassment, troll armies, 

manipulation through bots and human-coordination, misinformation campaigns, and 
increasingly divisive echo chambers. We aren’t proud of how people have taken 
advantage of our service, or our inability to address it fast enough [Tweet]. Retrieved 
from https://twitter.com/jack/status/969234279321419776 

 
Dorsey, J. [jack]. (2018b, March 1). Why? We love instant, public, global messaging and 

conversation. It’s what Twitter is and it’s why we‘re here. But we didn’t fully predict or 
understand the real-world negative consequences. We acknowledge that now, and are 
determined to find holistic and fair solutions [Tweet]. Retrieved from 
https://twitter.com/jack/status/969234278167949313 

 
Döveling, K., von Scheve, C., & Konijn, E. A. (2010). Creating fear: Transforming terrorist 
attacks into control and consumption. In K. Döveling, C. von Scheve, & E. A. Konijn 
(Eds.), Handbook of emotions and mass media (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Routledge. 

 
Drezner, D. W. (2015, August 14). Everyone thinks the current state of higher education is 

awful. Who is to blame?. The Washington Post. Retrieved from 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ 

 
Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 
 
Dunaway, J. (2011). Poll-centered news coverage: Causes and consequences. In K. Goidel (Ed.), 
Political polling in the digital age: The challenge of measuring and understanding public 
opinion (pp. 71-84). Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press. 

 
Durham, M. G., & Kellner, D. M. (2006). Adventures in media and cultural studies: Introducing 

the KeyWorks. In M.G. Durham & D. M. Kellner (Eds.), Media and cultural studies: 
Keyworks (pp. ix- xxxviii). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

251 

 

Dutwin, D. (2003). The character of deliberation: Equality, argument, and the formation of 
public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15(3), 239-264. 

 
eBizMBA. (2018). Most popular news websites as of May 2018, by unique monthly visitors* (in 

millions). In Statista - The Statistics Portal. Retrieved from https://www-statista-
com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/statistics/381569/leading-news-and-media-sites-usa-by-share-of-
visits/ 

 
eBizMBA. (2020, February 1). Top 15 most popular news websites | February 2020. Retrieved 

from http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/news-websites 

 
Edelman, M. (1993). Contestable categories and public opinion. Political communication, 10(3), 

231-242. 

 
Enten, H. J. (2013, October 1). The US healthcare paradox: we like the Affordable Care Act but 

fear Obamacare. The Guardian. Retrieved from 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/01/healthcare-obamacare-
affordable-care-act 

 
Erard, M. (2013, September 20). No comments. The New York Times. Retrieved from 

http://www.nytimes.com/ 

 
Etim, B. (2015a, November 23). Meet some of our top commenters. The New York Times. 

Retrieved from 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/23/nytnow/23commenters.html 

 
Etim, B. (2015b, November 23). The most popular reader comments on The Times. The New 

York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/23/insider/the-most-
popular-reader-comments-on-the-times.html 

 
Etim, B. (2017a, June 13). The Times sharply increases articles open for comments, using 

Google’s technology. The New York Times. Retrieved from 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/insider/have-a-comment-leave-a-comment.html 

 
Etim, B. (2017b, September 27). Why no comments? It’s a matter of resources. The New York 
Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/reader-center/comments-
moderation.html 

 
Eveland, W. P. Jr., & Glynn, C. J. (2008). Theories on the perception of social reality. In W. 

Donsbach & M. W. Traugott (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public opinion research (pp. 
155-163). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. 

 
Facebook ex-president blasts social media for hacking users’ brains. (2017, November 9). CBS 
News. Retrieved from https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/healthtrending/facebook-ex-
president-blasts-social-media-for-hacking-users-brains/ar-
BBELTNa?OCID=ansmsnnews11  

252 

 
Fear, F. (1997, January 18). Faculty will read this book and say, “Ah, yes!” [Review of the book 
The university in ruins]. Amazon. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-
reviews/R3BSQWXZX3X2PY/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0674929535 

 
Finlayson, J. G. (2005). Habermas: A very short introduction. New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press. 

 
Finn, C. E. (1984). Trying higher education: An eight count, indictment. Change: The Magazine 

of Higher Learning, 16(4), 28-51. 

 
Finn, C. E. (1988). Judgment time for higher education: In the court of public opinion. Change: 

The Magazine of Higher Learning, 20(4), 35-39. 

 
Fishman, R., Ekowo, M., & Ezeugo, E. (2017). Varying degrees: New America’s annual survey 

on higher education. New America. Retrieved from https://www.newamerica.org/in-
depth/varying-degrees/ 

 
Fox, E. (2008). Emotion science: Cognitive and neuroscientific approaches to understanding 

human emotions. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 

 
Frijda, N. H. (2008). The psychologist’s point of view. In M. Lewis, J.M. Haviland-Jones, & 

L.F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 68-87). New York, NY: Guilford Press. 

 
From the Editors. (2016, January 3). A new role for comments on Chronicle.com. The Chronicle 
of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/A-New-Role-for-
Comments-on/234701 

 
Fuller, J. (2010). What is happening to news: The information explosion and the crisis in 

journalism. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 

 
Gardiner, B., Mansfield, M., Anderson, I., Holder, J., Louter, D., & Ulmanu, M. (2016, April 

12). The dark side of Guardian comments. The Guardian. Retrieved from 
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-
comments 

 
Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Los Angeles, CA: Sage 

 

 

 
Gergen, K. J. (2015). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE 

Publications.  

Publications Ltd. 

 
Gerst, B. (2008, October 30). Announcing the New York Times community API. The New York 
Times. Retrieved from https://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/announcing-the-new-
york-times-community-api/ 

253 

Giese, M. (1998). Self without body: Texual self-representation in an electronic 

community. First Monday, 3(4). 

 
Giles, E. L., & Adams, J. M. (2015). Capturing public opinion on public health topics: a 

comparison of experiences from a systematic review, focus group study, and analysis of 
online, user-generated content. Frontiers in public health, 3, 200. 

 
Gina Masullo Chen. (2020). Retrieved from https://journalism.utexas.edu/faculty/gina-masullo-

 
Ginneken, J. (2003). Collective behavior and public opinion: Rapid shifts in opinion and 

communication. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 

 
Ginsberg, B. (1986). The captive public: How mass opinion promotes state power. New York, 

NY: Basic Books, Inc.  

chen  

 

 

 
Glynn, C. J., Herbst, S., Lindeman, M., O’Keefe, G. J., & Shapiro, R. Y. (2015). Public opinion. 

Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 

 
Goidel, K. (2011). Public opinion polling in a digital age: Meaning and measurement. In K. 

Goidel (Ed.), Political polling in the digital age: The challenge of measuring and 
understanding public opinion (pp. 11-27). Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University 
Press. 

 
Goidel, K., Kirzinger, A., & Xenos, M. (2011). Too much talk, not enough action? Political 

expression in a digital age. In K. Goidel (Ed.), Political polling in the digital age: The 
challenge of measuring and understanding public opinion (pp. 99-114). Baton Rouge, 
LA: Louisiana State University Press. 

 
Goldberg, J. (2018, February 2). We want to hear from you: Introducing The Atlantic’s new 

letters section. The Atlantic. Retrieved from 
https://www.theatlantic.com/letters/archive/2018/02/we-want-to-hear-from-you/552170/ 

 
Goodman, E. (2013, October 4). Online comment moderation: Emerging best practices. World 

Editors Forum. Retrieved from http://www.wan-ifra.org/reports/2013/10/04/online-
comment-moderation-emerging-best-practices    

 
Gross, L. (2018). The higher ed social listening handbook. Ascendium Education Group, Inc. 
 
Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a 

category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.  

 
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contribution to a discourse theory of law and 

democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press. 

254 

Habermas, J. (2006). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article. In M.G. Durham & D. M. 

Kellner (Eds.), Media and cultural studies: Keyworks (pp. 73-78). Malden, MA: 
Blackwell Publishing. 

 
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 
 
Haidt, J. (2013). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New 

York, NY: Vintage Books. 

 
Hamblin, J. (2013, October 1). Some Americans Say They Support the Affordable Care Act but 

Not Obamacare. The Atlantic. Retrieved from 
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/some-americans-say-they-support-
the-affordable-care-act-but-not-obamacare/280165/ 

 
Harlow, S. (2015). Story-Chatterers Stirring up Hate: Racist Discourse in Reader Comments on 

US Newspaper Websites. Howard Journal of Communications, 26(1), 21-42. 

 
Harris, R. L., & Tarchak, L. (2019, December 30). Yes, our writers do read your comments. The 
New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/opinion/nytimes-
columnists-comments.html 

 
Hauser, G. A. (1999). Vernacular voices: The rhetoric of publics and public spheres. Columbia, 

SC: University of South Carolina Press.   

 
Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is hard. New York, 

 

 

NY: Broadway Books. 

 
Hebdige, D. (2006). (i) From culture to hegemony; (ii) Subculture: The unnatural break. In M.G. 

Durham & D. M. Kellner (Eds.), Media and cultural studies: Keyworks (pp. 144-162). 
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

 
Henrich, N., & Holmes, B. (2013). Web news readers' comments: Towards developing a 
methodology for using on-line comments in social inquiry. Journal of Media and 
Communication Studies, 5(1), 1. 

 
Herbst, S. (1993). History, philosophy, and public opinion research. Journal of 

Communication, 43(4), 140-45. 

 
Herbst, S. (1996). Public expression outside the mainstream. The Annals of the American 

Academy of Political and Social Science, 546(1), 120-131. 

 
Herbst, S. (2011a). Critical perspectives on public opinion. In R. Y. Shapiro & L. R. Jacobs 

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the media (pp. 302-314). 
New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

255 

Herbst, S. (2011b). (Un)numbered voices? Reconsidering the meaning of public Opinion in a 

digital age. In K. Goidel (Ed.), Political polling in the digital age: The challenge of 
measuring and understanding public opinion (pp. 85-98). Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana 
State University Press. 

 
Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (2002). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the 

mass media. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. 

 
Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (2006). A propaganda model. In M.G. Durham & D. M. Kellner 
(Eds.), Media and cultural studies: Keyworks (pp. 257-294). Malden, MA: Blackwell 
Publishing. 

 
Hiler, T., & Erickson, L. (2019, June 17). Beyond free college and free markets: Voters want 

greater accountability in higher ed. Third Way. Retrieved from 
https://www.thirdway.org/polling/beyond-free-college-and-free-markets-voters-want-
greater-accountability-in-higher-ed 

 
Hiltner, S. (2017, August 8). We want to hear from you. The New York Times. Retrieved from 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/reader-center/we-want-to-hear-from-
you.html?smid=tw-share 

 
Hoffman, A. J., Ashworth, K., Dwelle, C., Goldberg, P., Henderson, A., Merlin, L., ... & Wilson, 

S. (2015). Academic engagement in public and political discourse: Proceedings of the 
Michigan meeting. Ross School of Business Paper, (1367). 

 
Hsueh, M., Yogeeswaran, K., & Malinen, S. (2015). “Leave your comment below”: Can biased 

online comments influence our own prejudicial attitudes and behaviors?. Human 
Communication Research, 41(4), 557-576. 

 
Huang, C. L. (2016, October 6). Do comments matter? Global online commenting study 2016. 
World Editors Forum. Retrieved from http://www.wan-ifra.org/reports/2016/10/06/the-
2016-global-report-on-online-commenting   

 
Hume, D. (1958). A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 
 
Huxley, A. (1960). Brave new world: And Brave new world revisited. New York, NY: Harper. 
 
I am part of the resistance inside the Trump administration. (2018, September 5). The New York 
Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-
anonymous-resistance.html 

 
Insler, C. N. (2016). In (partial) defense of internet trolls: Advocating a flexible summary 

judgment standard before unmasking anonymous commentators accused of 
defamation. Communications Lawyer, 32(1), 9-14. 

 

 

256 

 

Institute of International Education. (November 12, 2019). Number of international students 

studying in the United States in 2018/19, by country of origin [Graph]. In Statista. 
Retrieved January 30, 2020, from 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/233880/international-students-in-the-us-by-country-of-
origin/ 

 
Isen, A. M. (2008). Some ways in which positive affect influences decision making and problem 

solving. In M. Lewis, J.M. Haviland-Jones, & L.F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of 
emotions (pp. 548-573). New York, NY: Guilford Press. 

 
Jackson, L., & Valentine, G. (2014). Emotion and politics in a mediated public sphere: 

Questioning democracy, responsibility and ethics in a computer mediated 
world. Geoforum, 52, 193-202. 

 
James, W. (1950b). The principles of psychology, volume 2. New York, NY: Dover Publications. 
 
Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2017). 2017 survey of college and university presidents: A study by 

Inside Higher Ed and Gallup. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from 
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/political-turmoil-public-misunderstanding-
survey-presidents 

 
Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2018). 2018 survey of college and university presidents: A study by 

Inside Higher Ed and Gallup. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from 
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/survey-college-presidents-finds-worry-
about-public-attitudes-confidence-finances 

 
Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2020, June 24). An end to reader comments. Inside Higher Ed. 

Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/06/24/change-inside-higher-
eds-policy-reader-comments 

 
Jones, T. (2018, January 30). Listen carefully: Social listening reveals deep insights, shapes 

strategy. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/call-
action-marketing-and-communications-higher-education/listen-carefully-social-listening 

 
Journalism that stands apart: The report of the 2020 group. (2017). Retrieved from 

https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2020-report/index.html 

 
Just, M. R. (2011). What’s news? A view from the twenty-first century. In R. Y. Shapiro & L. R. 
Jacobs (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the media (pp. 105-
120). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

 
Kahn, R., & Kellner, D. M. (2006). Oppositional politics and the internet: A 

critical/reconstructive approach. In M.G. Durham & D. M. Kellner (Eds.), Media and 
cultural studies: Keyworks (pp. 703-725). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

 
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 

257 

 

 
Kensinger, E. A., & Schacter, D. L. (2008). Memory and emotion. In M. Lewis, J.M. Haviland-

Jones, & L.F. Barrett (Eds.),Handbook of emotions (pp. 601-617). New York, NY: 
Guilford Press. 

 
Kevin Carey. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.newamerica.org/our-people/kevin-carey/ 
 
Key, V. O. (1961). Public opinion and American democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 
 
Knight Foundation. (2018). Public opinion on the objectivity of selected news outlets in the 
United States in 2017. In Statista - The Statistics Portal. Retrieved from https://www-
statista-com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/statistics/802287/opinion-objectivity-news-outlets-us/ 

 
Konijn, E. A., & ten Holt, J. M. (2010). From noise to nucleus: Emotion as key construct in 
processing media messages. In K. Döveling, C. von Scheve, & E. A. Konijn (Eds.), 
Handbook of emotions and mass media (pp. 37-59). New York, NY: Routledge. 

 
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change 

their organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. 

 
Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2001). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know 

and the public should expect. New York, NY: Crown Publishers. 

 
Kramer, A. D., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale 

emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences, 111(24), 8788-8790. 

 
Krippendorff, K. (2005). The social construction of public opinion. In Kommunikation über 

kommunikation (pp. 129-149). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 

 
Ksiazek, T. B. (2015). Civil interactivity: How news organizations' commenting policies explain 

civility and hostility in user comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic 
Media, 59(4), 556-573. 

 
Ksiazek, T. B. (2016). Commenting on the news: Explaining the degree and quality of user 

comments on news websites. Journalism Studies, 1-24. 

 
Laestadius, L. I., & Caldwell, M. A. (2015). Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in 

vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments. Public health nutrition, 18(13), 2457-
2467. 

 
Le Bon, G. (1969). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. 
 
Ledoux, J. E., & Phelps, E. A. (2008). Emotional networks in the brain. In M. Lewis, J.M. 

Haviland-Jones, & L.F. Barrett (Eds.),Handbook of emotions (pp. 159-179). New York, 
NY: Guilford Press. 

258 

 
Lee, E. (2016, April 18). Despite flaws, comments are good for public discourse. The New York 

Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/18/have-
comment-sections-on-news-media-websites-failed/despite-flaws-comments-are-good-for-
public-discourse 

 
Lee, E. J. (2012). That's not the way it is: How user‐generated comments on the news affect 
perceived media bias. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 18(1), 32-45. 

 
Lee, E. J., & Jang, Y. J. (2010). What do others’ reactions to news on Internet portal sites tell us? 

Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality 
perception. Communication Research, 37(6), 825-846. 

 
Legg, C. (2018). ‘The solution to poor opinions is more opinions’: Peircean pragmatist tactics for 

the epistemic long game. In M.A. Peters, S. Rider, M. Hyvonen, & T. Besley (Eds.), 
Post-truth, fake news: Viral modernity & higher education (pp. 43-58). Singapore: 
Springer. 

 
Lela Moore. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/by/lela-moore 
 
Lemieux, J. (2016, April 18). Get rid of comment sections. The New York Times. Retrieved from 

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/18/have-comment-sections-on-news-
media-websites-failed/get-rid-of-comment-sections 

 
Lessenberry, J. (2018, January 24). Why Michigan State University is a mess. Detroit Metro 

Times. Retrieved from https://www.metrotimes.com/ 

 
Levine, L. J., & Edelstein, R. S. (2010). Emotion and memory narrowing: A review and goal-

relevance approach. In J.D. Houwer & D. Hermans (Eds.), Cognition and emotion: 
Reviews of current research and theories (pp. 168-210). New York, NY: Psychology 
Press. 

 
Levy, C. (2017, May 31). NYT is eliminating the position of public editor [Tweet]. Retrieved 

from https://twitter.com/cliffordlevy/status/869930028603248640 

 
Li, T. C., Mueen, A., Faloutsos, M., & Hang, H. (2016). Comment-profiler: Detecting trends and 

parasitic behaviors in online comments. In International Conference on Social 
Informatics (pp. 75-91). Springer International Publishing. 

 
Lippmann, W. (1961). Public opinion. New York, NY: Macmillan. 
 
Lippmann, W. (1993). The Phantom Public. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 
 
Liu, B. (2016). Sentiment analysis: Mining opinions, sentiments, and emotions. New York, NY: 

 

 

Cambridge University Press. 

259 

 

Loke, J. (2013). Readers' debate a local murder trial:“Race” in the online public 

sphere. Communication, Culture & Critique, 6(1), 179-200. 

 
Long, K. (2017a, July 1). Keeping The Times civil, 16 million comments and counting. The New 

York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/insider/times-
comments.html 

 
Long, K. (2017b, November 25). Meet the New York Times’s super-commenters. The New York 
Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/insider/new-york-times-top-
commenters-profile.html 

 
Malin, B. J. (2014). Feeling mediated: A history of media technology and emotion in America. 

New York, NY: New York University Press.  

 
Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook 

for researching online. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

 
Manosevitch, E., & Walker, D. (2009). Reader comments to online opinion journalism: A space 
of public deliberation. In International Symposium on Online Journalism (Vol. 10, pp. 1-
30). 

 
Marcus, G. E. (2002). The sentimental citizen: Emotion in democratic politics. University Park, 

PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. 

 
Marie Tae McDermott. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/by/marie-tae-

mcdermott 

 
Marken, S. (2019, December 30). Half in U.S. now consider college education very important. 

Gallup. Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com/education/272228/half-consider-college-
education-important.aspx 

 
Marvin, R. (2019, January 29). How Google’s Jigsaw is trying to detoxify the internet. PC 

Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.pcmag.com/feature/365966/how-google-s-jigsaw-
is-trying-to-detoxify-the-internet 

 
Massaro, T. M., & Stryker, R. (2012). Freedom of speech, liberal democracy, and emerging 
evidence on civility and effective democratic engagement. Liberal Democracy, and 
Emerging Evidence on Civility and Effective Democratic Engagement (April 18, 
2012), 54, 12-12. 

 
Matthews, P. (2015). Why are people skeptical about climate change? Some insights from blog 

comments. Environmental Communication, 9(2), 153-168. 

 
Mauss, I. B., & Robinson, M. D. (2010). Measures of emotion: A review. In J.D. Houwer & D. 
Hermans (Eds.), Cognition and emotion: Reviews of current research and theories (pp. 
99-127). New York, NY: Psychology Press. 

260 

 
Maybin, J. (2008). Children's voices: Talk, knowledge and identity. New York, NY: Palgrave 

 
McCluskey, M., & Hmielowski, J. (2012). Opinion expression during social conflict: Comparing 

online reader comments and letters to the editor. Journalism, 13(3), 303-319. 

 
McCombs, M. (2014). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Malden, MA: 

Macmillan. 

Polity Press. 

 

 

 
McDermott, L. (2016). Online news comments as a public sphere forum: Deliberations on 

Canadian children’s physical activity habits. International Review for the Sociology of 
Sport, 1012690216644444. 

 
McDermott, M. T. (2015a, August 18). A deluge of comments from readers with an opinion 

about Amazon. The New York Times. Retrieved from 
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/insider/a-deluge-of-comments-from-readers-with-
an-opinion-about-amazon.html 

 
McDermott, M. T. (2015b, December 28). The most commented-on articles of 2015. The New 

York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/insider/the-most-
commented-on-articles-of-2015.html 

 
McDermott, M. T. (2017a, October 30). Readers react to charges against Paul Manafort. The 

New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/reader-
center/paul-manafort-charges-reader-reaction.html 

 
McDermott, M. T. (2017b, December 20). Trump, leakers, travel ban: Our most commented-on 

articles of 2017. The New York Times. Retrieved from 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/insider/our-most-commented-on-articles-of-
2017.html 

 
McDermott, M. T. (2019, April 24). New York Times communities you can join online. The 

New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/reader-
center/new-york-times-reader-communities.html 

 
Medina, J., Benner, K., & Taylor, K. (2019, March 12). Actresses, business leaders, and other 
wealthy parents charged in U.S. college entry fraud. The New York Times. Retrieved 
from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/college-admissions-cheating-
scandal.html?module=inline 

 
Mehl, M. R. (2006). Quantitative text analysis. In E. Diener & M. Eid (Eds.), Handbook of 
multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 141-156). Washington, DC: American 
Psychological Association.   

261 

Mitchel, A., Gottfried, J., Barthel, M., & Shearer, E. (2016). The modern news consumer: News 

attitudes and practices in the digital era. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from 
http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/the-modern-news-consumer/ 

 
Moderator. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.instrument.com/work/moderator 
 
Moore, L., Baruchman, M., & Patel, S. (2016, July 29). Is this the spokesperson in chief you 

want?. The New York Times. Retrieved from 
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-readers-
comments.html 

 

 

 
Morehead, C. A., O’Hallarn, B., & Shapiro, S. L. (2016). Tell me how you really feel: Analyzing 

debate, desire, and disinhibition in online sports news stories. International Journal of 
Sport Communication, 9(1), 13-35. 

 
Mukhopadhyay, S. (2016, April 18). Reader engagement matters, whether it’s on social or in a 

comment section. The New York Times. Retrieved from 
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/18/have-comment-sections-on-news-
media-websites-failed/reader-engagement-matters-whether-its-on-social-or-in-a-
comment-section 

 
Nabi, R. L., So, J., & Prestin, A. (2010). Media-based emotional coping: Examining the 

emotional benefits and pitfalls of media consumption. In K. Döveling, C. von Scheve, & 
E. A. Konijn (Eds.), Handbook of emotions and mass media (pp. 116-133). New York, 
NY: Routledge. 

 
Natalie Proulx. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/by/natalie-proulx 
 
Nelson, T. E. (2011). Issue framing. In R. Y. Shapiro & L. R. Jacobs (Eds.), The Oxford 

handbook of American public opinion and the media (pp. 189-2033). New York, NY: 
Oxford University Press. 

 
New York Times. (2019). Social media strategy editor [Job Posting]. Retrieved from 

https://nytimes.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/News/job/New-York-NY/Social-Media-
Strategy-Editor_REQ-004806 

 
New York Times. (March 13, 2020). New York Times Company’s net income from 2006 to 
2019 (in million U.S. dollars) [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved August 08, 2020, from 
https://www-statista-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/statistics/192852/net-income-of-the-new-
york-times-company-since-2006/ 

 
New York Times: Using AI to host better conversations. (2019). Retrieved from 

https://www.webbyawards.com/winners/2019/advertising-media-pr/branded-
content/media-entertainment/new-york-times-using-ai-to-host-better-conversations/ 

262 

New York Times Revenue 2006-2019. (2019). Retrieved from 

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times/revenue 

 
Newcomb, T. M. (1948). Public Opinion and Public Opinion Polling: Discussion. American 

Sociological Review, 13(5), 549-552. 

 
Nichols, T. (2017). The death of expertise: The campaign against established knowledge and 

why it matters [Kindle version]. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

 
Nielsen, C. E. (2012). Newspaper journalists support online comments. Newspaper Research 

Journal, 33(1), 86-100. 

 
Nielsen, C. E. (2014). Coproduction or cohabitation: Are anonymous online comments on 
newspaper websites shaping news content?. New Media & Society, 16(3), 470-487. 

 
Nietzel, M. T. (2019, December 12). Americans’ view of higher education takes a major drop. 

Forbes. Retrieved from 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2019/12/12/americans-view-of-higher-
education-takes-a-major-drop 

 
Nip, J. Y. (2006). Exploring the second phase of public journalism. Journalism studies, 7(2), 

212-236. 

28(4), 538-555. 

 

 

 
North, S. (2007). ‘The voices, the voices’: Creativity in online conversation. Applied linguistics, 

 
Open Doors. (November 13, 2019a). Annual change in the number of college and university 

students from China in the United States from academic year 2007/08 to 2018/19 
[Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved January 30, 2020, from https://www-statista-
com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/statistics/374164/number-of-chinese-students-in-the-us-annual-
change/ 

 
Open Doors. (November 28, 2019b). Number of college and university students from China in 
the United States from academic year 2008/09 to 2018/19 [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved 
January 30, 2020, from https://www-statista-
com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/statistics/372900/number-of-chinese-students-that-study-in-the-
us/ 

 
Our Path Forward. (2015, October 7). Retrieved from https://nytco-

assets.nytimes.com/2018/12/Our-Path-Forward.pdf 

 
Pantti, M. (2010). Disaster news and public emotions. In K. Döveling, C. von Scheve, & E. A. 
Konijn (Eds.), Handbook of emotions and mass media (pp. 221-236). New York, NY: 
Routledge. 

263 

 

Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New media & 

society, 4(1), 9-27. 

 
Patel, S. (2019). Sona Patel [LinkedIn page]. Retrieved from 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sonakpatel 

 
Patterson, T. E. (2013). Informing the news: The need for knowledge-based journalism. New 

York, NY: Vintage Books.  

 
Patterson, T. E. (2016). News coverage of the 2016 general election: How the press failed the 

voters. Harvard Kennedy School: Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public 
Policy.   

 
Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. New York, 

NY: Bloomsbury Press. 

 
Pennebaker, J.W., Booth, R.J., Boyd, R.L., & Francis, M.E. (2015). Linguistic Inquiry and 

Word Count: LIWC2015 Operator’s Manual. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates. 

 
Pennebaker, J.W., Boyd, R.L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and 

psychometric properties of LIWC2015 . Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.  

 
Peterson, J. A., & Rudgers, L. M. (2018). Saddle up: 7 trends coming in 2018. Inside Higher Ed. 

Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/ 

 
Pinker, S. (2008). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York, 

NY: Penguin Books. 

 
Postman, N. (2006). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. 

New York, N.Y: Penguin Books. 

 
Price, C. A. (2002, April 8). An academic life in the public sphere. The Chronicle of Higher 

Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/An-Academic-Life-in-the-
Public/46002  

 
Price, V., & Roberts, D. F. (1987). Public opinion processes. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee 

(Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 781-816). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage 
Publications. 

 
Prinz, J. (2012). Emotion. In K. Frankish & W. M. Ramsey (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of 

cognitive science (pp. 193-211). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

 
Proulx, N. (2019, March 13). What is your reaction to the college admissions cheating scandal?. 

The New York Times. Retrieved from 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/learning/what-is-your-reaction-to-the-college-
admissions-cheating-scandal.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Flearning 

264 

 

 
Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Mitchell, A., Rosenstiel, T., & Olmstead, K. (2010). Understanding the 

participatory news consumer: How internet and cell phone users have turned news into a 
social experience. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from 
http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/03/01/understanding-the-participatory-news-consumer/ 

 
Quinn, J. (2018a, October 1). ‘I’d trade it all in to be with my brother and friends again.’. The 

New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/opinion/war-joe-
quinn-world-trade-center-afghanistan-veterans.html 

 
Quinn, J. (2018b, September 10). The real lesson of Sept. 11. The New York Times. Retrieved 

from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/opinion/911-lessons-
veteran.html?module=inline 

 
Readers’ Representative Journal. (2019, July 16). To our community of readers: Let’s talk. Los 

Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/about/readers-
representative/story/2019-07-16/to-our-community-of-readers-lets-talk   

 
Readings, B. (1999). The university in ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. 
 
Reagle, J. M. (2015). Reading the comments: Likers, haters, and manipulators at the bottom of 

the Web. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 

 
Richter, F. (2017, June 8). Republicans highly skeptical of the news media's credibility [Digital 

image]. Retrieved from https://www-statista-
com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/chart/9732/credibility-of-us-news-organizations/ 

 
Rick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (2008). The role of emotion in economic behavior. In M. Lewis, 
J.M. Haviland-Jones, & L.F. Barrett (Eds.),Handbook of emotions (pp. 138-156). New 
York, NY: Guilford Press. 

 
Roessler, P. (2008). Agenda-setting, framing, and priming. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott 

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public opinion research (pp. 205-218). Los Angeles, CA: 
SAGE. 

 
Romero, S., & Goldstein, D. (2019, September 18). New Mexico announces plan for free college 

for state residents. The New York Times. Retrieved from 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/us/new-mexico-free-college-tuition.html 

 
Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the deliberative quality of online news user 

comments across platforms. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 539-
555. 

 
Salovey, P. (2018, February 27). How to sway higher ed’s skeptics. The Chronicle of Higher 

Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-to-Sway-Higher-Ed-
s/242645 

265 

 

 
Salovey, P., Detweiler-Bedell, B. T., Detweiler-Bedell, J. B., & Mayer, J. D. (2008). Emotional 

intelligence. In M. Lewis, J.M. Haviland-Jones, & L.F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of 
emotions (pp. 533-547). New York, NY: Guilford Press. 

 
Samuels, A. M. (2016). Rants & retorts: How bigots got a monopoly on commenting about news 

online. New York, NY: Create Space Independent Publishing Platform. 

 
Sandelowski, M. (2016). Foreword to the first edition. In S. Thorne, Interpretive description: 

Qualitative research for applied practice (pp. 19-21). New York, NY: Routledge. 

 
Santana, A. D. (2011). Online readers' comments represent new opinion pipeline. Newspaper 

Research Journal, 32(3), 66-81. 

 
Santana, A. D. (2016). Controlling the conversation: The availability of commenting forums in 

online newspapers. Journalism Studies, 17(2), 141-158. 

 
Sargent, G. (2012, May 11). Game changer? Scott Walker vowed to ‘divide and conquer’. The 

Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-
line/post/game-changer-scott-walker-vowed-to-divide-and-
conquer/2012/05/11/gIQAMveCIU_blog.html?utm_term=.ea5f3af844c7 

 
Sax, D. (2011, December 1). Comment moderator, the dirtiest job on the internet. Bloomberg. 

Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-12-01/comment-
moderator-the-dirtiest-job-on-the-internet 

 
Schleifer, D., & Silliman, R. (2016). What’s the payoff? Americans consider problems and 

promises of higher education [Research brief]. Retrieved from 
http://www.publicagenda.org/files/WhatsThePayoff_PublicAgenda_2016.pdf 

 
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE 

Publications. 

 
Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of 

qualitative data analysis (pp. 170-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. 

 
Schudson, M. (2011). Tocqueville’s interesting error: On journalism and democracy. In R. Y. 

Shapiro & L. R. Jacobs (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the 
media (pp. 61-73). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

 
Shanahan, M. K. (2016, December 14). How news sites’ online comments helped build our 

hateful electorate. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/how-
news-sites-online-comments-helped-build-our-hateful-electorate-70170 

 
Shanahan, M. K. (2018). Journalism, online comments, and the future of public discourse. New 

York, NY: Routledge. 

266 

 
Shapiro, R. Y., & Jacobs, L. R. (2011a). Informational interdependence: Public opinion and the 

media in the new communications era. In R. Y. Shapiro & L. R. Jacobs (Eds.), The 
Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the media (pp. 3-21). New York, NY: 
Oxford University Press. 

 
Shapiro, R. Y., & Jacobs, L. R. (2011b). The democratic paradox: The waning of popular 

sovereignty and the pathologies of American politics. In R. Y. Shapiro & L. R. Jacobs 
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the media (pp. 713-731). 
New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

 
Shepard, W. J. (1909). Public opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 15(1), 32-60. 
 
Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New 

York, NY: Penguin Press. 

 
Singer, T. (2018). Trump and the American collective psyche. In B. X. Lee (Ed.), The dangerous 
case of Donald Trump: 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts assess a President (pp. 
281-297). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. 

 
Smith, C. (2018, January 9). Higher education is drowning in BS: And it’s mortally corrosive to 
society. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/ 

 
Smith, W. D. (2003). Higher education, democracy, and the public sphere. Thought & Action, 

19(1), 61-73. 

Macmillan.  

 

 

 
Smith, W. D. (2010). Public universities and the public sphere. New York, NY: Palgrave 

 
Solomon, R. C. (2008). The philosophy of emotions. In M. Lewis, J.M. Haviland-Jones, & L.F. 

Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 3-16). New York, NY: Guilford Press. 

 
Spyridou, P. L., & Veglis, A. (2008). Exploring structural interactivity in online newspapers: A 

look at the Greek Web landscape. First Monday, 13(5). 

 
Stets, J. E., & Turner, J. H. (2008). The sociology of emotions. In M. Lewis, J.M. Haviland-

Jones, & L.F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 32-46). New York, NY: 
Guilford Press. 

 
Story, L. (2019, April 9). Goodbye “moderators,” hello “audience voice reporters”: Here’s how 

The Wall Street Journal is refocusing the comments to incentivize better behavior. 
NiemanLab. Retrieved from https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/04/goodbye-moderators-
hello-audience-voice-reporters-heres-how-the-wall-street-journal-is-refocusing-the-
comments-to-incentivize-better-behavior/ 

267 

Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation's content: A coding scheme. Journal of public 

deliberation, 3(1), 12. 

 
Stroud, N. J., Muddiman, A., Scacco, J., Curry, A., & Peacock, C. (2014, September 10). 

Journalist involvement in comment sections. Center for Media Engagement. Retrieved 
from https://mediaengagement.org/research/journalist-involvement/ 

 
Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing deliberative norms 
on news organizations' Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 
20(2), 188-203. 

 
Stroud, N. J., Van Duyn, E., Alizor, A., Alibhai, A., & Lang, C. (2017, January 12). Comment 

section survey across 20 news sites. Center for Media Engagement. Retrieved from 
https://mediaengagement.org/research/comment-section-survey-across-20-news-sites/  

 
Stroud, N. J., Van Duyn, E., & Peacock, C. (2016, March 14). News commenters and news 

comment readers. Center for Media Engagement. Retrieved from 
https://mediaengagement.org/research/survey-of-commenters-and-comment-readers/ 

 
Sullivan, M. (2015, February 25). Trying to keep a ‘celebrity class of commenters’ happy. The 

New York Times. Retrieved from 
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/trying-to-keep-a-celebrity-class-of-
commenters-happy/ 

 
Sword, H. (2012). Stylish academic writing. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. 
 
Sydell, L. (2017, October 29). How Russian propaganda spreads on social media. NPR. 

Retrieved from 
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/10/29/560461835/how-russian-
propaganda-spreads-on-social-media   

 
Tarde, G., & Clark, T. N. (2010). Gabriel Tarde on communication and social influence: 

Selected papers. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 

 
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and 
computerized text analysis methods. Journal of language and social psychology, 29(1), 
24-54. 

 
Taylor, C. A., Al-Hiyari, R., Lee, S. J., Priebe, A., Guerrero, L. W., & Bales, A. (2016). Beliefs 
and ideologies linked with approval of corporal punishment: a content analysis of online 
comments. Health Education Research, 31(4), 563-575. 

 
Teng, B. P. (2018). Trauma, time, truth, and Trump. In B. X. Lee (Ed.), The dangerous case of 
Donald Trump: 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts assess a President (pp. 219-
234). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. 

 

 

268 

The Conversation. (2018, February 8). Letters: The comments apocalypse. The Atlantic. 

Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/letters/archive/2018/02/letters-comments-on-
the-end-of-comments/552392/ 

 
The New York Times Company. (2019). The New York Times Company 2018 annual report. 

Retrieved from http://investors.nytco.com/investors/financials/annual-
reports/default.aspx 

 
The New York Times Company. (2016, September 20). The Times is partnering with Jigsaw to 
Expand Comment Capabilities. Retrieved from https://www.nytco.com/press/the-times-
is-partnering-with-jigsaw-to-expand-comment-capabilities/ 

 
The New York Times media kit. (2019). Retrieved from http://nytmediakit.com/digital 
 
The Wall Street Journal. (2017). WSJ.com: Audience profile. Dow Jones & CO, Inc. 
 
Thorne, S. (2016). Interpretive description: Qualitative research for applied practice. New 

York, NY: Routledge.  

 
Thorne, S., Kirkham, S. R., & MacDonald‐Emes, J. (1997). Interpretive description: a 

noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Research in 
nursing & health, 20(2), 169-177. 

 
Thorne, S., Kirkham, S. R., & O’Flynn-Magee, K. (2004). The analytic challenge in interpretive 

description. International journal of qualitative methods, 3(1), 1-11. 

 
Trice, M. (2011). How we comment on web journalism: A case study on dialogue found in news 

articles. The Ethics of Emerging Media: Information, Social Norms, and New Media 
Technology, 235-249. 

 
Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New York, NY: 

Penguin Books. 

 

 

 
Twitter, Inc. (2018, January 19). United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 

Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism: Update on results of retrospective review of 
Russian-related election activity. Retrieved from 
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Edgett%20Appendix%20to%20Respon
ses.pdf 

 
Usher, N. (2014). Making news at The New York Times. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of 

Michigan Press. 

 
Vedder, R. (2018, April 8). There are really almost no truly private universities. Forbes. 

Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2018/04/08/there-are-really-
almost-no-truly-private-universities/ 

269 

 

Verto Analytics. (2018). Most popular news brands in the United States as of June 2018, by 

reach. In Statista - The Statistics Portal. Retrieved from https://www-statista-
com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/statistics/875845/most-popular-us-news-brands-ranked-by-
reach/. 

 
Wartik, N. (2018, December 21). A tribute to a prolific Times commenter. The New York Times. 

Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/reader-center/a-tribute-to-a-
prolific-times-commenter.html 

 
Warzel, C. (2012, June 18). Everything in moderation: As the shouters grow in volume, the 

comment moderator’s job has become more demanding. Adweek. Retrieved from 
http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/everything-moderation-141163 

 
Webber, D. (2018). Higher ed, lower spending: As states cut back, where has the money 

gone?. Education Next, 18(3), 51-58. 

 
Westen, D. (2008). The political brain: The role of emotion in deciding the fate of the nation. 

New York, NY: PublicAffairs. 

 
Willens, M. (2018, June 6). One year in, The New York Times reader center has 22 people. 
Digiday. Retrieved from https://digiday.com/media/one-year-new-york-times-reader-
insights-group-22-people/ 

 
Williams, T. R. (2014, July 3). The surprise in the Hobby Lobby comments. The New York 

Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2014/07/03/the-surprise-
in-the-hobby-lobby-comments/ 

 
Wolf, C. (2016, April 18). Anonymity may have killed online commenting. The New York Times. 

Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/18/have-comment-
sections-on-news-media-websites-failed/anonymity-may-have-killed-online-commenting 

 
Wolfgang, J. D. (2016). Pursuing the Ideal: How news website commenting policies structure 

public discourse. Digital Journalism, 4(6), 764-783. 

 
Wolfgang, J. D. (2018). Cleaning up the “Fetid Swamp”: Examining how journalists construct 

policies and practices for moderating comments. Digital Journalism, 6(1), 21-40. 

 
Wolfgang, J. D. (2019). Commenters as political actors infringing on the field of 

journalism. Journalism Studies, 20(8), 1149-1166. 

 
Woolley, S. C. (2016). Automating power: Social bot interference in global politics. First 

Monday, 21(4). 

 
Yiend, J. (2010). The effects of emotion on attention: A review of attentional processing of 

emotional information. In J.D. Houwer & D. Hermans (Eds.), Cognition and emotion: 

270 

Reviews of current research and theories (pp. 211-275). New York, NY: Psychology 
Press. 

 
YouGov. (2018a). Do you consider The New York Times to be a friend or an enemy of the 

American people?. In Statista - The Statistics Portal. Retrieved from https://www-
statista-com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/statistics/678104/new-york-times-friend-enemy-people/ 

 
YouGov. (2018b). How trustworthy do you rate The New York Times?. In Statista - The 

Statistics Portal. Retrieved from https://www-statista-
com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/statistics/707609/trust-new-york-times/ 

 

 
 

 
Zamith, R., & Lewis, S. C. (2014). From public spaces to public sphere: Rethinking systems for 

reader comments on online news sites. Digital Journalism, 2(4), 558-574. 

 
Zimmer, C., Sheikh, K., & Weiland, N. (2020, May 20). A new entry in the race for a 

coronavirus vaccine: Hope. The New York Times. Retrieved from 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/health/coronavirus-vaccines.html 

271