Commenting, Sharing and Tweeting News

Open access


Social plugins for sharing news through Facebook and Twitter have become increasingly salient features on news sites. Together with the user comment feature, social plugins are the most common way for users to contribute. The wide use of multiple features has opened new areas to comprehensively study users’ participatory practices. However, how do these opportunities to participate vary between the participatory spaces that news sites affiliated with local, national broadsheet and tabloid news constitute? How are these opportunities appropriated by users in terms of participatory practices such as commenting and sharing news through Facebook and Twitter? In addition, what differences are there between news sites in these respects? To answer these questions, a quantitative content analysis has been conducted on 3,444 articles from nine Swedish online newspapers. Local newspapers are more likely to allow users to comment on articles than are national newspapers. Tweeting news is appropriated only on news sites affiliated with evening tabloids and national morning newspapers. Sharing news through Facebook is 20 times more common than tweeting news or commenting. The majority of news items do not attract any user interaction.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Almgren Susanne & Olsson Tobias (2015). “Let’s Get Them Involved’ . . . to Some Extent: Analyzing Online News Participation’. Social Media + Society 1(2):1-11.

  • Bastos Marco (2015). ‘Shares Pins and Tweets’. Journalism Studies 16(3):305-325

  • Bergström Annika (2008) ‘The Reluctant Audience: Online Participation in the Swedish Journalistic Context’. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 5(2):60-79.

  • Bergström Annika & Wadbring Ingela (2015). ‘Beneficial yet crappy: Journalists and audiences on obstacles and opportunities in reader comments’. European Journal of Communication 30(2):137-151.

  • Boczkowski Pablo & Mitchelstein Pablo (2012). ‘How users take advantage of different forms of interactivity on online news sites: Clicking e-mailing and commenting’. Human Communication Research 38(1):1-22.

  • Boyd Danah & Ellison Nicole (2007). ‘Social Network Sites: Definition History and Scholarship’. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1):210-230.

  • Buskqvist Ulf (2007). Medborgarnas röster: Studier av Internet som politisk offentlighet (The voices of the citizens: Studies of the Internet as political public sphere). Örebro: Universitetsbiblioteket.

  • Costera Meijer Irene & Kormelink Tim (2015). ‘Checking sharing clicking and linking’. Digital Journalism 3(5):664-679.

  • Dahlgren Peter (2009). Media and Political Engagement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Diakopolous Nicholas & Naaman Mor (2011). ‘Towards Quality Discourse in Online News Comments’ pp. 133-142 In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work CSCW. ACM.

  • Domingo David; Quandt Thorsten; Heinonen Ari; Paulussen Steve; Singer Jane & Vujnovic Marina (2008). ‘Participatory Journalism Practices in the Media and Beyond’. Journalism Practice 2(3):326-342.

  • Emmet Arielle (2009). ‘Networking News. Traditional news outlets turn to social networking web sites in an effort to build their online audiences ‘. American Journalism Review December 2008/January 2009:41-42.

  • Engesser Sven & Humprecht Edda (2014). ‘Frequency or Skillfulness. How professional news media use Twitter in five Western countries’. Journalism Studies 16(4):513-529.

  • Findahl Olle (2013). Svenskarna och internet (The Swedes and Internet). Göteborg: .SE (Stiftelsen för internetinfrastruktur).

  • Findahl Olle & Davidsson Pamela (2015). Sociala medier 2015 (Social media 2015). Göteborg: .SE (Stiftelsen för internetinfrastruktur).

  • Gerlitz Carolin & Helmond Anne (2013). ‘The Like Economy: Social Buttons and the Data-intensive Web’. New Media and Society 15(8):1348-1365.

  • Gerlitz Carolin & Helmond Anne (2011). ‘Hit Link Like and Share. Organising the Social and the Fabric of the Web’ pp. 1-29 in Digital Methods Winter Winter Conference Proceedings. Goldsmiths Research Online.

  • Glynn Carol; Huge Michael & Hoffman Lindsey (2012). ‘All the News that’s Fit to Post: A Profile of News Use on Social Networking Sites’. Computers in Human Behaviour 28(1):113-119.

  • Green Joshua & Jenkins Henry (2011). ‘Spreadable media: How audiences create value and meaning in a networked economy’ pp. 109-127 in Nightingale Virginia (ed.) The handbook of media audiences. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

  • Hedman Ulrika (2009). Läsarmedverkan: lönande logiskt lockbete (Readers’ contributions: Profitable logical bait: The online newspapers’ user generated content from an editorial management perspective). Arbetsrapport nr. 56 Institutionen för Journalistik och Masskommunikation Göteborgs Universitet.

  • Hermida Alfred (2010). ‘Twittering the News’. Journalism Practice 4(3):297-308.

  • Hermida Alfred; Fletcher Fred; Korrell Darryl & Logan Donna (2012). ‘Share Like Recommend. Decoding the Social Media News consumer’. Journalism Studies 13(5-6):815-824.

  • Hermida Alfred & Thurman Neil (2008). ‘A Clash of Cultures’. Journalism Practice 2(3):343-356.

  • Himelboim Itai & McCreary Steve (2012). ‘New Technology Old Practices: Examining News Websites from a Professional Perspective’. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 18(4):427-444.

  • Kaplan Andreas & Haenlein Michael (2010). ‘Users of the World Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media’. Business Horizons 53(1):59-68.

  • Lee Angela; Lewis Seth & Powers Matthew (2014). ‘Audience Clicks and News Placement’. Communication Research 41(4):505-530.

  • Levy David & Newman Nic (2014). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2014. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

  • Manosevitch Idit (2011). ‘User Generated Content in the Israeli Online Journalism Landscape’. Israel Affairs 17(3):422-444.

  • Newman Nic (2011). Mainstream Media and the Distribution of News in the Age of Social Discovery. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

  • Newman Nic; Dutton William & Blank Grant (2012). ‘Social Media in the Changing Ecology of News: The Fourth and Fifth Estates in Britain’. Internet Journal of Internet Science 17(1):6-22.

  • Olmstead Kenny; Mitchell Amy & Rosenstiel Tom (2011). Navigating News Online: Where People Go How They get There and What lures Them Away. Pew Research Center.

  • Olsson Tobias & Svensson Anders (2012). ‘Producing Prod-users: Conditional Participation in a Web 2.0 Consumer Community’. Javnost 19(3):41-58.

  • Park Souneil; Ko Minsam; Lee Jaeung; Choi Aram & Song Junehwa (2013). ‘Challenges and Opportunities of Local Journalism: A Case Study of the 2012 Korean General Election’ pp. 286-295 in WebSci’13. Paris France.

  • Pöyhtäri Reeta (2014). ‘Limits of Hate Speech and Freedom of Speech on Moderated News Websites in Finland Sweden the Netherlands and the UK’. Annales – Series historia et sociologia izhaja štirikrat letno :513-522.

  • Purcell Kristen; Rainie Lee; Mitchell Amy; Rosenstiel Tom & Olmstead Kenny (2010). Understanding the Participatory news Consumer. Pew Research Internet Project.

  • Singer Jane (2014). ‘User-generated Visibility: Secondary Gatekeeping in a Shared Media Space’. New Media and Society 16(1):55-73.

  • Singer Jane; Hermida Alfred; Domingo David; Heinonen Ari; Paulussen Steve; Quandt Thorsten; Reich Zvi & Vujnovic Marina (2011). Participatory Journalism. Guarding Open gates at Online Newspapers. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Sundin Staffan (2011). Den svenska mediemarknaden 2011 (The Swedish media market 2011). Göteborg: Nordicom.

  • Sundin Staffan (2013). Den svenska mediemarknaden 2013 (The Swedish media market 2013). Göteborg: Nordicom.

  • Tenenboim Ori & Cohen Akiba (2015). ‘What prompts users to click and comment’. Journalism 16(2):198-217.

  • Van Dijck José (2013). The Culture of Connectivity (2013) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.54

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.223
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.270

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 445 277 16
PDF Downloads 217 144 8