國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
users more closely demonstrates that a very small minority of users at cbc.ca took advantage of the fact that they could return at a later time to make further comments. It was only in those few threads where commenting developed into deeper exchange level disagreements that users returned to further rebut the other users they were in disagreement with. The collapsing of time is relevant to the CBC‟s current website design in that the comment threads provide an indefinitely accessible record of responses to current affairs – albeit a record from a self-selected, particularly vocal, sub-segment of the greater population.
The CBC should be taking these issues into account with its website design. If comments were threaded by reply, and if users were able to track their own comments and conversations they be better able to return and engage with others in these comment threads.
This would increase the prevalence of interpersonal interactivity – noted above as important to the CBC for a number of reasons. As it stands, it is very difficult for users to engage with one another and to take advantage of the fact that they could come back later and continue their conversations or provide further insights into the issues at hand.
While the CBC‟s current interactive features may not be perfect they mark the beginning of a potentially major change in the CBC‟s role and identity. They are not without merit and their imperfections can be improved upon. But, in order to improve them we need to know why certain interactive trends are occurring while others are not.
Explanations for Observed Phenomena
This study‟s search for interpersonal interactivity at CBC largely came up empty-handed, demonstrating that the majority of users engage in expressive interactivity leaving their personal opinions and rarely engaging with other users or their messages. In addition, those messages coded as dialogicbecause they were responding to other user comments were often not truly interpersonal in nature. They often demonstrated what Martin Buber describes as
“monologue disguised as dialogue”(Buber, 1985). In the same way that readers often used news stories as segues to their own – often only tangentially related opinions – they frequently used other reader comments as spring boards from which to launch their own self expression rather than as opportunities to engage in dialogue or discourse. There are a
‧
number of possible explanations for this phenomenon and – as with most complicated social phenomena – the true explanation is likely some combination of them all.
Most fundamentally, the lack of interpersonal interaction in these comment threads is a function of the web design employed by the CBC. As with most web 2.0 sites, the comments are appended at the bottom of the page. However, in the CBC‟s case, only five comments are displayed at a time. They are sorted according to user preference either chronologically, reverse chronologically or by agreement level. Displaying the subsequent five comments requires clicking a hyperlink and waiting while the page loads. There is no option to reply to a particular comment, so those commenters who wish to leave a reply are forced to quote previous messages by cutting and pasting and their comments are not threaded by conversation, but simply added to the list of comments in chronological or agreement order. If the CBC truly wants to allow users to engage in discussions and if it is to facilitate the type of interpersonal interactivity that new media could provide it should consider displaying more comments at any one time and offering reply options and the ability to view replies as threaded conversations.
Another possible explanation for the lack of observed interpersonal interaction is human nature. Perhaps people are simply much more interested in sharing their own views rather than having conversations with others – especially when those others are strangers they are unlikely to develop relationships with. If this is the case, the CBC‟s design can be doubly faulted in that it does a poor job of encouraging users to establish online identities and thus relationships with other users. It is not difficult to imagine that anonymity may act as a disincentive for meaningful interpersonal interaction. While the internet by its very nature encourages anonymity, the CBC‟s website design must also be held to account for not encouraging online identity development amongst users. The CBC website does offer user profiles which display self-disclosed user locations and a list of previous comments made.
However, these profiles are difficult to find, load slowly, and do not give one a very good picture of user personalities. In addition, the use of – at times absurd or nonsensical – handles makes it difficult to distinguish users from one another. Many sites allow avatar images to help users establish identities. The CBC could do this, as well as add better profiling, and the possibility for more established connections as offered by social networking sites if it desires to encourage meaningful conversation and relationships between users.
‧
Yet another factor which may influence audience behavior at the CBC website is the way people perceive the CBC as an institution. As mentioned above, the CBC has long functioned as a creator and distributor of content rather than as a forum within which users can converse with one another. As such, it is not hard to imagine that users have certain perceptions of the CBC and certain habitual ways of interacting with it. That is to say, while I once muttered my approval or disapproval to the television while watching The National I am now free to do the same thing online. Complicating this issue of the CBC‟s legacy with its audience is the partisan perceptions of the CBC. Some believe the CBC to be a left-leaning institution. As such, it is conceivable that some users choose other media or avoid
Interestingly, the feedback tool demonstrates the reverse phenomenon. People are more likely to „agree‟ with comments than „disagree.‟ While these trends may initially seem contradictory, upon examination there is a reasonable explanation. At the most basic level this phenomenon makes sense in that agreeing is easier and less costly in terms of time and intellectual exertion invested than is disagreeing. It is very easy to simply nod and agree with a statement. However, if one is to disagree one needs some form of reason – however well formed - upon which to base one‟s disagreement. Additionally, when readers see a comment they agree with, they see that their opinion is already represented. All they need to do to feel as if they have contributed is to show their support by voting „agree.‟ On the other hand, when a user sees a comment he or she does not agree with simply pressing the disagree button registers disapproval but does not allow the individual to feel that their viewpoint has been represented. Thus, they may be more likely to respond to stimulus they do not agree with by writing their own comment.
This however does not explain why these comment threads seem to become forums for a succession of binary disagreements about a few topics. Almost every story sampled displayed this phenomenon. Each thread touched on one or two issues with users coming
‧
this behavior. Maybe users see themselves as extensions of a press that traditionally places itself in opposition to established authority. More research into why these sorts of discussion threads almost always descend into binary bickering is warranted.Along with the bickering that these comment threads displayed came many offensive, non-constructive comments. While the CBC does moderate commenting, the sheer volume and the need for the CBC to maintain as unbiased a standpoint as possible require that the moderation be somewhat relaxed in nature. Other sites employing web 2.0 functionality have experimented with community moderation concepts with varying degrees of success.
Systems where users vote-up or vote-down specific comments are often employed. The CBC‟s own „agree‟ and „disagree‟ functions measures how much users agree with an opinion rather than how useful or valid they feel a particular comment is. On many sites, those comments with low approval ratings either become progressively more difficult to read – i.e.
by becoming transparent – or disappear from view – usually with a click-to-see option.
Granted, these options run the risk of facilitating a sort of online mob-rule and submitting to the “hive mind” (Lanier, 2006) but, along with design changes to the commenting functionality, the CBC should consider alternate ways to ensure that comments remain considerate and constructive.
The first chapter of this thesis pointed out that the CBC is not along amongst public broadcasters when it comes to struggling in the new media environment. That said, the CBC‟s approach to design and interactive functionality is significantly different than that of its peers. Other English language public broadcasters like the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Television New Zeland/Radio New Zealand (TVNZ, RNZ) have downplayed the role of communicative interactivity at their web portals.12 None of these broadcasters‟ sites have commenting enabled on news stories, and the opportunities for users to interact are limited to providing news tips and more traditional feedback channels (i.e.
sending an email to the institution). The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) also does
12 RNZ: http://www.radionz.co.nz/
TVNZ: http://tvnz.co.nz/
ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
not append comments to news stories. However, it does provide a UGC portal where more directed discussion takes place and users are encouraged to comment on issues of the day.13
While there is not room here to detail the interactive functionality at every national broadcaster, it is clear that the CBC has what can be considered an ambitious outlook when it comes to issues of interactive functionality and design. The CBC rarely closes a story to comments. It tends to happen only in highly controversial situations and situations where the CBC is obliged to withhold some information from publication, such as when a child is involved in a crime. This ambitious approach is laudable, but the CBC must remain vigilant to ensure that its online design and functionality do not eclipse its goals and/or the needs of the market. Bracken and Balfour (2004) make similar observations about the BBC‟s online activities, arguing that public broadcasters are often tempted to do things online simply because they can, and that they should instead rationally justify and intentionally design their interactive functions.
Along with issues of design, human nature and moderation the CBC is also faced with a mandate and corporate organization that is twenty years behind the fast-changing times. In order to allow it to make the transition online the CBC needs to know what the public expects its role to be in the new media environment. Subsequent to an updated mandate, the CBC needs a budget to support its online activities. For fifteen years the CBC has been funneling funds from other budget areas to pay for cbc.ca. The time has come for both the CBC and its government overseers to concede that times have changed and that – along with radio and television operating funds – the CBC requires new media funding.