How Political Deliberation Manifests Itself in Newspaper’s Facebook Comments – The Case of Shamima Begum

How Political Deliberation Manifests Itself in Newspaper’s Facebook Comments – The Case of Shamima Begum

William Macmaster s3384888 Dr Scott A Eldridge II

MA Journalism University of Groningen

14

November, 2019

Contents:

- Introduction ……3-4

- Literature Review…… 4-15

- Methodology ……15-24

- Results ……24-73

- Discussion……73-81

- Conclusion ……81-82

- Bibliography……83-90

- Appendix……-91-97

Introduction

This thesis will focus on the political discourse demonstrated within newspaper comments sections on the social media network, Facebook in reference to the case of Shamima Begum, a British-born Isis bride. It will explore the ways in which the audiences of leading

newspapers debate, or more fittingly, argue in newspapers' Facebook pages' comments sections with one another about her right to return to the UK since travelling to Syria in order to marry an ISIS fighter. It will analyse the discourse between those in the comments sections of three leading UK newspapers, one on the right side of the political agenda, one on the left side of the political agenda, and then one which is positioned in the centre. Thus, the central question of this essay is:

RQ1: How has political discourse surrounding Shamima Begum manifested itself in the comments?

The core of this thesis surrounds one particular case study, Shamima Begum. However, her debate is not singular in its nature, and the controversy surrounding her and the subsequent reaction from it is just one example of trends in political discourse in the UK. As such, it is also important to acknowledge what it means for the wider discussion surrounding political discourse. Thus, a sub-question will be,

SRQ1: What does the political discourse surrounding Shamima Begum in online comments sections say about the nature of political discourse?

In accordance with this, a second sub-question will ask exactly what wider forces cause political discourse online to manifest itself in such a way. Through this lense, we can see whether Shamima Begum is just the latest proxy for mass reaction online to political issues presented by the media and consumed in the means of personal politics (Van Zoonen 2012, Bennett, 2012). To the extent Begum is merely the embodiment of well-established social and political elements at work, the final question is,

SRQ2: What are the common trends shown in modern political discourse in newspaper comment sections on Facebook?

Abstract

Anyone who has ever accessed the social media network Facebook will know that is a location rife with disagreements and arguments about all manner of subjects. One of the most common subjects for debate on the website is political issues. This will be the focus of

this thesis which will analyse discussions surrounding one of the biggest issues in British news in 2019, the case of Shamima Begum- a British Born teenager who attempted to return

to the UK after leaving at the age of 15 to join terrorist organisation ISIS and marry an Isis fighter. Due to the highly controversial nature of this subject, political debate was rife online and one of the most frequent locations for debate was underneath articles shared by leading

UK newspapers on Facebook covering her story. This thesis will focus directly on these comments shared by users as a means to understand how online participants on Facebook

newspapers debate and discuss big political issues together and to what extent these

conversations can be considered to be effective and rational political deliberation.

These two sub-questions contribute to the wider discussion surrounding the bigger topic of political discourse. As such, the ultimate goal of this thesis is to understand how people are talking about Shamima Begum online and how this reflects on a wider topic of modern online political discourse between audiences in general. The hypothesis of this thesis is fairly straightforward and is as follows:

HI: Online newspaper comment sections lead to unproductive and unintellectual political discussions.

Why Shamima Begum?

The case of Shamima Begum has been chosen specifically as it encapsulates a large number of modern-day social issues and talking points that dominant day-to-day political discourse.

Primarily, the issues raised from this case are heavily centred upon three key elements, Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism, and immigration and citizenship.

Shamima Begum was an Islamic fundamentalist who left the UK in February 2015 to join ISIS and marry an ISIS fighter. Earlier this year, with her husband jailed and many of her friends dead, she requested to return the UK. This sparked a debate about whether letting her back in to the UK was the right thing to do. Naturally, public discourse was rife with opinion on this subject, particularly in the wake of ISIS-backed terror attacks in the UK in the

previous four years. Eventually, her request was rejected by the British Parliament.

However, things aren’t quite as black and white as this. Begum is a British citizen. Thus, she has the right to live on British soil but was refused in an unprecedented case that could be argued to be a breach of her human rights. Furthermore, her case raises questions about the level of accountability young people who have been subjected to fundamentalist teachings, or indeed, any extremist views at an impressionable age, as well as more acute subjects, such as feminism and childcare debates.

As such, it is no surprise that the debate about Begum is a difficult situation to judge, and was a cause of much debate, both on political and social levels. This topic was heavily discussed, and especially online and as will be shown in this thesis that include among strangers in the comment sections of newspapers. Here strong views were expressed on either side of the debate about her rights. However, as expected, rationality was not a common trait of these discussions.

While there is much existing research on online political discourse in online newspaper comment sections, there are none that focus on a subject that is so current and encapsulates many of political zeitgeists of the modern age so well. Hence, why it is the ideal subject to explore political discourse in comment sections in the modern age.

Literature Review

Regarding existing research on the nature of political discourse on social media, the body of work available is vast. Over time, it has developed at a similar rate to social media

technologies themselves. One immediately become aware in the literature available that the

attitudes towards technology within them have seen a significant shift- from one of hope of

its potential to that of scepticism and concern about its effect, including in its potential for

deliberation and debate.

In the early years of a more interactive web, there was more optimism about the potential of the online comment sections of newspapers in particular as a means of offering spaces for effective deliberation, and as an extension of the public sphere and through the promise of user-generated content (Habermas, 2006; Papacharissi, 2004). The reality has so far proven quite different. More recent pieces of research have witnessed the impact of online comments go in the opposite direction. While some research points towards the fact that the comments on news posted on Facebook- compared to directly on a news website- generally tend to be more civil, it has also become apparent that Facebook comments are more emotionally driven on both hard and soft news (Ben-David & Soffer, 2018).

This emotion and connection to news is a driving factor in the subject of Shamima Begum, as the idea that the consumption of modern news becoming a personal experience has been well established (Van Zoonen, 2012; Bennet, 2012; Mann and Ornstein, 2012; Metz, Manon, Kruikemeier, Sanne & Lecheler, 2019).

Further, online, people will directly draw from their own personal or professional experience in order to support their own points and assert their authority over any online adversaries (Erjavec and Kovačič. 2012; Hopkinson 2014).

This is pertinent to the question at hand as it has long been a factor at play in regard to political and racial driven political action long before the reach of Facebook and it uses for political discourse and mobilisation of ideas came to the fore (Bliuc, McGarty, Hartley &

Hendres, 2012). Regarding Facebook, this personalisation grows even stronger when a person expresses views via this medium, as they are not given the liberty of anonymity, which has previously been linked to disrespectful behaviour in online discourse (Ruiz, Domingo Micó, Diaz-Noci, Meso & Masip, 2011.). This is due to the nature of Facebook, an online location where everyone who partakes in the deliberation can gain an insight into at least some of a commenter’s private life via their profile.

This said, an important piece of research in regard to anonymity was conducted by Halpern &

Gibbs (2013) who conducted a comparison between Facebook, a more public domain, and YouTube, where comments are anonymous.

Their study found that messages in the more anonymous YouTube were “more impolite than messages in the more identifiable Facebook medium” as the inclusion of personal information

“adds greater accountability in their interactions with others”. However, their results revealed that the level of impoliteness on these platforms was separated by a mere 10%. Then, when it came to “unfounded arguments or claims without any kind of validation,” that difference dropped to just over 6% and “YouTube showed more supported arguments “quoting external sources or data” than Facebook. This is interesting as it displays that even with the anonymity factor included, Facebook users will still be partial to incivility, regardless of social ties on Facebook (Bryant & Marmo, 2012), and unfounded claims that are based purely on personal belief or even, the regurgitation of a patchwork belief system cultivated over time.

Recent research has also shown that there is a connection between participating online via

Facebook and participating in political activity offline (Vissers, & Stolle, 2014). Thus, the

importance of what these online Facebook participants and their incivility and unfounded

claims should not be discounted as it can have wider implication for the political landscape at

large.

What does this mean then for the contents of Facebook comments, their content and their wider implications for political discourse? Well, to understand this, the nature of Facebook comments and online news discussion needs to be delved into deeper and it has been ventured into from various angles by a number of scholars. There are two main elements of Facebook comments that need to be first confronted in order to established. How do people use comments? And, how do these comments manifest themselves?

How Are Comments Used for Public and Political Discourse?

Depending on where on the news production and distribution proces you stand, -i.e. a

distributor, i.e. the newspapers posting the article on Facebook, or a consumer, i.e. readers of newspapers through Facebook- the way comments are used is different.

On the distributor end of the scale, this is linked to the importance of serving the public on a platform which has become increasingly important as a means by which to stimulate public criticism, debate, and discussion, while also maintaining a credible community profile. In terms of the benefits, journalists and editors agree on this note (Diakopoulos and Naaman, 2011; Bergström and Wadbring, 2015). However, they have also been known to be

problematic (Larsson, 2018), as the “chaos and noise” of online comments are overwhelming, even when they are constructive (Braun & Gillespie, 2011) ), and more so when they are not;

Mike Sims, the director of news and operations for CBSNews, stated he could not

“immediately find a way to deal with the ‘persistence and volume’ of racist comments the stories were attracting” (Braun & Gillespie, 2011). In some instances, this leads to the

publication of abusive comments which can even scare off sources from being part of a story (Diakopoulos and Naaman, 2011).

At the same time, while this type of comment would traditionally be considered a negative, thanks to the connectivity of Facebook and the algorithms in place which promote content to other users based on interactions, any comment posted can still benefit distributors regardless of its content. As one CEO previously stated, “Low-quality comments on Facebook are very valuable because all you care about is the person’s friends reading it and clicking on the link.

Low-quality comments [on a traditional news site] are terrible poison,’ (Braun & Gillespie, 2011). As such, it is a double-edged sword for distributors, with maintenance being the key problem, but regardless, yet with clear benefits to be gained thanks to Facebook algorithms.

Considering the balance, there is little motivation for newspapers to ensure political discourse unfolds in a positive manner. Thus, the more pressing concern, both for the nature of

comments and the topic of this thesis, is how consumers receive and perceive online comment sections on Facebook.

Researchers have categorised three main participants in the world of Facebook comments.

Those who post comments, those who only read comments (referred to as “lurkers”) and those who opt not to participate at all (Springer, Engelmann, & Pfaffinger, 2015), each with their own uses and gratifications for doing so (Palmgreen, 1984). While Palmgreen’s uses and gratifications research pre-dates the social media age and the focus of this research is on dialogue using this technology, it remains relevant. Palmgreen helps us see how users who chose to not only read the news, but also feel obliged to comment on it and share their own beliefs or emotions are engaging in a process coined by Palmgreen as “gratification sought”

(GS). This means they are attempting to obtain a form gratification by interacting with

Facebook posts. This could be the desire to be heard, to learn more or simply to amuse

themselves Whether or not they managed to accomplish the desired gratification from

commenting on news on Facebook and to what extent determines the level of “gratifications obtained’ (GO). This GO would help determine their future interactions with comments and how they conducted these.

Research from Springer, Engelmann, and Pfaffinger (2015) indicated via Palmgreen’s framework that the way in which uses and gratifications manifest themselves were differ from what was thought to have been the case for some time by older studies such as those from Habermas (1994, 2006). According to their findings, writers of comments are driven by social-interactive motives to participate and discuss the matter. Lurkers were entertained from the content of the “low-quality comments”, while non-participants in comments saw them as a “waste of time”. The contrast between commenters lurkers and non-participants is notable as while the former think they are partaking in deliberation, the latter two parties see posts and comments as completely pointless.

We can further consider work of Sveningsson (2014), who discovered young people were unlikely to partake in Facebook political discussions for a whole manner of reasons,

including “getting attacked because of their opinions”, “innocent questions may develop into inflamed debates and fights” and that “misunderstandings can cause discussions to get out of hand.”. Participants in this study, would, though, share content or post political content and would happily discuss politics in a place deemed safe. Other researchers have reached similar conclusions (Vitak et al, 2011; Chen, 2015). Demonstrating a disconnection too with the prospect of partaking in online deliberation.

This level of abuse is no doubt an issue for both distributors and consumers of newspapers, but the former has something to gain from whatever comments are posted. Whether that be the look of providing a public forum for discussion and possibly user-generated content or purely for financial benefits as the aforementioned CEO pointed out in Braun & Gillespie’s 2011 study. Consumers, however, risk seeing see no immediate gains. While it is true- some readers look to the comments for validation of their own views, as discussed later on, or indeed, entertainment as the case may be, these do not necessarily contribute to an effective deliberative in the public sphere. When it comes to the potential for wider contribution to rational discourse, there appear many flaws. These raise a pertinent issue about the flaws that these Facebook comments have, despite the fact that they have been prioritised by some as the SNS (social networking site) that is most suitable for political discourse to unfold (Rowe, 2015; Halpern & Gibbs, 2013) and more recently, the primary tool for many newspapers to distribute their content.

How Do Comments Manifest Themselves?

We now get to the crux of the research this thesis also focuses on exactly do the comments online manifest themselves, what does this mean for political discourse and of course, how is this reflected in the online political discussions surrounding Shamima Begum?

The first thing to note is the majority of existing research on the topic of online comment

debates discover uncivil or even, abusive content. As would be expected, this was embryonic

in studies of social media venues where hostile atmospheres were inherent, such as those

about right-wing groups and activists, such as those conducted by Ben-David & Matamoros-

Fernández (2016) and Farkas, Schou, & Neumayer, (2018). But, more interestingly, it

became a significant factor elsewhere in online discussions not focused directly on these

areas. For example, in studies by Lee (2012), Diakopoulos & Naaman (2013), Hille & Bakker

(2013), Halper & Gibbs (2013), Hopkinson (2013) and Rowe, (2015). While each of these studies had a different core focus, they all shared the same theme in regards to comments, across location, incivility and impoliteness remained a prominent feature. Most concerningly research focused on finding out the way people commented in relation to race in these neutral arenas of online political discussion, in a similar nature to what this essay focuses on, they found that the issue of race heightened of such behaviour in online comments (Ksiazek, 2018;

Erjavec and Kovačič. 2012; Steinfeldt, 2010; Faulkner & Bliuc, 2016; Farkas, Schou, &

Neumayer, 2018). Even where the absence of the specific civility of the content was

mentioned, interactions were instead, largely of a confrontational nature (Tran & Ngo, 2018).

This indicates that while different degrees of politeness and civility differed depending on the location and subject content, the one recurring feature was confrontation and combativeness among participants. It is the research where the online location is neutral and inclusive that are most interesting for this research though, as newspaper comment sections would fit this criterion.

Ultimately, existing studies showcase that confrontational conversation can occur anywhere and that, when searched for, abusive confrontational conversation, particularly about race, can be found with ease, both of which are at the crux of this thesis. The mass collection of existing research indicates and validates the assumption that for political discussion, the web, on and off Facebook, is far from a welcoming platform for political debate. This dampens the optimism of earlier research that promised fruitful benefits of online discussion. It is with this in mind that the majority of research on the subject pre-2010, when Facebook reached 500 million users (Arthur & Kiss, 2010), has been discounted for the topic at hand. Chosen as a significant point in the company’s history, where the real uses of its abilities as a social platform to debate became apparent, rather than just speculated upon. If existing research indicates that conflict, confrontation and in the case of controversial topics, abusive language was prevalent. It is likely that a similar nature of discussion will be found during this thesis’

own research, as opposed to a platform full of effective political deliberation.

Face Attacks and Flaming

While it is unfair to say that all deliberation online regarding opposing views leads to unproductive results, as some research has shown (Jahng, 2018), incivility appears to be an omnipresent factor at online discussion forums, particularly Facebook (Bryant & Marmo, 2012). A closer look at how exactly that looks like according to established research on the matter is required. One of the key elements to discuss in relation to the manifestation of comments is the idea of online Face and attacks on it, known simply as Face Attacks. This is the core of any uncivil online debate. Online discussion, whether anonymous or not, removes social context cues that are present in real-life conversations, (Halpern & Gibbs, 2013;

Bolander 2013), allowing for conversation to rapidly deteriorate into these types of attacks of the face. This has proven via a comparison between face to face discussions about topics in newspapers and online ones, where the latter quickly deteriorated into aggression and abuse (Bird, 2011). However, it would likely be helpful first to define “the face”, before explaining how these attacks are conducted.

Face is an element that first emerged in Erving Goffman’s work on “Politeness Theory”. Face

can be defined quite simply as a person’s constructed identity. A constructed identity is what

every person cultivates over their lifetime, consciously or not, as a way they are associated

and defined as a person, which is made up of various aspects of their personality and

experiences. When it comes to positive face, this would be the positive way people want

others to see them based on these factors and respected as such. This could be as a result of their goals or achievements in a certain field which would give them more expertise, or it could evolve from naturally developed elements such as background or upbringing. Negative face describes the basic personal rights of an individual and is heavily centred on freedom and having the right to autonomy as an individual. For example, being able to talk openly, and share your beliefs without fear of being prevented or attacked for doing so.

As explained by Chen in her work about Face and how threats to it occur in the context of Social Media, she sums it up explains simply that, “having face means one is valued as a relational partner” (Chen, 2015) and that you will be respected based on your own personal beliefs, experiences and knowledge. When someone is not valued in such a way, it would be considered a “face attack”. A person’s social media persona, how they present themselves on it and how they interact with others via it online would be included as a form of modern face.

In the case of Facebook, due to the aforementioned lack of anonymity, this face can be drawn directly by the would-be attacker from a person’s profile or from the content of the comments they post. Christopher Hopkinson (2014), who examined how face attacks occur in

newspaper comments, argues all elements of face are at stake when partaking in online interaction and it is deemed to be important for people to maintain their face when challenged, with these challenges being considered threats to face.

These threats can be defined in two ways. As defined by Chen (2015) “threats to positive face such as criticism and insults (that) challenge one’s relational value and desire for approval, but threats to negative face such as requests or demands question one’s competency and need for autonomy.” Attacks on positive face are defined as the rejection of a person, for example, attacking someone directly based on their religion in the context of a conversation. Negative face attacks can show no recognition of a person’s belief, for example, excluding someone entirely from a conversation based on their religion. Both of these are prevalent in online debates, regardless of nature, even sometimes at an institutional level (Hendriks, Duus, &

Ercan, 2016).

These definitions of attacks are expanded upon by Hopkinson (2014) who delves deeper into the idea of the face and how it can be attacked, but ultimately, reflects the same core concept that Chen argues too.

Hopkinson defines, the concept of face as broken up into three separate parts quality face, social identity face, and relational face, all of which can be subjected to attacks. Quality face attacks either target the opponent’s previous claims or denigrates the opponent personally.

Social identity face is anchored in community dimensions and thus, attacks on it are prevalent in polarised opinions, i.e. ingroup and outgroup, and singling someone out as say, a

snowflake or a fascist

. While relational face attacks target an “opponent’s status within the ongoing interaction”. While the approaches in each of these face attacks are different, Chen and Hopkinson agree that the result breeds antagonism.

Antagonism from these face attacks are seen as the pre-curser to what is known as “flaming”, or the act of saying something to deliberately hurt someone else online. This can result in a

1 This was developed in an essay as part of previous coursework: ‘Snowflakes and Fascists’,

for the course: Theoretical Specialization: Journalism & Political Culture (January, 2019)

flame war, which is the continuation of face attacks, or antagonism, against one another over a series of online interactions (Muldertech, 2010), which ends rational discourse. Essentially, Facebook comments then become what is referred for as, “Platformed Antagonism” (Farkas, Schou, & Neumayer, 2018), an online location where anger and hate are allowed to breed freely. This self-perpetuates as polarisation on any number of subjects increases. As research by Hutchens, Cicchirillo, Hmielowski (2015, p.1210) shows “individuals have higher

intentions to respond with a flame when faced with a direct challenge to their political beliefs as opposed to an indirect challenge,” indicating politically charged news content leads to a larger show of flaming among commenters.” Furthermore, those who “frequently discuss politics may have seen people flame or have been the recipient of a flame. Because of their experience, these individuals may see flaming as acceptable behaviour,” indicating that the nature of such online interactions is self-perpetuating, as the more someone partakes in political debate online, the more likely they are to flame others. One final side note to this research is that it also demonstrated that anonymity doesn’t play a large role in the production of flaming. This suggests the lack of anonymity on Facebook is not a deterrent for such interactions. If it were, flaming would be found solely in anonymous online locations, such as YouTube or directly underneath newspapers online comment sections, where signing up and display person information is not a pre-requisite to post.

Regarding Shamima Begum, this is important on a series of levels. Firstly, the fact that face attacks are likely going be a frequent occurrence within the discussion found, as the option is often used as an alternative to direct abuse which would be flagged by monitors of the website. For example, if the topic of Islam comes up, and there is a Muslim and non-Muslim interacting, rather than a racial slur, the non-Muslim may draw attention to the fact a Muslim cannot comment due to their being part of the same religion as Begum. This could be

considered to be both a Social Identity and relationary face attack, social identity as Muslim and relationary as being unable to comment on the on-going interaction. Another would be against Begum herself, where again in absence of a direct racial slur, stereotypes of Asian culture might be made in a quality face attack. Second, because it provides the basis for what would cause flaming to begin and deteriorate the act of deliberation and as this research is aimed at the nature of how political discourse can regress, flaming is likely to be a core motive for that. And lastly, because it is more prevalent in prominent political issues such as the one Begum is at the centre of, race and immigration. As it is a recurring topic in the news, commenters may have experience debating these concepts in the past and use tactics that they have picked up prior to their comments on Begum (Hutchens, Cicchirillo, Hmielowski, 2015). The latter of these points brings us on to the next section of the literature review, the topic directly at the centre of this thesis.

Immigration, Race & Religion

The glaringly obvious element at the core of the Shamima Begum arguments comes down to

immigration, race and religion. Immigration due to the fact that Begum’s request was to be

allowed back into the UK after fleeing the country several years earlier to marry an ISIS

fighter. Her request was blocked by the UK government, despite the fact they were legally

obliged to and had previously allowed similar persons back into the country to face trial on

home soil (BBC, 2019). As a result, a precedent has now been set for the future and the

decision was a landmark move in terms of citizenship rights in Britain. This all occurred in

the context of wider discussions of immigration which have been a long-simmering debate in

the UK. Begum’s case inflamed those debates back up and the high-profile case meant large

pressure was put on the government to act.

These topics would likely have been enough to cause outcry on their own, but it was amplified by Begum’s nonchalant attitude towards the practices of the radical Islamic movement she joined, ISIS, who have claimed responsibility for a number of attacks on UK soil, which heightened animosity. These include, notably, the Manchester bombings in 2015 where 22 people, mainly children, were killed, an attack Begum said she feels was justified (The Independent, 2019) Another controversy which was tied to the discussion of Begum’s case was the beheadings of UK citizens by ISIS members; she noted that seeing a severed head in a bin “didn't faze her (me) at all” (The Times, 2019). These events struck a chord with UK citizens and Begum was thus seen to be an active participant in these incidents.

Naturally, these are a long distance from the traditional values of British culture, and yet, Begum was still attempting to seek refuge in the UK now that her radical Islamic group had disbanded. This caused outrage from the British public and so in the case of Begum, these elements are going to be the dominant factor of discussion.

As topics of prominent political discourse, online and offline, the abundance of literature referencing these topics was significant. While it didn’t reach the same levels as uncivil discussions did in general, it was still very prevalent in a large number of pieces noted above.

An interesting point of this discussion was highlighted by Hughey and Daniels (2013), who spoke in-depth about how discussions of race manifest online. They write “perhaps most puzzling is the way in which racism seems to “erupt” in discussions of events not overtly about race.” Thus, the topic will emerge regardless of topic on occasion. As has been pointed out by sperate research, regardless of the situation comments and racism are directed on what is perceived as a national problem (Erjavec and Kovačič, 2012) and little is required to bring them to the forefront of political discussion.

If comments about racism appear without the topic of race being directly related to the matter being commented on, what does this say about when it is directly at the centre of the story, as is the case with Shamima Begum?? Well, as one editor of a relatively small newspaper pointed out when discussing the nature of comments on newspapers and what causes the most controversy, “If you write about immigration here it just uncorks all sorts of comments, positions, opinions, vitriol” (Diakopoulos, & Naaman, 2011). This is not isolated, and it was pointed out in another research conducted by Ksiazek (2018) on the same subject,

immigration was a “significant predictor of less civil discussion”.

When it comes to Begum, she embodies these elements but to extremes. In her case, she is not considered as an innocent refugee who is fleeing a warzone, but an active participant and supporter of atrocities both in Syria and on home soil in the UK. If as these studies show, the topic will often come up when a story is not even connected to race, and that when it is directly connected it can cause more heated debates, then it suggests that a larger volume of more extreme, confrontational and abusive discourse would be prevalent when discussing such a controversial topic as Begum.

It could be argued that moderation limits, to some extent, the level of what the political

discourse in regards to Begum can reach. However, while moderation is key to prevent

extreme cases of discourse, the problem is that there are methods and means to get around

such elements. These allow users who possess potentially racist views to evade the systems

or mask their views in a way that allows entrance to a wider audience of users. These users

include the aforementioned, lurkers, who are aiming to use the comments section as a means

understand or validate their existing views. There are many ways in which this can be done.

One such method noted by Hughey and Daniels. (2013), is known as “common sense racism”. As per their piece, this “appeals to supposedly race-neutral principles and/or by appealing to historically dominant and well-entrenched racial stereotypes that are collectively shared and rarely challenged. This defense occurs in three ways: (1) abstract arguments that invoke the individual’s right to engage in “free speech,” (2) accusations of victimhood that appeal to “political correctness,” and (3) seemingly matter-of-fact statements that are based on implicit racial stereotypes and myths.” Those utilising these methods within Facebook are able to “evade moderation because they shift focus from the specifics of the racialized content to questions over abstract principles of civil and democratic discourse or to supposedly scientific or “obvious” racial differences thought natural or innate”.

While this is one means to bypass moderators and pass on their racist rhetoric as valid arguments, other researchers have witnessed more means. One example is known as the Strategy of Renaming, or the use of “Hate Words”, which although wouldn’t receive moderation as they are disguised, they would still be a form of face attack or flaming at a perceived enemy. (Erjavec, and Kovačič, 2012.) Something touched on above is that even the most trivial of race-related issues can produce such responses. Steinfeldt (2010)

discovered this, in the context of discussions about the changing of a sports team’s image which took its name from American Indian stereotypes. He uncovered four elements of

“defensive and offensive” reactions to racial topics. These include subtle aspects like

“surprise, power, and privilege” in regard to them, or more powerful elements such as

“denigration” which are closely linked to outright racial intolerance.

Steinfeldt defined these reactions as the Strategy of Renaming and Common-Sense racism and as forms of what is known collectively “moral disengagement strategies” (Faulkner, &

Bliuc, 2016,) which links into the idea of or “Covert Discrimination” (Ben-David, &

Matamoros-Fernández,2016). Essentially, the cultivation of “ignorance and even disdain” to the marginalised group, even if it is unintentional. As such, while moderation can be

considered a boundary to prevent racist comments, it is certainly not a full-proof guarantee that political discussion in online locations does not regress in this way regardless.

Moderators may even occasionally allow for these more overt forms of racism for the sake of balancing the argument (Hughey & Daniels, 2013).

Comments of these types can, therefore, still be found in the realms of Facebook comments, where they can be consumed by audiences and affect the minds of readers. A by-product of this could even be that as they can be seen to be allowed in these “moderated spaces” that they are acceptable means by which people can discuss such topics. Further exacerbating the issue and thus, the aforementioned concept of Facebook comments as Platformed

Antagonism evolves into a form of “Platformed Racism” when at their worse (Matamoros- Fernández, A., 2017), defined as a place where racism freely breeds unchecked with other users validating one another with their own veiled discrimination. It is fair to say discussions of Shamima Begum, due to her race and religion, and the fact it brings in the topic

of immigration, content posted in regards to her will push the boundary between political discourse and the concept of Platformed Racism.

Ultimately, yes, moderation and the lack of anonymity does help in some way to alleviate

abusive comments and racial epithets, but it does not end the regressive discussions seen, or

the occurrence of deliberation infused with face attacks and indeed, veiled racial prejudice

and discrimination.

While race shouldn’t be overstated in this topic, as there are significant other elements at play. It shouldn’t be understated either. It has to be questioned, hypothetically, would it be the same if she were white and immigration hadn’t been on the mandate long before this particular case? Of course, this is impossible to know for sure. However, race will be an underlining factor in the case of Shamima Begum and will undoubtedly appear in the

comments as a device by which to scrutinise her and provide support for users’ views on her treatment. This leads to another element that is going to prevalent throughout the process of this research.

Right and Left

The next step in understanding the polarised views within the comments which leads to these arguments is the on-going partition between left and right. These two sides are present in most online debates but often grouped together in two opposing groups. One side, the right- wing, colloquially referred to in these discourses as the fascists or “gammons”- defined by their conservative views, anti-immigration stance and generally being old, white angry, red- faced men. On the other side, are “the snowflakes”, defined usually as part of a younger,

‘millennial’ demographic, as holding liberal views, and are assumed to be easily offended

. These two emerge as a result of identity politics (Bennett, 2012) which have already been mentioned. However, the polarisation of these two extreme polarised positions, which despite appearing on virtually every topic in the media, are most prevalent in immigration (Ksiazek, 2018). The battles between the two often come down to a “Leftists vs Rightist” mindset and many frequent commenters may even go into such online debates pre-disposed to the face they will be arguing with the opposing side (Hutchens, Cicchirillo, Hmielowski, 2015).

An element this brings into consideration when discussing comments and the left and right is the idea of a perceived “media bias”. Whereby a member of either the right or the left may be spurred to reactions, such as commenting, due to the belief that an article is promoting an agenda which is at odds with their belief system (Lee, 2012.) The prevalence of this

perceived media bias is interesting to these concepts as it indicates a paranoia about the other side of the argument or a mass conspiracy against your beliefs and way of life. When people are reading from newspaper articles, which are traditionally supposed to be free from bias, but see attacks against on their way of thinking, it is unsurprising that they then also see enemies from the other side in the form of fellow commenters who share opposing views to their own, and that they then themselves feel the need to defend their belief system strongly.

Another element of newspaper comment called “trolling”, the act of commenting in order merely to prompt reaction from the opposing side, can be a frequent occurrence and can also heighten these strong emotions. As Hopkinson (2013) noted in his research on trolls, people will defend their beliefs strongly against trolls, who are merely attempting to prompt a reaction from a fellow user using exaggerated versions of right- and left-wing beliefs. These exaggerated versions can often not be noted by the opposing who will thus, perceive the extreme views as the real beliefs of the other side.

Whether intended or not, what you say on these matters online can directly slot you in one of the two boxes, regardless of your political stance and will see you having to defend your

2 Snowflakes and Fascists Essay (January, 2019)

online face based on these belief systems. It has been argued that since the rise of Web 2.0, SNS and advancing technologies, the right-wing has benefitted the much more than the left, from its capabilities and been more successful in the mobilisation of their supporters (Lewis, 2018). This combined with using the news as a tool to shape the news to their own needs (Baugut, & Neumann, 2018), has at least, in part, contributed toward the rise of far-right figures in the last half-decade and sparked the populist movement across Europe (Wodak, 2013). In terms of the right, the use of what is “perceived as the national problem” (Erjavec, and Kovačič 2012), which in the case of the UK would likely be Islam. This perceived

“problem” has been cultivated by a series of high-profile terrorist attacks in Europe and closer to home in the UK, such as the ones mentioned above, by radical Islamic extremists which have heightened animosity towards the religion of Islam. This has paved the way for a belief that as a movement, Islam are attempting to infiltrate and take over the British way of life. An example which demonstrates the success of this pursuit is the statistic that a third of the British public wrongly believe there are no-go zones governed by Sharia Law in the UK (Dearden, 2018) and a rise in far-right anti-Islam political group demonstrations and the increased popularity of figures such as Tommy Robinson in the UK

. This “national problem” is utilised in a way to turn conversations online, support their arguments and generally, further their agenda. All of this is very important in the discussion of Facebook in the context of debates around Islam. As some have pointed towards the Facebook as a

“virtual mosque”, where those who struggle with mainstream media sources can turn to it for voice their concerns and views, but can simultaneously increase extremism, hostility and partisanship (Al-Rawi, 2016). The result could be a larger ripple effect and the cultivation of alienation could be possible and again, a self-perpetuating system of attack and react.

However, to over-assume, a right-wing monopoly on the venue of the online would be an overstatement. The success of so-called “Cancel Culture”, a term referring to the rejection of certain individuals on mass by the online community, demonstrates the left’s power to dismantle an individual or group perceived deviant to their agenda over sometimes trivial occurrences. One very recent occurrence of such trivial occurrence was the cancellation of Pennywise the Clown, an ancient demonic clown which feeds on the fears of children, brought to life by horror writer Stephen King in his novel IT and recently made into a film. In September 2019, days after the sequel IT 2 was released, Pennywise was “cancelled” by a writer for a gay-orientated magazine, accused of being “Anti Queer” due to his actions in the film. “Pennywise isn’t just the physical manifestation of what is revealed to be some kind of cosmic entity that feeds off fear and human flesh, he’s a homophobe. Trump’s America strikes again!” (Dommu, 2019) states the writer. Thus, making an obscure link between the fictional horror character and social zeitgeists of the modern time, despite the fact IT was published some 30 years prior. This is one example of cancel culture but it has been demonstrated various times and to various different degrees in recent history (Fox, 2016, Ronson, 2015). Another less trivial and more notable example, was the success “Me Too”

movement of 2018, which gained traction rapidly online and caused a surge in new wave feminism. It saw multiple well-known actors and producers “cancelled” and ousted from their positions of authority or recognition for sexual abusing colleagues. Ultimately, perceived social injustice from either side can be a big contributor into both sides of the arguments prevailing motivation behind commenting or using online platforms as a mean in which to prove their point. There is, therefore, evidence to suggest that on both sides of the left and right divide, online arenas are locations utilised to further their belief systems and the

3 This was developed in an essay as part of previous coursework: ‘YouTube and The Rise of

the Far Right Essay”, for the course: Journalism Research Seminar 2 (May, 2019)

comments of newspapers can be used a means by which to argue, defend or promote views and agendas.

It has been outlined how both sides of political polarisation will seek validation of their own beliefs online, both in content and community, (Ben-David, & Matamoros-Fernández, 2016).

Participants are happy to seek out alternative resources if they receive too much push back from fellow members of a group or suffer from feelings of the hostile media effect from the content posed (Hartmann, & Tanis, 2013) in one online domain, and will seek out others where their beliefs are supported (Hughey & Daniels, 2013). This is what makes the use of comments underneath newspaper articles posted on Facebook an important factor to investigate this subject, as, of course, newspapers have their own right and left leanings which may encourage different aspect of discussion and attract various audiences. In some cases, their comment sections may even bring a wide range of different beliefs from either side together in a neutral online environment. The comments on Facebook discussing Shamima Begum will be yet another venue for these two sides to battle it out once more.

With these polarised views likely to be at fever pitch due to the gravity of the situation at hand.

Where This Research Fits In

As has been noted already, theorists seem largely in agreement that online spaces offer a platform for political disagreement. The vast majority supporting the belief that these

conversations online are uncivil. With the avenues of online newspapers comments being the main meeting point for such conversation, and due to the universal participation of Facebook by the public and how much news organisations have sought the service out as a platform to reach a modern audience, the comment sections are the ideal location for this investigation.

This research, though, is unique in that it narrows in on a very specific case study subject, and aims to serve the purpose of building on three bodies of research through a divisive subject.

Where the nature of the conversation between right and left and their tactics to debate one another can be monitored via the context of a tension heavily focused on race, religion and the idea of immigration. Thus, it should provide an in-depth look at the nature of one specific subject in the realm of political discourse, which could indicate wider implication for the nature of political discourse on a wider scale.

Methodology

In order to conduct this research, the approach this thesis will undertake a discourse analysis of the conversations in which Facebook users are participating in the comment threads underneath newspaper’s posted stories about Shamima Begum.

The first hurdle that confronts the methodology of this research is due to the topic of subjects;

the significance of the story in the media landscape and the controversy it caused among

readers. Throughout the course of February and March 2019, most leading news media

outlets in the UK were running stories on Shamima Begum. These newspapers were posting

and re-posting stories about Begum on a near-on daily basis. As is the case with most news

stories posted on Facebook, users reacted to the subject with their own comments. In the case

of Shamima Begum, due to the controversy surrounding her case, these sections were made

up of countless comments with varying thoughts and opinions on the situation.

Thus, to trawl through potentially thousands of comments on hundreds of stories would not be feasible. With this in mind, this study narrows the focus on a) the most popular Facebook pages of national UK newspapers, b) the most controversial stories, and c) only the most responded to comments. These criteria should provide the most direct answer to the topic at hand of how political discourse manifested itself on the topic of Shamima Begum. To find these sources for the research was a relatively easy task due to the nature of Facebook.

The Newspapers

In order to achieve the widest selection of comments, the choice of newspapers for the research was chosen based on the number of likes they had on Facebook. While these may not be the UK newspapers with the highest overall reach (Newsworks, 2019), the focus of this thesis is on Facebook newspaper comments. If a newspaper page has more Likes, they will have a wider organic reach, which means the more people who come in to contact with the news story on Facebook. This reach not only comes from the users who have directly liked the page, by their own personal Facebook network too.

The wider audience comes from the fact that if someone’s Facebook friend clicks “Like”, comments or shares the story, regardless of whether a person likes the page themselves, it will appear on their newsfeed. Consider this scenario, Person A likes The Daily Mail on Facebook and follows their updates. Person B does not follow The Daily Mail on Facebook but is Friends with Person A on Facebook. If Person A comments, likes or shares an article on Facebook, then this interaction and thus, the original article will appear on Person B’s own news feed. Person B could then choose to interact themselves and continue the cycle. This is something that likely wouldn’t have happened if they had not been connected with Person A who had liked the page originally. This is just a simple chain of events, but there are

numerous alternatives to this. A second scenario could be if Person C and D, who are not friends on Facebook but are both members of a separate unrelated Facebook page about fishing. If Person C chose to share a news article from The Guardian on to the mutual group, Person D could come in contact with it, despite not following The Guardian themselves.

There are countless other ways where the chain of events that come from just one person Liking their page, can see their reach increase dramatically and to people who would otherwise have had no interest or impulse to comment. As such, due to the algorithms and systems in place on Facebook, there is no pre-requisite for users to follow a page directly for it to appear on their own feed and potentially be implored to interact with it via a comment or other reaction. This was noted by one newspaper CEO to be one of the perks that Facebook providers users, as regardless of the content of that comment, it can still help newspaper gain readers (Braun & Gillespie, 2011).

Another reason for not using the most read newspaper in the UK (Newsworks, 2019) is the

lack of an all-inclusive commenting feature. The most-read newspaper statistic accounts for

people who read the paper in print, and may not account for those who comment, or read the

news directly on the website. In the case of the latter, they may be able to comment still, but

the comment will likely be seen by fewer people as opposed to the open platform Facebook

provides, due to the reasons and examples shown above, so comments and reactions will be

fewer. Another factor in regards to this is that some newspapers, either don’t allow comments

on their website at all or restrict them on certain stories (Hille & Bakker, 2013). Due to the

controversial nature of Begum, the latter could prove to be an issue. On Facebook, there is no

such issue as all newspaper in question have their comment sections free and open for any

with a Facebook account to comment on.

An unexpected by-product of the most Likes method of selection was that the result comprised a selection of newspaper with varied political stances, namely, left, right and centre. This should provide a more diverse selection of both left and rights beliefs from those have subscribed to the page because as Hughey and Daniels (2013) noted, consumers will generally opt for online discussion platforms and news sources that support their existing values. As such, those who have more right-wing beliefs will subscribe to more right-wing news outlets and vice versa. With this considered, those who have liked the page, and so will interact with it regardless of other factors at play Facebook systems, will likely share similar values with the content the newspaper page shares on its Facebook page. These commenters will also likely have a network of fellow like-minded Facebook friends and pages which share these same values (Bryant & Marmo, 2012) who by the nature of Facebook can then also come in contact with the news article. As such, a diverse selection of commenters with different views should be apparent during the research. The three newspapers selected are as follows:

The Daily Mail

The Daily Mail is considered by many as the most right-wing of all British newspapers with 68% of people considering them “very” or “fairly right-wing”. This is 12% more than their nearest rival in this field, The Daily Express. With 15% more people considering them on the

“very” end of that scale compared to The Express. In total, a massive 79% of people would say they had right-leaning of some sort (YouGov, 2017).

They would also be considered as one of the most problematic. The basis for this belief is that the organisation Stop Funding Hate (2019) pinpointed The Daily Mail, alongside fellow UK newspaper The Sun, as being responsible for breeding racism and xenophobia, among numerous other discriminative practices within their stories. Some journalists have even outed The Daily Mail as being a systematically racist publication (Collins, 2016).

Despite this, The Daily Mail has the largest multi-media platform reach in the UK with a monthly reach of 31,115,000 people, as of March 2019. With their digital platforms alone making up for 27,664,000 of this number (Newsworks, 2019). In terms of monthly multi- media platform reach, this gives them a reach of 5,471,00 more than their nearest reaching newspaper in this research, The Independent. On Facebook, it is also head and shoulders above fellow publications in the UK, with almost the same number of Facebook likes as both The Independent and Guardian put together, with 16 million likes at the time writing.

However, despite this impressive statistic, they do meet the same levels as other newspaper under the microscope in terms of accuracy. According to research by Ofcom, the leading regulatory body for UK media, only 53% of people regarded it as impartial, 63% said it was accurate and 64% said it was trustworthy. Despite this, a slightly larger number of people still considered it a “high-quality newspaper” (70%) and “that it was important to them” (69%) (Ofcom, 2018).

An interesting anecdote about Daily Mail and comments is that they are notorious for the

comments posted internally within their own comment sections (Twitter, 2019). These are

anonymous and present and demonstrate all the characteristics anonymous comments are said

to produce (Ben-David, A., & Soffer, O., 2018). There are even social media pages dedicated

to the bizarre comments posted directly on their news website.

The Independent

The Independent is called as such because it claims to be free from any political bias. It can be considered the most neutral newspaper under examination in this research. From all the newspaper in the UK, the largest number of people (37%) consider The Independent as centric in political stance. Another 26% said they were slightly left-leaning. With this considered you may consider them a centre-left orientated publication (YouGov, 2017).

The majority of Independent readers are said to support Labour or the Liberal Democrats, with only a small percentage favouring a Conservative government. Their left-leaning stance can also be demonstrated by their position on Brexit (remain) and in relation to that,

immigration. They even ran a so far unsuccessful nationwide campaign for a second referendum on Brexit (The Independent, 2019).

What is interesting to consider about The Independent and this topic is that their presence is solely online, except for its sister paper, the I. Despite this, they remain the nearest

competitor in this research to The Daily Mail in terms of multi-media monthly reach, with 25,664,000 consumers and are the third most-read newspaper in the UK (Newsworks, 2018).

Naturally, the lion’s share is made up of digital consumption with a reach of 19,476,000 people of The Independent and 52,47,000 of the I online monthly. This translates on their Facebook page too, where they share a similar success with 8.8 million likes on Facebook (Independent Facebook, 2019), the second-highest of the UK newspapers.

Due to their strictly online basis, they are a prime example of web.2.0 newspaper platform.

As they have managed to maintain success without the need for traditional consumption methods or sales approaches. With their entire readership coming via online channels.

Unfortunately, however, the Ofcom research about quality did not include either The Independent nor the I in its research.

The Guardian

Dubbing themselves “The World’s Leading Liberal Voice” the agenda of The Guardian is very clear that their agenda is on the side of the left-leaning stance of the populace.

Overwhelmingly they are considered on the left side of the political spectrum, with 71% of people stating they had some form of left-leaning and further 11% indicate they were centre orientated (YouGov, 2017).

Unlike their more central counterpart, The Independent, The Guardian still has a print edition, though this only accounts for 3,315,000 of their 24,395,000 monthly multi-platform reach, 19,851,000 accessing them via other means (Newsworks, 2019), with The Guardian having the largest desktop reach of any newspaper in the UK (6,926,000). With this

considered, it is unsurprising that their Facebook page is the third-most subscribed to on Facebook from all UK newspapers with 8.1 million likes.

In the Ofcom Research, they performed very highly for quality, with 82% of people considering it of high quality and that it helped them understand what’s going on in the world. Despite its left stance too, people still believed it was highly accurate (79%) and trustworthy (78%). Although it scored slightly lower on its impartiality, still 71% of people argued it was impartial (OfCom, 2018). With these results considered, it is perhaps

unsurprising it is the four-time winner of the "newspaper of the year" award.

The Guardian is one of the most interesting in terms of existing research too, as at least two existing studies exist on the commenting behaviour of their readership. One study found that in the context of wider international outlets, the Guardian had one of “the most

argumentative participants and most diverse contributors,” but these commenters were also the “most civil and at points, arguers would reign in conversations which were deemed to getting out of hand, it stated that "less derogatory language. It is not uncommon to read comments of users telling another one to calm down when the tone of a contribution gets too harsh” (Ruiz, Domingo, Micó, Díaz-Noci, Meso, & Masip, 2011). The study also noted, however, that “conversations evolve away from the story of the day to more general issues, such as the economic crisis or the government policies. Still a lively discussion, but some threads in the conversation ended up having scarce direct relationship with the events of the day”. It also noted that “23.8 percent of comments that challenge the majoritarian leftist profile of their readers, openly defending neoliberal solutions in the economic debates.”

While this is what you may expect from a newspaper with its presumed readership, it is interesting considering that the second piece of research discussing The Guardian was conducted with the focus on the prominence of Face Attacks (Hopkinson) within the confines of newspaper comments. It was possible to create a whole research paper focusing on the prevalence of them within a fairly neutral part of the newspaper, the Science Section as opposed to more pressing topics as the one’s this research discusses. As these two

examples of research findings are seemingly at odds with one another, it will be interesting to consider what this research says about the content of their comments.

The Stories and Comments

As mentioned above, Facebook is the preferred tool for this research as opposed to the comment section of the actual news sites, due to its wide reach based on its large userbase of 2.41 billion worldwide (Statistia, 2019), accessibility, and the algorithmic functionalities it offers. It is also a favourable choice due to its navigational capabilities. This is useful as the Shamima Begum stories, at the time of writing, are several months old. Due to the significant number of stories that newspapers post daily, finding them via scrolling through months of their published content would be a strenuous task. In the process, some of the stories about Begum may be missed and if these are the ones with the most interactions, it may not provide desired findings.

Thanks to the “search” feature Facebook offers it is easy to simply type in the keyword

“Shamima Begum” for all the newspapers stories posted about her to be displayed. To decide what stories to select was reflective of their level of interaction. In terms of the amount of interaction, it must be noted that this may not indicate larger levels of relevance or

controversy. This is because market research shows, the day of the week or the time of day

the post is shared (Read, 2019), and even the accompanying text can contribute to the level of

interaction (Hågvar, 2019). This is not considered an inference on the effectiveness of the

research though, as the research is about the interactions themselves, and the core topics will

ultimately be the same regardless. Another element of interaction to consider though is that

on a Facebook, users can interact via a number of ways, with the option to like the post,

choose an emoji as a reaction to the post, or share the post (Facebook, 2019). However, the

only element of interaction important for this research will be the number of comments on the

post. There is also the case that the algorithms of Facebook may affect top results that will be

founded depending on a user setting and preferences. However, in the Procedure section of

this methodology, some safeguards will be noted that should prevent this.

Once the most commented posts have been highlighted, it will then be my task to select the others that are going to contain the most fertile ground for this research. Again, a similar process will be conducted as to that which was used to find the stories. It will then be a manner of selecting the comments most reacted to, from which I will choose 3 per news story, and focus on the underlying comment threads beneath these. In this case, likes will also be considered and noted in the process and considered a point of alliance with the comment and evidence of validation for their own beliefs (Ben-David, & Matamoros-Fernández, 2016).

However, as this topic is focused on the manner of political discourse itself, a deep dive into the replied comments within the threads are most important. The content of these replies will be what I will align my groupings, discussed below, around. If the top comments prove to be singular comments responded to comments that led to no further interaction, they will only be analysed in brief in relation to their popularity based on likes. With comment threads and on- going discussions between comment participants analysed in-depth as they are the main focus of this research and will provide the insight required. As the research is aiming to see how these debates progress and, in some cases, regress, and what are the factors at play, these will be monitored and listed under the below criteria that will set up the route for what this

research aims to find out. The nature of these comments will be recorded in a codebook based on the groups laid out in the next section. One limitation present is that at some point the research may only capture a small profile of the total number of comments. In some cases, there may hundreds of comments but as the research will only include 3 of the top, it might not be able to provide a complete picture. However, as they are the most commented it indicates the most relevant snapshot.

Procedure: Discourse Analysis

This research will take on a form of discourse analysis. The choice for this method to be the method for the research on the discussion of Shamima Begum and political discourse is because it is the most language-focused research method (Herring, 2004). This is aligning with the focus of this research being to discuss the language involved in the topic of Begum, how that manifests itself, and how it develops over time.

Quantitative methods would be more suitable for research that focuses on the level of interaction, such as the demographic background of people who comment or the level of comments reflective of different subjects they focus on. The choice for the conversations that will be analysed has been already pre-selected based on their popularity, controversy, and relevance in the context of Begum and this research. Due to the fact, more commenters indicate a higher level of debate. The research will not attempt to note social-economic background or what prompts a larger number of reactions from users, but how these commenters talk to one another about Begum.

As the focus of this research is specifically focused on Facebook Comments, the most appropriate for this would be Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis. This was drawn from similar research by Shanthi, & Lee, & Lajium (2015) who investigated discourse analysis on Malaysia message board forums. The basic concept in terms of the methodological

orientation of CMDA is online language-focused content, which this thesis is centred upon.

There are two types that CMDA can fall into. Quantitative, where conversation interactions

are coded and counted before summaries of their frequencies are produced, and qualitative,

where observations of discourse phenomena in a sample of text may be made, illustrated and

discussed (Herring, 2004). Due to the fact that the research of this thesis will be very

specifically focused on a set number of newspapers and their most popular comments, with a focus on the interaction between different participants, the latter of these two types of CMDA is the appropriate fit for this research. Specifically, Qualitative CMDA will be used, as opposed to Quantitative CMDA.

The core elements of the Qualitative CMDA are broken down into five domains, structure, meaning, interaction, social behaviour and participation, each with their own “phenomena”,

“issues” and “methods” by which to analyse (Shanthi, & Lee, & Lajium (2015), details of which can be found in the chart below.

Credit: (Shanthi, & Lee, & Lajium (2015),

Each of the sub-groups, mentioned below in “Groupings”, fit into one of these domains.

While the way they in which they present themselves, i.e. the phenomena, the issues that are relevant, and the methods by which I need to analyse them, will be drawn parallels from the conducts associated with successful CMDA research and depicted in the above chart

(Herring, 2004; Shanthi, & Lee, & Lajium, 2015). These criteria will be the spirit level by which the conducted research on the discourse when discussing Shamima Begum will be measured against.

One more element to consider is inter-coder reliability, but as it will be a sole researcher, this should be limited in its risk. The issue may arise if researchers were to use multiple Facebook accounts to conduct the research as the Facebook algorithm may produce different top results based on previous interactions. For example, “the most relevant for you” element based on profile details, preferences, and location. With this considered, research into the comments will be conducted during periods when the researcher is not signed into a personal account on Facebook to limit the risk of this occurring. Even without being signed in to a Facebook account, internet users can view the news articles and read the comments without the content being effect by their own account settings.

The researcher will also be conducting the research with a UK IP address. This is relevant as

the focus is on UK newspapers and so being based form the UK prevents any location