Debating the Events of September 11th: Discursive and Interactional Dynamics in Three Online Fora

This study examines the constituencies, patterns of interaction, and ideologies in three online fora created to discuss the events of September 11th, 2001. Drawing on comparative case studies, the research explores the frames and discursive styles used by Brazilian, French, and American participants to articulate their views about this polarizing topic. The research identifies commonalities and differences across the three cases with respect to trends in posters' participation, interaction patterns between forum participants, and the ideological content of the posts themselves. Interpretive examination of posts from the three sites elucidates linkages between modes of discourse, ideological positions, and faction membership. The article addresses the effects of these discursive proclivities by examining how participants in each forum create stable ideological divisions. It illuminates how different interactional strategies may facilitate or inhibit continued dialogue in the face of division. Home > Communication & Media Studies > New Media > Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication > Vol 10 Issue 4 > Abstract Laura Robinson* Advanced > Saved Searches > SEARCH In this issue Abstract Article References Cited By Enhanced Article (HTML)Article References Cited By Enhanced Article (HTML) September 11th and the Internet Internet researchers have begun to explore political talk generated in online discussion spaces, such as asynchronous threaded exchanges in Usenet groups and the contributions in synchronous real-time chat rooms sponsored by commercial entities such as Yahoo and AOL (Hill & Hughes, 1998; Stromer-Galley, 2003). Online fora are excellent settings for studying how different types of naturally-occurring discourse evolve among people personally unknown to one another (Weger & Aackhus, 2003). Forum spaces make it possible for participants to pursue mutual understanding, engage in disagreement, and display knowledge. Such online venues also allow participants to express their feelings and engage each other in reasoned argumentation (Steinkuehler, 2002). Some of the research on political discourse online has been designed to ascertain whether such discourse can equal the quality of deliberative offline discourse in terms of coherence and other “dialogic” properties (Stromer-Galley & Martinson, 2004). The findings from this research show that compared to chat dealing with less “serious” topics, online discussions on political topics exhibit high levels of interactivity and topical coherence, as measured by standard coding procedures. There are fewer “off-topic” posts from participants in these fora than from contributors to other discussion spaces. In online spaces devoted to political discourse, posts are more likely to address previous posts in the manner befitting a real deliberative debate (Stromer-Galley & Martinson, 2004, pp. 15-17). If the dialogic properties of online discussion spaces depend on the topic at hand, one might expect genuine dialogic exchanges about topics that are at once Journal of ComputerMediated Communication Volume 10, Issue 4, page 00, July 2005 Log in / Register Debating the Events of September 11th: Discursive and Interactional Dynamics in Three Online Fora Robinson 2006 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Wiley Online Library http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00267.x/full[1/15/2016 4:01:30 PM] impersonal and serious. The discussion spaces created in response to the events of September 11th, 2001 afford a chance to explore these issues further. The events of 9/11 offer a unique opportunity to examine online political discourse in response to a riveting event with global media coverage. Internet researchers estimate that in the first 48 hours following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon buildings, 13% of American Internet users visited an online discussion space, far exceeding the normal participation rate of 4%. Some 2833% of American Internet users posted their thoughts or read other posts by visiting fora and other sites (Jones & Rainie, 2002; Schneider & Foot, 2004). Data from the Pew Internet and American Life Project1 indicate that 46% of the posts addressed how the United States should respond to the attacks, while 19% of the posters consoled others. The majority of the Pew study respondents (57%) judged the online discussions to have been “civil rather than angry,” and 72% deemed them “rational rather than heated” (Jones & Rainie, 2002, p. 36), perhaps because 57% of the discussions did not debate policy but rather discussed people. These findings suggest that, in many exchanges, the strong feelings aroused by the event did not prevent people from articulating their opinions in ways conducive to deliberative debate. Despite these intriguing survey findings, we know very little about the discursive content of posts, or how citizens of other countries have used Internet chat or fora in response to 9/11. As of yet, there is little content analysis of the Internet discourse produced by members of non-Anglophone fora. One content analysis, a study of Estonian online discourse, shows that the events of 9/11 could serve as a topic for reasoned argumentation, albeit mixed with strong expressions of emotion (Vengerfeldt, 2003). Participants discussed the United States' potential response to the attacks and its right to punish the perpetrators. However, this research, while valuable, deals with a limited slice of data from a single-nation user population. As such, it cannot shed light on the long-term trajectories of discourse and interaction as they evolve in multi-national fora. To do this, it is necessary to carry out comparative case studies (Ragin, 1987).