Locally, Regionally and Nationally Online : Online News Comments Sections as Public Arenas in Geographically Anchored Media Structures

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjav20 Javnost - The Public Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjav20 Locally, Regionally and Nationally Online: Online News Comments Sections as Public Arenas in Geographically Anchored Media Structures Veera Kangaspunta To cite this article: Veera Kangaspunta (2020): Locally, Regionally and Nationally Online: Online News Comments Sections as Public Arenas in Geographically Anchored Media Structures, Javnost - The Public, DOI: 10.1080/13183222.2020.1794401 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2020.1794401 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 03 Aug 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 105 View related articles View Crossmark data LOCALLY, REGIONALLY AND NATIONALLY ONLINE: ONLINE NEWS COMMENTS SECTIONS AS PUBLIC ARENAS IN GEOGRAPHICALLY ANCHORED MEDIA STRUCTURES Veera Kangaspunta This article examines online news comments sections as both representing an example of and a subject concerning changing media structures, the changing relationship between users and media outlets, the way this relationship is influenced by the (changing) understanding of place and, especially, the way users participate in the new public arenas provided by geographically anchored online media sources. The focus is on Finnish online media in its golden era, the early 2010s. The analysis of user comments left in the comments sections of a small local newspaper, a regional newspaper and a national newspaper suggests that geography matters. Comments sections serve as public arenas for discussions of shared issues, specified through geography, and construct public spheres. Especially in the local context, the meaning of such public arenas should not be underestimated. KEYWORDS media structure; online media; place; public arenas; public participation; user comments Introduction We live in a world that is constantly changing. Today, the internet represents one of the biggest changes in itself, and it is the main force behind many changes. In the field of media, among others, the changes are inclusive—the internet has changed the world’s media structure and its operational environment. Many of these transitions relate to place and geography (Buchanan 2009; Ewart 2003; Hess 2012; Mersey 2009), since the virtual world has changed how we relate to places—how a place does or does not matter (Creswell 2009; Massey 1995). At the same time, the internet has transformed the traditional media–audience relationship to a media–user relationship and provided new public arenas for participation in the public sphere 1 (see, e.g. Graham and Wright [2014]; Reich [2011]). This paper examines online news comments as an intersection of these changes. The user 2 comments following online news articles highlight the changing relationship between users and media, the way this relationship is influenced by (changing) understandings of place and, especially, how users participate in the new public arenas provided by online media. This analysis focuses on one specific time and context—Finnish online media in 2012. The early 2010s represented both a fundamental change in the overall Finnish Javnost: The Public, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2020.1794401 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. media structure and, more importantly, something of a golden era of online newspapers and comments in Finland. Most traditional print newspapers had launched online versions that had (and still have) geographically strong ties and agendas. Further, many provided free or partly free access to all content, and it was possible to comment anonymously or via pseudonym. Consequently, commenting on these websites was very popular. However, the background of this “new”media structure was built on a traditional and geographically formed setting. In the Finnish context, people tended to have a strong identity relationship with their habitat, and municipalities, both culturally and administratively, had “a specific publicity and presence in the lives of inhabitants”(Paasi 1998, 186–187). 3 Consequently, this specific publicity was mainly constructed through local media—newspapers, radio, etc. published in an area of one or a few municipalities—as they had a special relationship with the residents (Ojajärvi 2014) and represented a key element in local democracies (Heinonen 2000; Nieminen 2004a). On a wider level, a strong and unique county (or regional) press systematically built and represented something that could be considered a county (or regional) identity (Hujanen 2000; Moring 2000; Paasi 1998). Unsurprisingly, both international and Finnish research show that geography and locality have remained relevant even in the online media era (Mersey 2009; Ojajärvi 2014)—local newspapers have “a unique task that is clearly geographically rooted”(Mersey 2009, 348). By contrast, it seems obvious that the internet has significantly changed our relationship with the media, both in relation to geography, since online content makes it possible to share issues on a wider scale, and by creating new relationships between people and media institutions. In short, the traditional media–audience relationship has been increasingly transformed into a media–user relationship (Graham and Wright 2014). Instead of mainly consuming media content, people now use and produce it, and this complexity can serve several motives, aims and needs, both individually and societally (Springer, Engelmann, and Pfaffinger 2015). However, there is little research concerning how Finnish online newspaper users— previously understood mainly as readers of traditional print papers—dealt with these changes in the media structure, in relation to places and geography, and in relation to their new role as users. Therefore this study aims to answer, What is the relevance of traditional geographically anchored media structure to online newspaper users? (RQ1a) and What is the relevance of the new public arenas (of public sphere) in this geographically anchored media structure to online newspaper users? (RQ1b). To answer these questions, the analysis focuses on How does geography become visible in online newspaper users’comments? (RQ2a), more specifically, How do online newspaper users use places and locations as discursive resources in news comments? (RQ2b) and How do online newspaper users use and negotiate place-related identities in news comments? (RQ2c). Previously, researchers mostly considered the geographic relevance of users’online news comments in relation to news values, such as familiarity, proximity, or damage (Weber 2014). Adding more depth, this paper aims to explain how the online users reflect the nature of the local, regional or national “publicity”(Paasi 1998) that they embody. The study uses place as an analytical tool, since the manner in which we connect to places and define our home—and thus, relate to and understand the world—can be seen both in constant transition and yet unchanged (e.g. Duyvendak 2011), alongside the transformation–permanence process in the media structure (Hess 2012; Pauly and Eckert 2002). The article first builds a theoretical framework, bringing together the different dimensions of the changing media structure, media–user relationship and public arenas, and then 2VEERA KANGASPUNTA presents place and related concepts. The context of the case and the actual case are introduced next. The research material consists of users’comments from three online Finnish newspapers relating to news coverage of a specific environmental accident in northern Finland in November 2012. The analysis includes a pre-analysis and a main qualitative content analysis. The pre-analysis aims to map out and categorise place-related phrases. The main content analysis examines the use of these phrases in relation to the theoretical framework and research questions. Finally, the results of the analysis are presented and discussed. The Theoretical Framework Place and Locality in Changing Media Structures A sense of place and home are crucial to locally, regionally and nationally based traditional media, as their functionality is built on people’s engagement with specific, geographically framed agendas. The history of newspapers fits this tradition, where a town, city, county or nation provides the operational context for newspapers (Buchanan 2009; Hujanen 2000; Nygren, Leckner, and Tenor 2017; Wiio 2006). However, the breakthrough of online media content changed this traditional setting (Ewart 2003; Falkheimer and Jansson 2006; Hess 2012). Researchers have also argued that geographic location (and belonging) is beginning to lose its taken-for-granted primacy concerning what we deem newsworthy (Buchanan 2009; see also, P. Weber [2014]). Journalism studies offer numerous analyses of these changes and their impact (Buchanan 2009; Franklin 2006; Hess 2012; Nielsen 2015; Nygren, Leckner, and Tenor 2017; Pauly and Eckert 2002). One of the main concerns has been the role of local media: “[f]or what purpose do people need the local newspaper anymore, if they can follow the entire world through the internet and join other interesting communities?”(Sillanpää 2011, 111, transl.). Despite such concerns, a newly reorganised conceptualisation of places shows that geography remains important to journalism. For example, Hess (2012, 49) suggested the concept of the “geo-social”to highlight both the geographic and social sides of local newspapers, news and meaning-making processes. The rise of the hyperlocal media of the internet era is another example of the growing meaning of locality (Nygren, Leckner, and Tenor 2017). According to Mersey (2009), one way for newspapers to remain relevant in this changing environment is to embrace geography. In relation to users, Ewart (2003) suggests that (regional) online newspapers continue to develop and provide spaces for regional public discussions—connections based on “geographical areas or communities of interest, that is, communities of people wanting to discuss a particular issue.” The Public Participation, Public Arenas and Heritage of Public Sphere Theory Users’comments have often been examined from the theoretical perspective of public participation (Reich 2011) or civic engagement (Manosevitch and Walker 2009), grounded in the deliberative public sphere theory. However, in this study, the public sphere is not understood as a normative concept, so the analysis avoids evaluating user comments, for example, from the perspectives of their deliberative qualities (c.f., Ruiz et al. 2011). This study’s theoretical point of departure is the early work of Jürgen Habermas LOCALLY, REGIONALLY AND NATIONALLY ONLINE 3 ([1962] 1989;[1964]1974), where the public sphere was referred to as a specific“realm of our social life,”a part of which “comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body”([1964]1974, 49). This elementary definition of a “realm”that “comes into being”begs the question of how people participate in, articulate and construct this realm in contemporary media conditions. This paper regards the public sphere as an imagined and real conceptual entity, coming into being through public participation in public arenas 4 and in several scales, from local to global. Public arenas are understood as concrete spaces, such as mass media, social media or a town meeting, which provide forums for public discussions and participation of all societal actors, such as politicians, citizens, and journalists. Together, the spaces and the content create the public sphere or spheres, layered and intertwining, though sometimes independent. Similarly, Toepfland Piwoni (2015) see public spheres as consortiums of space, discursive patterns and participants 5 —to them, one space represents one public sphere. However, here, the public sphere is understood as composition of several possible public arenas, such as a (conceptual) local public sphere constituted from public participation (discussion, visual content, etc.) in local media (several arenas) and other public forums (town meetings, etc.). The main foci of this study are the changing media structure and the media–user relationship, which are regenerating new public arenas and participation. Interestingly, users’comments are emerging in the public arena provided online, but also show strong geographic attachments. Additionally, issues evoking users’public participation are firmly connected to people’s everyday lives offline and become visible in online users’actions (Barnes 2018). The setting relates to Dewey’s([1927]1954) widely known idea of public participation emerging when people face indirect consequences of various societal actions and operations, and when they aim to address these consequences together as a public ([1927] 1954; c.f., Habermas [1964]1974). (For more about the issue-based public, see, Kangaspunta [2018b]; Marres [2005]; and Pietilä [2001].) To Dewey, shared issues, needed to be solved, created public participation. However, the present study does not follow Dewey’s theory further, but rather acknowledges the high meaning of shared issues. Place, Scale, Home, Identity and Place Attachment Campbell (2018, 23) defines “places”as “physical spaces that people naturalise through patterns, behaviour and communications.”According to Creswell (2009, 4), the core question of humanistic geography is this naturalising process, “how we relate to our environment and make it into place.”A place has to have a meaning—asense of place— otherwise, it is merely a location. Places are imagined (Knuuttila 2006), “relational and contingent, experienced and understood differently by different people”(Hubbard and Kitchin 2011, 7). Furthermore, the logic, meaning and understanding of places change as we move in varying scales, from home to nation, or even globally (Knuuttila 2006; see also, Creswell [2009]). For example, discussing a country as a place differs substantially from discussing a specific area, neighbourhood or favourite forest. From a national perspective, we rely on our imaginations and general level; in a smaller and closer perspective, we refer to concrete and specific features. What makes places so meaningful? Typically, places are associated with the ideas of persistence and belonging (Forselles-Riska 2006; Kymäläinen 2006). Morley (2001; see also, Duyvendak [2011]) refers to places, like households, nations and local communities, as 4VEERA KANGASPUNTA spaces of belonging—noting that we need to belong somewhere. Consequently, home typically represents the core of belonging—“a symbol for universal attachment”(Creswell 2009, 5). Even though home can operate at different scales and levels—pointing to a house, (home)town or (home)country—traditionally, it has been considered as an “ideal” (Creswell 2009,5)or“safe”place (Knuuttila 2006, 8). For this reason, discussions of the assumed loosening of geographic ties in making places meaningful (Duyvendak 2011) relates strongly to discussions about home (Buchanan 2009). Places, homes, habitats and communities are also essential parts of our individual and shared—or personal and collective—identities. They have a role in our understanding of both ourselves and our relationships with others (Hogg 2006). However, these different levels of (place-related) identities are not separated, and places can also work as the tie between individual and shared identities. Sillanpää (2011, 179, transl.) explains: Essential to local and regional identity—whether a national, county or otherwise—is the relationship between individual and social identity. Questions like “Who am I?”or “Who are we?”are always problematic. […] Regional identities are also narratives about who and what “we”and “our region”are. People are both “Iinus”and “us together,”and this constant two-level identity ties “us” together in communicative processes. We define, construct and protect shared meaningful places that are essential to our identities. According to Creswell (2009, 7), “[p]eople connect a place with a particular identity and proceed to defend it against the threatening outside with its different identities.”Consequently, separations of “us/them”and “outsiders/insiders”(Kymäläinen 2006, 209) often create identity-related conflicts. Understandably, the way we construct individual and shared placeand home-related identities has changed and become more complex, not only due to the internet but strongly due to increasing mobility and individualism (Knuuttila 2006). Capturing contemporary fluidity, Paasi (1998, 180; see also, Sillanpää [2011]) connects identity with “temporal and social continuity”, making identity a “dynamic, constantly shaping process.”In the era of a mobilised and globalised multimedia, our new hybrid identities (Hall 1999) are built on several factors where place and home only represent one (Kymäläinen 2006; Paasi 1998), but nonetheless crucial, factor (Nygren, Leckner, and Tenor 2017; Paasi and Metzger 2017). Here, the relevance of place- (and home-)related identity, both individual and collective, is not in the separation of the two, but in how the questions ”Who am I?,””Who are we?”and ”Who are you?”relate to geography and media structures. This analysis is built on the idea that geographical places are being communicatively constructed, imagined and experienced, and this process also reflects the building of and discussions on identities. Antonsich (2010, 644) calls for an analysis of belonging “both as a personal, intimate, feeling of being “at home”in a place (place-belongingness) and as a discursive resource that constructs, claims, justifies, or resists forms of socio-spatial inclusion/exclusion (politics of belonging).”The study leans on the understanding of the “functional and emotional/symbolic meanings”of places (Williams and Roggenbuck 1989; see also Morley [2001]) and the discursive/constructionist approach to place attachment: The discursive perspective treats place attachment as a social practice that cannot be understood outside of the interactional, cultural, and institutional contexts in which it emerges. […] it entails a reconceptualisation of place attachment as a discursive resource LOCALLY, REGIONALLY AND NATIONALLY ONLINE 5 that individuals deploy within their everyday interactions […]. (Di Masso, Dixon, and Durrheim 2014, 81) The Research Context Finnish newspapers—like others worldwide (Buchanan 2009; Nygren, Leckner, and Tenor 2017)—tend to have strong historical bonds to geographical areas (Hujanen 2000; Wiio 2006). They have roughly three tiers. Local newspapers usually follow the happenings of one specific town or city and are printed 1–3 times weekly. With small circulations, these newspapers maintain a highly place-oriented agenda. Regional papers have their roots in the old system of provinces. The circulation of such regional papers varies (10,000– 70,000 subscribers), and the print version is usually published daily, or six times weekly (Media Audit Finland 2012). They follow a regional agenda, including local news from specific towns and cities, while also reporting on national and international issues from a regional perspective when possible. Nowadays, both local and regional Finnish newspapers tend to have monopoly status in their own context—there is usually only one per town or region/county. National newspapers are typically topic-based (economy, agriculture, etc.), tabloids or mainstream papers. The only national mainstream newspaper in Finland is Helsingin Sanomat. It has over 300,000 subscribers, and the print version is published daily (Media Audit Finland 2012). It carries international and national news on a wide range of topics, but has its roots in Helsinki, so it still covers local and regional news from the area. Interesting in the Finnish media structure is the high relevance and strong history of local and especially regional/county newspapers (Hujanen 2000), and the scarcity and short history of national mainstream newspapers. As such, this geographically anchored structure has affected the newspaper–audience relationship (Kärki 2004) and the role of newspapers in building regional identities (Hujanen 2000; Moring 2000). Moreover, Finland is increasingly divided geographically and politically between the heartland, including the metropolitan area in the South and the other main cities and developing centres of growth, and the periphery, including the North and the areas losing inhabitants to urbanisation and rising unemployment. These struggling periphery areas are usually referred as the “countryside,”even though agriculture is only one of its main industries. (Malinen et al. 2006.) One specific news item can be followed at different levels of media, from local to national, providing a chance to observe varying perspectives. The present case study for analysing users’comments focuses on a major environmental accident in November 2012: a wastewater leak at the Talvivaara Mine (now called Terrafame), in the small northern town of Sotkamo (pop. 10,000), in Kainuu (a county of 70,000), a representative of the periphery. Sotkamo also constitutes a crossing of three counties: Kainuu, Northern Savonia and Northern Karelian. Briefly, a mine-owned gypsum pond began leaking on 4 November 2012. In the first days, some of the toxic water poured directly into the surrounding environment, but most was contained within so-called safety ponds and dams. Initially, the focus was on stopping the leak. In addition, as the mine area filled with water, the company created passages of “neutralised wastewater”to nearby rivers. The leak, additional water passages and older water passages (related to the usual activity at the mine) affected the surrounding environment. These effects were followed and measured by county and national authorities and environmental organisations. 6VEERA KANGASPUNTA The Finnish media at all levels reported on the accident (Harju and Karvonen 2016; Kangaspunta 2018a). From a national perspective, this was seen as the largest environmental crisis in Finnish history, and the mine became a symbol of the failures of the national mining industry (Tiainen, Sairinen, and Mononen 2014). Regionally and locally, it was seen through the lens of concrete effects on the area’s residents and discussed in relation to environmental hazards and employment concerns (Kangaspunta 2018a). All told, the media coverage played a major role in shaping Talvivaara’s reputation as a meaningful, symbolic place suddenly loaded with social and political relevance. The media helped people around the country to imagine the place. The Research Material: Three Online Newspapers Grounded in this context, the research data for this study consist of users’comments on online articles about the Talvivaara leak in three newspapers: (1) A small local paper, Sotkamo-lehti (SL) (in 2012, free access, no registration required, pre-moderated) is a typical local paper and focuses on local issues. (2) The regional Kainuun Sanomat (KS) (in 2012, free access, no registration, pre-moderated) is a typical regional paper with a wider agenda and county perspective. (3) The national paper Helsingin Sanomat (HS) (in 2012, partially chargeable online content, registration required, pre-moderated) reports both national and world news, but also covers stories from the Helsinki area. Data were collected from online archives using the search term “Talvivaara”and includes all comments following news articles 6 published online in November 2012 related to the mining company, not merely the leak, since the leak resulted in several other incidents and discussions of the company (Kangaspunta 2018a). This data setting includes 9,499 comments on 278 news articles. SL published 71 articles with 1,648 comments; KS published 123 articles with 6,186 comments; and HS published 84 articles with 1,665 comments. Pre-analysis Methodology and Results Quantitative and Qualitative Content Analyses Content analysis is a set of quantitative and/or qualitative methods focused mainly on texts (Tuomi and Sarajärvi 2018; R. P. Weber 1990). From a social sciences perspective, the aim of an analysis can be to “reflect cultural patterns of groups, institutions, or societies; […]; and describe trends in communication content”(R. P. Weber 1990, 9). This can be done by recognising (qualitative) and counting (quantitative) textual elements, analysing their meaning from certain theoretical perspectives (qualitative) and statistically analysing their relationships (quantitative) (Riffe et al. 1998; Tuomi and Sarajärvi 2018). The pre-analysis and main analysis below aim to answer the research questions RQ2a, RQ2b and RQ2c. Since the focus of this study is written comments, the research connects to poststructuralist approaches on place and focuses on how places—as communicative constructs—are written about (Kymäläinen 2006). Additionally, the main analysis strives to understand why places are written about in certain ways and with what consequences. LOCALLY, REGIONALLY AND NATIONALLY ONLINE 7 The Pre-analysis Process and Results The first phase of the pre-analysis was an extensive search of all references to places and locations (e.g. “Sotkamo,”“here,”“in Talvivaara”); the origins of people and things (e.g. “locals”); and home, habitat and identity (e.g. “I,”“we,”“you,”“homeland,”“the people of Kainuu”) in the comments. A list of recognised phrases was based on this, and terms were grouped and categorised. The categories were: 1. Geography and scale, divided by a) geographic location and agency, b) origin of people (and things); and 2. Talvivaara mine, divided by a) as a locale and place, b) causing effects (see Tables 1 and 2). The next phase was a quantitative counting of references to recognised phrases from each category presented in Tables 1 and 2. The analysis aimed to examine the variety of used phrases and the differences between selected online comments sections (SL, KS and HS). Each comment was examined holistically. Each reference was documented individually and only once from each unit (comment). References to synonymic phrases that were substantially different in their spelling or/and meaning were documented separately. For example, “locals”and “natives of Sotkamo”are at some level synonymic but can express very different purposes. The results from all comments sections were similar in how they highlighted geographic location and agency; the origins of people (and things) and the effects of Talvivaara Table 1. References to Geography and Scale. Newspaper a) Geographic location and agency Local (near) and hyperlocal Regional National Global SL n=1,013 references In total 387 references (38.2%)/ 54 phrases 150 ref./ 7 phr. 107 ref./ 30 phr. 87 ref./ 8 phr. 43 ref./ 9 phr. KS n=3,795 references In total 1531 references (40.3%)/ 65 phrases 217 ref./ 12 phr. 716 ref./ 25 phr. 332 ref./ 9 phr. 266 ref./ 19 phr. HS n=2,310 references In total 806 references (34.9%)/ 81 phrases 15 ref./ 2 phr. 219 ref./ 37 phr. 421 ref./ 6 phr. 205 ref./ 36 phr. b) Origin of people (and things) Local (near) and hyperlocal Regional National Global SL n=1,013 references In total 210 references (20.7%)/ 32 phrases 118 ref./ 17 phr. 30 ref./ 4 phr. 47 ref./ 9 phr. 15 ref./ 2 phr. KS n=3,795 references In total 1031 references (27.2%)/ 63 phrases 278 ref./ 28 phr. 364 ref./ 12 phr. 323 ref./ 15 phr. 67 ref./ 8 phr. HS n=2,310 references In total 632 references (27.3%)/ 36 phrases 183 ref./ 12 phr. 46 ref./ 6 phr. 359 ref./ 14 phr. 44 ref./ 4phr. n=overall number of references in both categories. 8VEERA KANGASPUNTA (1) Users positioned themselves relative to others according to both geographical places (e.g. periphery versus metropolitan area) and shared issues (e.g. against the mine or in favour). The geographical placement had several functions: it produced certain local expertise, provided a certain role (e.g. victim) in the discussion and defined the discussion and shared issues in the axis of local–regional–national. (2) Incidents and consequences in specific locations elicited the significant roles of insider and outsider, based on the traditional geographical setting and in relation to the actual case. (3) The issues and questions discussed differed in relation to geographical setting. For example, outsiders, especially HS users, referred to the environmental effects generally, and discussed the leak as a national matter of shared values. Conversely, SL and KS users referred to nearby areas and specific places. They discussed the Talvivaara case in detail and as more concrete issue. (4) The placements and the place-related roles related to both individual and shared identities. In SL, and especially KS, comment threads, regional identity was also a pivotal issue and defined mainly in relation to the contradiction between employment and environmental values. In these debates, identity was based on home and residency, reflecting the need to defend identity-related meaningful places and values. More cosmopolitan identities stood out mainly in HS comments. (5) The geographically anchored media structure was the core of public discussions, and users from around the country participated in discussions in all three public arenas. In relation to RQ1a, the analysis shows that online users, especially those of local and regional papers, related strongly to traditional geographically anchored media structures, which had a great effect on their discussions. Furthermore, in relation to RQ1b, the analysis revealed that comments sections seemed to represent new unique public arenas for participation and discussions of shared issues in a public sphere, including the (old/traditional) context of local, regional or national connections. In this study, the public sphere is conceptualised as a realm for public discussions of shared issues in public arenas. In this way, we can recognise several public spheres on the local–regional–national axis. These spheres differ in participants, their roles, locations and issues—the who, what role, where and about what—strongly defined by geography. The spheres are somewhat layered, yet also independent of one another. For example, the national media, like HS (and most TV channels), represents the national public arenas, discussions and views of the Talvivaara issue. Together with other national public arenas, such as Twitter, they constitute a (conceptual) national public sphere. The local public sphere is a part of this, yet also highly independent, with local newspaper and other arenas, discussions and more defined issues. These connections and disconnections among spheres are notable in relation to theories on public spheres, especially Dewey’s([1927]1954), who believed in the democratic potency of small local communities. The analysis does not suggest “better”or more vivid public participation or public sphere at the local level compared to the other two, but we can speculate that the local newspapers work as important forums for locally defined shared questions and user participation, and might form the main public arena in the local public sphere. As the context of public discussions and issues widens, this importance might not be discerned. These hypotheses provide interesting perspectives for future research. LOCALLY, REGIONALLY AND NATIONALLY ONLINE 15 The meaning of comments sections as public arenas within geographically anchored media should not be underestimated. They strengthen users’place-related bonds and identities, provide possibilities for participation and discussions of shared issues and values in a mass media context and keep the media at the core of these actions and processes. Previous research on online comments has shown that users have several goals and motives (Kangaspunta 2018b; Springer, Engelmann, and Pfaffinger 2015), they can recognise their role in public discussions, they diversify discussions of issues and they position themselves for dialogue with actors talking in the news articles (Kangaspunta 2016;2018a;2018b). Worryingly, the Finnish media logic is changing, and this form of user participation is decreasing. The use of paywall systems has deflated the number of online readers, and the popularity of comments sections that are “only for subscribers”is minimal, especially in local and regional newspapers. Additionally, news articles are shared and discussed more and more on social media platforms (instead of newspapers’own websites). It is possible that, if and when users’discussions move away from the mass media platforms, they will regress and lose relevance as parts of the public spheres, and users’participation will be understood increasingly as a secondary role in public discussions. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. FUNDING This work was supported by the C . V. Åkerlund Media Foundation. NOTES 1. The nature of this public sphere could be understood as, for example, digital, virtual (Papacharissi 2002) or mediated (Nieminen 2004b), or in relation to Habermas’s (see, e.g., [1991]) ideas of the (normative and) deliberative public sphere. However, in the limits of this article, the study neither participates in these broad theoretical discussion nor the challenging theories of counterpublics (Fraser 1992) or the agonistic model of democracy (Mouffe 1999). 2. The terms “reader”and “audience”are avoided because they presuppose reading the news before leaving a comment. Even though people usually read before participating in the comments sections, it is also possible to read only the headlines and/or other comments. For this reason, the term “user,”referring to people using the newspapers for several purposes, is preferred. 3. Translated by the author, in the future, “transl.” 4. Public arenas have been understood in many ways. A typical discourse connects the public arena and public sphere, but the public sphere is now seen as an arena. However, public arenas have also been conceptualised on their own. For example, Koivunen and Lehtonen (2005) see them from the perspective of public addresses—who is addressing whom, where and about what. Nieminen (2004b, 9), however, sees public arenas “separated by their subject issues and developmental histories,”including the 16 VEERA KANGASPUNTA “economy, politics, culture, social life (human interests), public (official) information, entertainment, advertisements, etc.” 5. More closely, Toepfland Piwoni (2015, 9) suggest three required criteria for a public (sphere) to emerge: a) “the communicative spaces within which a public sphere operates”; b) “the common discursive patterns that distinguish a public sphere”; and c) “the participants who constitute a public sphere, both as speakers and as attentive audiences.” 6. The material consists only of comments on news articles, not ones on editorials or columns. This exclusion was made to avoid genre-related differences in the material and to keep the data consistent. It is possible that people comment differently on opinion-driven content than on more neutrally understood news. 7. All users’comments were translated by the author, mainly using their original spelling, including errata. 8. “Ring 3”refers to Ring Road 3, Kehä III in Finnish, which is the outer ring road surrounding Helsinki’s metropolitan area. The phrase “ring 3”is commonly used in debates between those in the capital area and those elsewhere in Finland, particularly northern Finland. REFERENCES Antonsich, Marco. 2010.“Searching for Belonging –An Analytical Framework.”Geography Compass 4 (6): 644–659. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00317. Barnes, Renee. 2018.Uncovering Online Commenting Culture. Trolls, Fanboys and Lurkers. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Buchanan, Carrie. 2009.“Sense of Place in the Daily Newspaper.”Aether: The Journal of Media Geography IV: 62–84. Campbell, Courtney J. 2018.“Space, Place and Scale: Human Geography and Spatial History in Past and Present.”Past & Present 239 (1): e23–e45. doi:10.1093/past/gtw006. Creswell, Tim. 2009.“Place.”In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Vol. 8, edited by Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift, 169–177. Oxford: Elsevier. Dewey, John. (1927) 1954.Public and Its Problems. Denver: Alan Swallow. Di Masso, Andrés, John Dixon, and Kevin Durrheim. 2014.“Place Attachment as Discursive Practice.”In Place Attachment. Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications, edited by Lynne C. Manzo, and Patrick Devine-Wright, 75–86. Oxon/ New York: Routledge. Duyvendak, Jan W. 2011.The Politics of Home: Belonging and Nostalgia in Europe and the United States. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ewart, Jacqui. 2003.“News Connections: Regional Newspapers and the Web.”Transformations 7. http://www.transformationsjournal.org/journal/issue_07/article_01.shtml. Falkheimer, Jesper, and André Jansson. 2006.Geographies of Communication: The Spatial Turn in Media Studies. Goteborg: Nordicom. Forselles-Riska, Cecilia af. 2006.“Menneisyyden muuttuvat paikat.”[Changing Places of the Past]. In Paikka. Eletty, kuviteltu, kerrottu [Place. Lived, Imagined, Told], edited by Seppo Knuuttila, Pekka Laaksonen, and Ulla Piela, 218–231. Jyväskylä: Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy. Franklin, Bob. 2006.“Attacking the Devil? Local Journalists and Local Newspapers in the UK.”In Local Journalism and Local Media: Making the Local News, edited by Bob Franklin, 3–15. London: Routledge. LOCALLY, REGIONALLY AND NATIONALLY ONLINE 17 Fraser, Nancy. 1992.“Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.”In Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by Craig Calhoun, 109– 142. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Graham, Todd, and Scott Wright. 2014.“Analysing ‘Super-Participation’in Online Third Spaces.”In Analyzing Social Media Data and Web Networks, edited by Marta Cantijoch, Rachel Gibson, and Stephen Ward, 197–215. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Habermas, Jürgen. (1962) 1989.The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Habermas, Jürgen. (1964) 1974.“The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article.”New German Critique 3: 49–55. doi:10.2307/487737. Habermas, Jürgen. 1991.“Further Reflections on the Public Sphere.”In Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by Craig Calhoun, 421–460. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Hall, Stuart. 1999.Identiteetti [Identity]. Translated and edited by Mikko Lehtonen and Juha Herkman. Tampere: Vastapaino. Harju, Aki, and Erkki Karvonen. 2016.“Lipeä yllätti Talvivaaran: Onnettomuusnarratiivi ja onnettomuuden kehys kaivoskirjoittelussa.”[Talvivaara Surprised by Lye: The Accident Narrative and Frame in Mining Writings]. Media & viestintä –vuosikirja 2016: 184–208. doi:10. 23983/mv.61420. Heinonen, Ari. 2000.“Johdanto: Verkko, paikallisuus, julkisuus.”[Introduction: Web, Locality, Public Sphere]. In Verkkotorilla: Internet kansalaisviestinnän ja paikallisen julkisuuden tilana [At the Web Marketplace: Internet as a Space for Civic Communication and Local Public Sphere], edited by Ari Heinonen, Maarit Mäkinen, Seija Ridell, Ari Martikainen, Mika Halttu, and Esa Sirkkunen, 15–28. Tampere University: Julkaisuja C32/2000. Hess, Kristy. 2012.“Breaking Boundaries: Recasting the ‘Local’Newspaper as ‘Geo-Social’News in a Digital Landscape.”Digital Journalism 1: 48–63. doi:10.1080/21670811.2012.714933. Hogg, Michael. 2006.“Social Identity Theory.”In Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, edited by Peter J. Burke, 111–136. Palo Alto, CA: Standford University Press. Hubbard, Phil, and Rob Kitchin. 2011.“Introduction: Why Key Thinkers?”In Key Thinkers on Space and Place (2nd edit.), edited by Phil Hubbard, and Rob Kitchin, 1–17. London: Sage. Hujanen, Jaana. 2000.Journalismin maakunnallisuus: alueellisuuden rakentuminen maakuntalehtien teksteissä ja tekijöiden puheessa [Regional Journalism. The Construction of Regions and Regionalism in Finnish Newspaper Texts and in Journalists’Talk]. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä Studies in Communication 11. Kangaspunta, Veera. 2016.“Talvivaara ja kommenteissa keskustelevat julkisot. Keskustelunanalyyttinen menetelmäkokeilu verkkouutisten kommentoinnista.”[Talvivaara and the Discussing Publics in the Comments: Testing Conversation Analysis Methodology on Online News Comments]. Media & Viestintä 39 (1): 24–54. doi:10.23983/mv.61438. Kangaspunta, Veera. 2018a.“Julkinen kaivoskeskustelu diskursiivisena välienselvittelynä.”[Public Mining Discussion as a Discursive Debate]. Alue ja ympäristö 47 (1): 79–103. doi:10.30663/ ay.65574. Kangaspunta, Veera. 2018b.“Online News Comments: Social Network and Emergent Public.”The Information Society 34 (5): 275–288. doi:10.1080/01972243.2018.1497741. Kärki, Anita. 2004.Sivusta seuraten. Sanomalehti lukijoiden kertomuksissa [As Bystanders. Newspaper in the Narratives of the Readers]. SoPhi. 83. Jyväskylä: Minerva Kustannus. Knuuttila, Seppo. 2006.“Paikan moneus.”[Diveristy of Place]. In Paikka. Eletty, kuviteltu, kerrottu [Place. Lived, Imagined, Told], edited by Seppo Knuuttila, Pekka Laaksonen, and Ulla Piela, 7–13. Jyväskylä: Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy. 18 VEERA KANGASPUNTA Koivunen, Anu, and Mikko Lehtonen. 2005.“‘Joskus on kiva olla vähemmän aikuinen’. Kulttuurisen määrittelyvallan siirtymät ja julkisen puhuttelun areenat.”[‘Sometimes it’s Nice to Be Less Adult’. Transitions of the Power of Cultural Definition and Arenas of Public Address]. Tiedotustutkimus 28 (2): 4–27. Kymäläinen, Päivi. 2006.“Paikan Ajattelun Haasteita.”[Challenges of Thinking about Place]. In Paikka. Eletty, Kuviteltu, Kerrottu [Place. Lived, Imagined, Told], edited by Seppo Knuuttila, Pekka Laaksonen, and Ulla Piela, 203–217. Jyväskylä: Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy. Malinen, Pentti, Liisa Kytölä, Heikki Keränen, and Reijo Keränen. 2006.Suomen maaseututyypit 2006 [Countryside Types of Finland 2006]. Suomen aluetutkimus FAR. Selvityksiä: 20. Manosevitch, Edith, and Dana Walker. 2009.“Readers’Comments to Online Journalism: A Space of Public Deliberation.”Paper presented at the 10 th International Symposium on Online Journalism. Austin, 2009. Marres, Noortje S. 2005.“No Issue, No Public: Democratic Deficits After the Displacement of Politics.”PhD diss., University of Amsterdan. Amsterdam: Ipskamp Printpartners. Massey, Doreen. 1995.“The Conceptualization of Place.”In A Place in the World? Places, Cultures and Globalization, edited by Doreen Massey, and Pat Jess, 45–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Media Audit Finland. 2012.LT ja JT tarkastustilasto 2012 [Circulation and Distribution Statistics 2012]. Mersey, Rachel. 2009.“Online News Users’Sense of Community. Is Geography Dead?”Journalism Practice 3: 347–360. doi:10.1080/17512780902798687. Moring, Inga. 2000.“Heimojen maa. Paikallistamisen politiikka ja identiteetti alueellisissa lehdissä.”[The Country of Tribes. Politics of Localizing and Identity in the Regional Papers]. In Me median maisemissa. Reflektioita identiteettiin ja mediaan [Us in the Media Landscape. Reflections on Identity and Media], edited by Helena Tapper, 80–105. Helsinki: Palmenia. Morley, David. 2001.“Belongings: Place, Space and Identity in a Mediated World.”European Journal of Cultural Studies 4 (4): 425–448. doi:10.1177/136754940100400404. Mouffe, Chantal. 1999.“Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?”Social Research 66 (3): 745–758. doi:1349. Nielsen, Rasmus K. 2015.“Introduction: The Uncertain Future of Local Journalism.”In Local Journalism: The Decline of Newspapers and the Rise of Digital Media, edited by Rasmus K. Nielsen, 1–29. London: I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd. Nieminen, Hannu. 2004a.“Kansalaisyhteiskunta ja media.”[Civic Society and Media.] A Memo to Sitra. media.sitra.fi/2017/02/2712550/Nieminen-2.pdf. Nieminen, Hannu. 2004b.“On the Formation of the National Public Sphere.”Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Working Paper 1/2006. http://hdl.handle.net/10224/4659. Nikunen, Kaarina. 2018.“Geographical Imaginations, Politics of Hospitality and the Media in the European Refugee Crisis.”In Geomedia Studies. Spaces and Mobilities in Mediatized Worlds, edited by Karin Fast, André Jansson, Johan Lindell, Linda Ryan Bengtsson, and Mekonnen Tesfahuney, 215–233. New York: Routledge. Nygren, Gunnar, Sara Leckner, and Carina Tenor. 2017.“Hyperlocals and Legacy Media. Media Ecologies in Transition.”Nordicom Review 39 (1): 33–49. doi:10.1515/nor-2017-0419. Ojajärvi, Sanna. 2014.Suomalainen paikallislehti. Perhealbumista journalismin uudistajaksi? [The Finnish Local Newspaper. From Family-album to Reformer of Journalism?] Helsinki University, Viestinnän tutkimusraportteja 1/2014. https://blogs.helsinki.fi/crc-centre/files/2014/ 04/suomalainen_paikallislehti_raportti.pdf. LOCALLY, REGIONALLY AND NATIONALLY ONLINE 19 Paasi, Anssi. 1998.“Alueiden renessanssi ja identiteettipuhe.”[The Renaissance of Regions and Identity Talk]. In Missä on tässä [Where is Here?], edited by Sakari Hänninen, 170–190. University of Jyväskylä: Yhteiskuntatieteiden, valtio-opin ja filosofian julkaisuja 18. Paasi, Anssi. 2003.“Region and Place: Regional Identity in Question.”Progress in Human Geography 27 (4): 475–485. doi:10.1191/0309132503ph439pr. Paasi, Anssi, and Jonathan Metzger. 2017.“Foregrounding the Region.”Regional Studies 51 (1): 19–30. doi:10.1080/00343404.2016.1239818. Papacharissi, Zizi. 2002.“The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as a Public Sphere.”New Media & Society 4 (9): 9–27. doi:10.1177/14614440222226244. Papacharissi, Zizi. 2004.“Democrazy Online: Civility, Politeness, and the Democratic Potential of Online Political Discussion Groups.”New Media & Society 6 (2): 259–283. doi:10.1177/ 1461444804041444. Pauly, John, and Melissa Eckert. 2002.“The Myth of ‘The Local’in American Journalism.”Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 79 (2): 310–326. doi:10.1177/107769900207900204. Pietilä, Veikko. 2001.“Reflections on Public Discussion in the Mass Media.”Nordicom Review 22 (1): 11–21. Reich, Zvi. 2011.“User Comments. The Transformation of Participatory Space.”In Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers, edited by Jane B. Singer, et al, 96–117. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781444340747.ch6. Riffe, Daniel, Stephen Lacy, Brendan R. Watson, and Frederick Fico. 1998.Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research. New York: Routledge. Ruiz, Carlos, David Domingo, Josep Lluís Micó, Javier Díaz-Noci, Koldo Meso, and Pere Masip. 2011.“Public Sphere 2.0? The Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online Newspapers.”The International Journal of Press/ Politics 16 (4): 463–487. doi:10.1177/ 1940161211415849. Sillanpää, Pertti. 2011.“Paikallisuus on koettua ja luettua.”[Locality is Experienced and Redd]. In LoCaali 2.0 –Ajatuksia paikallislehtien tulevaisuudesta [LoCaali 2.0. –Thoughts about the Future of Local Papers], edited by Ulla Alakangas, and Pertti Sillanpää, 111–124. Oulu: Oulu University of Applied Sciences. Springer, Nina, Ines Engelmann, and Christian Pfaffinger. 2015.“User Comments: Motives and Inhibitors to Write and Read.”Information, Communication & Society 18 (7): 798–815. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.997268. Tiainen, Heidi, Rauno Sairinen, and Tuija Mononen. 2014.Talvivaaran kaivoshankkeen konfliktoituminen [The Talvivaara Mining Conflict]. Edilex. www.edilex.fi/lakikirjasto/14254. (Also published in Ympäristöpolitiikan ja -oikeuden vuosikirja 2014). Toepfl, Florian, and Eunike Piwoni. 2015.“Public Spheres in Interaction: Comment Sections of News Websites as Counterpublic Spaces.”Journal of Communication 65 (3): 465–488. doi:10.1111/jcom.12156. Tuan, Yi-Fu. (2004) 2006.“Paikan taju: aika, paikka ja minuus.”[Sense of Place: Its Relationship to Self and Time]. Translated by Liisa Kaski In Paikka. Eletty, kuviteltu, kerrottu [Place. Lived, Imagined, Told], edited by Seppo Knuuttila, Pekka Laaksonen, and Ulla Piela, 15–30. Jyväskylä: Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy. Tuomi, Jouni, and Anneli Sarajärvi. 2018.Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi [Qualitative Research and Content Analysis]. 2nd. edition. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi. Weber, Robert P. 1990.Basic Content Analysis. 2nd edition. California: Sage Publications. 20 VEERA KANGASPUNTA Weber, Patrick. 2014.“Discussions in the Comments Section: Factors Influencing Participation and Interactivity in Online Newspapers’Reader Comments.”New Media & Society 16 (6): 941– 957. doi:10.1177/1461444813495165. Wiio, Juhani. 2006.Media uudistuvassa yhteiskunnassa. Median muuttuvat pelisäännöt [Media in the Reforming Society. Changing Rules of the Media]. Helsinki: Sitran raportteja 65. Williams, Daniel R., and Joseph W. Roggenbuck. 1989.“Measuring Place Attachment: Some Preliminary Results.”Paper presented in National Parks and Recreation, Leisure Research Symposium, At San Antonio, TX. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/value/docs/nrpa89.pdf. Veera Kangaspunta (corresponding author) is a researcher at the Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences, Tampere University. Her interests are the online news comments, online user participation and the formation of the issue-based public. E-mail: veera.kangaspunta@tuni.fi LOCALLY, REGIONALLY AND NATIONALLY ONLINE 21