Abstract
This study utilizes the beheading of two American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in 2014. The content analyses of 980 comments from three political blogs (Townhall - conservative, Daily Kos - liberal, and The Moderate Voice - moderate) reveal that the majority of blog users exhibited their subjective thoughts and opinions rather than engaging in deliberative communication based on deep reasoning. Blog users also did not show a reciprocal attitude, mostly ignoring different voices. Most comments were made based on one-sided perspectives.
Highlights
This study examines how Americans perceived the beheading of two American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff, by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in 2014
To examine such research questions, the present study relies on the concept of deliberation, which refers to reasoned public discourse, dialogue, or conversation (Guttman & Thompson, 1996; Benhabib, 1996; Cohen, 1989; Habermas, 1989), under the assumption that deliberation is a key variable that explains the nature of the American public’s discourse about terrorism
This study collected 980 comments posted on three representative political blogs of the U.S and analyzed the blog users’ discourse about the beheading, focusing on the concept of deliberation
Summary
This study examines how Americans perceived the beheading of two American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff, by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in 2014. A content analysis of 980 comments from three representative political blogs of the United States (Townhall–conservative, DailyKos–liberal, and The Moderate Voice–moderate) finds that Americans had somewhat contrasting attitude toward the beheading. Using social media including Facebook, Twitter and blogs, Americans actively expressed their emotions and opinions and engaged in discussions with others. The present study approaches the ISIS beheading of the two American journalists, focusing on how people perceived the atrocity and constructed their narratives via social media. To examine such research questions, the present study relies on the concept of deliberation, which refers to reasoned public discourse, dialogue, or conversation (Guttman & Thompson, 1996; Benhabib, 1996; Cohen, 1989; Habermas, 1989), under the assumption that deliberation is a key variable that explains the nature of the American public’s discourse about terrorism
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
