Union Strikes, YouTube Comments, and the Unique Attitude of the Internet

Over the course of a semester, a group of students enrolled in Abilene Christian University’s JMC 100.01 harvested the top two hundred Youtube comments from sixty-eight videos published within a three month span and related to either the Writers Guild (WGA)  Strike or the United Auto Workers (UAW) Strike. Youtube videos used included content from the categories of entertainment shows, web-based content not related to entertainment, news, and information directly from each respective union. These comments, once stripped of images, Youtube usernames, and advertisements, were then fed into Diction. Diction gave each selection of comments a score related to each of its forty variables, along with one created for incivility. Once complete, independent T-tests and one-way ANOVA tests compared the sets of figures by mean scores, finding  the percentage of coincidence for each of Diction’s variables. Because ANOVA is able to compare multiple sets of figures, it gives strong results related to the differences between the UAW strike and the WGA Strike. The Turkey’s B hoc test further breaks these results into groups to show where the differences lie. 

Between the writers strike and the autoworkers strike, a significant difference (p = 0.01) was found in comments related to the writers strike. Diction defines variables of communication as, “terms referring to social interaction, both face-to-face (listen, interview, read, speak) and mediated (film, videotape, telephone, email)... other terms refer to social actors (reporter, spokesperson, advocates, preacher)...”. In short, comments focused on emotional persuasion, discussion of interactions about the strike, and/or quotes from public figures to convince or explain. I believe these results stem from the fact that the job of writers is so communicative, as they’re constantly discussing ideas, story, and film. Along with this, the writers strike was given much more publicity than the strike of the UAW in part because people are more familiar with the celebrity figures and/or movies cwho were aught in the strike, so communication was more widespread. 

In regards to the autoworkers strike, Diction found a higher variable of concreteness than those in the comments of the writers strike (p = 0.20). Concreteness variables include words with “no thematic unity other than tangibility and materiality”. Because of this, it’s clear that autoworkers or advocates for autoworkers whose comments were gathered used much more concrete language to make their point, and rather than focusing on how to get the point across to different audiences (as shown by the communication variable in comments about the writers strike), directed their attention to facts and legitimacy. This was interesting because of the occupational and public view of autoworkers. Writing for Hollywood is usually seen as a far more creative and imaginative job than working on automobiles is, and the job of autoworkers is assumed to be more sustainable and “concrete” than writing.

In comments below UAW videos directly from the Union, the variable of familiarity was found to be higher (p = .003) than in comments below videos from the WGA. This could be because the UAW’s explanation of the strike is better outlined in their videos due to its straightforward demands in comparison to the WGA’s. It could also be better understanding or debate from the audience’s part, which lends to a higher usage of “across”, “over”, “through”, “who”, and “what” – all words outlined in Diction’s familiarity definition. On the other hand, comments below news videos about the writer’s strike and the WGA were found to contain higher variables of familiarity than news videos about the UAW (p = 0.32). This difference between familiarity in the two categories of news and Union content could be a sign that information put out directly from a source itself is easier and more useful in an audience’s understanding than when information is filtered through media such as newscasts. 

Along with this, the cooperation variable was found to have a more significant number in comments from news videos about the UAW and its respective strike (p = 0.17). I believe this is due to the fact that, in its early stages, the UAW was clear about its demands and hadn’t yet had the same changes the WGA’s demands had after each negotiation proposal. In short, people commenting on the UAW’s videos may have found this union’s demands more reasonable than the WGA’s (who, at the point of comment harvest, had gone through more negotiations than the UAW). It may also show that people supporting the UAW believed in their cause more than they did the WGA’s, and as such were willing to be kinder and more cooperative in hearing their case and/or assisting. 

All in all, comments related to videos about the UAW and the autoworkers strike had a more distinctive incivility score (p = .033) than comments about the writers strike. This highlights how people commenting were more likely to use a disrespectful tone in their opinions or debates about the strike itself. These comments may be less formal because commentators saw the UAW strike as a more reasonable fight, so were willing to use harsh language to try and evoke a change. It may also be that less was known about the UAW strike at the time of commenting, so people didn’t see the sense in supporting. In the comments below news videos as well, the UAW had higher incivility rates than those of its counterpart (p = 0.17). It could be that less famous people were involved in the UAW at the time of commenting so there was less incentive to be kind, or that the writer’s strike was seen as more pressing because a.) it had been going on for longer, or b.) people were more aware of the consequences of the writers strike due to delayed movies and television and so didn’t see why supporting a strike with less automatic consequences would be a significant use of time or words. 

The measurement of incivility is valid because it directly uses Diction variables in its calculations (to calculate incivility: (Blame and Aggression) - (Centrality + Cooperation)) and has been tested for validity in a human versus Diction comparison. The variable of incivility gives insight separate from common Diction variables, and so can be used to see how certain groups respond to others in regards to respect. 

Overall, the study reveals stark differences in how people responded to the writers strike versus how they responded to the autoworkers strike. Sixty-eight videos, each published within a span of 90 days, were examined by students and two hundred comments from each video harvested. These comments, once put through multiple tests, revealed how attitude and tone in YouTube comments differed between videos, strikes, and the categories of entertainment, web-based content, information directly from Unions, and news sources. Possible weaknesses in the study include the length of time between the beginning of both strikes, as the writers strike had been in session for months prior to the beginning of the autoworkers strike, allowing the formation of more research and opinions about the writers strike in comparison to the autoworkers. Ultimately the relationship between union strikes, Youtube comments, and the unique attitude of the internet is one that fluctuates based on a myriad of variables, including public response, presentation in forms of media, and time. 

Sources:

Mendenhall, Doug. “Striking Differences: Comparing the Tones of 2023 Online 

Comments About the WGA and UAW.” (Unpublished academic presentation), 2023.

Mendenhall, Doug. “Summary of Significant Statistical Findings.” (Unpublished 

academic paper), 2023.

“Definitions for All Diction 7.2 Variables.” N.D.