Curtailing Comments

[LDAHL]

I see that The Atlantic has joined the list of publications that have eliminated the readers' comments section from their web site. I understand that a private organization is free to censor itself any way it chooses, and that there is far too much trollery out there for many peoples' tastes, but I think we lose something when we capitulate to the idiots of left or right.

[iris lilies]

I dont much care about political comments although I occasionally like to poke our idiotic opinion makers on the editorial board of the St. Louis Post Dispatch. Usually I ignore them because they are ridiculous, but occasionally so ridiculous that I cant give them a pass.

For me, the noise to good ratio is too high in most all commentary that starts out political. It just is not worth it to me to read these sites. Maybe National Review has good online commentary, I dont know.

I sure do miss the discussion forums of the Internet Movie Data base. Trolls reportedly killed those free wheeling discussions.

[Zoe Girl]

I would say this is more about the trolls than a political debate. I read the comments sometimes on local or state news, there are sellers of sunglasses, marketing schemes, extreme points of view that are beyond political (like threats). Just not worth it, I am willing to read most any differing opinion however I see these are not happening.

Like this stupid stuff, causes a lot of work for admins
http://www.newsweek.com/racist-rose-tico-wookieepedia-page-753063

[KayLR]

It IS a great deal of work for the admins.

People are still free to write letters to the editor, which may or may not make print depending on space. But that way one isn't so easily able to hide behind a fake name. Most sites have user agreements, as well, that are largely not paid attention to. On our paper's website, you will be banned if you violate the agreement not to be vile, name-calling, vicious, using bad language, or targeting another person. You don't have the right to be that way. Most wouldn't do that on paper (ETA nor would they probably take the time to), but too easy to do it online.

[iris lilies]

I would say this is more about the trolls than a political debate. I read the comments sometimes on local or state news, there are sellers of sunglasses, marketing schemes, extreme points of view that are beyond political (like threats). Just not worth it, I am willing to read most any differing opinion however I see these are not happening.

Like this stupid stuff, causes a lot of work for admins
http://www.newsweek.com/racist-rose-tico-wookieepedia-page-753063

supposedly it was the racial vitriol about the film Get Out that killed IMDB forums. That is what I heard, dont know if it is true.

Get Out was a decent film. i saw it as a comedy but apparently not everyone else saw it that way.

[oldhat]

I don't blame the Atlantic one bit. On those rare occasions when I look at a comments thread, it invariably degenerates into feces flinging that makes a troop of baboons look like an English drawing room comedy.

The internet has allowed everyone to publish their opinions too easily. The sad truth is that the quality of public discourse would be greatly improved if people had to work much harder to be heard.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't think all comment sections degenerate it depends on the site (but moderation usually helps). Look at NYT comments, often better than the articles, but they are moderated. Now the Atlantic has some good articles of course (and free online as well if you look at them with a browser without ad-block). But the comments section there always struck me as not the sharpest tools in the shed ... and instead of being about the article were almost always derailments.

[jp1]

I can't blame any media site for not wanting to deal with a comments section. I'm always amazed at how quickly even innocuous articles' comment sections can turn toxic like catherine's facebook poll about the superbowl yesterday. But I do appreciate the comments on sites that expend the effort to moderate well. The NY Times seems to be the gold standard as far as that goes.

[LDAHL]

I'm not sure whether it's worse to be a playground for trolls or to curate comments to match the opinions and sensibilities of the editorial staff.

[The Storyteller]

With ability to share articles to Facebook and Twitter and to say whatever one wants about them, I'm surprised anyone even bothers to comment (or read comments) on a news site.

[SteveinMN]

I'm not sure whether it's worse to be a playground for trolls or to curate comments to match the opinions and sensibilities of the editorial staff.
Do you imagine that "Letters to the Editor" are curated any differently?

[LDAHL]

Do you imagine that "Letters to the Editor" are curated any differently?

I think the limited space involved makes that a somewhat different situation.

[Rogar]

I can't recall reading a comment section on politics that was worth the time, other than Breitbart, which is an education unto itself.

[ToomuchStuff]

This thread is closed for further comments.:~):laff:

Had to before Alan thought about that.

[Alan]

This thread is closed for further comments.:~):laff:

Had to before Alan thought about that.
Honestly, I have mixed feelings about moderation. I think it should be handled differently in open forums such as online newspapers or magazines where anyone can comment, and community type forums such as ours. When a community forum is heavily moderated it breeds resentment which causes problems. We saw that in the previous version of our community where many of the mods and admins quit citing burnout from the pressures of enforcing their ideas of acceptable discourse.

Allowing members to read opinions contrary to their own seems to have a calming effect on the site zeitgeist, or at least that's my belief.

[KayLR]

Do you imagine that "Letters to the Editor" are curated any differently?

I actually work at a newspaper and at least for my employer, can speak to this. We welcome views counter to "our" own, as long as they are written in a civil way. If they are demeaning, use vulgar or incite-ful language, they will not be printed, that's the policy as warned up front. We have, right on the editorial page, the guidelines for length. Writers must submit their name and address (address not published, only city) for verification purposes. Yes, people do try to write under fake names or use someone else's names. We check. It happens.

Can't speak for all newspapers, but for ours, we do want to hear from all sides.

[SteveinMN]

Thank you, Kay.

I believe real news organizations in any medium welcome commentary on their reporting/opinion pieces as long as they are responsibly stated and backed up by a name (and, ideally, standing to speak on the matter). On-line media are different in that they present commentary in much higher numbers than newspapers or TV and radio stations (which impose an arbitrary limit on how much commentary they present). That makes moderation difficult. So does the disassociation of email addresses and such from given names and addresses. But I honestly don't believe newspapers curate commentary any differently in principal than on-line media organizations.

[flowerseverywhere]

few big news organizations that exist to tell the actual news. The Internet news comments are fueling that fire
Some news sites want to advance a political agenda, like CNN, FOX, Breitbart, and some only want to make money and will forgo the truth. Sensational or misleading headlines and “unnamed sources” lead the way. They are no longer news shows, but opinion pieces.

Especially now when our country is so divided between Trump haters no matter what he says or does, and Trump lovers no matter what he says or does. Any political comments quickly deteriorate with anonymous posts. “Obama, The deep state, Hillary, missing emails, idiots, crybaby sore losers” vs. “racist, sexist, rich getting richer, deplorable, cruel, idiots“.
Rudeness, name calling, sexist or racist comments, how can a responsible editor allow those to remain unchecked?

It would benefit us all as a country if these news organizations held themselves themselves to much higher standards and cut the commentary on TV and online sites. Trump has been the biggest windfall to news sites, and a large majority of these sites spend most of their time on him. They must do a happy dance every day that they can fill 24 hours a day with opinion and people bite.

kay cites a newspaper that actually tries to do a good job. Read the comments on Fox or CNN sometimes and it takes two or three comments and someone has crossed the line to being uncivil, rude or downright hateful. Internet comments are published rapid fire and could be from Russia, Mexico, a teenage boy in his parents basement having a good laugh stirring the pot and so on. unscreened unlike what Kay describes.

[iris lilies]

I actually work at a newspaper and at least for my employer, can speak to this. We welcome views counter to "our" own, as long as they are written in a civil way. If they are demeaning, use vulgar or incite-ful language, they will not be printed, that's the policy as warned up front. We have, right on the editorial page, the guidelines for length. Writers must submit their name and address (address not published, only city) for verification purposes. Yes, people do try to write under fake names or use someone else's names. We check. It happens.

Can't speak for all newspapers, but for ours, we do want to hear from all sides.
Certainly the St. Louis Post Dispatch called to verify authorship of Letters to the Editor because they called me back in the day when I was reading and responding to their rag.

I would subscribe to their online service if the site worked properly. I use the free version of it, and it sucks at loading and display.

DH still gets the printed newspaper.

[SteveinMN]

kay cites a newspaper that actually tries to do a good job. Read the comments on Fox or CNN sometimes and it takes two or three comments and someone has crossed the line to being uncivil, rude or downright hateful. Internet comments are published rapid fire and could be from Russia, Mexico, a teenage boy in his parents basement having a good laugh stirring the pot and so on. unscreened unlike what Kay describes.
I see far fewer comments on a given story from readers of the printed Minneapolis StarTribune than I see for the same story on the StarTribune Web site -- and that on-line commentary starts appearing in minutes. I want to chalk up the difference in volume to how many fewer people read the printed news than view the paper on-line. But maybe whoever edits the print Letters section gets just as many comments and simply rules with a heavier fist. I don't know.

Once a letter appears in print, though, there's no way to facilitate conversation about it other than writing more letters to the editor and hoping at least some see print, depending on the space the paper decides to give commentary. On-line, there are no space restrictions and much shorter delays in the conversation. Comments can be moderated by the organization's staff before they're made visible (some articles likely to "trigger" quickly-deteriorating conversation don't even get comments switched on). Most systems permit upvoting/downvoting or flagging a post if viewers feel it doesn't meet the "publication" standards identified by the Web site when the viewer is granted access.

It's certainly different from the constrained space offered by newspaper. And it certainly is different from the commentary mechanism offered by most radio and TV stations (when was the last time you saw a "Viewers Talk" segment on national or local news that went beyond a twitter ticker at the bottom of the screen?).

Discussion about how awful commentary is on-line should at least acknowledge the paucity of opportunity in the more traditional news media. Unfettered posting of commentary is a bad idea, as history and several sites' comment sections prove. But I think it's fair to consider how readily people may comment on content presented in other media. Is that greater interaction of "decent" on-line commentary desirable even if some posters abuse the system before being removed? Is it better to switch off comments altogether? Or staff up to handle increased moderation? Or open the doors to commentary in other media? As with so many things technological, the technology is not the issue as much as what humans tell it to do.

[Williamsmith]

The difference in online and printed comment is masked anonymity. Certainly, anyone online can be identified given the need. The masked anonymity gives people the impression that they can comment without consequence. And the format of instantaneous call and response, inspires people to join in on a virtual game of one upmanship. When you read a letter, you read it with a depth of consideration that invites mature thinking. When you read an online comment, you are simultaneously trying to post a pithy response in time to have all participants in the “game” recognize your prowess with insult and the written word.

Serious responses or comments come with the energy necessary to identify oneself, create and submit well thought out and edited material subject to a vetting or review, with a time gap.

Online commentary is immature and poorly thought out and repetitive to the point of disgust.....it is rampant in YouTube. My favorite Youtuber disabled the comment section completely.

[nswef]

Iris Lilies If your husband gets the print newspaper isn't the internet one free, too?

[iris lilies]

Iris Lilies If your husband gets the print newspaper isn't the internet one free, too?
No more, but it used to be that way.

[KayLR]

We do have online comment guidelines, too, and some people have gotten way out of line. We have someone who monitors the comments, and bans those who don't abide by the guidelines. But it is very hard to keep up with. This is what the guidelines say:

We welcome and encourage lively and spirited discussion among (paper's website's name) members. But that doesn’t quite mean that paper's website's name is the Wild West of the Internet. In that spirit, we’re establishing a few guidelines and asking that our users adhere to them while commenting.
We don’t moderate comments before they are posted, but offending comments will be removed and the responsible user accounts monitored. Users who repeatedly break these guidelines will lose posting privileges.
This is the final (current) draft of our guidelines, but we are always open to feedback. If you have comments, questions or concerns about our guidelines, e-mail Web Editor (john.hill@columbian.com)xxxxx or leave a comment in the section below.
As our editor emeritus Lou XXX might say … “Don’t do stupid stuff.”
(What, you wanted more? Okay, here are our community guidelines.)



Stay on point. Keep your comments and questions focused on the topic, article or column at hand. Some might care about your thoughts on health care overhaul, but probably not in an article about the new Vancouver Community Library. Focus your points, arguments and assertions on positions, not personalities.



Don’t attack back. Comment or lurk long enough, and you’ll see a comment that riles you up. If you see a commenter who you think is attacking you or another user, don’t engage or attack back. E-mail John (john.hill@columbian.com) with a link to the article in which the comment was found (or the article’s headline) and a brief description of the comment in question; we’ll take care of the rest.



Keep it clean. Controversial topics occasionally prompt emotional responses, and we love to see energetic debate and vigorous discussion. But before you wade into those conversations, keep a few things in mind. Don’t use profanity (including alternate characters to mask swear words), obscenities, personal attacks, libel, defamation or hate speech. Steer clear of name calling and posting anything that can be interpreted as threatening, harassing, obscene, pornographic, sexist or racist. Derogatory use of sexual orientation, race, age, gender, religion, nationality, disability and so on is not allowed.



Be original. You are welcome to link to relevant content and include limited excerpts from other people’s work — with attribution, of course. But don’t copy and paste wholesale.



Respect privacy. Don’t post personal contact information. You probably wouldn’t appreciate it if that was plastered on paper's website's name, so don’t do it yourself.



Don’t post rumors. Along those lines, steer clear of posting allegations, unfounded accusations, innuendo and other information known to be false or unsubstantiated.



No political campaigning. While we encourage candidates to share their views, we do not allow campaigning. This means links back to campaign pages, political ads, pleas for donations, etc will be removed.



Keep it commercial-free. Comments that serve as recommendations or reviews of companies and services are allowed and even encouraged (on that note, can you help me find a good pizza spot on the west side of Vancouver?). But posting of ads, spam or other marketing-related material is not allowed, and those posts will be removed.



Using Facebook to comment on stories? Use your real name. If you’re using your Facebook account to comment on stories on paper's website's name, we ask that you use your real name. We feel that real names help improve the discourse and keeps posters accountable. Read more about the decision (http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/jun/01/facebook-use-should-make-columbiancom-friendlier/).


Now that you know our expectations of commenters, join the discussion. We’ve even put together a helpful video on how to comment (http://www.screenr.com/0m2s) on paper's website's name with your Facebook account.
We reserve the right to remove offending comments. Break any of these rules, and don’t be surprised if your comment disappears from the site. We’re not the government – we can and will remove comments that don’t follow these guidelines. We don’t like to remove comments, but it happens from time to time.

[SteveinMN]

We do have online comment guidelines, too, and some people have gotten way out of line. We have someone who monitors the comments, and bans those who don't abide by the guidelines. But it is very hard to keep up with.
The TOS (Terms of Service) Kay delineated are very similar to the TOS one needs to agree to before posting at any reputable on-line news organization. Again, not to denigrate what Kay's paper does; just stating that the rules are not different on-line; only the mechanism is. I'm sure if Kay's paper did not limit comment space arbitrarily and have someone (enough people, in fact) monitoring the comments, that section would look much like the comments sections that Williamsmith mentions. If an organization does not bother to impose such limitations, they're not a good source of information.

Registration with something like Facebook or Disqus can help with on-line verification because the news organization does not have to do its own vetting. Registration limited to subscribers is more successful; depends on how much money the site makes from people seeing ads and clicking through.

If the ability of people on-line to "be someone else" reduces the value of on-line commentary for you, then, by all means, downplay or outright ignore it. I just know that when I see a letter in our community newspaper from "Jean Olsen, Highland Park", that person is no more real or credible to me than wildfan4life is on the newspaper's Web site. Then again, I see technology different from almost everyone else here.