Comments on: Rebutting the arguments against story commenting http://www.igreenbaum.com/2008/03/rebutting-the-arguments-against-story-commenting/ Where the real world and real people use social media. Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:59:19 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Patrick Cooper http://www.igreenbaum.com/2008/03/rebutting-the-arguments-against-story-commenting/comment-page-1/#comment-25 Patrick Cooper Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:40:21 +0000 http://www.igreenbaum.com/2008/03/26/rebutting-the-arguments-against-story-commenting/#comment-25 Hi Kurt -- Thanks for letting me know about the blog. There are a bunch of interesting points and possible discussion topics in this post that I'd love to jump into, but maybe I'll just take on one thing and get back to work.... On "Sources won't talk to us," I think it's worth considering how one defines "personal attacks." The definition debate can take any organization a long way. The debate is a bit of a proxy issue. Until now, we hadn't had to confront the reality of the exposure that our reporting creates. Our work essentially turns sources into semi-public figures, putting them on local or national stages. Even for local reporting, the Web makes the national stage a far more real possibility than in the past. While we used to head back to the newsroom and onto the next story, the interaction that allows personal attacks on sources is now providing a reality check on the effects and interpretations of our storytelling. Counter-argument #1: One can argue about whether sources, especially "average people" sources, are semi-public figures. That argument can get a ton of words, but it ultimately requires you to draw an actionable line. How do you justify allowing criticism on national leaders or celebrities that you cover but not allowing criticism of townspeople that you cover? Do you draw the line on income, location, Google ranking? When does someone cross that line in either direction? I haven't seen an actionable approach yet. Counter-argument #2: One can argue comments aren't reality -- that we just get the loudest or most trigger-happy people replying -- so the personal attacks aren't valid. That's a fair argument in some areas, but overall it's a generalization and attribution error. Different kinds of stories attract different kinds of reactions. Same with different kinds of interactive presentations. If you're soliciting with a straight-ahead, "react now" mentality, for instance, you're going to get people responding in kind. But if you're soliciting in a more community-oriented environment, that community is going to factor into the responses. Once you break down the generalization and show how different interaction scenarios exist, our role in managing the environment becomes far more clear. The best fallout from these arguments is that we expose the proxy nature. We get closer to the root issues, beyond the sources, beyond the commenters. To get at the roots, the only possible response is to be proactive. For personal attacks, I think that means drawing clear lines on reaction and moving the newsroom focus to how we manage the reality and humanity of storytelling and conversation. The resulting discussions are harder and more unfamiliar at the reporting and editing end than at the Web architecture end, but we need to have them if we're going to move ahead. Hi Kurt — Thanks for letting me know about the blog. There are a bunch of interesting points and possible discussion topics in this post that I’d love to jump into, but maybe I’ll just take on one thing and get back to work…. On “Sources won’t talk to us,” I think it’s worth considering how one defines “personal attacks.” The definition debate can take any organization a long way.

The debate is a bit of a proxy issue. Until now, we hadn’t had to confront the reality of the exposure that our reporting creates. Our work essentially turns sources into semi-public figures, putting them on local or national stages. Even for local reporting, the Web makes the national stage a far more real possibility than in the past. While we used to head back to the newsroom and onto the next story, the interaction that allows personal attacks on sources is now providing a reality check on the effects and interpretations of our storytelling.

Counter-argument #1: One can argue about whether sources, especially “average people” sources, are semi-public figures. That argument can get a ton of words, but it ultimately requires you to draw an actionable line. How do you justify allowing criticism on national leaders or celebrities that you cover but not allowing criticism of townspeople that you cover? Do you draw the line on income, location, Google ranking? When does someone cross that line in either direction? I haven’t seen an actionable approach yet.

Counter-argument #2: One can argue comments aren’t reality — that we just get the loudest or most trigger-happy people replying — so the personal attacks aren’t valid. That’s a fair argument in some areas, but overall it’s a generalization and attribution error. Different kinds of stories attract different kinds of reactions. Same with different kinds of interactive presentations. If you’re soliciting with a straight-ahead, “react now” mentality, for instance, you’re going to get people responding in kind. But if you’re soliciting in a more community-oriented environment, that community is going to factor into the responses. Once you break down the generalization and show how different interaction scenarios exist, our role in managing the environment becomes far more clear.

The best fallout from these arguments is that we expose the proxy nature. We get closer to the root issues, beyond the sources, beyond the commenters. To get at the roots, the only possible response is to be proactive. For personal attacks, I think that means drawing clear lines on reaction and moving the newsroom focus to how we manage the reality and humanity of storytelling and conversation. The resulting discussions are harder and more unfamiliar at the reporting and editing end than at the Web architecture end, but we need to have them if we’re going to move ahead.

]]>