19 Qs and As from ASNE’s story comment webinar

April 2, 2009 by Kurt
Filed under: commenting 

On March 31, the American Society of Newspaper Editors presented a webinar for editors and publishers focused on story comments, the cover story of the most recent edition of The American Editor. I wrote a column to complement the cover story and was a co-presenter of the webinar with Saundra Keyes, author of the cover story and professor of journalism at the Reynold School of Journalism at the University of Nevada. Here are the questions participants asked — and our answers.

What do you say to those in the newsroom who believe comments reflect badly on our publication?

Kurt says: I remind them that a relatively small percentage of the thousands of comments we get are distasteful. Most of the comments are on point, cogent and worthwhile. I welcome their help in reporting the bad comments so we can deal with them, and I remind them that this is part of the culture of our business now. Commenting and discussion will happen somewhere, whether it happens on our site or not. They should take some responsibility for helping maintain the quality.

Saundra says: I say those people are often right. We’ve made it possible for people to anonymously post inaccurate and sometimes damaging comments. In doing so, we’re abandoning standards of accuracy and accountability that have long distinguished journalism from other forms of public communication. We know these postings are here to stay, and that at their best, they add value. So the question is what we can do to make them better.

Jonathan Landman, deputy managing editor of The New York Times, made an excellent point in the winter issue of The American Editor. To paraphrase: These comments shouldn’t be viewed simply as user participation, though that’s a worthy goal. They should be viewed as content, and that content should be generally consistent with the rest of the news organization’s site. Few newsrooms, of course, can devote the resources the Times devotes to achieving that goal through moderation.

During recent research on these postings for ASNE, and in my past experience as an editor, I have found a lower proportion of cogent comments than the majority Kurt is seeing. My instinct, not supported by rigorous content analysis, is to characterize the comments this way:

Tier 1 – These may be posted in times of natural disaster, tragedy, or, on the up side, community celebration, such as a local team’s winning a national championship. They foster a sense of togetherness, and in the aftermath of natural disasters, offer important information that may not be available elsewhere. High-value comments also occur when posters engage in brainstorming or informed reflection about community issues, with questions asked and answered or with new (and accurate) information injected into public debates. This is the hardest category of comments to achieve, and the one most worth nurturing.

Tier 2 – One editor responding to a recent ASNE survey compared many posters to sitcom character Cliff Clavin, who provides a good mental image (for “Cheers” fans, at least)  to accompany many of the comments I’d group here. They’re sometimes accurate, sometimes not, and often devoid of meaningful information. This category has a lot of regular posters who seem to have a lot of time on their hands and to gather on the site as they might gather in a physical location. If you view this tier through Landman’s lens, you have to ask how much the content elevates your site. If you view it as a means of building user loyalty, it has some value.

Tier 3 – These are the comments that I believe prompt newsroom concerns. They may be racist, sexist or homophobic. They may be wildly inaccurate. They may include scurrilous accusations made under the cloak of anonymity.

And in doing this research for ASNE, I’ve been puzzled by the sense that because we’re on the web, accountability can no longer be a priority. Why not? We’ve always fostered the value of limiting anonymous sources, of fact-checking, of fairness to those accused of wrongdoing or impropriety. So I applaud those in the newsroom who challenge the abandonment of those criteria. Like Kurt, I urge them to flag inappropriate comments. But beyond that, I think newsroom leaders have to find ways to elicit more comments in tier 1. I’m not, of course, advocating that we foment community crisis.

But it’s essential to encourage more of the high-quality exchanges on community issues. Kurt discussed some options for that in our recent webinar. At the same time, we have to apply higher standards of accountability to the comments in tier 3. Given the crises confronting most newsrooms, I’d let tier 2 alone for now.

How do you deal with comments that are essentially advertisements or links to other sites? For example, a comment on a story about the jump in tobacco tax linking to a site about smoking cessation techniques.

Kurt says: Commercial messages are forbidden by our terms of use, our commenting guidelines. And they should be. Most guidelines have similar language that forbids it. Linking to pertinent, on-topic information is fine. Advertising isn’t.

Saundra says: As Kurt noted in our recent ASNE webinar, make sure your terms of use specify that this is unacceptable. We all know some users love to cry “censorship” if their comments are taken down. Good terms of use end that debate.

Has there been a test of libel with online comments? Any examples?

Kurt says: I’m not the best person to address what cases have tested this. Nor should you rely on me for legal advice. I’d point you to resources online that say the courts have made any number of publisher-friendly rulings on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That law basically says publishers are providing a forum for conversation and the exchange of ideas and that publishers are not liable for the misdeeds of the public — even if publishers do provide a level of moderation and oversight on their comments.

Saundra says: ASNE’s legal counsel, Kevin Goldberg, writes periodically about this issue, and his column “A case to watch” in the winter American Editor is a valuable update.

Is there any value of newspapers archiving comments with stories?

Kurt says: Great question. My answer would be yes, there’s value in archiving everything. I don’t think we’re doing a very good job of archiving anything online yet. But as for comments, sure, why not?

Saundra says: I’ve thought a lot about this question since someone raised it in Tuesday’s webinar. Archived comments would be of great interest to researchers of community history and sociology and of journalism history and sociology. So if there’s a simple one-click archiving method, I’d go for it. If a workable archiving and retrieval system required significant programming time, I’d defer it for now and devote that time to things that will generate a higher level of online discourse. (Even if future historians blasted me for prioritizing in that way.)

Any tips on blocking the technically savvy — but obnoxious — posters? We’ve chased one poster around the world through ghost servers and he just keeps coming back like a bad penny.

Kurt says: This is where tools like the “bozo filter” might be handy. They don’t even know they’re being ignored. Beyond that, I don’t know of a way — aside from a friendly tech face in your tech department who might take it as a personal challenge to hunt down and destroy this person whenever he’s discovered.

Saundra says: I got several comments like this while doing the ASNE research, but no one seemed to have a perfect solution.

How do you deal with public officials who get heavily criticized in the comments and portray to the editor/publisher that online comments are horrible?

Kurt says: Our guidelines forbidden personal attacks against individuals, but that tends to be a little bit of a sliding scale when it comes to public officials. Readers get to criticize the mayor, for example. And the mayor’s going to have to get a thick skin about it. We have removed comments that made wildly unfounded accusations about public officials, however. There’s a line and we try to be mindful of it. Meanwhile, we don’t want to close ourselves off to possible story ideas.

Do you think there are any ethical concerns about the Bozo — or Coventry — filter?

Kurt says: No. Someone might disagree with me; I’m willing to have that discussion. I can ban someone and I don’t have to give them a reason. Is that any less transparent? In the case of a bozo filter, I’ve asked people to play by the rules. I do that because I want a safe and productive environment for our comments. I have some responsibility to enforce those rules. This could help me do it.

Saundra says: The bozo filter’s lack of transparency makes me itchy, even though many editors say that by the time they bozo someone, they’ve wasted so much time that the individual richly deserves it. And if you use Kurt’s greater-good argument, you’d say that by fooling the renegade posters into thinking that others can still see their comments, you avoid their shifting to other user names. The director of product marketing at Pluck, a widely used vendor whose software incorporates a bozo filter, said editors have not objected to it.

One postscript: It’s my understanding that bozoed users only see their comments when logged into the site. If they go to the site without logging in, they will realize that the comments aren’t visible.

Does anyone have experience with sites that create user profiles, and if so, does this encourage people to behave?

Kurt says: My site allows users to create a profile, but doesn’t require it. Our experience has been that very few of them do create a profile. They just want to talk, not become buddies. So I can’t say that it helps much. But I want to reinforce the fact that our comments aren’t overwhelmingly bad. On the contrary, most are good. We shouldn’t fixate on the bad stuff at the expense of the good.

Saundra says: None of the editors whom I interviewed mentioned user profiles in this regard, but several said that requiring valid e-mail addresses during registration seemed to encourage good behavior. They attributed that for the most part to a “mom’s watching” assumption, and to the fact that some web editors send e-mail warnings to posters of inappropriate comments. On a slightly different issue, several editors said the e-mail addresses have at times allowed contacts for breaking-news stories.

We have commenters who post frequently under the same username. We’ve seen that other commenters, knowing their name will comment posing as them. Yet our vendor tells us we don’t have the ability to require registration so that screen names are unique to certain users.

Kurt says: Our stories require registration, so that’s not a problem. Our blogs, however, do not require registration, and we have seen people from time to time doing what you describe. Someone always catches them and we just warn the user not to do it, or we ban their e-mail address. It usually works. Again, just being present in the comments, on the site, responding to people makes a big difference.

I like the idea of encouraging posters to use their real names. But aside from the Facebook tie-in option — which may not be suitable for all communities — how can we be ensure they use their own names? Any ideas?

Kurt says: I don’t know of any way to require real names. If someone’s found a way, I’m all ears. I addressed the question in this post. Tying into a Facebook account might help, but even Facebook doesnt’ have a way to verify that I am who I say I am.

Saundra says: Staff time is the huge issue here. The ASNE survey showed many editors agreeing that posted comments would be more credible if identities were verified as they are for letters to the editor in print. But with staffs shrinking and comment boards generating more and more postings, that’s not a likely option.

Do you think some form of registration is a must?

Kurt says: Yes, I suppose to do. As I said, it gives us another tool to manage the bad actors in our story comments, which get huge volumes of comments. In our blogs, individual bloggers are alerted when they get comments, so they can stay closer to the action, so to speak. We don’t require registration there, so it’s a little more spontaneous, but the oversight is much tighter, too.

Saundra says: I agree, for the reasons stated above. But I know there is concern that even light registration can discourage use.

What do you do with activist organizations that have staffers try to direct the conversation in their own direction?

Kurt says: If I understand the question, it’s about an advocacy organization that might be quoted in a story diving in and, perhaps, monopolizing the discussion? Anyone is free to comment, as long as they abide by our guidelines. Often, you find that someone who has an agenda is ferretted out by the other readers, and challenged. It’s quite gratifying when you see the “wisdom of the crowd” take over.

Should there be different standards for different types of content. For example, for our blogs, the staff blogger must approve the comment. Some stories we consciously leave comments off–such as sex abuse stories and more and more immigration stories.

Kurt says: I think that’s a decision for each newsroom to make. For example, we have talked about whether crime stories should have comments on them. We acknowledge that they are sometimes the most challenging in terms of unruly comments. But one of our crime reporters, in spite of that, has argued strenuously for leaving them — because she often gets tips from the comments.

Most of our blogs do not require pre-publication moderation, but we’ve made a decision on certain blogs that we will require it — at least, for first-time commenters.

Saundra says: I agree with that each newsroom should make its own decisions. In making them, I’d be guided by the tiers of comment value mentioned above (or by substitute tiers that make more sense for you, if mine aren’t a match). If stories on specific topics consistently generate comments that degrade the site, you can turn off the comments links for them or pre-screen them so that you can still get the good story ideas, but filter out the trash. Staff involvement in the discussions is another way of addressing this.

I know how unrealistic it would be to recommend full moderation in this period of declining resources. But could you devote a morning of one staff member’s time to moderating postings on an important story? Does your software allow postings to go first to a holding area, from which a staff member could click “post” after a quick scan? The real question is whether there’s a way to prioritize, perhaps one story or topic at a time, and thus elevate the comments’ quality.

Can you offer any thoughts on the impact of moving from pre-moderation of comments to post-moderation?

Kurt says: I prefer to err on the side of spontaneity. A reader wants to comment, and they want to see their comment, right now. Because, again, I would say most comments are fine, I prefer to do it that way. We also make it very, very clear to our readers: We do not review every comment before it is posted and we expect our readers to help police these things. It doesn’t mean we don’t get complaints, but more often than not, we get help from the readers.

Saundra says: Effective post-moderation of comments can increase accountability, and in my dreams, I see it as a path toward high-level user responsibility for maintaining good discussions. Most software includes “report abuse” or “recommend” tools, and a lot of sites seem to use them in basic ways. Are the basics working to elevate your comments? If not, can you fine-tune them? Kurt showed some interesting examples of rewarding thoughtful posters beyond a “recommend” click, and experimenting with those would be worthwhile. I’m mindful, again, of staffing pressures, so am advocating small, prioritized experiments.

Gillette News-Record already requires posters to use their real name for registration, but only a user name is displayed on the site.

Kurt says: I was able to register on the site, and post a comment. My comments were approved. I was asked for a real name, but I didn’t give one. How will you verify it?

Is it better to display the real names?

Kurt says: It depends on what you mean by “better.” I suspect the quality of the comments would improve. But you’ll have substantially fewer of them. APME did a study of reader comments, surveying both editors and readers. Readers valued the ability to comment anonymously.

Saundra says: The APME study, conducted in partnership with the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute in 2007, showed some interesting divisions of opinion between journalists and the general public. When asked “Do you think it is a good idea or bad idea that a website does not require names?” 64 percent of editors and 40 percent of the public said it was a bad idea. Only 24 percent of journalists said it was a good idea, while 45 percent of the public did. The study’s authors described this as a statistically significant difference.

The survey also asked the public about the likelihood of posting a comment if doing so required the use of their names. Opinion was sharply divided: 27 percent said it was “very likely,” 20 percent said “somewhat likely,” another 20 percent said “somewhat unlikely” and 27 percent said “very unlikely.”

I’m watching the NewsMixer experiment that Kurt demonstrated in our webinar with great curiosity. If users accept a requirement that their Facebook identities accompany posted comments, I hope more newsrooms will experiment with requiring names. I like what the Columbia Missourian says on this topic in its terms of use:

“All Columbia Missourian publications are committed to a policy of transparency and openness. In that spirit, your first and last name will be attached to each post you make. You may note that this is consistent with our policy on using anonymous sources in our news stories: An anonymous source may only be used in the rare cases and only with the approval of a top editor.”

That said, we all know that increasing site use is an imperative, and if requiring names has the opposite effect, most newsrooms won’t be able to do so. That’s why it’s so important to find other ways of increasing the volume of thoughtful – even if anonymously posted — content and decreasing the volume of postings that degrade credibility. As I type that, I’m remembering the voices of several editors I interviewed for the ASNE study, who said, in effect, that only dinosaurs cling to historic definitions of credibility. I choose to hope that elevating the content of posted comments will help us toward a future in which users seek our news sites out because of, not in spite of, their credibility.

Define trolls, flame wars? Any tips for recognizing and dealing with them?

Kurt says: Trolls pick a fight for the sake of fighting. They register as different people and debate with themselves. They say wildly outlandish things just to get other readers to take the bait. Flame wars happen when trolls go unchecked. Deal with them by enforcing your rules. Ban them, if necessary. The rules are there to keep things civil. If your rules say, “keep it civil,” and they’re not, then you are within your rights to scold them, moderate their comments, or ban them.

Has anyone every tried to attach a monetary value to forum users. Are they likely to be the “demographic” that our Web advertisers are interested in … more so, less so than other Web users.

Kurt says: I’m not aware of anyone doing this yet.

Saundra says: I hope someone does such research.

To summarize: would you say comments are a necessary part of a newspaper website?

Kurt says: Yes. If we truly want to continue to be engaged with readers, we have to allow dialog and discussion. Readers aren’t content to be passive consumers of news. Increasingly, they want to be engaged and to be interactive.

Saundra says: A hearty ditto. Think of how happy we all would have been years ago if we could have obtained real-time reader input rather than waiting for occasional opinion surveys. Now, as those reactions flood us, we need to figure out how to use them to our news organizations’ and our communities’ best advantage.

Related Posts:

Tags: , , ,

Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus