6 reasons we’re lazy about story comments

September 3, 2009 by Kurt
Filed under: commenting 

reclinerMy most recent column for the American Society of News Editors, for The American Editor, which will be published online only henceforth. I wrote this a couple of weeks ago, and have been waiting for ASNE to post it.

***

We have arrived at yet another spasm of consternation over the value of readers’ comments on the stories we write — at least the third such spasm in the past two years. A spate of news stories, commentaries, blog items and surveys have come out. We debate whether readers should be allowed to comment. We deplore the quality of the comments. We lament the effect they may have on our brands.

A recent item in MinnPost.com outlined the tension in newsrooms between allowing the discourse to occur unfettered and slapping restrictions on readers’ ability to comment. In particular, the story highlighted the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s decision to eliminate comments on eight categories of stories, including those involving Muslims, crime, gays and race.

A blog item on Poynter.org last month noted several examples of news organizations that had curtailed or eliminated story comments because of their concerns over quality — particularly racist rants and personal attacks on readers.

Reacting to some of this news, my own newspaper blogged about the issue of story comment quality, surveying readers on their opinion of the comments. Since the unscientific poll went up July 16, more than 700 readers have voted. Fifty-eight percent said comments should be dropped. Only 28 percent chose this option: “Worth having. But improve your system of policing them.”

That’s the option I chose.

And frankly, it’s the crux of my premise today. Comments aren’t just worth having, they’re a necessity in our business today. The conversation is going to happen somewhere. If we don’t allow it, it’ll happen somewhere else. Aren’t we better off moderating, cultivating and curating the conversation on our own sites? So here’s why I think journalists who do nothing but complain about story comments are being lazy.

We expect too much from technology. The first complaint I often hear about story comments is over the inability to filter out the bad stuff, to prevent readers from saying certain things, or to adequately ban the bad actors. I agree that good tools — the commenting system at Digg.com comes to mind — can make the job easier for journalists and give readers more control over what they see. Good tools can let readers hide or ignore trolls. They can automatically ban trolls who get too many negative rankings. And they can help moderators stay on top of the discussion.

But ultimately, the human eye is the only thing that can really control the conversation. Technology won’t fix this problem. Expecting journalists to read and deal with the comments will.

We have two standards — blogs and stories. Patrick Thornton of BeatBlogging.org blogged about this on Poynter on Aug. 6. News organizations treat comments differently on stories vs. blogs. I see it on my own newspaper’s web site. The culture of blogging has always demanded participation with readers who comment. Bloggers are alerted instantly when a reader comments. They’re expected to respond. And the bloggers who do so know this to be true: When readers see them participate, the quality of discourse improves.

As Patrick notes, many news organizations have no such expectation for stories. He quotes Brianne Pruitt, web editor at The Wenatchee World in Washington: “I think bloggers take more of an interest in engaging commenters because they have more of a feeling of ownership over their blogs, whereas reporters often see stories as one-time things, and then they’re off to the next story.”

We have two standards — online and the real world. There’s not a journalist alive who hasn’t gotten a nasty phone call from a reader or faced anger, racism, criticism or other uncomfortable behavior face-to-face. We know when to let it roll off our backs and when to confront it. We deal with it. But somehow, we expect people to be different online and we blame our sites when it happens.

We blame anonymity. Tying into the previous point, I concede that anonymity allows readers to hide. They probably say things online that they wouldn’t be comfortable saying face-to-face. But too often, I hear journalists saying that if we made readers use their real names, we’d solve the problem. First, it’s hogwash. We might curtail it, but we won’t solve it. The trolls will always find a way. Second, it’s impossible. I’m skeptical of any news organization that says it requires real names. Anyone with a valid e-mail address can register under any name they’d like. Third, readers value anonymity and we benefit by getting more comments.

We expect someone else to do it. While news organizations have come a long way in integrating their print and web operations, there’s still a feeling that “the web guys will take care of it.” Back to Pruitt’s quote: Reporters and editors should be responding to readers in the comments. We should thank them when they point out errors, call them out when they’re off-topic and acknowledge the interesting remarks.

We exaggerate the problem. As mentioned earlier, the Star Tribune won’t allow comments on eight categories of stories: crime, Muslims, fatalities/suicides, gays, distressed local companies, racially sensitive stories, local homes stories and those by a local columnist. No question, most of those categories bring out the trolls. Those are the comments our critics — including those in our own newsrooms — tend to fixate on. But let’s face it, that’s a sliver of the news, sports, business and feature content we produce each day. We get lots of comments on lots of stories. Most of them are fine.

There’s one news organization that never shows up when these spasms of criticism occur: The New York Times, which reviews all comments before they’re posted. I’m not naive enough to suggest that we all have the resources to do that. But if we want to improve the discourse and eliminate the trolls, there’s only one answer: We all have to make the time to read them.

Related Posts:

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

  • Name
    Personally I don't mind the racist, sexist, whateverist rants. Even when posted by the unknown. It shows what the great unwashed are really thinking. It also shows the quality of reader the post is attracting. I recently commented on a story and was attacked for "having a 5th grade education level" at least I think that's why I was attacked, the spelling and grammar was beyond my "limited" comprehension. But in the end the editors did correct their story, coincidentally to the views and concerns I commented on. As for the attackers, IMHO, they were exposed to all as the real ignorants in the grand scheme of things.
    People are far to sensitive theses days, and I feel no obligation to protect anyone from their own stupidity. If you hate Muslims, good for you! I think the real tell here is that you hate, not what or who you hate. Do I want you lurking in the shadows waiting to pounce? No, I want you up on a soap box where every one can see you for what you are.
    (posted anonymously just to make the point)
  • I'm not sure what point you are making by posting anonymously, but I
    appreciate the comment. If your point is that these points of view have no
    place in civil discourse, I agree. The commenting guidelines on my
    newsroom's site forbid personal attacks and incivility. But the only
    solution to the problem is for readers and editors to watch them and
    moderate them. My point was that we haven't been willing to put the
    resources against that kind of close supervision.
    I should say, too, that we often use the word "anonymous" when we mean
    "pseudonymous." I'm guilty of it in this column. Most sites allow users to
    use pseudonyms, which, as a practical matter, means they are anonymous. And
    as I've said before, if anyone has a way to assure on a large scale that
    people use their real names, I'm all ears. I haven't seen it yet.
  • Name
    I just like the option to post as unknown. That said I guess my point was people need to learn to edit their own reading, and skip to the next comment if they feel offended. I've seen people attacked because of who they are, and posts they've made in other discussions, regardless if they raise valid points in the current discussion. You can expect a certain reaction from some, just by virtue of the moniker. I'm sure liberals cringe at anything "Limbaugh Fan*" would post as much as conservatives cringe at anything "Kennedy Fan*" would post. ( *I don't know if either exists, and no I won't apologize.) I think "off color" (is that politically correct?)comments do serve a purpose in such discussions, and people would be better served by not getting riled up by what some obvious nut job has to say, but rather why he thinks that way. Denying the option to post, could actually make him go off in a real way. We'll never convert him personally, we have to make it educational and attempt to change the thinking by exploring the options and presenting a better way. Just saying Shut up, ie denying a post only makes things worse. The nut is then convinced he'll never get a fair hearing, so he's being oppressed and this somehow justifies and reinforces his radical views.
  • Name
    Hey Kurt,

    Both Amazon verified accounts and Google Knol can verify your name and address against a credit card. Check them out.

    But what are the drawbacks you ask? Well if a newspaper were to start storing a bunch of credit card details they become hacking targets. I'm not convinced news orgs have the chops to set up the right security. And what about the children or other people who can't GET a credit card - maybe they have bad credit but does that mean they can't comment?

    So it's not a perfect solution - but certainly does address the large scale verification of names that you alluded to.
blog comments powered by Disqus