Online editions of newspapers enjoy increasing popularity in a world where people spend more time per day staring at a monitor than they do sleeping (myself included). In attempting to create a new discussion in the broader context of the future of journalism and the downsizing of newspaper staffs nationwide, I'd like to start a rational conversation about the pros and cons of instantaneous feedback forums attached to every news story irrespective of the sensitivity of subject matter.
Is it always more important for everyone who is willing to speak up to be heard? Can these 'forums' undermine community and race relations? Is extremism, and consequentially a lack of respect for the opinions of others as well as a tendency for ad hominem attacks promoted through the safeguards of digital anonymity?
I, at various times and now permanently, have boycotted the D&C online edition. This essentially means that I won't link through to their content on my blog, preferring instead to use another local source for the same story such as RNews.com. I try to avoid reading stories entirely except when directed to them by others. I feel that the D&C, through lack of true moderation of comments, has lent tacit approval to divisive attitudes and poor conduct on everything from development to school achievement to race baiting to train accidents.
The very least the D&C could do would be to hide the comments behind a link. That way those interested in hearing themselves scream loudly in binary can battle it out. The rest of us can go there to read the news as described by paid reporters.
I suppose this is all a very long-winded way of stating that despite its efforts, mainstream media is burning itself out and/or selling itself short as it increasingly emulates talk radio. Is this a fair assessment?
Conversations feed
Comments
Making the newspaper "emulate talk radio" is a good way to put it, and I think that's the effect of the D&C's forums. There's a huge amount of racist chatter in the comments, and I can't think of the last time anything enlightening was shared by a regular commenter.
I agree that the reason these forums are bad is because of lack of moderation. If you're going to run an online forum, you need to put some effort into that project, and the D&C has done very little (that I can see) to make their forums more civil. Every so often there's a tsk-tsk note from one of the editors (here's an example) but there doesn't seem to be the kind of engagement that one sees on a medium- or large-sized Internet site with a lot of commenters. A lot of blogs will occasionally feature good comments in follow-on posts, or even turn good commenters into guest or permanent bloggers.
If the D&C had a zero-flame-tolerance policy (where they'd delete ad hominem attacks immediately) and had some mechanism to elevate quality comments, I think they'd find a whole new tone in their online community.
As someone who enjoys and even celebrates Internet anonymity, I also realize that the decision to permit anonymity is a mistake when you aren't willing to put in the moderation time and effort. There are a lot of ways to deal with anonymity, including community karma systems that downgrade (and even hide) an anonymous user's first few comments. The current D&C comments system is quite weak in this area.
That all said, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with newspapers having comments on stories. It's the D&C's implementation that's the real issue.
Not to beat a dead horse but just look at the comment thread underneath that editor's address. Before you can blink there's mention of 'rice and beans' and wishing AIDS on other people...
One thing I forgot to mention in my original post was that I've seen other digital newspaper sites who don't even make the commenter register, but they have to solve a simple math equation to prove they are human and not a spam-bot. Somehow this has the added of benefit of filtering out crude comments in a lot of cases. Coincidence? ;-)
This is just what the paper likes. Having a crazy comment section only delegitimizes all criticism of the paper that goes on on the site.
This way, Lawrence can rant about gangsta rap and promote Pollyanna anodyne solutions to everything without getting dinged for it.
I think it's asking a bit much to expect the D&C - who only just recently ditched their "comment" system based on phpBB - to do any real moderation, which is why I've always wished they'd just get rid of the comments section. I have long held the sincere belief that the D&C's comment section is populated in large part with people with serious mental disorders, so vitriolic and unrestrained is the hate speech there.
In fact, it's really a disservice to AM radio to compare what is happening there to talk radio: at least those guys have advertisers to make happy. There is at least some restraint on the AM dial.
Still, while I find the comments hateful, I think the D&C is guilty of profound technological ineptitude and disinterest, more than anything else. For one, I don't think they're fully aware of the threat of litigation they present to themselves by leaving comments so wide open. It will take them getting sued for slander (and yes, they can be sued for slander because of some commenter's words) for them to wake up, and then they will likely do some other foolish thing to over-compensate.
If I were in a position to tell the D&C to do anything, I'd say let's lose a few reporters or editors and hire some genuine web people - marketing and editing and such, not web designers - to really push something worth while and sane. Their current online strategy looks like a monkey pushing buttons on a telephone.
I agree that having a comments section that nobody takes seriously is probably A-OK with people like Lawrence.
That said, his corporate overlords want a heavily-traffic'd comments section because it drives more eyeballs to their ads. I wonder if a better comments section would get more traffic. I tend to think so, but who knows?
Another point -- once you have an Internet community set up, it's hard as hell to change it. There's way too much ankle-biting in the D&C's comments sections (the AIDs/ Rice& Beans discussion is a perfect example). That's been true since day 1. Now they have a group of users who like to bite ankles, and they've chased away anyone who doesn't want to fight.
Even if they don't shut it down for good, DFE might be on to something when he recommends a shutdown. If they shut it down, re-thought it, and re-opened it, they might be able to change the tone.
Hmmm. . . comments sections and bars have much in common: once you have a clientele setup, there's no use getting rid of the mechanical bull because the same losers are going to show up either way.
I think people should be made to register prior to making comments. Serious people with serious ideas will register - and who cares about the others?
I've long advocated a real name/registration policy for comments on newspaper articles.
We have one on The Batavian. We have a growing, attentive and engaged audience.
When a user is unmasked as using a fake name (usually, these are the most trollish louts), our loyal users raise hosannas. They like the real names policy.
My theory has always been, as a web site owner, participate in the conversation (something bloggers do as a matter of course, which is why blogger comments tend (as an over generalization) to be more conservative than anonymous newspaper comments, and also, if you require real names people treat each other better and are less likely to behave in any manner that might embarrass themselves in front of mother or boss.
Once in a while we get somebody who complains: "I won't post under my real name because I don't want some future employer to google my name and find something I said that keeps me from getting a job" ... or some such. And I reply, that's exactly why we require real names. If you might say something that would prevent you from getting a job in the future, perhaps you shouldn't say it at all, at least not on The Batavian.
To me, this is complicated. I am *extremely* opposed to requiring people to use their real names in blog comments. But blog comments are different -- there is a possibility of real, honest discussion there. And requiring people to use their real names completely destroys that. Many of the people who know what they're talking about on a subject know it because of their jobs and these very jobs prevent them from speaking on the topic under their real names. Plus, most people are afraid of saying tough-but-honest things under their real name.
So if you require real names, you are guaranteed to have complete waste-of-shit for comments. Guaranteed 100%.
BUT, comments on newspaper articles will be shit no matter what you do. But maybe the Batavian or the D&C want to have them anyway, in order to get more page views. In that case, I think by-name registration is a good idea. If all you're trying to do is create a little playground for readers to look at ads and talk to each other without using racial epithets and the like, then by name registration comments sections probably accomplish that.
But anyone who thinks they'll ever have meaningful discourse with people using their real names is kidding themselves.
I should clarify that the reasons the comments will be useless at the D&C or Batavian regardless of what is done is that I think the comments in *anything* aimed at a mass audience will be bad.
People are generally dumb and, given the opportunity to express themselves, they will say dumb things. And if there's enough people saying dumb things, you can't really have a decent comments section.
So I certainly mean it as no slight to any mainstream publication when I say that there is no way they can ever a good comments section.
Mr. Owens,
I think perhaps you are underselling the importance of anonymity on the web. I appreciate that all the things about using your real name are true, but your sense of why someone would use an assumed name is lacking depth. As a webmaster, a long-time Internet user/blogger and a professional with a Security+ certification, let me offer another viewpoint:
Begin with the fact that if you reveal your name when commenting on CSPAN or Lonsberry or in the local paper, it's unlikely that there's anyone keeping too careful track of these things and recordings are not public record. That's the way things used to work. In the modern world of Internet access and Google, each and every bit of data is being lovingly preserved for posterity either by the original source or by something like the Internet Archive.
That means that whatever your opinion is today, your opinion from ten years ago is also available to your current employer, future employer or law enforcement or just some random stranger reading a website - without so much as an assumed name - who is, in your words, "the most trollish louts." And neither is it simply your words or your opinion. Its also your reading habits, your history on the Internet and lots of other things which can be used for the purposes of Social Engineering. That's an awful lot of license to just give away. One flippant remark to one "trollish lout," could forever control your destiny.
Put another way, controlling the amount of information about you on the Internet isn't just a desire for some, it is the foremost concept of Internet security for everyone. Those who would seek to give away such information freely to a website of dubious and unknown ownership deserves - in a paraphrasing of Franklin - no security whatsoever.
Giving away your full name, phone number and address to a company you can't even be sure is properly encrypting and securing such data is selling your soul awfully cheaply. Unfortunately, there are many on the Internet who don't realize this and operate in ignorance. These are the people with computers filled with spyware and viruses who blithely carry on, spreading crap all over the Internet. Encouraging that sort of behavior, rather than gently dissuading it, is a touch unethical.
Secondly, as a news man, surely you must appreciate the need for anonymity. Your business depends on it, from Deep Throat up to the Valerie Plame incident and beyond. But it's not any longer up to you and your profession to lay the grace of anonymity upon whomsoever you wish. A great many stories have been broken open recently - particularly by TPM - because of anonymous commenters and tipsters who have provided information from their vantage point in some nameless cubicle that your industry would have never thought to have inquired of.
And it's not only on the Internet where discretion is required and observed. Why Internet anonymity should be specially thwarted eludes me. That is, beyond a rather lazy desire to control the flow of information to head off a few bad apple flamers out there. There are many, many ways to deal with flamers and trolls - from captcha to selective deletion to active discourse - that don't require a radical breach of your readership's personal security. Having a proper commenting policy is not a bad start.
Ultimately, your policy does as much to throttle legitimate discourse on the Internet as it does to help it along. You favour one group of people whom care little or know little about their personal privacy over those of us with enough savvy to make a conscious choice to observe due-diligence when it comes to our privacy. I hope that at some point, you consider revising your policy to reflect a more accurate understanding of the reality of Internet communication.
Post new comment