Why Newspapers Shouldn't Allow Comments

[thebrokenforum]

I found this on Gawker and oh man, does this ever relate to the T-U.

Why Newspapers Shouldn't Allow Comments

Let's begin with some truisms: a newspaper is not a blogâ€"not even its online version. Conversely, a blog is not a newspaper. However, newspapers have been in the toilet lately, partly due to the proliferation of blogs. One easy pseudo-solution some newspapers have settled on is to act more and more like blogs. After all, this 2.0 world is all about "You," the user, which in practice means it's all about a false sense of democracy through publication of comments and user-generated contentâ€"just like a common blog. After the jump: why newspapers should stop slumming as blogs and disallow comments.

Comments are thought to be an added value to a newspaper's siteâ€"providing another reason to read. You come for the article, and stay for the interesting discussion. The only problem is, there is no interesting discussion. Almost never. Not even from the mythical supersmart New York Times readers.

Let's take some examples from the weekend press.

First, there was New York Times reporter David Carr's book excerpt in the NYT Magazine, a reported memoir of his crack addiction, recklessly bad behavior, and subsequent redemption.

Sample comments, notable only in how uneducated and un-thoughtful they were?

    "if he wasn't a reporter for the new york times, would we be reading this?"

    "Monetizing your shameful past is disgusting. Haven't you harmed your loved ones enough for one lifetime?"

    "Who cares. grow some guts. we all have problems. most of us don't blame drugs or alcohol... you want a medal for doing your job and being a father?"

Opening a deeply personal article up to the peanut gallery does these writers a great disserviceâ€"and yes, I include Emily Gould here, whose NYT Mag article was similarly pilloried in the comments section. (Thanks for writing; your check is in the mail, and ohâ€"have fun getting senselessly torn apart in the comments. No, there's nothing we can do about itâ€"it's 2.0!)

Some people argue that comments are the modern-day equivalent of the letter to the editor. (Remember when people used to sit down and put five, maybe ten minutes of thought into what they wanted to tell a media outlet?)

A look at a Daily News story says otherwise: they reported over the weekend on a strip club bust, a tangled story that involved some prostitution and possible money-laundering. Readers' reactions in the comments?

"W-h-o-r-e," read one comment, in its entirety. Brilliant!

Perhaps newspapers, if they insist on allowing comments, should use the "letter to the editor" format for their comments. Would "W-h-o-r-e" be a printable letter to the editor in the print version of the Daily News? Probably not. It's not well-argued or intelligent, however succinct. So why allow it as a comment? (Also, why does a news story need to be opened up for comments in the first place?)

You could argue that newspapers should rigorously vet and moderate their comments, or at least require them to use their full names. I'd argue that this is a silly misuse of their time; I'm not suggesting that newspapers should actively patrol their comments, like this and some other websites do. (We're a blog; comments are in our blood.) I'm suggesting they get rid of them altogether. (This doesn't include the blog sections of various papers, which the NYT and Washington Post are stuffed full of.)

Newspapers have more important things to do than worry about commentsâ€"like, say, report the stories that blogs so desperately need in their 24-7 quest for content! After all, blogs are often not equipped to regularly break the news, and we need content to chew on.

As Arthur Sulzberger's relation Benjamin Dolnick lamented in the comments section of Carr's NYT story (noticed by Choire Sicha at Radar): "If you ever want to lose faith in humanity, read any comments section on the internet."

P.S. Also, nobody wants to hear the tired old "free speech" argument as a defense of comments. We've had free speech in this country for well over two hundred years, long before it was ever an option to comment on newspaper websites and blogs.

[Ocklawaha]

B U L L  C R A P !

Ocklawaha

[thebrokenforum]

Nice. Care to elaborate a  little?

[john stark]

I don't agree with not allowing comments on newspaper sites such as jacksonville.com.  As we all know, newspapers are losing their advertisers at an alarming rate due to the amount of free news on the internet.  So in order to combat this the newspapers are having to adapt.  I went to a lecture by Alan Bernstein of the Houston Chronicle a few months ago and he mentioned the blogging feature as being one of the main things newspapers are implementing in order to make their "product" unique and more interactive.  Whoever wrote the article on GAWKER is obviously frustrated by the quality of responses and therefore wants to get rid of the entire blogging option.

I get very frustrated with the times-union and their quality of reporting.  Some of their stories on jacksonville.com are hardly newsworthy and they often have typos.  In the t-u's case, blogging has not been beneficial for them.  Often I see users attacking the writers for their typos or for their lack of quality news. There is often profanity, slurs, and ignorance in many responses to articles.  If people would clean up their act and respond intelligently, the blogging system would work well.  But until that happens the blogging feature will remain flawed, and newspapers will continue to lose advertising revenue.

[jbm32206]

If people would clean up their act and respond intelligently, the blogging system would work well.  But until that happens the blogging feature will remain flawed, and newspapers will continue to lose advertising revenue.

Exactly, and the slurs and profanity are totally uncalled for. It amazes me how people are so willing (even anonymously)to show just how bigoted and ignorant they are.

[BridgeTroll]

If people would clean up their act and respond intelligently, the blogging system would work well.  But until that happens the blogging feature will remain flawed, and newspapers will continue to lose advertising revenue.

Exactly, and the slurs and profanity are totally uncalled for. It amazes me how people are so willing (even anonymously)to show just how bigoted and ignorant they are.

Anonymously is exactly the problem.  In a letter to the editor you are required to include your name.  Those types of postings are generally far more thoughtful than the anonymous flamer who decides to sound off on something they know little about.

[thebrokenforum]

Many of the comments the TU gets are ugly. I think expecting people who are anonymous to act intelligently is asking a lot. For the most part it works here - but this is a blog - the TU is a daily newspaper.

I agree with the article in the sense that no newspaper would publish any of those kinds of comments as a letter to the editor - so why publish them online? It's disgusting when a story of an abused or murdered child breaks and you get all these comments with derogatory remarks about the family etc. The remarks about the mayor's press conference yesterday were peppered with racist and hateful comments.

The TU removed the ability to comment on stories once before because of exactly what this article mentions. They lost control of their own creation. Even now, if a story's comments begin to criticize the TU in any way you will see that story removed; which defeats the purpose of having "people have their say" in the first place.

I also agree that the TU is a newspaper - not a blog. So far they suck at blogging. I know that print is dying but it's dying for a reason. I have never subscribed to the TU because I can get the entire paper online for free.

Are any of these commenters becoming TU subscribers? No. Are they buying ad space? No. Are they providing insightful commentary that broadens everyone's outlook? No.  They obviously cannot police every message board. Hell they cannot even report on breaking news in a timely manner. They need to install a "7 words you shouldn't use as a blog response" filter or just scrap the idea altogether.

Make no mistake - they know what they are doing. The editors are not stupid. You will see that lately, less and less stories have the ability to comment on them. But when they want to push people's buttons, particularly on sensitive issues like race and crime in this city, they open the floodgates on those stories and generate a ton of web traffic.

[Jason]

Not to nitpick you, but this is a moderated web-based discussion forum, not a blog.

I do agree that the TU boards are a mess.  At least here, members are held accountable through their membership process which prevents the purely anonymous rantings.

[thebrokenforum]

  Point taken. But even better, it is moderated.

[Jason]

We try at least! 

[john stark]

This article is a great example of the Times-Union's excellent reporting as well as the intelligent comments that they receive.
http://news.jacksonville.com/justin/2008/07/22/grand-closing-ceremony-planned-for-cafe-erotica-in-fort-valley/

[David]

Have you read the comments jax.com regarding the shantytown shooting ? It got way out of hand if you scroll about mid-way down:

http://news.jacksonville.com/justin/2008/06/17/shooting-outside-springfield-bar-leaves-one-injured/

[gatorback]

B U L L  C R A P !

Ocklawaha

I agree.

"Anonymously is exactly the problem."  Oh?  I'm not sure about that.  Wistler blowers, and confedintal informats are by nature anonymous and that's worked ever since Joan Gutenberg or whatever her name was invented the printing press.

Deep Throat!  Oh wait, I suppose you don't recognize deep throat as a valid source.  He brought down an administration and it would'n't have happened without ananimity.  Who doesn't love deep throat?! Lol. 

[BridgeTroll]

B U L L  C R A P !

Ocklawaha

I agree.

"Anonymously is exactly the problem."  Oh?  I'm not sure about that.  Wistler blowers, and confedintal informats are by nature anonymous and that's worked ever since Joan Gutenberg or whatever her name was invented the printing press.

Deep Throat!  Oh wait, I suppose you don't recognize deep throat as a valid source.  He brought down an administration and it would'n't have happened without ananimity.  Who doesn't love deep throat?! Lol. 

The difference is even Deep Throat was not given credibility until it checked out.  Whistle blowers and informants are listened to but are not publicized until accusations have merit.  In a blog or forum anyone can post virtually anything...

[copperfiend]

Comments on most newspapers sites are trash. Same for Youtube. It is hard to find a mature discussion online. It doesn't seem to matter what the topic, whether it be music, movies, sports, politics. It always gets nasty.