I found this on
Gawker and oh man, does this ever relate to the T-U.
QuoteWhy 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.
B U L L C R A P !
Ocklawaha
Nice. Care to elaborate a little?
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.
Quote from: john stark on July 21, 2008, 11:21:32 PMIf 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.
Quote from: jbm32206 on July 22, 2008, 09:14:55 AM
Quote from: john stark on July 21, 2008, 11:21:32 PMIf 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.
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.
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.
;D Point taken. But even better, it is moderated.
We try at least! :)
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/ (http://news.jacksonville.com/justin/2008/07/22/grand-closing-ceremony-planned-for-cafe-erotica-in-fort-valley/)
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/
Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 21, 2008, 10:17:45 PM
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. ;D
Quote from: gatorback on July 22, 2008, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 21, 2008, 10:17:45 PM
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. ;D
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...
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.
I still don't quite get what the author is trying to say. We don't exactly need a Constitutional Amendment banning comments on a newspaper's website. At the end of the day, a newspaper is a business. They can make their own decisions. If the New York Times, Times-Union, Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, whoever wants to incorporate "comments" -- whether moderated, unmoderated, anonymous, signed, whatever -- into their business and web model, who is some geek at Gawker to say "Oh it bothers me, no one should do it."
Newspapers, even the best ones, make mistakes. I think it's great to have a forum to intelligentally discuss thoughts and feelings on an article once it has been published. If someone sitting at their desk somewhere can provided documentated proof or make a persuasive argument that the author might be misinformed or incorrect about a fact or opinion, I would love to read it. Sure there are going to be idiots who offer nothing, or even detract, from the conversation, but that doesn't mean we just turn the whole thing off. There are idiots on Wikipedia too, but studies show it to be every bit as accurate as Brittanica. Give people enough credit to assume they can filter out the garbage and still take something from the discourse.
A lot of it does have to do with anonymity and people having the courage to say things they otherwise wouldn't say. Another thing I think, is people simply taking what is written in text the wrong way. Some things are said jokingly and get misconstrued, some things are said seriously but people take it as a joke and some things are just seen in a completely different light then originally intended. It is true that a good chunk of our communication is done through body language. So, until the masses adapt to communicating via text with one another, it's going to be a clusterf*** on the internets.
QuoteI think it's great to have a forum to intelligentally discuss thoughts and feelings on an article once it has been published.
That's exactly the point though. The TU doesn't have that. They have the online equivalent of bathroom wall graffiti. But you are right - it's their business and they can do what they want.
It's really interesting (and awesome) how the TU's message boards and the ones here differ yet provide news and opinions about Jax.
Quote from: thebrokenforum on July 23, 2008, 12:56:01 PM
QuoteI think it's great to have a forum to intelligentally discuss thoughts and feelings on an article once it has been published.
That's exactly the point though. The TU doesn't have that. They have the online equivalent of bathroom wall graffiti.
Breaks my heart to say, but I think the comments you
do see around the internet might sadly be a reflection of just how stupid people have allowed themselves to become. We're living in a country where only 2 out of 5 citizens can name the three branches of the federal government. Only 1 in 7 can find Iraq on a map. Only 1 in 5 know that we have 100 US senators. More than 1 in 2 can identify at least two members of the Simpsons family, and only 25% can name more than one right guaranteed by the First Amendment. 7 in 10 believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. I just finished reading
Just How Stupid Are We? by Rick Shenkman, and it just paints a terrible portrait of how ignorant the majority of people around us are.
That's why effecting any change, either local (commuter rail) or national is such an uphill battle. The vast majority of those around us are intellectually lazy, unapologetically ignorant (but are literally too ignorant to even realize they are ignorant), and tragically susceptible to manipulation from the media. I've got well educated, rational people in my office convinced that Obama was sworn in the Koran, refuses to say the pledge, and is a practicing Muslim. Their source: some foolish, baseless chain email. If the JTA was set on doing Bus Rapid Transit, all I really think they would need to get public support is a goofy chain email about how rail was designed in Iran and is easier for terrorists to attack, or maybe a front page headline in the T-U that said "Jacksonville wants Bus Rapid Transit." Whole article could be about how terrible BRT is, but all people even bother to read anymore is the headline.
Pessimistic? Sure. Realistic? Absolutely.
The average person on the streets these days
is the comments/message board goon with their taglines, and poorly written insults, and stubborn opinions that likely have very little real thought or independent research behind them, just myth. They'll believe anything they're told if it's presented simply, repeated often, and if the source
appears credible. Love the line that "Myth gives the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." The media doesn't do us any favors either. Maybe it
is good to have some voices of reason, however sparse they may be, in the sea of idiocy that is the T-U, its comments and discussions, and its constant failure to ask the question that most need to be asked.
Quote from: David on July 23, 2008, 11:42:39 AM
A lot of it does have to do with anonymity and people having the courage to say things they otherwise wouldn't say. Another thing I think, is people simply taking what is written in text the wrong way. Some things are said jokingly and get misconstrued, some things are said seriously but people take it as a joke and some things are just seen in a completely different light then originally intended. It is true that a good chunk of our communication is done through body language. So, until the masses adapt to communicating via text with one another, it's going to be a clusterf*** on the internets.
Very true. And then there's reality for me and reality for you. Even straight up communication is one of the hardest process known to man. The lack of tone and no inflections, makes it's even harder to effectively communicate in words. Then there's the skull f#!$ig that some just like to do. So, consider the source.
Quote from: KenFSU on July 23, 2008, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: thebrokenforum on July 23, 2008, 12:56:01 PM
QuoteI think it's great to have a forum to intelligentally discuss thoughts and feelings on an article once it has been published.
That's exactly the point though. The TU doesn't have that. They have the online equivalent of bathroom wall graffiti.
Breaks my heart to say, but I think the comments you do see around the internet might sadly be a reflection of just how stupid people have allowed themselves to become. We're living in a country where only 2 out of 5 citizens can name the three branches of the federal government. Only 1 in 7 can find Iraq on a map. Only 1 in 5 know that we have 100 US senators. More than 1 in 2 can identify at least two members of the Simpsons family, and only 25% can name more than one right guaranteed by the First Amendment. 7 in 10 believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. I just finished reading Just How Stupid Are We? by Rick Shenkman, and it just paints a terrible portrait of how ignorant the majority of people around us are.
That's why effecting any change, either local (commuter rail) or national is such an uphill battle. The vast majority of those around us are intellectually lazy, unapologetically ignorant (but are literally too ignorant to even realize they are ignorant), and tragically susceptible to manipulation from the media. I've got well educated, rational people in my office convinced that Obama was sworn in the Koran, refuses to say the pledge, and is a practicing Muslim. Their source: some foolish, baseless chain email. If the JTA was set on doing Bus Rapid Transit, all I really think they would need to get public support is a goofy chain email about how rail was designed in Iran and is easier for terrorists to attack, or maybe a front page headline in the T-U that said "Jacksonville wants Bus Rapid Transit." Whole article could be about how terrible BRT is, but all people even bother to read anymore is the headline.
Pessimistic? Sure. Realistic? Absolutely.
The average person on the streets these days is the comments/message board goon with their taglines, and poorly written insults, and stubborn opinions that likely have very little real thought or independent research behind them, just myth. They'll believe anything they're told if it's presented simply, repeated often, and if the source appears credible. Love the line that "Myth gives the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." The media doesn't do us any favors either. Maybe it is good to have some voices of reason, however sparse they may be, in the sea of idiocy that is the T-U, its comments and discussions, and its constant failure to ask the question that most need to be asked.
Ken...
While I agree with the basic premise that most are uninformed and ill equipped to have an intelligent convo regarding ANY of the worlds problems the examples you cite are a bit unfair... There are also many who blame all the worlds problems on Bush, think america is the cause of the worlds ills and we are headed for a depression... soon.
There is plenty of ignorance to go around...
my college professor said his prof said Americans just want to bowl. I agree.Where do you fit in with this picture?
QuoteThere are also many who blame all the worlds problems on Bush...
Wait a minute here...you mean he's
not the anti-christ??
wait - was this thread serious? no comments on newspaper sites???
Quote from: gatorback on July 23, 2008, 07:19:01 PM
my college professor said his prof said Americans just want to bowl. I agree.Where do you fit in with this picture?
Hey I love to bowl, but then I'm just stupid. Bowlers unite, arm youselves against the arrogant masses. You have nothing to lose other than your balls.
Quote from: gatorback on July 23, 2008, 07:19:01 PM
my college professor said his prof said Americans just want to bowl. I agree.Where do you fit in with this picture?
Seriously I told my niece and others not to pay a bit of attention when a professor tries to tell you about life. Some grey hair that hasn't looked for a job in 30 years doesn't know squat about life. Tenure is a killer
Amen, Civil...
Before today I was very active in the community doing intellectual things and helping a cause, but now, I just want to bowl.
The problem with comments anywhere on the internet boils down to a simple "internet farkwad" theory.
“Normal Person plus Anonymity plus Audience equals Total Farkwardâ€
Ilustarted here: http://www.owned.lv/4268/Normal-person-plus-anonymity/ (http://www.owned.lv/4268/Normal-person-plus-anonymity/)