No more reader comments

The fact that college educated people at most newspapers think reader comments are something papers should allow is very scary. Shows how dumb the muckety mucks really are.
Unlike our MEs and web editors, I get out in the community and millionaire business leaders laugh when we discuss the fact the newspaper is giving away the stories for free on the web. They are amazed at the devaluing (sp?) of the product by newspapers in giving it away for free.
Kudos to your paper for killing the idiotic insulting libelous reader comments.

 

Key West?

My thoughts exactly!

 

I'm just thankful when some threads go into flame mode, or degenerate as to whether one poster's mom wore military footwear or offspring of canines, the online editor cuts them off. I encouaged her to also pull the plug when they start dogging high schho kids ... which is one of those stupid things you can do when posting under an anon. handle.

 

I've been urging my ME to force our commenters to register. There's been some really, really nasty stuff on the boards at my paper, which serves 18 communities. He said no because it's a corporate thing. I said that corporate probably wouldn't like it when we get sued. Several targets of the comments have complained vociferously, and I don't blame them.

 

Do you get that many comments that you can't have an editor moderate them (with a disclaimer that comments are moderated)? Either that, or make them register to be able to comment. That will weed out the idiots in a big way.

But don't disable the comments, that's lame. We complain about the lack of feedback all the time and this is an immediate way to gauge what readers are thinking, especially if you weed out the crap and stick to constructive commentary. You edit letters to the editor; user comments are the letters to the editor of our time. Get used to it. And get with it.

 

We get plenty of leads through comments on our story chat. So you are completely wrong.

 

Also, Gannett is working on adding professional moderation to its Pluck forums/blogs/story comment systems. Possibly within the next two weeks.

 

We do?

 

Our online editor also is a reporter who is covering three cities and three school districts. He's done a heck of a job monitoring the comments, but there are only so many hours in the day.

 

Constructive, immediate feedback on a story or an issue, of course we do. So you're telling me when you write a feature or well-reported story that you get a lot of well thought-out comments from readers, pro or con? I doubt it.
Not many people take the time and effort to write in a letter to the editor, or even email one in. Comments provide a simple, immediate way to do that.
Man this business is so thick-headed when it comes to change and adjusting to trends.

 

No it isn't. This has nothing to do with "getting with the times." It has everything to do with ensuring that the sort of interaction we have with our readers does not lead down the road to trouble.

Like it or not, we are ultimately responsible for ALL content in the newspaper. By "in the newspaper," I'm including the Web site and any reader comments thereon. If some anonymous prick comes on and posts something libelous, guess what? We're responsible for it.

I was dead set against allowing reader comments on stories at my last shop. The only way I'd allow readers to comment online would be: 1) users would have to register with their real names; 2) there'd be an editor responsible for screening comments before they post and 3) all comments would be screened before being posted.

Anything that prevents the discourse on our Web sites from descending down that cesspool of dung is a good thing.

 

I get enough to make me happy. I don't ever recall complaining about lack of feedback. I don't really ever recall another journalist complaining about it either.

Man, this business is so full of people who refuse to reject anything that idea relates to the web, because somehow that means they are hip to the new world.

Reader comments dilute the brand. Moderating them is time wasted that would be better spent on reporting in a world of limited resources.