Seattle's Steve Kelley hates anonymous comments

To the point that he cites them as one of the reasons he is retiring.

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/199712/seattle-times-columnist-cant-stand-commenters-retires/

 

Re: Seattle's Steve Kelly hates anonymous comments

He should learn how to box. It does wonders for your psyche.

 

Re: Seattle's Steve Kelly hates anonymous comments

It's not his only reason for retiring, of course:

However, I'll agree that the anonymous online comments are vile. They usually pile up on political and/or news stories, but occasionally, even here in Podunk, we get anonymous cheap shots at prep coaches, teachers, etc.

The worst part? Our paper has been told by lawyers not to remove nasty, libelous stuff because if we do, then whatever gets on our web site is "approved" by us.

I understand the legal reason, but absolutely hate it. HATE it.

The other alternative, of course, is to shut them all down. But our company (like most) is as desperate as a toothless meth freak for any drop of ad revenue we can still get, and those anonymous nutjobs crank up the click count.

 

Re: Seattle's Steve Kelly hates anonymous comments

Kelley.

 

Re: Seattle's Steve Kelly hates anonymous comments

My bad. Sorry.

 

I don't think that's quite the legal scenario. My understanding is you can have comment moderation and choose not to let a comment get in, but if you're going to let a comment in, you can't edit it.

 

Ignore readers at your own peril. You have to learn to read between the hate, but those comments can be illuminating. We're here to serve readers, and the less we listen, the more they turn away.

 

We're not here to ask readers if they want fries with that. We're here to inform them, to provide perspective. We're not here to bend to focus-groupery.

 

If a newspaper wouldn't publish an anonymous letter, it shouldn't publish an anonymous comment. It's really that simple. I suspect that the amount of advertising revenue generated by comments reaches the low three figures annually.

 

Reader comments, like SportsJournalists.com posts, do serve as a good look into a large cross-section of users, including the radical thinkers. You get a good look at the intensity on all sides of an issue, and it shows you how fucked-up many people are today.

I read the comments for entertainment, but I also read them with concern.

 

How many readers are involved in the commenting portion? And of those, how many are in the geographic footprint where they would actually be relevant to advertisers?

What you're saying has been said for the past 15 years and has never been shown to be anywhere close to meaningful.