Sun-Times Web editor writing in vain

If someone can clearly explain to me in concrete terms why comment moderation is unworkable, other than "Being a moderator is not easy, should be treated like an actual job and would cost money," please tell me. Please. Because everything I've heard on it seems like an excuse not to spend money (which, admittedly, is Concern #1 for most papers right now, but at least have the balls to admit you're allowing this garbage so you can operate on the cheap).

I've heard "If we moderate we'll be liable!" I honestly don't see how papers aren't liable for this bullshit already. They're giving it credence by allowing it. If someone hasn't been sued yet, I suspect it's more due to lack of legal precedent than anything else.

 

Does seem to me like, if it's worthwhile enough to have comments for the clicks they generate, then it's worthwhile enough to moderate those comments with a staff person. If allowing any ol' bigoted, asinine comment can't generate enough to pay for that person's salary and benefits -- shoot, you might be able to farm it out to freelancers -- then it's clearly not worth tolerating for the hit your integrity takes.

 

I fail to see the big problem with crazy comments when so many newspapers for years have run, in print, "Speak Out" columns that allowed every nut who knew how to leave a phone message to get such message in the newspaper.

Plus, they're high-larious, and eminently predictable.

 

Here is one reason: If you moderated all comments, you would need at least 2-3 people doing nothing but that when you figure that the comments are a 24-7 issue.

If you screen them all before posting, that doesn't work. People don't want to wait till next week to see if their funny, racist comment got posted.

 

Why doesn't that work?

I realize this is a circular argument. But in my ideal world, this is how it would work. Yeah, it would remove the instant gratification factor from the mouth-breathing troglodytes who use the comments to hurl virtual feces but...actuallly no buts, that is also part of my ideal world.

 

This is what gets me. How can newspapers not moderate? Think about all the damage that could be done from midnight until 7 a.m. I am really surprised the scourge of society hasn't done more damage all night spewing racist, libelous material. If I owned a newspaper I would be terrified of the damage that could be done when my site was unmonitored.
These publishers really deserve to lose their fortunes over this libelous stuff.
And don't give me it'll take 2-3 people. Sorry managing editors, publishers and think tankers who sit on your ass all day. You do it. Moderate. Or assign it to your overworked staff members.
Newspaper think tankers act like the internet is so important to the future. But they won't moderate reader comments in large part because there's nobody to do it and they don't want to do it because it's actual work.

These reader comments should be considered a crisis right now, but they are not. How can any publisher go to bed at night not terrified they'll wake up in the morning to a firestorm of libelous reader comments?

 

Because you are trying to get people to click on your web site. The information sites these days are participatory, like it or not. People aren't going to want to wait a day or several hours for their screed to be posted. Even the rational ones.

 

Larger papers would have hundreds of stories with working chats on them. You want the managing editor or a writer to spend their time checking all those comments?

 

In a word, Ace, yes.
How else do you prevent the N word and other horrible words being published on stories on your website?
This will all be moot in a few years. The first lawsuits will end reader comments. Newspapers don't want to pay the court costs.

 

Fredrick, you have the awesome accomplishment of being wrong on two threads on the same board.

The courts and the law have been very clear. The opinions of the poster are just that. Opinions of the poster on a public forum. This absolves any liability by the host. You know, 1st Amendment and all? Anyone care to explain the difficulty in trying to prove defamation in a civil court?

Papers can use filtering software that flags or denies vulgarities and epitaphs. Once one is spotted, it can be taken down. It's a pretty simple process.

 

The only lawsuits I am familiar with regarding these chats on newspaper sites are from people suing to get the paper to divulge who posted the libelous chat comment.

Lawyers seem to agree that if the editors take a hands off approach and only remove comments when they are flagged by readers that they are protected.

It's when they take ownership of the chats (by editing them) that they are vulnerable.

 

A paper has no obligation to publish everything submitted to it. Current law dictates that papers don't edit posts; they either allow a post, or don't allow it.