Where do you stand on "reader comments"?

I understand the pros, but since I've had the experience of editing/approving all comments posted to our stories (college paper, no web editor), I'd be more on the side of against. It seems like 90% of the comments posted are things like "Yo fitty cent sucks lol" or 5000-word dissertations on a 500-word article. I'd rather see the textspeak comments just not exist and the long comments simply submitted as letters to the editor. I've seen very few comments posted to our site and other newspapers' stories that really justify having the feature over something like a message board.

 

Our comments are fairly intelligent. Lots of people who know the area. Just very, very mean.

 

Since I'm one of the two quoted in the original post, it's pretty clear where I stand on this. But I figured I'd go to my local paper's website to find an example of a typical comment. It took me no more than 20 seconds to find this, in response to a story about a bank robbery. The suspect is described as having a "dark complexion."

Another post says it's unfair that the paper is too PC to admit the guy has to be Mexican, but they wouldn't have any problem describing him as "caucation."

Honestly, anyone who would try to argue that this creates a "dialogue" with the readers is not reading what the readers are posting. It's a message board for racists and imbeciles, and the reporters for the paper get to read that swill tacked on to the end of their work.

 

Really? What got this thread started was Dave perusing the Washington Post "Cracked" thread.
Now, you tell me this is a post of an imbecile or a racist. I will give you that it is the exception, but does it mean the voice, deliverance or message isn't worthwhile?

 

dave, let me give this another try - i think you're driving at the fact that nameless/faceless internet reader comments are one of the final and most juvenile tactics today's newspapers grasp at in an attempt to retain readers as though they were fleeting straws.

but the bottom line is these types of interactions empower the most ignorant of public while belittling the journalist, which, of course, sells our integrity to a couple dozen online readers who simply are too cheap to buy a newspaper in the first place.

 

It's the worst lowering of industry standards that I can remember. It allows the general public greater freedom than we would even allow our best writers -- posting whatever the hell they want in the name of the newspaper. I've seen cases where the paper went out of its way to not name a juvenile accused of a crime, but someone in the comments section mentioned it, making the paper's policy moot. If we let our columnists and reporters post unsourced or anonymous-sourced information it would at least be more interesting that what these rubes write.

 

I don't like them, especially when they're just tacked on to the end of the story, for all the stupidity, race-baiting and other reasons listed above. But here's another. (which doesn't apply to first-person pieces like Castaneda's).
As a reporter, I have to get people to trust me, to trust that I'll treat them fairly, before they'll let me write about them. I try to keep that trust when I'm writing a story. It's the right thing to do.
But then my newspaper invites the asshole gallery to comment, and publishes the comments for all the world to see. So now at the end of my story there's a bunch of anonymous dickheads, with no bond of trust, not even having met the person, raining down whatever racist or classist stereotypes they feel the people I write about fit, for all the world to see. Yes, some comments are thoughtful, but many are not.
So why would any normal person subject themselves to that? Why would they talk to me?

 

Mean doesn't bother me, as long as its substantive. But Nathan makes a great point regarding the naming of the juvenile, and we've had cases where victims and/or accused families have accusations brought against them on the forums.

What gets me is that I've heard from readers, "I read on your web site . . . " some crazy rumor, only to find out they read it on a discussion forum. There's not enough differentiation among a lot of readers. Further reason to detach them from the actual newspaper content online, somehow.

 

You're forgetting editorial writers, but other than that I understand your point.

 

I think that access to the sites can remain free, but you should charge for people who want to post comments, or on boards.

People's egos will have them handing over the money. And it will allow traceability, so the ridiculous responses will evaporate.

 

No, that's fine. And posts like that are what, 1% of the typical reader comments? 2%, to be generous?

Meanwhile, the Arizona Republic did the standard feature on the first baby to be born in the new year. Here are a few of the first reader comments:

That's not including the posts commenting on (a) the mother's looks in the photo, (b) the father's job, or (c) using this story to rail against gay marriage.

I'm sure the new parents and their friends and family will be thrilled to print their article and add it to the baby book.

 

I know of a paper that had comments.
One day the sports boys churned out a 10 inch soccer gamer (matcher?) from two rival high school girls teams. It was posted and the comments were on.
Gems like this were posted:
• The star player was sleeping with the coach
• The star player was better at blow jobs than soccer
• The star player had the clap
• The star player was a lesbian
• The boys team had ran a train on the star player
And on it went.
Star player's dad threatened legal action, saying that the paper had abandoned its responsibilities by allowing posts like that.
Paper no longer allows comments.