Where do you stand on "reader comments"?

i think that's a fairly ignorant post made by an individual who hasn't had much experience with online feedback.

 

Yeah. Kind of grossed me out too.

 

Twoback, how is not wanting racist, homophobic comments under a story arrogance?

To be honest, I'm undecided on this one. I don't get the people who think some uneducated person's comments in response to a story is a direct reflection on a source or the reporter. Could there be a better "wall" between the two? Sure. I don't know how it directly degrades the quality of a newspaper's work, though.

At the same time, I can see the comments function being abused, greatly. And I know it is. But should the newspaper be responsible for idiots acting like idiots? They'd act like idiots on one Internet forum or another, even if comments weren't possible.

 

I don't detect arrogance. I think most of us appreciate that even the dumbest of readers are smarter than the ones who don't read. At least they care enough to keep up with what's going on where they live, unlike the legions of zombies who can't be bothered.

I took Dave's question to mean is this doing us any good, all this interactivity?

My opinion is it's not our job to provide a public forum. People have numerous outlets for that, and they did waaaay before the Internet was even thought of, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that giving people one more place to spew has helped any news organization as a business.

Now I worked at a place awhile back where we actually got pretty good letters and lots of them. And I can't really explain it because on the surface it didn't seem like that kind of city and, really, the newspaper itself was not very good for its size, it's not like our content was so compelling that it just sucked the feedback right out of them. I think we got some provocative, funny, witty letters and people just fed off each other and it just kind of happened. You can't make it happen, and last I looked, it wasn't happening there anymore, but it was a pretty good ride for a while. But that's a rare exception. I haven't seen it very often elsewhere, and nowhere else that I've worked. So why bother?

 

The simple line I draw is this.

1. I fully understand and agree with giving the reader some access to our pages. And I think a call-in line or something of the kind is just fine. (Even if it depresses the hell out of me on the occasions when I've had to transcribe it.)

2. These comments from Joe in the street should in no way be associated with the newspaper's stories. And when they're comments at the end of the newspaper's stories, the public's first reaction is to link them in some way -- right or wrong.

 

i wish i'd have made point no. 2.

 

There are still some sections that print considerable sports letters or viewpoints.
Some work, some don't.

 

One of my jobs at my shop is to moderate the comment board during our live blogs during games. I've had to delete so many comments that I have begun to hate that part of my job. Sadly, it's made me realize how many pathetic morons read the stories written by my colleagues and myself. It's made me question why I even bother doing this for a living.

On the flip side of that, our prep writer received a ridiculous amount of comments on his blog this past year, and 98% of them consisted of great responses to his stories/blogs or intelligent discussion about prep athletes he covered.

We can debate this topic until the end of time. Fact is, there are an equal number of good points to make for each side of it. And for that reason, I still can't decide which side I'm on.

 

I'm dead set against it. Allowing reader comments opens a whole different can of worms. We'll need a Webmaster who will also have time to moderate the postings. I sure as hell don't have time to play policeman on a Web site.

If I had to set a standard policy for comments, 1) I'd mandate that all comments be moderated; 2) I'd set an expectation that all users register for the Web site and post with their real names and 3) all content on the Web site conform to print standards.

In other words, if it doesn't deserve to be on the printed page, it doesn't belong on the Web site.

 

Well, that's the thing. Within 5-10 years, that WILL be a full-time job at any newspaper. Somebody's going to have to do it.

Kids, update your resumes.

 

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that in my current job, I have no time, nor do I have any inclination to play policeman on the Web site. I already work 50-60 hours a week as it is for shit pay. I don't want to work Joe Gibbs hours for that same shit pay.

Oh, and I have experience moderating different message boards online. I can lower the boom on rulebreakers with the best of them. Ask some of the folks who came to a computer lab where I worked while I was in college.

 

If you're going to have reader comments, you must:
1) Set up a system whereby comments go to a middleman -- an editor -- before they appear on the site. Making a comment and sending it essentially becomes an email to the gatekeeper, who can edit the comments or strike them entirely.
2) Commentators must use their own names. Just as in print.

We own the press and we own the Web site. It's not a public forum or "Town Square" in the same sense that governmental meetings are. We're not the government and we have no obligation to subject the integrity of our product to the irrational, mean-spirited rants of unregulated idiots.