"Comments" section for stories: Why are they allowed?

[TheMethod]

I don't know if it's possible, especially when you do not have to subscribe in order to visit newspaper Web sites, but if people had to use their real names on the comments sections, they actually would be pretty close to what they've idealistically sold as being, and the overwhelming majority of the garbage would never be posted.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Our company lawyer says no to unmoderated comments.
Everything posted has to be approved by a web manager.
If it doesn't meet the standard of published letters to the editor, it won't be allowed.
Simple.
No one comments and a local blog touts itself as the information leader because they take our stories and then allow unfiltered comments.
The racist, sexist and offensive crap posted is hard to believe.
*shrug*

Our company lawyer would rather have unmoderated messages, but we moderate ours for the time being. We just can't edit them in any way -- it's either approve or spike.

We have stories that we single out for discussion, though -- not the comments-for-every-story setup. I like it better that way.

Why does the suit prefer unmoderated?

 

[BillyT]

Clearly, the reason is to drive up web readership.

That's a lot of ad clicks.

Our local paper is very, very active in comments -- www.poststar.com -- and last week they cracked down and started being much more strict.

It was getting out of control.

We have had several of those "young people die in car crashes" up here with the expected comments.

We also get a lot of relatives or "relatives" of accused criminals posting.

 

[MrWrite]

I never (well, at least rarely -- if it happens, it's by accident) read the comments at the bottom of a story. Not because I'm above it or anything. It's just that I don't personally give a **** what Joe Reader has to say about a story.

I read the story.

I get the information.

I'm done.

I realize a lot of others not only do read the comment, but also comment themselves. Part of it is probably being journalists, many or most of us here don't comment and/or think the commenters are the same dumbass readers we don't want to deal with via calls and emails that we seem to have threads about here almost daily.

At the same time, it is the new internet model, it seems, for having people read. Interaction = traffic = dollars. So, while I think badmouthing the deceased, etc., via comment is reprehensible, I think comment sections are here to stay, and if you ignore the stupidity of readers (something we're all used to doing), comments aren't that big a deal.

 

[deskslave]

You could sell a lot more newspapers if you ran a naked girl on the front, too. Doesn't mean you should do it. Just because it drives traffic doesn't make it a good idea. Newspapers should show some class and dignity, rather than drooling over every tool to drive up Web hits.

My paper only allows comments on specific stories; frequently I'm told we should put a comment section on a crime allegation story. I always refuse, because I don't think it's necessary, and moreover, I believe it opens the door to any number of legal issues.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

You could sell a lot more newspapers if you ran a naked girl on the front, too. Doesn't mean you should do it.

Unless you're running a tabloid in England. Then you put the topless girl on page 3.

 

[Van Lingle Mungo]

Our company lawyer says no to unmoderated comments.
Everything posted has to be approved by a web manager.
If it doesn't meet the standard of published letters to the editor, it won't be allowed.
Simple.
No one comments and a local blog touts itself as the information leader because they take our stories and then allow unfiltered comments.
The racist, sexist and offensive crap posted is hard to believe.
*shrug*

Our company lawyer would rather have unmoderated messages, but we moderate ours for the time being. We just can't edit them in any way -- it's either approve or spike.

We have stories that we single out for discussion, though -- not the comments-for-every-story setup. I like it better that way.

Why does the suit prefer unmoderated?

Basically, if we publish a comment and then remove it, then we're assuming some responsibility because we decided that comment was worthwhile of seeing the light of day. If every comment goes live right then, then we never gave it our stamp of approval.

So far, we've been OK with the moderating game.

 

[Van Lingle Mungo]

One concern I've heard around my newsroom -- and one I absolutely agree with -- is that it could hurt future story ideas.

Getting people to tell awful, gut-wrenching stories is hard enough. Knowing there's a good chance they'll be publicly shat upon isn't going to make it any easier.

 

[apeman33]

The only comments I ever get on my stories are of the "Yay, player! Coach has finally figured out you're good!" variety and even then, there aren't very many stories which actually do get a comment. Our blogs don't get jack for comments, either, so most of us aren't even blogging anymore because there's no proof anyone cares about the topics.

The only other kind of comments I get on my sports stories are from someone who has an agenda against the high school principal just because this person things the H.S. principal is an adulterer. We've banned him or her three times now. Never posted a real name, authentic e-mail address or legitimate street address (well, once, he/she did, but it was the high school's address) and uses other people's phone numbers when they sign up.

News story comments usually turn into flamewars. Either relatives of the accused defending said person versus those who want every single criminal in town to be put away for life or people going back and forth on each other when the story is about a sexual predator.

We ran a story about one guy, then people who knew the girls he had been around most posted their My Space address in a comment and they were "outed" despite our policy not to identify those girls because they were victims of a sex crime. One misguided woman even thought those guys (in their upper 20's) had been railroaded even though the girls were 16. Her logic: She was in a relationship with a 30-year-old when she was 16, so that should make it OK for everyone. ???

Since we've lost our Web diva, the ME and myself have ban power now. But we're not allowed to edit or delete comments unless libel is a possibility. So really, a lot of those comments get to stay on the board. The logic, as someone else stated above, was that if we edit comments, we assume responsibility for what's posted, which would leave the paper open for lawsuits. Being "unmoderated" supposedly lets us escape that.

As for me, I've been tempted to check that "No" box beside "Allow Comments" but those who post would then accuse us of censorship.

 

[Singapore Slim]

You could sell a lot more newspapers if you ran a naked girl on the front, too. Doesn't mean you should do it. Just because it drives traffic doesn't make it a good idea. Newspapers should show some class and dignity, rather than drooling over every tool to drive up Web hits.

My paper only allows comments on specific stories; frequently I'm told we should put a comment section on a crime allegation story. I always refuse, because I don't think it's necessary, and moreover, I believe it opens the door to any number of legal issues.

Nice and ideal, but your newspaper's website loses money hand over fist if they don't have people reloading their page or engaging in flame wars. It's an unfortunate byproduct, but that's how it is.

And the "naked girl" idea has already been taken up. Newspapers run escort ads. They run gambling ads with women in the picture, designed to draw in eyes. They runs ads for brassieres and underwear. Money-making newspapers in England and Canada run Page 3 girls.

You're essentially complaining that your favorite chamber music act isn't at the top of the charts right now.

You don't want your paper to have a website? Fine. It's going to lose money and you're going to lose your job.

You don't want your paper's websites to have comments? Fine. It's going to lose money, and you're going to lose your job.

If you don't want to see the remains of the car crash, don't look.

 

[jlee]

We have one moderator at my shop, which means all the filthy racists can have a comment posted for about six hours if they're willing to stay up late.

The logic, as someone else stated above, was that if we edit comments, we assume responsibility for what's posted, which would leave the paper open for lawsuits. Being "unmoderated" supposedly lets us escape that.

That was the main argument by those who wanted no moderation on our Web site. Makes perfect sense. But isn't being accountable for content what makes a newspaper tick?

I'm with usedtoB in saying news sites shouldn't allow comments until they're ready to fully accept the responsibility. When the Web site is ready to pull its own weight as a product, then it can stray into the minefield that is user-generated content.

 

[deskslave]

You could sell a lot more newspapers if you ran a naked girl on the front, too. Doesn't mean you should do it. Just because it drives traffic doesn't make it a good idea. Newspapers should show some class and dignity, rather than drooling over every tool to drive up Web hits.

My paper only allows comments on specific stories; frequently I'm told we should put a comment section on a crime allegation story. I always refuse, because I don't think it's necessary, and moreover, I believe it opens the door to any number of legal issues.

Nice and ideal, but your newspaper's website loses money hand over fist if they don't have people reloading their page or engaging in flame wars. It's an unfortunate byproduct, but that's how it is.

And the "naked girl" idea has already been taken up. Newspapers run escort ads. They run gambling ads with women in the picture, designed to draw in eyes. They runs ads for brassieres and underwear. Money-making newspapers in England and Canada run Page 3 girls.

You're essentially complaining that your favorite chamber music act isn't at the top of the charts right now.

You don't want your paper to have a website? Fine. It's going to lose money and you're going to lose your job.

You don't want your paper's websites to have comments? Fine. It's going to lose money, and you're going to lose your job.

If you don't want to see the remains of the car crash, don't look.

You don't think advertisers look at the site? You don't think they figure out that 90 percent of the comments come from the same 10 assholes? You think they want to be associated with some of the **** that anonymous commenters post?

If you think advertisers don't know the difference between unique browsers and clicks, then you don't think very highly of your advertisers.

Forgive me for thinking that newspapers can make money AND have standards and decency.

Again, if hits and clicks are all that matters, then scrap all the news content and set up a TMZ feed.

One of these days, someone's going to sue a newspaper for libel on the basis of something posted to the Web site. The newspaper will argue that it isn't responsible for the content. It will, however, be responsible for the dissemination of that content, which is vital to a libel claim. Therefore, it will lose that libel suit, and the view of anonymous commenting will dramatically change.

 

[usedtoBinthebiz]

I did receive a response, the editor said it wasn't "their content" so basically they didn't have control. WTF? It's THEIR site that THEY make money off of. Is the editorial page of a newspaper their content? Just control it, but they choose not to.

Every single day there are racist and sexist comments, as well as cheers for people who die in wrecks on the "comments" pages. So since The Idaho Statesman allows this, I'm guessing they 100 percent approve of these comments. If they did not approve of them, they would either not have a comments section or set up a registration system that can be monitored.

Yes, Amercian journalism does deserve to die if this is all it's going to be.

She said readers demanded the feedback. So they demand these kinds of comments? And what if they put a stop to these kinds of comments? And why don't they run these anonymous blasts on the letters to the editor page if they're all the same?

Here's the deal: Newspapers don't know how to handle or monitor the new media, i.e., internet, so they let it run wild.

To me, that's irresponsible.

 

[Singapore Slim]

You could sell a lot more newspapers if you ran a naked girl on the front, too. Doesn't mean you should do it. Just because it drives traffic doesn't make it a good idea. Newspapers should show some class and dignity, rather than drooling over every tool to drive up Web hits.

My paper only allows comments on specific stories; frequently I'm told we should put a comment section on a crime allegation story. I always refuse, because I don't think it's necessary, and moreover, I believe it opens the door to any number of legal issues.

Nice and ideal, but your newspaper's website loses money hand over fist if they don't have people reloading their page or engaging in flame wars. It's an unfortunate byproduct, but that's how it is.

And the "naked girl" idea has already been taken up. Newspapers run escort ads. They run gambling ads with women in the picture, designed to draw in eyes. They runs ads for brassieres and underwear. Money-making newspapers in England and Canada run Page 3 girls.

You're essentially complaining that your favorite chamber music act isn't at the top of the charts right now.

You don't want your paper to have a website? Fine. It's going to lose money and you're going to lose your job.

You don't want your paper's websites to have comments? Fine. It's going to lose money, and you're going to lose your job.

If you don't want to see the remains of the car crash, don't look.

You don't think advertisers look at the site? You don't think they figure out that 90 percent of the comments come from the same 10 assholes? You think they want to be associated with some of the **** that anonymous commenters post?

If you think advertisers don't know the difference between unique browsers and clicks, then you don't think very highly of your advertisers.

Forgive me for thinking that newspapers can make money AND have standards and decency.

Again, if hits and clicks are all that matters, then scrap all the news content and set up a TMZ feed.

One of these days, someone's going to sue a newspaper for libel on the basis of something posted to the Web site. The newspaper will argue that it isn't responsible for the content. It will, however, be responsible for the dissemination of that content, which is vital to a libel claim. Therefore, it will lose that libel suit, and the view of anonymous commenting will dramatically change.

You don't have to go over the top with the hyperbole.

The point is to find a nice, money-making venture that serves the community and is pitched midway between the Christian Science Monitor, and TMZ.

 

[usedtoBinthebiz]

I've could hit the paper where it hurts: Most advertisers have e-mail addresses. I could easily cut and paste the "comments" on the cheers for people who die in accidents and e-mail them to the advertisers saying this is the filth that you're advertising in, their online site. This paper approves of these comments and said it has no control over it because it is not "their content."

Why would anyone want to advertise in a paper that runs comments of people saying a beloved professor who died "got what she deserved."

And frankly Singapore, I don't give a flying f' h ow much money they're losing. That's low class and shouldn't be on a newspaper's website, period, case closed, end of story.

 

[Singapore Slim]

It shouldn't, but they are. Webmasters need to stop worrying about the liability issues, do their job, and delete the comments. If they stay up for a little while and someone sues for libel, no sane judge or jury would ever see fit to punish the paper or website syndicate. As litigious as this country is, it doesn't mean these cases side for the insane.

And the industry is dying.

And I see threads like these, and know why.

 

[usedtoBinthebiz]

OK, Singapore, I agree with you there. Hire people to delete the comments, and not just because of lawsuits, because of having a quality product.

Would letters saying the dead "deserved it" be on letters to the editor pages? No. Why should they be on the newspaper's official website?

 

[Singapore Slim]

You have to stop equating the two. It's a different world, with different rules.

It has as much in common with the editorial page as a columnist's personal email back-and-forth has to do with what he or she files every couple of days.

And they shouldn't have to hire anyone. Webmasters should be able to handle the workload, and I wonder how much laziness and making excuses comes into play.

 

[usedtoBinthebiz]

Why shouldn't I equate the two? It's owned by the newspaper. My guess is if they removed the comments section you'd lose the psycho-nut jobs, then people would go back to reading stories online.

 

[MrWrite]

I've could hit the paper where it hurts: Most advertisers have e-mail addresses. I could easily cut and paste the "comments" on the cheers for people who die in accidents and e-mail them to the advertisers saying this is the filth that you're advertising in, their online site. This paper approves of these comments and said it has no control over it because it is not "their content."

Just be sure to send a follow-up email to all the print-side people at the newspaper whose jobs you cost them when the online advertising falls off. Because that's who will lose a job.