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

[usedtoBinthebiz]

I fired off another e-mail to the editor of my pretty good hometown newspaper, The Idaho Statesman. While I like the print version, their online version is awful, sloppy, and wreckless. Why? Because of the "comments" section which has anonymous readers firing off sexist, racist, and mean-spirited comments that would never make a letters to the editor section.

I e-mailed the editor, Vicki Gowler, my second one as the first one didn't receive a response. I will probably send a letter to the editor through the mail to get my point across.

Today's latest "comments" from the unedited online version of The Idaho Statesman? The Boise State University English professor who died in last night's fire which took out nine houses? According to one sub-human reader who commented, she deserved what she got. Of course this wasn't touched, wasn't deleted, wasn't edited by The Statesman? It's just a free for all, let all slimeball comments run for the sake of more cyber-hits.

Why not strive for quality, not quantity? The high-class steakhouse isn't selling Big Macs to get more customers, why should a pretty good newspaper go down the slippery slope of awful "comments' in their online version?

I don't expect them to respond to my e-mail.

 

[zeke12]

wreckless?

Comments sections are pure bull**** 99 percent of the time.

 

[greenlantern]

We got the same thing recently when a 17-year-old high school football player was killed in a car accident at 2:30 a.m. People were calling his parents the worst parents in the world and saying the kid got what he deserved for drinking and driving. Funny since the story never mentioned alcohol. Thank God we have moderators who quickly deleted those comments. Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a computer. Ever.

 

[Moderator1]

usedtobeinthebiz, as another guy who used to be in the biz, I feel you. I'm told a paper I know well and love had to sit in a meeting and listen to someone talk about how "free flowing" comments were a great way to drive readership.

 

[Ace]

Also, lawyer types say that if you get in the business of editing comments then you are exerting control of and therefore responsibility for said comments.

So a lot of newspaper websites only take reader comments down if they are flagged by others first.

Plus I'm sure it's a lot of work to remove all the stupidity.

 

[Moderator1]

The business is sinking to the point where it is an unmoderated message board.

 

[tapintoamerica]

It's part of the ongoing trend to cower in fear of the consumer. We're abdicating our rightful role as experts, and we're allowing Everyman to clutter the marketplace with filth.

 

[Diabeetus]

Also, lawyer types say that if you get in the business of editing comments then you are exerting control of and therefore responsibility for said comments.

So a lot of newspaper websites only take reader comments down if they are flagged by others first.

Plus I'm sure it's a lot of work to remove all the stupidity.

What Ace said.

 

[Singapore Slim]

What do the comments have to do with the content of the paper?

Why can't you just, you know, not read them?

Why do we have all these stupid commercials?!?

What's with all these previews before the movie?!?

Why is there a sticker on the CD I just bought, I don't care if Rolling Stone gave it five stars!

 

[DanOregon]

I think if you required people to give their e-mail addresses to the site (but not shown) newspapers would be better able to block e-mails from trolls.
I've seen many more examples of comments sections adding perspective and context to a story than those that were troll-bombed. I think comments should be edited in much the same way that calls are screened to radio talk shows.

 

[Moderator1]

Trust me, requiring an e-mail doesn't always block trolls.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Offensive messages should be tracked, the name found, and address, and those printed.
That'll stop their gob.

 

[doubledown68]

We have a feature like this on our site, and I despise it. I don't like it because it allows readers to immediately post material on our Web site. Any posts that cross the line are deleted in due course, but I don't think they should've been there in the first place.

The argument I presented to those above me is that we edit letters to the editor for content. We wouldn't let anybody just walk in and dictate content in the paper. The Web site should be held to the same standard, and posts should be monitored before being posted.

 

[JayFarrar]

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*

 

[txsportsscribe]

from experience, unfettered reader comments on the web do unfortunately increase web hits when they get ridiculous.

 

[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.

 

[Boobie Miles]

from experience, unfettered reader comments on the web do unfortunately increase web hits when they get ridiculous.

And there is the only sensible answer to the question in the subject of this thread. I don't agree with it, but the only reason these are allowed is because it increases hits. Then again it seems like it's the same 10 d-bags going back forth on every story anyways. If someone really had something thoughtful to say about a story they'd take the time to send the writer an e-mail. I don't see why we give people a forum for their bull****...there are plenty of message boards out there for that.

 

[Reacher]

I believe the comments sections are purely for increasing Web traffic. People comment and come back to check replies over and over and over and over. As far as I can figure out, the Web honchos call it "building a community." It seems to be all the rage.

I argued against it and lost big.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

That's real fine marketing there. Let's go over to the Daily Bugle's Web site and watch the assholes make fools of themselves.
Sometimes, I think American journalism deserves to die. Letting people spew hatred to increase Web hits is evil. And worse, it's stupid evil.

 

[zeke12]

That's real fine marketing there. Let's go over to the Daily Bugle's Web site and watch the assholes make fools of themselves.
Sometimes, I think American journalism deserves to die. Letting people spew hatred to increase Web hits is evil. And worse, it's stupid evil.

This is the best post I've read in a while.