'Newspapers should stop slumming as blogs and disallow comments.'

[Cadet]

Yes, a BLOGGER! wrote this, but I think her arguments against website comments are brilliant.

Via Romenesko:

You'll rarely find an interesting discussion about a story on a newspaper website, says Sheila McClear. She believes papers should only allow comments on reporters' blogs. "Newspapers have more important things to do than worry about comments -- like, say, report the stories that blogs so desperately need in their 24-7 quest for content!

http://gawker.com/5027287/why-newspapers-shouldnt-allow-comments

 

[PeterGibbons]

While I totally agree, it will most likely never happen, it's a too great of way to inflate page views!

 

[Ace]

While I totally agree, it will most likely never happen, it's a too great of way to inflate page views!

Agreed. I hate them, though. If I want to argue with some insane idiot, I just go to SportsJournalists.com.

 

[Write-brained]

While I totally agree, it will most likely never happen, it's a too great of way to inflate page views!

Agreed. I hate them, though. If I want to argue with some insane idiot, I just go to SportsJournalists.com.

You must be an illegal alien! Love it or leave it, buttwad.

 

[Ace]

While I totally agree, it will most likely never happen, it's a too great of way to inflate page views!

Agreed. I hate them, though. If I want to argue with some insane idiot, I just go to SportsJournalists.com.

You must be an illegal alien! Love it or leave it, buttwad.

I do love it. That's why I'm here using your government perks, Gringo.

 

[Big Buckin' agate_monkey]

I've heard far too many people say they go to the newspaper's Web site for the comments alone. People want to interact with the news.

 

[Cadet]

No, people don't want to interact with the news. They want to anonymously hurl insults and other bile at each other and newspapers give them an open forum to do so.

Want to interact with the news? Buy a freaking paper and turn the pages. Then write a letter to the editor, with your name at the bottom.

 

[Dickens Cider]

No, people don't want to interact with the news. They want to anonymously hurl insults and other bile at each other and newspapers give them an open forum to do so.

Want to interact with the news? Buy a freaking paper and turn the pages. Then write a letter to the editor, with your name at the bottom.

Yeah, but where else can I slam Mexicans and other illegal aliens with impunity on completely unrelated stories?

FASCIST!

 

[Beach_Bum]

Reader comments on newspaper sites are the No. 1 indicator that this nation is doomed.

If we are that desperate for clicks, we should stop wasting time on news stories that appeal to the lowest-common denominator and instead put photo galleries of girls [cheerleaders] in shorts, bikinis, low-cut tops in tightly cropped and suggestive poses with fun games like "Fake ... or Real?"

 

[Armchair_QB]

Reader comments on newspaper sites are the No. 1 indicator that this nation is doomed.

If we are that desperate for clicks, we should stop wasting time on news stories that appeal to the lowest-common denominator and instead put photo galleries of girls [cheerleaders] in shorts, bikinis, low-cut tops in tightly cropped and suggestive poses with fun games like "Fake ... or Real?"

Why did you type that in blue. That's a hell of an idea /tribcoconsultant

 

[jps]

I hate the comments ... our shop is launching a new site soon and the debate is raging - comments allowed or no? Many of the tech-type guys want it because, well, that's just how it is now and is part of the Net culture ... think the newsroom might be split, though hasn't been much discussion that I've heard. Fortunately, the man at the top is against it at this point, so hopefully he'll hold firm.

 

[JakeandElwood]

Reader comments on newspaper sites are the No. 1 indicator that this nation is doomed.

If we are that desperate for clicks, we should stop wasting time on news stories that appeal to the lowest-common denominator and instead put photo galleries of girls [cheerleaders] in shorts, bikinis, low-cut tops in tightly cropped and suggestive poses with fun games like "Fake ... or Real?"

You mean kinda like this?

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/983402,hotfans060308.article

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

No, people don't want to interact with the news. They want to anonymously hurl insults and other bile at each other and newspapers give them an open forum to do so.

Want to interact with the news? Buy a freaking paper and turn the pages. Then write a letter to the editor, with your name at the bottom.

And if they want to anonymously hurl insults and other bile at each other they can always log on to an Internet message board. :) :o ;) :D ;D 8)

 

[Mediator]

I think it dilutes the discussion to allow readers to comment on blogs, stories and discussion boards. I mean, how many places are you really going to put your informed, thoughtful take? Give readers one place and you have a better chance of generating a discussion.

 

[jps]

I think it dilutes the discussion to allow readers to comment on blogs, stories and discussion boards. I mean, how many places are you really going to put your informed, thoughtful take? Give readers one place and you have a better chance of generating a discussion.

That's been the way we've gone, at least to this point -- create a message board/forum, and things seem to stay a little more sensible.

 

[MacDaddy]

If sites allowed only paying subscribers to comment on things a lot of the vile would go away. It wouldn't have to be expensive -- charge people five bucks a month, or whatever -- but it would go a long way toward separating the wheat from the chaff. And it would produce some revenue.

 

[mustangj17]

Does anyone's rag even get a lot of comments? Or even good ones. Such a waste of time.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

What we have in the newspaper business now is a culture that allows workers to question the old ways of doing things but not the new ways of doing things. If it's new, and especially if it's online, it must be good and will pay off hugely sometime in the future! All of it! Of course we don't know when, infidel!

All this building of communities hasn't accomplished anything. It hasn't built revenue to the point that newspaper Web sites can sustain anything more than rudimentary newsgathering staffs. Letting anyone have his say hasn't restored confidence that mainstream media is unbiased in its reporting nor eliminated the rantings of those who claim only one type of opinion is allowed a voice. It's pointless. All it does is pollute the product.

I would explain it to readers this way: We've concluded that while there are numerous potential revenue possibilities online, it is not a productive use of our resources to attempt to engage in all of them at the same time. We're going to focus on the one area in which our staffing dwarfs that of every other medium in this market, the gathering and presentation of news. From this day forward, you will see no intentional expressions of opinion on this Web site, from us or from you. We see numerous other outlets for such writing online, although none that appear to be more than marginally profitable. If you have a news tip, please e-mail: [email protected]. Thank you.

 

[Brooklyn Bridge]

I think it dilutes the discussion to allow readers to comment on blogs, stories and discussion boards. I mean, how many places are you really going to put your informed, thoughtful take? Give readers one place and you have a better chance of generating a discussion.

Winner, winner, Chicken Dinnner! Corporate types are so worried about revenue--there ya go.

That's been the way we've gone, at least to this point -- create a message board/forum, and things seem to stay a little more sensible.

 

[BYH]

While I totally agree, it will most likely never happen, it's a too great of way to inflate page views!

Agreed. I hate them, though. If I want to argue with some insane idiot, I just go to SportsJournalists.com.

A ****ty attitude like this is why you'll never end up at the P-D, buster.