Sun-Times Web editor writing in vain

[FishHack76]

Saw this today ... Like many people, my question is "Why not just disable all comments?"

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1953880,CST-EDT-wood23.article#Comments_Container

Do 90 percent of readers' comments add anything to the discussion? Not really. Guy also takes a rip at Deadspin, which I found humorous. I can't remember seeing stuff like this (the start of his column/editorial/parental-like warning) on there:

"Lock this monkey up in a cage next to Bubba. Go get the other monkeys in his gang and lock them up as well."

"Blacks are far too lazy and co-dependent on whites to ever change -- if they did who'd pay for their babies and food?"

"If it happened on Mars, I'd say he was a Martian. But it happened in Logan Square, so I said he was an illegal. Wanna bet?"

 

[Oggiedoggie]

We have a story on our Web site about a boy who was bit by a beaver. Unfortunately, the boy's father beat the beaver so severely, that there's not enough brain tissue left for a rabies test.

More unfortunately, for our reputation, the comment function is on. It's a field day for every junior high kid and the mental equivalent. Perhaps, we'll never learn.

 

[leo1]

as a former journalist who has been out of the business for more than 5 years and no longer thinks like a journalist, i can't for the life of me figure out why newspapers allow comments. having a forum is fine. allowing comments after articles, as in Oggiedoggie's example is just stupid.

there is no rational argument for allowing them. period.

 

[fishwrapper]

On the chin?

 

[Oggiedoggie]

Actually, he was bitten on the leg.

 

[Rumpleforeskin]

I know we've been cut to the bone as journalists, but to force us to write in blood? That is the last straw!

Oh, you said vain.

 

[Shaggy]

as a former journalist who has been out of the business for more than 5 years and no longer thinks like a journalist, i can't for the life of me figure out why newspapers allow comments. having a forum is fine. allowing comments after articles, as in Oggiedoggie's example is just stupid.

there is no rational argument for allowing them. period.

Ad impressions?

 

[Stitch]

as a former journalist who has been out of the business for more than 5 years and no longer thinks like a journalist, i can't for the life of me figure out why newspapers allow comments. having a forum is fine. allowing comments after articles, as in Oggiedoggie's example is just stupid.

there is no rational argument for allowing them. period.

Ad impressions?

Bingo.

 

[CUinthenewsroom]

as a former journalist who has been out of the business for more than 5 years and no longer thinks like a journalist, i can't for the life of me figure out why newspapers allow comments. having a forum is fine. allowing comments after articles, as in Oggiedoggie's example is just stupid.

there is no rational argument for allowing them. period.

Ad impressions?

Bingo.

Exactly. People post a comment and then check back, many times, to see what others have to say. The more comments, the more people who check it out (and then check back). It makes the hit numbers go up.

Not saying comments are good or bad, but that is a big reason for it.

 

[fishwrapper]

Their comments add a definable field for targeted ad placements.

 

[Fredrick]

as a former journalist who has been out of the business for more than 5 years and no longer thinks like a journalist, i can't for the life of me figure out why newspapers allow comments. having a forum is fine. allowing comments after articles, as in Oggiedoggie's example is just stupid.

there is no rational argument for allowing them. period.

Amen.
We sold our souls for clicks.
Why do newspapers allow anonymous reader comments when letters to the editor in the print edition must be signed?
For money, clicks. Such hypocrits the publishers are.
We allow racist reader comments, we allow people to trash the dead, heaven forbid some high school student die in a car crash. Somebody will post that the parents did a poor job of raising the child or the child had to be drunk, etc.
We allow rumors to be printed in our reader comments even if they are personal rumors about athletes or coaches that need to be verified. We allow commentors to criticize high school athletes and the coaches of course. We allow people to mock athletes' looks and heaven forbid they mention God in a quote. That athlete will be trashed and anybody who is a believer will be thoroughly trashed.
We do however somehow filter the f word out of the comments.

Two things that have completely ruined the reputations of newspapers
a.) vulgar reader comments in the pursuit of clicks/money. Makes this business so sleazy.
b.) printing of anonymous sources in the desire to be first. From what I can tell, many (most?) newspapers are now allowing anonymous sources to "break" news on coach hirings; athletes' injuries, etc. So lazy; so sleazy. These anonymous sources really crop up when ESPN breaks the story first and the newspapers immediately cite some anonymous source to try to get the story up right after ESPN.
The desire to be first online truly has turned once respectable newspapers into trash.
If I'm an advertiser I go nowhere near publications that allow racist reader comments and such mean spirited reader comments that appear in my publication's website daily

 

[fishwrapper]

as a former journalist who has been out of the business for more than 5 years and no longer thinks like a journalist, i can't for the life of me figure out why newspapers allow comments. having a forum is fine. allowing comments after articles, as in Oggiedoggie's example is just stupid.

there is no rational argument for allowing them. period.

Amen.
We sold our souls for clicks.
Why do newspapers allow anonymous reader comments when letters to the editor in the print edition must be signed?
For money, clicks. Such hypocrits the publishers are.
We allow racist reader comments, we allow people to trash the dead, heaven forbid some high school student die in a car crash. Somebody will post that the parents did a poor job of raising the child or the child had to be drunk, etc.
We allow rumors to be printed in our reader comments even if they are personal rumors about athletes or coaches that need to be verified. We allow commentors to criticize high school athletes and the coaches of course. We allow people to mock athletes' looks and heaven forbid they mention God in a quote. That athlete will be trashed and anybody who is a believer will be thoroughly trashed.
We do however somehow filter the f word out of the comments.

Two things that have completely ruined the reputations of newspapers
a.) vulgar reader comments in the pursuit of clicks/money. Makes this business so sleazy.
b.) printing of anonymous sources in the desire to be first. From what I can tell, many (most?) newspapers are now allowing anonymous sources to "break" news on coach hirings; athletes' injuries, etc. So lazy; so sleazy. These anonymous sources really crop up when ESPN breaks the story first and the newspapers immediately cite some anonymous source to try to get the story up right after ESPN.
The desire to be first online truly has turned once respectable newspapers into trash.
If I'm an advertiser I go nowhere near publications that allow racist reader comments and such mean spirited reader comments that appear in my publication's website daily

Really? All you got is "a" and "b"?
Kind of ignoring the elephant in the room, aren't ya?

 

[dooley_womack1]

The interactive nature of the Net is such that the comments horse is long out of the barn. But you can set it up so comments are decided on (in or out) by a moderator, so the crap doesn't get posted.

 

[Fredrick]

Or Dooley, newspapers could admit they made a mistake and kill the comments completely. Just because the horse is out of the barn doesn't mean the horse can't be put back in when the blizzard hits.

 

[Joe Williams]

Or Dooley, newspapers could admit they made a mistake and kill the comments completely. Just because the horse is out of the barn doesn't mean the horse can't be put back in when the blizzard hits.

You can put the toothpaste back into the barn, too, though you rarely can coax that damn horse back into the tube.

 

[Roving_Gambler]

The many misogynistic text and photo postings on SportsJournalists.com, virtually all of them anonymous, are no different from the racist rantings that readers make on newspaper sites.

 

[dooley_womack1]

I would think newspaper sites and message boards occupy different solar systems, however, and thus are not an apt comparison.

 

[fishwrapper]

The many misogynistic text and photo postings on SportsJournalists.com, virtually all of them anonymous, are no different from the racist rantings that readers make on newspaper sites.

One simple word differentiates the two: context.

 

[lantaur]

I would think newspaper sites and message boards occupy different solar systems, however, and thus are not an apt comparison.

You'd be surprised. You have a blog on XX team and you are likely to draw the same people who post to some message board out there on a non-paper site.

 

[WriteThinking]

The many misogynistic text and photo postings on SportsJournalists.com, virtually all of them anonymous, are no different from the racist rantings that readers make on newspaper sites.

One simple word differentiates the two: context.

You'd be surprised. You have a blog on XX team and you are likely to draw the same people who post to some message board out there on a non-paper site.

The context would still be different.