Douglas Bailey, president and founder of DBMediaStrategies Inc., thinks so. (What is DBMedia Strategies? The company’s web site says that it ” helps businesses, individuals and institutions navigate through the media thicket and devises strategies for their messages to be received, understood and properly disseminated.” Online comments, I guess, represent more “thicket” to ensnare proper message dissemination.)
From Bailey’s Boston Globe column yesterday:
[A]s satiated as I am with the enormous and varied flow of available information, I’ve concluded there’s one outlet that should be abandoned: those comment forums at the end of articles on newspaper websites.
…these forums are insidiously contributing to the devaluation of journalism, blurring the truth, confusing the issues, and diminishing serious discourse beyond even talk radio’s worst examples.…Have newspaper publishers and editors really thought through all the repercussions? Is it just a numbers game; that is, do they think the volume of comments equals support for good journalism?
…We know that newspapers made a mistake and devalued their product by giving it away for free on the Internet. Some rebuilding could begin by removing these reader forums and restoring journalism’s dignity.
As one of the one hundred-plus commenters on Bailey’s piece noted: In a column in which Bailey bemoans the anonymity of— and unverified information peddled by— online commenters, he also includes a possibly “apocryphal” story of an unnamed “reporter” and references “a blog that has apparently gained a reputation as an ‘authoritative source’” but never names the blog…
I find sites with the comment sections to be just as interesting, and depending on the subject to be more interesting. While we have the supposedly unbiased journalism of the main content, the (always) opinionated comments offer viewpoints I may not have interpreted from the news article. Sure, there is plenty of BS to sift through, but sifting through that is enjoyable to me personally.
The comment section is also where the "community building" can happen. While I don't feel like that goal is the biggest necessity, it is none the less thrown around by a few newspapers.
Posted by formerlyanonymous on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 10:36 AM
Reader comments provide a valuable and important contribution to online dialogue. For a more detailed explanation, please see the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
Posted by LorenzoStDuBois on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 12:38 PM
It all depends on the quality of commenting, which varies wildly from site to site. NYT commenters tend to be thoughtful and lucid and sometimes more interesting than the original piece. Chicago Tribune and Politico, to name two, need to filter theirs more -- some of the commenters are ignorant at best and scary at worst. I would think it would be interesting to a paper's editors to monitor exactly what gers responded to and how much.
Posted by Elizabeth on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 03:01 PM
While opinions are very important, the value is sometimes questionable. Do we always need to know what people believe? And, there is so much opinion on the Internet, its value seem diminished. It is like standing on the pitcher's mound at a major stadium and the stands are filled with people screaming. How does one separate all the noise from what is valuable?
Maybe instead of opinion-sharing, journalists should encourage knowledge-sharing. There are so many experts in the audience who can shed light on complex subjects. Or people who have experiences related to the subject matter that can add a new dimension or humanize a story. These first-hand stories told by contributors in their own words would be extremely important.
It could be we need fewer opinions and more knowledge. Instead of asking for comments, maybe journalists need to ask what people know.
Posted by Robert Washburn on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 06:40 PM
I think Elizabeth is right about the value depending on the quality of the comments. What disturbs me is how often comment sections become venues for hate speech so vile and so racist it may discourage possible story subjects from coming forward.
As I noted in a letter to CJR, when this issue arose in the magazine, as part of the job I’ve held since leaving journalism, I monitor news coverage of child welfare. On those rare occasions when reporters profile an impoverished minority family that may have lost a child needlessly to foster care, you can count on a “virtual lynch mob” to form on the newspaper’s comments section, with the anonymity afforded by publishers serving the same role as a Klansman’s hood. One vile comment after another, often complete with some sick parody of the supposed dialect of a racial minority, strips the story subjects of all human dignity. Most involve a favorite theme of the mob: graphic calls for compulsory sterilization.
Study after study tells us that exposure to physical violence coarsens us to its effect and may make us a more violent society. What, then, does constant exposure to the rants of the Virtual Lynch Mob due to the quality of public debate? When the worst formerly-secret sentiments get public sanction does it only make them more socially acceptable, and more mainstream?
Newspapers should apply the same standards to their websites as to their own letters columns in print: except for unusual circumstances, no hiding behind anonymity. See how many virtual Klansmen stick around when you rip off their hoods.
Richard Wexler
Executive Director
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
www.nccpr.org
Posted by Richard Wexler on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 10:03 PM
As with anything else in life, what you get out of a comments section depends on what you put into it.
An unmoderated, wide open section will devolve into a spam-filled cesspool very quickly. Whereas, if you take the time to moderate and interact with the commenters, you can build a community that adds value and differentiates your site from its competitors. For example, the Gawker media empire owes much of its success to its vibrant comment sections.
Moderating comments is work. Don't just expect your writers or editors to do it for free on top of everything else. Consider hiring professional moderators. There's no law that says you have to have comments, and frankly I wish a lot of news sites would get rid of theirs because they're not putting in the work to make them good.
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 10:47 PM
Do flies make shit stink?
Posted by Nazgul35 on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 03:17 PM
Here in Seattle, the local rag's comment sections are utter cesspools of hatred. Any time there is ANY crime, there are cries for vigilante revenge and torture, without regard for due process or the constitutional basis of our country. There are persistent racists and homophobic posters that are never moderated. It is sickening.
That and the predictable "pit bulls are just misunderstood" crowd do NOTHING to increase the discourse about local issues. They just serve to polarize and alienate the mission of unbiased reporting.
Posted by Frank Blau on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 03:43 PM
Put up a poll and we'll find out...
Posted by Ryan Harkey on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 03:51 PM
Moderating issues aside (I agree with Lindsay's analysis), comments are valuable because most reporters are simply not experts in the topics they write about it. That's no knock on the profession, but unless a journalist has an extremely specific beat, there will be thousands of professionals who understand the intracacies of a topic better than the writer. The comments section allows them to bring that information out, much as blogs do.
And of course, if the mere sight of comments freaks people out, sites can always follow the lead of Above The Law, Dailykos and other blogs where you have to click on a separate button for comments to appear.
Posted by Janos on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 04:17 PM
I live in a small Arizona town whose only paper is run by a super right-wing Bircher family from across the state. They own probably half of the small town papers in AZ.
The editorials they write are incredibly right-wing and commonly contain lies and disinformation. Moving from a place where the local paper was still right-wing, yet ran every letter they received (except the violent, racist, slander, etc.), I foolishly wrote letters at first to correct the record on things they had written.
In one example, circa Sept. 2008, they decried the hateful attacks on Sarah Palin's child Bristol by the mainstream media, and I wrote in to point out that they hadn't named any names because they could not. I stated that simply reporting she was pregnant was not an attack. Further, the only (slightly mainstream) attacks on Bristol I could find in extensive searching were by right-winger Dr. Laura, gossip rag US Magazine, and 4th string style section journo Sally Quinn. I ended the letter with John McCain's famous joke about Chelsea Clinton being ugly because Janet Reno was her father.
After ten or so of my letters simply disappeared into offices of the Bircher Times, I knew the rules were different here. I had also by that time noticed that the only letters from liberals that ran in the paper were the slanderous, the vapid, and the poorly written ones; often these ran with a snide little "editor's note" appended to point out how ignorant liberals were. They controlled the message and the only slight chink in that control armor was the online commenting.
While I had commented before online, I found myself doing it even more frequently and nailing the paper for inaccuracies and inanities, even mentioning egregious ones for weeks on end, in article after unrelated article. A few others have even started doing the same thing, and even though some of my comments don't ever get posted, especially if they have to do with who actually owns the "local " paper, I have to say I have noticed that the editorial tone has backed off quite a bit, and I get the sense that the people writing them understand they can't just say any old lie they want without repercussion. So while the paper is still evil, I think it is less evil thanks to reader comments.
Posted by flounder on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 04:43 PM
Flounder's comment (hurrah for them being hosted!) is one of the best explanations for why comments on article sites is a mostly good idea. Sure, there's a flip side too: many good articles get sandbagged by jackass commenters (typical: mostly scientifically illiterate, global-warming skeptics will pile on criticizing "Al Gore's religion" etc. as if the first detailed study (not even the very first) predicting global warming from human CO2 production hadn't been published in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius (who later won a Noble Prize in Chemistry)!
Posted by Neil B ♪ on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 05:37 PM
The bottom line is that it's about the bottom line. People reading comments, posting comments, refreshing to look for replies to their comments - all of this creates page views, which means ad revenue.
Posted by mzw on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 05:53 PM
Oy! A bit of irony commenting about commenting while... commenting. My head hurts already.
While I think the idea of allowing people a voice has its merit, I can't help but look at what passes for discourse on most sites. Richard Wexler made some excellent points about the power of anonymity, which is probably the leading cause of vulgar discussion. Flounder also makes a good point about the power of unfiltered comments in keeping journalists honest.
Sadly, if I had my own blog and had to decide on comments or no comments, I'd probably not allow them. It would be my responsibility to set the tone of the discourse, and moderating comments would be a full-time job. A good debater brings up differing opinions in a respectful tone rather than parading the stupid and hateful comments from their opposition as an example of the other side's overall mindset. Sean Hannity fell to that level (not that he had far to fall), but so did Daily Kos.
But I also agree with MZW. Comments are here to stay because comments bring in the cash. I get the real question is: how much would you pay to maintain your integrity?
Posted by RTK on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 06:18 PM
I read the comments. Often, they provide additional information that adds depth to an article; often they refute the information offered to support opinion.
Posted by Ellyn on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 08:56 PM
So basically what you're saying is, there's some important guy out there with an opinion on whether or not the common man ought to be given a voice down at the very bottom of these articles. He's saying that the devaluation of journalism has nothing to do with the death of investigative reporting. Nothing to do with the AP killing its own attempts to be neutral. Journalism's devaluation has nothing to do with its inability to draw the line between facts and the he-said/she-said BS of politics.
What Mr Establishment is saying is, us peons ought to leave it to David Gregory, who he promises will get the whole story next time he's done begging Mark Sanford for an interview. Thanks. I think I'd rather read what a bunch of loser bloggers have to say. They may all be sitting around in their boxers in their mothers' basements, but at least they get the facts right, which ought to count for *something*, wouldn't you say?
Posted by Adam Lubin on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 10:17 PM
It figures that a p.r. professional, whose job is to shape and control messages, wouldn't welcome freelance, freestyle, free-swinging comments that he can't influence or select. Before long, though, he and his fellows will figure out how to jump in the pool and splash around with everyone else.
Posted by f.t. on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 11:14 PM
Yeah, a lot of my comments sometimes do tend to devalue so-called "journalism".
Maybe, it's because in the dying days of MSM big money, self promoting, celebrity and point of view journalism, so many of these people tend to care less about finding facts than about "access" to sources (Judith Miller), less about truth than an honorarium or "facilitation" fee or two from the special interests they cover (WAPO), or are just knee padded whoring propogandist's for the corporate masters they work for (Faux), who don't really give a rats ass about any of the rest of us who are supposed to be your audience? And, of course this is the kind of MSM "journalist" that seems to keep their job, when really good fact seeking "journalists" are axed.
Now you are a bit worried because you've discovered that some people seem to notice that you are becoming useless as a relevant source of information to your shrinking audience share. But, don't worry, you in the old MSM will be just fine, once this internet fad blows over.
Posted by BOB2 on Sun 19 Jul 2009 at 01:58 AM
Yeah, a lot of my comments sometimes do tend to devalue so-called "journalism".
Maybe, it's because in the dying days of MSM big money, self promoting, celebrity and point of view journalism, so many of these people tend to care less about finding facts than about "access" to sources (Judith Miller), less about truth than an honorarium or "facilitation" fee or two from the special interests they cover (WAPO), or are just knee padded whoring propogandist's for the corporate masters they work for (Faux), who don't really give a rats ass about any of the rest of us who are supposed to be your audience? And, of course this is the kind of MSM "journalist" that seems to keep their job, when really good fact seeking "journalists" are axed.
Now you are a bit worried because you've discovered that some people seem to notice that you are becoming useless as a relevant source of information to your shrinking audience share. But, don't worry, you in the old MSM will be just fine, once this internet fad blows over.
Posted by BOB2 on Sun 19 Jul 2009 at 01:59 AM
Yeah, a lot of my comments sometimes do tend to devalue so-called "journalism".
Maybe, it's because in the dying days of MSM big money, self promoting, celebrity and point of view journalism, so many of these people tend to care less about finding facts than about "access" to sources (Judith Miller), less about truth than an honorarium or "facilitation" fee or two from the special interests they cover (WAPO), or are just knee padded whoring propogandist's for the corporate masters they work for (Faux), who don't really give a rats ass about any of the rest of us who are supposed to be your audience? And, of course this is the kind of MSM "journalist" that seems to keep their job, when really good fact seeking "journalists" are axed.
Now you are a bit worried because you've discovered that some people seem to notice that you are becoming useless as a relevant source of information to your shrinking audience share. But, don't worry, you in the old MSM will be just fine, once this internet fad blows over.
Posted by BOB2 on Sun 19 Jul 2009 at 02:00 AM
Funny, I am actually less inclined to trust a story that does not have a comment area. I am also likely to avoid sites that don't feature them. Comments serve to keep the journalists honest, because their blatant lies will immediately be rebuked.
Comments give perspective to the article many times from people who the issue most directly affects. Sure you have to know how to spot the BS comments, but even the BS comments are a GOOD thing. Comments on articles are just about as American "marketplace of ideas" as you can get!
Why do I think this is just another ploy by the government to suppress the truth about marijuana?
Posted by permanentilt on Sun 19 Jul 2009 at 09:19 AM
In my opinion readers comments does not make any point on the value of article.
skin cancer surgery
Projectors Mounts
Posted by jai on Mon 27 Jul 2009 at 02:48 AM
In my opinion readers comments does not make any point on the value of article.It only make reader to think on the theme .
Residential Electrical Contractor
Eyelash Growth Stimulator
Posted by james on Mon 27 Jul 2009 at 03:00 AM
In my opinion readers comments does not make any point on the value of article.It only make reader to think on the theme
Hot Air Brush
varicose veins
Posted by jai on Mon 27 Jul 2009 at 03:05 AM
mole removal
acne scars
Posted by james on Mon 27 Jul 2009 at 03:15 AM
The article assumes that people regarded journalism as dignified prior to the advent of the internet.
Just as it assumes that comments on a particular subject by the man in the street are less relevant than those voiced by the journalist.
Not only is it arrogant, but ignorant too.
Posted by PiAnt on Thu 30 Jul 2009 at 03:05 AM