{"id":32,"date":"2007-03-29T11:12:01","date_gmt":"2007-03-29T11:12:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp\/2007\/03\/the_great_newspaper_comments_d\/"},"modified":"2007-03-29T11:12:01","modified_gmt":"2007-03-29T11:12:01","slug":"the_great_newspaper_comments_d","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2007\/03\/the_great_newspaper_comments_d.html","title":{"rendered":"The Great Newspaper Comments Debate"},"content":{"rendered":"

Newspapers have long touted how responsive they are to readers. They want to hear from readers. They care what readers think. They try to give readers what they want. How then to interpret these debates<\/a> over what to do with reader comments on news stories?
\nNews organizations realize that they have to become more interactive because their readers expect it. The internet is founded on principles of interactivity, and websites that have a high degree of interaction build loyal communities of the kind newspapers have traditionally coveted.
\nSo somewhat late in the game, some newspapers have begun allowing readers to weigh in on stories they produce. Except. The comments predictably plunge to the lowest common denominator. In some recent cases, comments are cruel, racist, and misogynist, not to mention just plain stupid. Why is it that these comments are so wretched? Why would anyone intelligent even bother to read reader comments on news stories? And, given the poor quality, why even have them?
\nOne conclusion could be that the comments really do reflect the intelligence and attitudes of the general population (or at least the readers of news sites). Another possibility is that the low quality of comments is due to a small number of readers who inevitably seem to hijack comments boards. Neither conclusion really works.
\nI would argue a third. And that is: for all their talk, newspapers are hypocritical when it comes to wanting to listen to readers. In the arts, there’s a saying (only partially true, to be sure, but nonetheless) that goes: you get the audience you deserve. Newspapers say that listening to their readers is a high priority. But by the way newspapers set up reader comments, they show they don’t value reader input at all.
\nNewspapers say they can’t monitor every comment that comes in because it would be too labor intensive. With no hand on the spiggot, every comment spews onto the screen, no matter how irrelevant or mean. Do newspapers feel that way about traditional letters to the editor? Of course not. A good letters editor tries to build a balance of the best reader letters to reflect various points of view. A good letters page can be a sharp and lively debate. A good letters page is highly valued by readers.
\nOnline reader comments should hold to no lesser standard. But the comments need to be curated. Not censored. There ought to be a price of admission to the comments section, and that is: have something interesting to contribute. If you can contribute something interesting, you’re in. Otherwise… This is the classic editor’s job – pick the good stuff and separate out the nonsense.
\nA good comments section can be insightful and illuminating. It can add dimension to a story and points of view otherwise not heard. Instead, what we have in the comments on most news sites is Lowest Common Denominator (LCD) sludge. And few smart people are going to waste their time reading them, let alone contribute.
\nBut monitoring comments takes resources we don’t have, newspapers argue. This is an argument, I think, that shows just how profoundly most news organizations don’t understand the internet, both from a content standpoint as well as a business one.<\/p>\n

1. The interactive audience is much more loyal than the passive one.
\n2. Reader comments, managed well, are important content<\/i> that helps define a publication’s personality and puts it in conversation with its audience.
\n3. Everything on a website sets the tone of a publication – stupid comments suggest this is a stupid place, smart comments attract other smart, engaged readers.
\n4. Paying lip service to being interactive is worse than ignoring your audience altogether. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Why wouldn’t a publication take as much care with its interactions with readers as it does in the stories it publishes? Especially if the claims of wanting to “serve” readers is true. Inviting readers onto a website is a good thing, but everyone on the site is a guest, and any good host has ground rules. Will filtering out inappropriate comments lose a site some of its readers? Perhaps. But choose. Not having comments, or having stupidly-handled comments already loses certain readers (and, I would argue, more valuable readers).
\nTraditional news organizations had enormous advantages coming in to the internet age, many of which they have squandered. But jumping into technologies without understanding how they work or using them without an eye to what you want them to be able to accomplish is almost always a bad thing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Newspapers have long touted how responsive they are to readers. They want to hear from readers. They care what readers think. They try to give readers what they want. How then to interpret these debates over what to do with reader comments on news stories? News organizations realize that they have to become more interactive […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[22],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-32","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-main","7":"entry"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4ePZm-w","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":346,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2009\/03\/you_know_youre_in_trouble_when-2.html","url_meta":{"origin":32,"position":0},"title":"You Know You're In Trouble When You're Just A Can Of Peas","author":"Douglas McLennan","date":"March 29, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"Interactivity has been redefined in the past few years. Newspapers used to think they were interactive because they ran letters to the editor. Rarely did they respond to the letters (unless those letters demanded a correction), but \"hearing from the readers\" became a mantra for the focus-group-driven news organization.Arts organizations\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"social-media-people.jpg","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/social-media-people.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":351,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2009\/05\/if_is_was_just_about_the_money-2.html","url_meta":{"origin":32,"position":1},"title":"If It Was Just About The Money We'd All Be Making Porn","author":"Douglas McLennan","date":"May 14, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"A movie studio exec once told me that if it were true that Hollywood was only interested in making money, the studios would have long ago ditched what they were doing and made porn. Huge money in porn, apparently. Who knew? Much as it's easy to dismiss the moguls for\u2026","rel":"","context":"With 12 comments","block_context":{"text":"With 12 comments","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2009\/05\/if_is_was_just_about_the_money-2.html#comments"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":27,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2006\/12\/doug_dr_rockwell_a_prescriptio.html","url_meta":{"origin":32,"position":2},"title":"Doug: Dr Rockwell, A Prescription?","author":"Douglas McLennan","date":"December 20, 2006","format":false,"excerpt":"John: We're getting close to the end of our conversation, but there are still things I wanted to ask you. One, which you bring up in your last post is about how cultural coverage is pitched. I get that in a mass-culture world the way to get audiences is to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "main"","block_context":{"text":"main","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/category\/main"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":102,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2009\/05\/the_big_newspaper_e-reader_gam.html","url_meta":{"origin":32,"position":3},"title":"The Big Newspaper E-Reader Gamble","author":"Douglas McLennan","date":"May 4, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"Several new large-format e-readers are about to go on sale. Newspaper execs are excited:These devices from Amazon and other manufacturers offer an almost irresistible proposition to newspaper and magazine industries. They would allow publishers to save millions on the cost of printing and distributing their publications, at precisely a time\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":92,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2009\/04\/a_plan_to_help_newspapers_that.html","url_meta":{"origin":32,"position":4},"title":"A Plan To Help Newspapers That Will Hasten Their Demise?","author":"Douglas McLennan","date":"April 17, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"The high-profile launch this week of an effort to create a paid pass to access news content got a lot of attention because of the principals involved. JournalismOnline is the idea of veteran media execs Steven Brill, Gordon Crovitz, and Leo Hindery. Their venture aims to supply publishers with ready-made\u2026","rel":"","context":"With 2 comments","block_context":{"text":"With 2 comments","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2009\/04\/a_plan_to_help_newspapers_that.html#comments"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":75,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2009\/04\/ap_throws_a_tantrum_but_tantru.html","url_meta":{"origin":32,"position":5},"title":"AP Throws A Tantrum (But Tantrums Do Not A Successful Business Model Make)","author":"Douglas McLennan","date":"April 6, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"AP says it will \"take action\" against web aggregators that don't pay fees for linking to AP stories. Taking aim at the way news is spread across the Internet, The Associated Press said on Monday that it will demand that Web sites obtain permission to use the work of The\u2026","rel":"","context":"With 5 comments","block_context":{"text":"With 5 comments","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2009\/04\/ap_throws_a_tantrum_but_tantru.html#comments"},"img":{"alt_text":"apbuilding (2).jpg","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/apbuilding%20%282%29.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}