Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
Muni Ticket Agent Arrested After Assaulting Juvenile
So Much For That Plastic Bag Ban
Verizon Droid: Big Deal? Or Just Another Late Arrival Rival?
Feinstein : Will She Or Won't She?
The Chicago Tribune is, in 2008, finally getting around to dealing with the glorious, frustrating, and all-knowing voice of the commenter. This week the Tribune shut down their comment boards on all of their political news stories. What's more, the publication also yanked the Commenter's voice on a recent op-ed piece about Muslims and another story about Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich. Why? Bill Adee, associate managing editor who also oversees the online operations, "ordered the suspension of comments on politics after he noticed the number of writers unfairly trashing the candidates." But more likely, the Tribune's writers and editors are growing frustrated with seeing their pearls of journalistic wisdom adorn racist, tangential, salacious rants and lies.
Stuff that SFist, and surely our sister site, Chicagoist, adores.
Anyway, we're surprised at this sudden comment thread removal; SFGate has commenters who spew forth entertaining zaniness and sometimes regrettable word choice, comments that the Tribune can't even begin to dream about. Thankfully, the Gate has kept that voice in tact for further debate and our entertainment.
The Tribune sums up their defense by saying that "[t]raditional newspapers built up their credibility by revering free speech (and even the boorish and ignorant have that right) but also by upholding standards of truth and civility." Which? Is a valid J school-y point. But, and although we do try to maintain a flow of conversation and baning a commenter on the rare occasion sure does sooth the soul, it's next to impossible to hold on to what a writer writes. Once your text is out there, it's -- poof! -- gone.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I don't think newspapers really understood that having a comments section meant having to manage/moderate comments and commenters. SFGate's comment section is an ugly free-for-all most of the time, though it does have its moments of comedy.
I stopped reading the comments on SFGate because it was an "ugle free-for-all most of the time". It really is a waste of time. I guess the Trib came to the same conclusion.
Dan, are you saying that newspaper site comments (and I'm not disputing your characterization of some of our comments sections as "ugly free-for-all," or that there's not a lot of nuttiness there) should be more closely moderated and managed than those on other web sites? I'm honestly interested, not trying to pick a fight.
Check out slashdot.com for a self-moderation system that works.
Yahoo dropped comments too. It was far worse than SF Gate, and even an innocuous story about puppies and kittens would unleash a storm of completely anonymous, racist, and violent threats. It was just completely out of control and a total waste of resources.
Good for the Tribune. Now that's a newspaper. The Comical would be wise to follow their fine example. Newspapers are not blogs and they shouldn't pretend to be.
Eve: I think each site needs to have its own policy. Not every site is targetted by the racist, lying, annoying trolls. For the sites that are, however, you need to do something. Allowing those people to just run roughshod over your comments section is worse than just having no comments at all, in my opinion. It makes the comments section worse than useless. No one can read it anyway, and those that do are subjected to lies, racism, and other annoyingness.
SFgate is already getting there. Looks like they removed all comments regarding a recent Caltrain incident
http://www.sfgate.com/flat/archive/2008/01/28/chronicle/archive/2008/01/28/BA3TUNR9S.html?tsp=1
Eve, not newspaper sites in particular. I think plumpy speaks for me in this regard.
Eve, for what it's worth, I adore reading the comments on SFGate. It is true that some commenters are didactic, crazy and/or racist, but they also provide insight into public opinion in and about SF that you can't read anywhere else.
wow - all this time I thought the point of the internet was porn, and now it turns out to be anonymous racism.
anyone know a good racist porn site? women of the KKK?
Unlike this site, where comments encouraging the sfpd to shoot homeless people because they smell seems acceptable.
I agree that many/most of the Chronicle comments on certain types of articles are an utter waste of time to read ; usually articles on homicides or the homeless. However, comments on other articles are extremely helpful and often more interesting or in-depth than the article itself. A recent example was a story about the Harvey Milk movie and the memories it's bringing back for residents. I was born in 1978, and it was really fun for me to read the tidbits of local history the commenters were dropping. It's one thing to grow up knowing the name of Milk and Moscone and watching the Feinstein clip, and another thing to actually hear/read how the locals felt, what they did, and what it meant to them.
But then again, my younger sister, who had been close friends with Veronica Ruiz (the young lady who was found dead on Mt. Tam) since high school and were roomates at Cal, found many of the comments on articles about Veronica to be disgusting and disturbing.
The internet is a funny place to trek through. But once you get the hang of it, you know where to tread and what to avoid.
SFist, big up! Awwww.
i think there's a simple fix for newspapers or other sites that desire more civil discussion on their site:
reserve the right to delete all anonymous comments. Require people to comment under their real names. Most people would not be so quick to be uncivil if their posts were but a simple google search away.
I'll chime in to say that (most of) the comments on SF Gate are worthless and a waste of the reader's time...poster's time, too. I stopped reading 'em not long ago.
For whatever reason, the site seems to bring out the worst in its readers, and the comments are moderated with a very light touch (if at all).
Comment-rating systems have been available for years and years. There's no excuse for sites to have comments without implementing a way for each user to filter what is visible. It's a no-brainer.
I have given myself a break from commenting on SFGate - I DO get worked up on issues I care about - but there's every reason to think that SFGate's comment sections may not be long for this world. The new Bushee guy comes from the AZ Republic - a paper which does not allow comments and just has a lame message board. Same with Inside Bay Area - which happened to have some of the best reader commentary in the Bay Area. It was refreshing to read how the people of the East Bay really thought about Dellums and the "murder problem." But no more. Only official opinion allowed.
To all those happy about this squelching of free speech - if you don't like it, don't read it!
Sure there is a need for some civility, and, I admit, in my more heated moments, I have said some things that I had to apologize for. Thats called arguing, and it's easy to be civil if you don't care passionately about anything. It is easy to compromise when you have no values.
Making flaming comments is one thing... but the whole concept of "hate speech" has to be seen for the Orwellian nonsense that it is. The problem with hate speech is never what the person SAYS, the problem is with what the person THINKS - thereby making "hate speech" a "thought crime." The idea that someone can be "silenced" for something they think (or believe) is despicable and has no place in an allegedly free society.
I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of posting under your real name... however, there are certain things in this town that many people react violently to. If I say my real feelings about, say, immigration (which I do on SFGate constantly) people occasionally threaten me with violence. And, truth be known, there are many "compassionate liberals" in this town who would have no problem with someone beating the crap out of someone like me. This town is much more racist and violent than most people want to admit.
I've noticed that anything involving Newsom's press office is so slanted that the comments make more sense than the story. They're so obviously trying to game the system that even the trolls are calling them out.
It's just an idea, but maybe instead of writing up Newsom's press releases as real news stories, the Chron could put them up for public comment directly. In fact if the readers could vote down the bad stories, or send them back for rewriting, it might improve things considerably.