The Problems with Readers' Comments Sections: The lack of civility

In 2009, Virginia Heffernan in the New York Times Magazine raised an important question: "Reader comments are key part of online journalism. So why do they disappoint?"

To answer that, I checked out readers' comments on many sites -- NY Times, Wall St. Journal, Boston Globe, and others -- and most of the time, the comments are often off point, ad hominem attacks on either the author or other readers...In general, there's a school-yard mentality to the responses, which is helpful (apparently) for people who need to vent and rant but not for a general discourse.


Then, in 2010, Wall St. Journal's L. Gordon Crovitz wrote, "Is Internet Civility an Oxymoron?," looking at the same issue.

Crovitz then cited several ways that sites are addressing the problem of the comments section.

• Some sites let readers rank the reputation of comment writers.
• Gawker list comments based on readers' rankings.
• Some don't permit any postings at all.
• The Wall St. Journal permits people to review posts by paid subscribers.
• The Washington Post will soon rank "trusted commentators."

Yesterday, I decided to post a comment to an opinion article in the Wall St. Journal.  I had figured the Journal's comment section might be more circumspect, interesting and erudite because of the Journal's monitoring system to review posts.

I was wrong.

I saw a lot of ad hominem attacks. A lot of emotion. And a lack of logical arguments. There was a call for reasoned debate, but most of the posts I read were focused on trying to score a point against the idiots on the other side (I saw this from both sides of the aisle).  There were quite a few people who modus operendi is to bully those they disagree with.

Seems to me the rating system deployed by the Journal does not work to promote civility. Neither does having people sign in with their real names.  And although you can report abuse regarding those comments that are attacks (rather than arguments) against other people's comments, the Journal doesn't seem to do any moderating to improve the conversations going on in its comments section.

The problem with political discourse in this country does not live only inside the Beltway. It's a problem all over the place, especially on newspapers' comments section.

I think closer moderation might be an answer, but I'd bet -- Crovitz aside -- that the free-market Journal is probably is not inclined to have a moderator. The Journal would not be alone in that decision.  Closer moderation would cost more while the payoff likely have no benefit to the Journal's bottom line.

And that's a shame. Because our country could use more civility in its political debates. And the Internet would be a good place to start.

Should Newspapers Get Rid of Anonymous Posts?

There seems to be growing momentum -- among print journalists, as least -- that newspapers should no longer let readers post anonymous comments to articles online. The idea is that too many anonymous posters hide behind their nom d'online to "spew venom instead of presenting a well-reasoned argument," as Taffy Brodesser-Akner complained in today's New York Times article, "E-Playgrounds Can Get Vicious."

This follows a Wall St. Journal column taking issue with anonymous posts, which I wrote about earlier this week, WSJ looks at "Internet Civility."

I don't see what's gained by allowing anonymous comments. I think with some accountability we will only lose some of the "gratuitous nasty comments" that just don't engender a real dialog or debate on a topic. So I vote yes -- change the system, hold those who comment on articles to be accountable for their comments. Even radio call-in programs have a moderating to pre-screen comments; why shouldn't online newspapers have the same.

WSJ looks at "Internet Civility"

Of course we all know that old New Yorker cartoon: on the Internet, we're all dogs.

That seems particularly true when it comes to anonymous comments to newspaper articles. I wrote about it last year, citing Virginia Heffernan's column in the New York Times Magazine: "Reader comments are key part of online journalism. So why do they disappoint?"

L. Gordon Crovitz' latest column , "Is Internet Civility an Oxymoron?," looks at the same issue.

Apparently. he's shocked, shocked to find "uncivilized and uninformative" comments posted to articles.

What's interesting about his article is that Cravitz lists several ways that sites are addressing the problem of the comments section.

• Some sites let readers rank the reputation of comment writers.
• Gawker list comments based on readers' rankings.
  
• Some don't permit any postings at all.
• The Wall St. Journal permits people to review posts by paid subscribers.
• The Washington Post will soon rank "trusted commentators."

In the end, these are just compromises. The solution would be to reduce the ability of people to hide behind usernames. I think that people would think twice about posting something negative if they had to use their real name.

Why don't sites just require people to use their real names when posting?

Do Corporate Apologies Work Online?

With recalls announced fairly regularly these days, New York Times' Virginia Heffernan takes a worthwhile look at "the Web sites of beleaguered companies."

A company shows anxiety on its face — that is, on its Web site, which has become the face of the modern corporation. Visit sites for recently troubled or confused enterprises, including Maclaren, Toyota, Playtex, Tylenol and, yes, John Edwards, and you’ll find a range of digital ways of dealing with distress.

According to Heffernan, many companies do a poor job apologizing for recalls (and other issues) on their websites. (Our style guide prefers website as one word, without an initial cap -- despite the Times' stodgy style.)

Based on her examples, I'd have to agree that they could do a better job. At first, I thought one issue could be guidance from their attorneys who may tend to advise their clients to be very careful in admitting responsibility for any problems -- since, presumably, that written admission might be used in trial against the company.

Yet I think Toyota has done a decent job in its ad campaign. In thinking it over, though, I realized that the ad campaign says "We haven't been living up to the standards you've come to expect from Toyota."

Which is not really an apology.

Yet I think it works as a commercial.

But not on a website.

Which goes to show that companies need to remember that each medium is different. And it's not enough to take the same approach from one (30-second spots) and translate it exactly on a website.

The Problems with Journalism

Virginia Heffernan raises an interesting question in her latest column in the New York Times Magazine: "Reader comments are key part of online journalism. So why do they disappoint?"

I've checked out readers' comments on many sites -- NY Times, WS Journal, Boston Globe, and others -- and most of the time, the comments are often off point, ad hominem attacks on either the author or other readers...In general, there's a school-yard mentality to the responses, which is helpful (apparently) for people who need to vent and rant but not for a general discourse.

That may be the problem.

As search engines allow us to pinpoint the news we want to read because it backs up our world view, we get more upset when we encounter opposing views. And since most mosts are somewhat anonymous, the real service provided by being able to post a response or comment to an article is to be able to let the author know how stupid he or she is. (I try to make reasoned arguments against the columns of political hacks I disagree with, but it amounts to the same thing: I don't expect the columnists to say, Ah yes, Birnbach's right; I'll have to recant in my next column. I've often posted comments when I'm upset with the logic, conclusion the author has made.)

To make readers comments more useful, some posted to Heffernan's article, it might be helpful if the author engaged with his/her readers. Interesting idea -- but judging from most of the comments, who would want to?

So, back to the point of the headline.

A friend said a more important question is why does journalism disappoint.

Here are some preliminary answers:

• The If-It-Bleeds, It-Leads mindset of local news. Tragedy can be compelling, but judging from local TV broadcasts, one might assume that your community -- it doesn't matter which one, because all local TV news does the same thing -- is suffering from a plague of fires, car crashes, murders, etc. In other words:
• Good news rarely gets covered. Unless there's good video of an animal being saved.
• Herd mentality. Few want to be the first or only asking a question & when one brave soul finally asks, the rest pile on.
• Todd over at Communicating With... says "Controversy sells. But then it gets overplayed and people tend to turn it off. It's cyclical. In that way, journalism disappoints." The latest example: swine flu. The broadcast coverage of the possible pandemic was termed by "The Daily Show" as a "Scare Off" as each network news program teased us with headlines and graphics intended to scare us -- without providing real context or information that could actually help us. (See the segment, below.)
  
• Todd also says smaller staffs and fewer pages leads to less depth in the stories that newspapers do cover -- and "that used to be the differentiator. TV news could do a quick story, or multi-segment story, but newspapers were where you went to get the in-depth details. Not so much anymore. Reporters don't have enough time. Instead, they have to hit a story fast and hard and then move on. Often the stories just scratch the surface, leaving the real meat untouched."