St. Louis Post Dispatch Declares That Banning Editorial Comments Will 'Elevate The Ferguson Conversation'
from the addition-through-subtraction dept
As we've been noting, there's a growing trend afoot whereby some news websites have started unilaterally declaring the lowly news comment section dead, and therefore have started eliminating the ability for visitors to comment entirely. While it's one thing to just close site comments and be done with it, sites like ReCode, Reuters and Popular Science have been quick to insist that they're killing comments for the good of the "conversation," which sounds so much better than "we closed news comments because we're too cheap and lazy to police bile and spam."At a time when racial conversation couldn't be more important, the St. Louis Post Dispatch has decided to join the war on comments, this week declaring that the paper would be eliminating comments from paper editorials completely. This is, the paper declares, because it's very much concerned about having a "meaningful discussion":
"We intend to use our opinion pages to help the St. Louis region have a meaningful discussion about race. So we are going to turn off the comments in the editorial section for a while, and see what we learn from it. (Comment will continue on news articles). Comments might return to the opinion pages. Or we might find that without them, the discussion — through letters, social media conversations and online chats, rises to a higher level."Again, does anything say "we love conversation" quite like restricting conversation? Like ReCode and Reuters, the paper appears to believe that e-mail and social media are good enough substitutes for an open conversation on site -- not understanding that part of building a community involves a cultivating a regular, engaged local readership, and protecting that readership from the angsty dregs of the Internet.
The paper justifies its move by leaning heavily on a recent University of Wisconsin-Madison study (also see this NY Times report) that found news story readers could have their opinions manipulated through completely unmoderated comments (something astroturfing and marketing firms have relied on for ages):
"In their study, published last year, researchers concluded that “Much in the same way that watching uncivil politicians argue on television causes polarization among individuals, impolite and incensed blog comments can polarize online users.” In some cases, negative blog comments actually changed readers’ perception of what they read, not just their opinions about it."But isn't shifting opinions part of having any conversation, online or off? And is killing the comment section entirely really the way to handle aggressive, trolling, or misleading comments? It still feels like many outlets have just grown tired of managing their own communities, but instead of admitting that they're not invested enough to spend time weeding the troll garden, they've taken to disingenuously claiming they're somehow revolutionizing online conversation -- by making sure there's less of it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: comments, community, ferguson, missouri
Companies: st. louis post dispatch
Reader Comments
The First Word
“As always
My favorite debating opponent is, point to the mirror, me. Only way to have an intelligent discussion without all that negativity. Who invited you anyway?Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Car analogy
Therefore, we've decided to remove the engine, let the air out of the tires and use someone else's car instead. But don't worry: because we love our car so much, we'll check insect and mud levels from time to time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think the word discussion means what you think it means.
Sincerely, The Public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moderation [was Re: ]
Pre-moderation or retro-moderation?
In any case, no matter the system, I think it takes a very talented moderator, who knows the audience, has quick wits, and a deft touch. In fact, preferably a moderation team. Sadly, those gifted individuals are in short supply. But yes, in some instances they can help the conversation.
Otoh, even though I've participated in some few forums which I'd consider exceptionally well-moderated—still, myself, I tend to prefer forums where the norm is self-moderated conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moderation [was Re: ]
There are many with the right skills, but community manager/moderator type positions are very bottom of the rung in terms of compensation (if not straight volunteer work).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moderation [was Re: ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moderation [was Re: ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd love to know how they quantified incivility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
suggestion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what you are saying is that a discussion about a topic can change the way people think about it.
OH THE HUMANITY!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wouldn't it also follow that positive blog comments actually change readers' perceptions? Why did they decide to ignore that half of the situation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Essentially, they may be worried that they are going to continually lose the debate, and thus, relevance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'll give you the first part of my theory of pursuason. This describes what I call “normal pursuasion”, by which I mean typical pursuasion:
• Pursuasion works by infinitesimal degrees.
That's just the first part of the theory, though. In less-typical cases, well, toss that theory out the window. Something else is going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The “recent University of Wisconsin-Madison study” describes the experimental methods beginning on p.378 [p.6 in PDF].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First the police, then a riot (because those always work out well), then the police again tear gassing the media during riots, then pretty much every government official, then the grand jury, then back to the rioters (because burning down everything EXCEPT the police station is really going to hurt the police), and now the local news does this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In All Fairness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In All Fairness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right to comment
Phrases like "cheap and lazy", "grown tired", "admitting that they're not invested enough" suggest that not having comments is in and of itself some egregious transgression.
Allowing comments may be a positive thing in general, it may have benefits for the community, and a site may face general decline in readers if it doesn't have one, but if a site chooses not to allow comments, especially because moderating them has become too much of a burden, then that's not evil, is it?
Presenting that as "elevating" the conversation is disingenuous crap, but that's a separate issue. The outrage here seems directed at the notion of removing comments, not the notion of whitewashing the decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right to comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right to comment
Not a duty, of course, but an extremely good idea.
"Phrases like "cheap and lazy", "grown tired", "admitting that they're not invested enough" suggest that not having comments is in and of itself some egregious transgression."
Well, it is a transgression of sorts. Having a good comments section takes work but is of immense value. Forgoing something of great value because it's a lot of work is laziness.
" if a site chooses not to allow comments, especially because moderating them has become too much of a burden, then that's not evil, is it?"
Who said it was evil?
Personally, the thing that I find downright offensive is the excuse that they're using: that restricting conversation somehow enhances it, and that the use of social media can possibly replace a comment section.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Right to comment
I'd argue that say eliminating youtube's comments altogether would enhance the conversation. As in removing it completely. The comments there actively make people dumber by elevating man's abysmal true nature into normalcy.
I wouldn't let my son set his eyes on them, lest he get the idea that that's how conversations should be held. Those who spend their time hanging out with the dredges of humanity tend to join their ranks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Right to comment
Yes, YouTube is perhaps the prime example of a comment section that is such a cesspool that it's about as useful as not having one at all.
But it's the exception and not the rule, in my experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Right to comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Right to comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Right to comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While we're banning things . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: While we're banning things . . .
All the laws in the world against police brutality don't mean much if the police and the court system go "No, no, that totally wasn't brutality."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: While we're banning things . . .
You're telling me police brutality is banned?
Why don't the police know this? Aren't they supposed to know the law? Don't they like to quote the law to you chapter and verse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: While we're banning things . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the books vs In practice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've found at some sites like Politico, the comment section has become largely useless for most articles, with most comments not even talking about the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thread drift [was Re: ]
Well, thread drift seem to be a natural part of unforced conversation.
People do not have unlimited attention spans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So? They're easy to ignore. That story yesterday here about the rookie cop who shot an innocent man devolved into a 2nd Amendment vs. guns == murder & suicide flame fest, yet all you had to do to ignore it was hit the spacebar a few times until you got past it. Or, you could join in if you preferred. No kittens drowned.
Some of the comments on stories in Al Jazeera make me shake my head in disbelief, and others in the same section are entertaining and educational. You take the good with the bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If we can't see it, we can't challenge it. You might not be able to convert the person you're talking to but you've got a reasonable chance of influencing the audience if you make a good enough argument.
When they change the subject or become aggressive, you've won.
Squirrel!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Personally, I tend to avoid sites that don't allow comments or that have comment sections that are cesspools, because the most valuable part of almost all news & commentary sites is the comments. If those are missing or terrible, the site itself is much less valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's so telling that people like us select our news sources based on the quality of the community and comments while major news outlets are shutting those things off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question Everything!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question Everything!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question Everything!
Good job! :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question Everything!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question Everything!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As always
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To sum up:
I dunno what problems the rest of you have with their logic, makes perfect sense to me. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to preserving the forests by cutting down as many trees as I can find.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To sum up:
Actually, it may make a certain amount of sense, if you start with the supposition that “the conversation” is bigger than they are.
Take the idea that they're participating in a huge conversation: a conversation running across many, many sites, involving a tremendous, humongous number of people, not even just across the country but world-wide: a global conversation.
And then add into the mix the idea that they can't figure out how to get a quality conversation going in the comments at their own site. Fsvo “quality”. Iow, they aren't getting the kind of comments they want, and can't figure out how. Because it's difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The citizens around have good reason to be upset given the actions of their local government and that is news. If you don't like the tone of the news nor the tone of the conversation you are part of the same problem we see in the main stream media all the time. It's also part of why US citizens no longer trust their news sources to actually give them the news and not more propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manipulation
As opposed being manipulated only by the news writers. Can't have competition now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Manipulation
I much prefer having my opinions and emotions modified by a Facebook Newsfeed word-replacement algorithm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/Poe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better we all zip our mouths and blind our eyes to avoid offending someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BBC and comments
Within hours, the BBC had removed all the user comments, and replaced the comment mechanism with a multiple choice poll, with options they viewed as palatable (A-Awesome, B-Super, C-Fantastic, etc.).
Orwell has an insightful comment about society and truth, I wonder if Google has blocked it yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]