Nick Denton Bucks The Trend Du Jour, Thinks News Comments Are Worth Saving
from the baby,-bathwater dept
Last week, new New York Times public editor Liz Spayd said something completely and utterly crazy: she suggested that news outlets and websites should actually listen to and interact with their visitors in news comment sections. Given this is the age where most "enlightened" media outlets are now closing their comment sections and pretentiously pretending it's because they "value conversation," Spayd's comments were treated like the incoherent ramblings of a mad woman on some fronts, people claiming actually caring about readers was a form of "phony populism" and the "willfully naive" rhetoric of a bygone era.But we've noted time and time again that by muzzling them or shoveling off your community to the homogonized blather of Facebook, you're pretty clearly saying you don't think your audience really matters. Countless editors refuse to believe this, by and large because nobody at a multi-million dollar media empire wants to actually have real conversations with the dirty plebeians they profess to be so selflessly dedicated to. The entire mechanism should be demolished, they argue, because commenters are mean and say bad things -- ignoring studies suggesting this can be easily fixed by giving a damn.
Nick Denton, likely overjoyed to talk about something other than Peter Thiel, last week indicated he's among this "willfully naive" minority that believes news comments are worth saving. Regardless of whether or not you like the Gawker empire, Denton makes it clear that maintaining communication with the company's customers is not only common sense, but embracing on-site comments makes money:
"The key is to distribute the moderation, to make every editorial team responsible for the discussions that their stories instigate. It’s not that hard—though it took several years and several million dollars for us to get it right. The commitment to quality discussions was one of the smartest decisions we made. In economic terms, we see a payoff not just in greater editorial leverage, but in time spent on page. On mobile, for instance, we outperform the other publishers by more than half: 81 seconds compared with a Google Analytics benchmark of 53 seconds. I think that’s largely because the pages are more interesting, for longer."Again, it's worth noting that while Gawker spent a significant amount of money on its Kinja commenting platform with some mixed results, data has suggested that just having writers show up to talk can have a profound impact on the quality of comments. But Denton also focuses on the fact that stifling the inherent bi-directional communication nature of the Internet is just dumb, and many outlets just don't like comments because they advertise errors made in their reporting or commentary:
"Above all, this is just the way that Internet news should be. Why wouldn’t you want to tap the opinions and expertise of your readership? Unless you are embarrassed by them."Despite all the media's bluster about social media being an adequate replacement for an "unsavable" comment section, the reality is many bigger media brands just don't like having real human beings pointing out when they're wrong in such an obvious and public fashion. If you've spent any time writing on the Internet, you probably know that the comment section, warts and all, is also stocked with some very bright people with wide ranging expertise who'll often provide invaluable corrections. Possibly right after they make a joke about your mom, but still.
Throwing out the entire concept of on-site comments because a jackass said something mean or pointed out you were wrong about something has never been much of a solution. Subsequently claiming you muzzled your customers because you wanted to "build relationships" and "value conversation" only informs these muted community members you also think they're all incredible, irredeemable morons. If that's the brand message you're actually pursuing in your quest to nab more advertising eyeballs? Phenomenal job.
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, liz spayd, nick denton, websites
Companies: gawker
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Town Square
Comment sections have been the digital town square of western democracies where ideas can compete. Banning comments silences opposing voices and undermines democracy. I often see errors or outright lies pass unchallenged these days. Talking with the citizens is a conversation. Talking at them is propaganda.Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
other than that brief bit of snark, i was pleased to see the point made several times that the 'mean' public are that way BECAUSE the media don't 'listen', don't like to be corrected, and don't serve us 99%, but Empire's 1%...
the media shouts one-way to us 24/7/365 and are OFTEN not just 'wrong', but MORE importantly than 'wrong', is what they DON'T cover that is in OUR interests...
*AND* they are surprised we are surly and unsympathetic to their capitulation to tee vee brain and the dictates of Empire's media konglomerate...
buy a vowel and spell 'clueless'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
~ woops ~
No comments on Motherboard anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What the anti-comment news sites are doing has an important impact on society at large, and especially the intersection of society, technology, and business. That puts it squarely into Techdirt's stated area of interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I had a chat with one of my favorite science fiction authors when he popped into an IO9 discussion and that was awesome. But at my local news site for my community, a bystander will sometimes answer the questions that readers have that the article didn't bring up. It makes the news more real when you can actually get answers to your questions directly from eye witnesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or at least someone pretending to be a bystander. Hard to be sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It was a totally unrelated type of article, too, ha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure most of them are legit, but it's that one jerk/liar who makes you wonder about all the rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, it's a win. It's just a bigger win if you can get all the benefits of it without your readers being able to see that [i]you were wrong[/i], or [i]there are counter arguments[/i] or [i]maybe you were misinformed[/i].
They only need to see the result. Better to let them continue to believe news articles don't make mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone knows that the only reason people read Techdirt is to see Whatever crash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Town Square
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Town Square
that comment is going to stick with me for awhile
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Biggest obstacle to successful comments....
I've never had the hate for Gawker that a lot of people do. I LIKE io9. I liked Consumerist before it was sold. But Gawker is built on aggregation, bloggers sharing their take, and lots of riffing on other people's reporting. The closest thing to reporting that I've ever seen on a Gawker property is some phone calls and emailing.
In most organizations doing real reporting, staff time is precious and the demands on that time keep escalating. Without having staff hours to spend on cultivating, moderating, responding, and sometimes banning, the comments sections can easily become ignored. Next thing you know, it's a cesspool where the only people who bother are the rude and the boorish.
I think comments are important. I think the public forum is one of the most important services a news operation provides. But I barely have time to ban the obscene, warn the profane, and make the occasional response.
Sure, fostering your community should be a priority. And even my half-arsed efforts have really helped with our comments section. But given a choice between carefully tending comments and covering the latest way the city council is trying to rob the citizens (or whatever), most journalists will choose the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misapplication of resources
Of course, a technically competent organization would have just installed a Mailman instance (free) with moderation turned on and archiving enabled. Software cost: zero. But Gawker, like many of the modern publishing sites, is run by mere newbies who do not understand how to utilize basic tools and thus inevitably waste enormous amounts of time and money creating complex ones that don't work as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that hard?
So... they're just really bad at it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A list
Same here. I've gotten to the point that I have a gut reflex when I see the name of the publication that lacks a commenting system and I just search for alternate articles from other publications. They're literally losing readers due to the lack of a comment section.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]