I can't keep my mouth shut about this any longer.
One of the biggest changes in the news industry today is the ability for the media and the public to talk to each other - immediately. All the time. About pretty much anything.
In print, on the radio, on television, through e-mail, websites, Twitter: the media can talk to you, and you can talk right back.
Much of that is positive (although I wonder, sometimes, whether anybody puts in a full day's work anymore). But a recent letter from one of our readers highlights a growing problem: website comments that are hateful, libelous, derogatory, malicious, racist.... and anonymous.
Let tragedy strike - a teenager dies in a traffic accident, another is shot by a neighbor, a high-school student goes missing, a man is shot outside a tavern - and reader-comment sections fill up with anger and hate: toward victims, toward the accused, toward police, toward other readers posting comments.
This doesn't have to happen. The Democrat and Chronicle and several local television stations have made a conscious decision to let this stuff get posted. Particularly offensive comments are sometimes taken down if other readers complain. But these websites reek with insults.
The local media aren't alone. Many newspapers and television stations have bought into this anything-goes, let-readers-be-the-moderators approach to online comments. Among their arguments: It encourages public discussion, public participation in the democratic process. And it's new media. This is what the public expects in the internet age.
The reader comments you find on these websites would never make it into print or onto the air, of course. For one thing, some of them would result in a libel suit. (Courts have ruled that internet site providers - including the owners of media websites - are protected from libel suits involving content posted by third parties.)
For another, the local media have higher standards for what they put in print or on the air - in the work of their own reporters and,in the case of the D&C,in what it publishes in its letters section.
It's interesting that the daily newspaper that crusades against rap music and the coarsening of culture seems to have little problem letting readers spew out racial slurs and hate-filled attacks. (I wonder whether any of the local media would permit readers to post pornographic photographs on their websites.)
The alternative is to have somebody at the newspaper or TV station moderate the public postings: read them all and approve or delete them. That, in fact, is what we do at this newspaper. The disadvantage is the loss of immediacy. Our readers' comments don't go online until we put them there, and we don't monitor them all night. We think the quality of the comments we get outweighs that problem.
Best I can tell, we're in the minority in this. And there are arguments to be made in favor of a public-comment free-for-all. In a recent washingtonpost.com opinion piece, Doug Feaver, a former Post editor, argued in favor of unmoderated comments. They "provide a forum for readers to complain about what they see as unfairness or inaccuracy in an article," he said. They let readers talk to each other.
Well, yes, of course. But readers can do that without insulting people.
Overwhelmingly, the worst online comments are posted anonymously, and Feaver also defended the anonymity. His justification: People are more likely to say what they think if they don't have to give their names. We need to know that "the dark forces are out there," he wrote.
We do need to be reminded that racism and hatred exist. But if that's the justification, then the D&C, for example, should publish those kinds of comments in its print edition.
What the local media are really saying, though, is that they accept no responsibility for disseminating the trash. And that, I think, is quite a statement to the community.
Comments for "URBAN JOURNAL: Online cesspools" (18)
City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these comments. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.
Rottenchester said on May. 05, 2009 at 8:56pm
There are many tried and true ways of managing Internet comments that neither you nor the D&C/TV are using.
First, you can institute a voting system where users can vote up good comments, and readers can set their preferences to only see comments that are voted up. This has been going on for about a decade on non-newspaper sites (e.g., Slashdot, one of the first weblogs.). You can also make readers register, track their "karma" (i.e., the number of comments they've made that are voted up) and show their karma for every post. Slashdot does that, too.
Second, writers can participate in comment threads, and update posts to address comments. Again, this has been done forever by blogs, and a lot of blogs have high-quality comment threads (a good example is the blog Balloon-Juice). Joe Klein at the Time blog Swampland has been doing this lately and his writing and the quality of comments he gets have improved.
However, it is typical of the newsasaur attitude that you act as if the only websites that exist are other news sites.
Julie said on May. 06, 2009 at 10:25pm
This article is very timely. I was reading about the death of the student in Canandaigua, and when I read the comments at the D&C website, I was appalled. While many were simply expressing sadness and condolences to the family, far too many were very hateful and completely lacked compassion for the loss of a human life. Civil discourse and respectful dialogue are great. Providing a public outlet for hateful speech (particularly coupled with the cowardice of anonymity) is disgraceful for a "news" organization.
Sheila said on May. 08, 2009 at 6:12am
I completely agree with Ms Towler. I have complained multiple times to the D&C about comments that are nothing more than spewing racism, anger and hatred. Many of these comments are akin to burning a cross on someone's lawn.
Such comments are not a "discussion of issues." They are offensive graffiti, posted by people who would not dare to publish such comments were their full names attached to them. Should the community's only daily newspaper encourage discussions that promote racism, "I-Got-Mine" sentiments, and further examples of ignorance? Well, I guess as long as we're not playing any "gangsta rap."
I have read moderated online comments from other newspapers in other towns, and found that offensive comments are removed or at least truncated and identified as being offensive. If the D&C wishes to remain a credible source for news and a voice for the community, it should get its house in order. It is quickly degenerating into a paper which is merely sound and fury, signifying nothing.
CDA said on May. 09, 2009 at 7:39pm
What really bugs me about the D&C comments is the large amount of unbased and untrue accusations and claims made by many of the posters. A troll will post an outrageous comment as fact when it has no basis in truth. Others reading the comments may take this as truth. This could be dangerous.
Kathy said on May. 10, 2009 at 7:40am
I think one of the major problems with the D & C posting is that people are unable to stay on task, a lot of times you have posters that post about stories that are not reflective of the article. Then you have the posters that go out of their way to start calling other posters derogatory names, some what immature I believe. As far as the racist comments, yes they are made, but usually someone reads into racism and then begins going off on that, and then they really don't keep on task.
Doug MIdkiff said on May. 10, 2009 at 9:04am
Thanks for calling attention to this problem, Mary Anna. As a former Rochesterian and now a Knoxville resident, I read the web edition of D&C daily and go the City site each day. I am appalled at the quality of comments in the D&C. Most of them are terrible. I have posted comments in the past on issues with which I am familiar, dealing with RenSquare and other transportation issues, but I will no longer comment in the D&C. I am ashamed to have my name appear with the often scurrilous comments.
soldier said on May. 11, 2009 at 7:26am
Mary Anna -- Couldn't agree more! These insulting, despairing and ultimately nihilist comments are bullying online at its best -- anonymous and degrading to all who read them. It takes the community down, absolutely. I don't think all D&C reporters agree with the 'no moderator' policy, but who is running the show? Are they local -- who are they? If you believe democracy thrives in an opinion-rich environment, know that this tolerance of hate-speech is not harmless. It can be dangerous. Why would the institution of a free press offer opportunities to the bored/negatives of the world to be offensive, vulgar and to purposefully inserting dis-information [non-evidence-based] into the already saturated lonsberry-type discourse. I believe that all who work in communication [advertising, news, photography, public relations, etc.] should form an association for some kind of responsible journalism and make public statements about the destruction of the media. The goal of the vicious online posters is the destroy -- doesn't matter who or how -- just a 'take down' mentality. Someday someone is going to define this as a mental disorder along the lines of factitious disorders by which people use a proxy to deliberately produces, feigns, or exaggerates symptoms in a person who is in their care. The person who is sick is the writer.
Hateishate said on May. 11, 2009 at 10:05am
Why do we accept that the hateful comments deserve to be covered in the media if uttered by Pat Robertson, the Pope, radical Muslims, anti-gay Black Ministers, neocons (and even progressive commentators too), but the anonymous hateful comments posted by readers do not?
Why does one expression of hatred deserve to printed, but others do not?
It is a bit hypocritical of media types to lament such rudeness posted by readers, while that anxiously provide megaphones to other public figures to broadcast intolerance of all formats. One we call "news." The other we call "shameful."
Part of our world is ugly. It is a sad fact. We are better to look at the ugliness in all its manifestations than to "wish it would all just go away."
A hateful statement is just as hateful regardless of whether it is stated anonymously or not. Perhaps even more dangerous are those who proudly put their name on their intolerance. We turn them into media celebrities.
Will City News promise to never publish anymore racist or homophobic comments at all, no matter who expresses them? I doubt it.
Nick said on May. 11, 2009 at 11:45am
@hateishate - Good point. Often the platform validates the opinion, despite how ridiculous, ignorant, or hateful it turns out to be. Just look at how much garbage you can spout in the media with little challenge as long as you have the title "Rev." before your name.
soldier said on May. 11, 2009 at 12:00pm
Dear Hateishate -- The individuals you listed are public figures and as you can see from the Rev. Jerimiah Wright affair, the inflammatory comments were correctly attributed to the reverend and there were repercussions. Do you not see that the online forum comments that are virulent and punishing are primarily anonymous? There is no vetting or way to verify. Even though you may hate the message, ask, is that station, blog or whatever working on evidence or primarily sensationalist? Has the internet basically become a form of 'yellow journalism'?
hateishate said on May. 11, 2009 at 1:42pm
Soldier:
It doesn't matter if it is a public figure. Americans love hate speech. Hate is big news. Hate sells, whether it is anonymous or public.
I am about as Liberal as they come, but there is a tremendous amount of mockery and very acid language directed against Conservatives in the Liberal online media, and to be honest, I find a lot of it humorous and I enjoy it. (I'm just being honest!)
The point is that what one person finds to be insulting, could be considered to be a legitimate form of political speech or strategy to another.
And admittedly many of these anonposts are plain stupid and ignorant.
But THAT is our community--the same community that allows very harsh poverty to exist minutes away from our idyllic eastern suburbs. Now there's an insult! What are ya gonna do about that!
Anonymous comments are "sweet nothings" compared to insults we hurl daily at our most vulnerable neighbors through our actions and our inactions.
Our greatest evil may be couched in our greatest etiquette. Do not be mistaken.
soldier said on May. 11, 2009 at 5:18pm
Hateis. . . if you want to see [read] the extent of the abuse of freedom of speech, go to the blog that was begun to help find Brittanee Drexel. There are the unemployed, bored, lonesomes of the world posting about how wonderful it will be to find her decomposed body. It has GONE TOO FAR. I think eventually we will be finding the sickness in this as diagnosable. I am a left-leaning journalist and I literally FIGHT for the facts, the evidence. It is much, much easier to just run with your libido or anger. Try getting the entire story and then try writing about it -- it's an uphill battle. That's why I am a soldier -- been through many battles.
Tim Dixon said on May. 12, 2009 at 12:22pm
Thanks so much for speaking your mind on this issue. I agree that several other news outlets in the area are abdicating their responsibilty. I propose a compromise to help reduce your workload...Removing anonymity will allow posts to go active immediately and people who insist on anonymity will have their comments moderated. Offensive posts could still be flagged, but their name and picture would be associated with offensive, racist, stupid or sexist comments. Serial offenders could have their privileges pulled.
Greg said on May. 13, 2009 at 9:51pm
There is a way you can have an impact on this issue: Don't read the D&C! As a former resident of the region, I tried for a while to keep up with local goings on via that outlet, but those comments and other issues keep me from the site.
That said, it is important to recognize that those comments appear on news sites all over the country. In "Liberal San Francisco' where I live i regularly read absolutely vile comments on the website of our local rag (hopefully, soon to be shuttered) which just drip with all the "isms" you can imagine. I think people who want to express these feelings are drawn to the opportunity to voice them anonymously. Ultimately, though content begets quality of response. Sometimes when there is a news article that doesn't express an opinion outwardly, that is what opens up the door to off-topic rants. why not just open comments to opinion pieces only?
Dave Duncan said on May. 14, 2009 at 12:28am
Regarding the "Minorities are the primary cause of most gun violence" comment by David Shimko who is also, embarrassingly, from Fairport:
Is it currently City Newspaper's policy to print the ravings of every writer who sends a Xeroxed screed? Given that I work and socialize with many "minorities" (which I interpret as "people who do not pass for white") and have never been threatened with a gun or shot at, I see the wholesale blame of "minorities" without specification as a disservice to all the nonwhite people of the Rochester area who are not criminals.
To even bother to waste the ink on printing such a statement helps give credence to the lie that there even is such a thing as the "white race", aside from its history as a pseudoscientific social construct. It's almost as if you printed the letter specifically as a cheap but inflammatory teaser for your publication. Shame on you for fueling a race war in order to increase circulation of your paper.
Scott said on May. 14, 2009 at 9:14am
What I love about this sort of piece is the irony. Check it:
- Article: Wegmans' "censorship" of Cosmo on their mag racks. Tsk. Tsk. Censorship is bad.
- Opinion piece: City censors on-line comments, and so should D&C. Hooray! Censorship is good.
There's a bunch more just in this 1 op piece, but I'll leave it as an exercise for the rest of the class.
Julie said on May. 14, 2009 at 3:26pm
Last week I wrote in to agree with this column. This week I pick up the City paper to find the quote "Minorities are the primary cause of most gun violence" above the fold, top left. This quote has no data to back it up, no discussion of the context of how poverty and violence are connected, etc.
Practice what you preach.
Editor said on May. 15, 2009 at 10:03am
To Julie: the text on our cover was a quote from a letter to the editor in that week's issue.
Leave A Comment
Respond on Your Blog
Create an Account
or
Login
If you have a City Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own City Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.