CBSNews.com Turns Off Comments on Obama Stories (Too many racist)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/05/04/publiceye/entry2761854.shtml

Today CBSNews.com informed its staff via email that they should no longer enable comments on stories about presidential candidate Barack Obama. The reason for the new policy, according to the email, is that stories about Obama have been attracting too many racist comments.

"It's very simple," Mike Sims, director of News and Operations for CBSNews.com, told me. "We have our Rules of Engagement. They prohibit personal attacks, especially racist attacks. Stories about Obama have been problematic, and we won't tolerate it."

CBSNews.com does sometimes delete comments on an individual basis, but Sims said that was not sufficient in the case of Obama stories due to "the volume and the persistence" of the objectionable comments.

There has been a fierce debate about how news outlets should handle reader comments. Washingtonpost.com's Jim Brady, whose site, like CBSNews.com, does not have the resources to filter comments in advance, told Howard Kurtz that he'd "rather figure out a way to do it better than not to do it at all."

But Post reporter Darryl Fears told Kurtz that comments should be eliminated if they can't be pre-screened for offensiveness.

Damn Freepers and Koolaid drinkers, that's the only way they know how to fight!

[Colobo]

1. Those are operatives from white supremacist websites

They do not make a huge number, but they are quite organized and determined.

[Eurobabe]

2. Like the same douche bags that overloaded yahoo's boards

those are gone forever I bet. It used to be fun to bait a CON at lunchtime, sigh...

[buff2]

3. Freerepublic is one of the worst White Supremist sites

on the net. That's where most of the garbage and racist comments comes from.

[Colobo]

5. Wrong.

VNN, Stormfront... those places are scary.

[wicket]

10. Stormfront is downright frightening

:scared:

[wicket]

9. Sick fucks

:grr: :grr:

[BOSSHOG]

4. Whoda thunk a comedian like limbaugh could stir the loins of the unwashed?

[youthere]

16. Unwashed loin stirring...thanks a lot.

Now I get to spend the rest of the day trying to rid myself of THAT nasty mental image.

[jaysunb]

6. And now it begins .....

Good old American racisim can't be held down. :evilfrown:

[tubbacheez]

7. The bigots are convinced they speak for a silent majority.

The problem is that the bigots scare people into avoiding the topic and letting civil rights groups speak up. This perpetuates the delusion.

[Lobster Martini]

8. Hold on, this makes no sense

CBSnews.com doesn't have the resources to filter offensive comments so they're blocking all comments about a presidential candidate? I just set my spam filter, as a test, to block e-mails containing the word "poodle" and allow e-mails containing the word "terrier." My point, other than that poodles are annoying, is that surely CBSnews can block offensive comments without blocking all comments. If I can filter messages, surely CBSnews.com can as well.

There is a problem when CBSnews.com will allow comments about every candidate but one.

[ripple]

12. I'm with you

they should block all comments concerning candidates, or none at all. They should be able to either filter comments, or provide better moderation on their site. I wonder what their registration policy is- perhaps they could require that all users register with the email account assigned by their ISP(not a hotmail or yahoo account).

[Prophet 451]

15. Doesn't work like that

I work for the biggest spirituality site on the web, we tried this idea but couldn't make it work.

The problems:
Firstly, your spam filter scans the header of your mail while it is held in a seperate location (the mail server). This is why those annoying ads for slimming pills or Viagra often use l33t-speak in the header and plain text in the body of the message. Having to scan the entire message (which comment filters would have to do) ratchets up the workload and since comment boards don't (usually) have an intermediate "holding" stage, it would have to be done in realtime.

Secondly, think of the sheer amount of racial epithets around. I could probably think of a hundred off the top of my head, I'm sure you could too and several of those only become offensive in a particular context. For example, if the comment filter sees the word "gorilla" in my post, am I talking about Obama's racial heritage or his work on envirmental issues?

Thirdly, now multiply all those epithets by the number of variations that can be done in l33t (the substitution of numbers or symbols for letters). The variations are almost limitless. I know guys who can conduct whole conversations purely in l33t which are perfectly understandable to anyone who gives it a second's thought. For example, if you write the N-word as "n1gg3r", a comment filter won't catch it but anyone reading knows exactly what you're saying.

It can be done but it requires a lot of processing power and when you think about the number of hits that a news site gets each day, you're talking about massive amounts of processing power. Whether the site should have expended that amount of time, effort and manpower (these things are not simple to code) is open to question, I'm just pointing out that it's a lot more difficult than your spam filter.

[ieoeja]

11. That's too bad. Those comments would help Obama.

It has been claimed JFK was able to carry West Virginia because most West Virginians wanted to prove to the world they were NOT the openly bigoted assholes from their state who got so much air time. I believe the same would be true of Obama. Enough overt racism would shame some folk into voting for Obama. And disgust even more into voting for Obama to put the bigots in their place.

[Le Taz Hot]

18. OK, I have to correct your history here.

JFK carried West Virginia because Joseph Kennedy "persuaded" union bosses to "encourage" their members to vote for JFK.

Sorry. Carry on. B-)

[Posteritatis]

13. I almost wonder

..if this kid-glove treatment - the secret service protection more than a year in advance for one specific candidate (I can understand it, don't get me wrong, but really now), filtering comments like this, etc - is deliberately meant to make Obama come across as sheltered or cowardly or something. It almost feels like a conscious attempt to make him look weak or vulnerable.

"Well gee, look at all the Special Treatment he's getting right out of the gate!" etc.

You know people are going to take what is, in the end, CBS' own decision and hold it against Obama, who has nothing to do with the comments there aside from being in stories which result in their being posted. You know people are going to use it as attack material against him, especially since we're in an environment where attack campaigning is the only kind anyone recognizes anymore.



(Don't mind me, this is my annual tin hat moment. Your regular skeptical Posteritatis will return after this commercial break!)

[Ethelk2044]

17. I see you like Hatred comments then

It like you like spewing hate among people.

[Posteritatis]

19. Oh come on, you can jump to a sillier conclusion than that. (nt)

[Milo_Bloom]

21. I like hatred comments

Because they make the commentor look stupid.

The best way to find out who the stupid people are is to let them speak freely and reveal themselves.

[wicket]

14. kick

:kick:

[Milo_Bloom]

20. Obama should come out against this.

#1) Obama should object to hampering free speech whereever possible.

#2) Having comments like this seen by the public only helps to marginalize opposition. When someone says, "I am against Obama" they will immediately be associated with the idiot comments, since that is the loudest wheel.

This stupid word thing has gotten waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of hand. It is time for someone with some authority to remind everyone that words only have the power that you personally assign to them. By banning speech on a subject, you give the opposition more power, because their words were obviously important enough to warrant action.

[AtomicKitten]

22. I can hardly believe American is still this ugly.

This really saddens me on a number of levels.

[nolabels]

23. I can

Some people who live comfortable lives have to go out search for it but others live with it right if front of their face 24/7. The status of what ever is just that. The ugly side of the Human experience, that unpleasant side often goes unspoken and is sometimes known to be the status quo.

Btw the word "status" is a cute word, that stat actually meant stand at some time, just the same as in static. Most anyone also knows that in fluid world of human interaction most nothing stands static.

Enter> status quo
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=status+quo&searchmode=none

[AtomicKitten]

24. no doubt

Being California born and raised and living in SF, you are absolutely correct that this is beyond my life experience. However, it makes my skin crawl nonetheless.