Interesting piece about online comments on news articles

[proud2BlibKansan]

Traditional Media Ready to Elevate the Conversation Online — with Moderation

by Mark Glaser, 8:44PM

USAToday comment copy.JPG

Major media sites have started to get the religion of audience participation, but there’s been one big hitch: How do you harness the audience’s knowledge and participation without the forums devolving into a messy online brawl that requires time-intensive moderation?

Over the years, traditional media sites have tried forums, killed them, and tried them again, this time with more moderation. But still, the unruly aspect of online commentary continues to upset people, as the Hartford Courant’s public editor Karen Hunter recently railed against the “uncivil discourse” on her site’s comments, blaming it on anonymous commenters and calling for a requirement that people use their real names. Then Topix CEO Chris Tolles defended anonymous contributions, comparing unregistered commenters on Topix to those that register and found that while unregistered comments are slightly more likely to violate posting guidelines, three times of all comments came from unregistered commenters.

What has changed in the last year is that major media companies are no longer arguing over whether they should have comments under stories or blogs; instead, the debate is about how they should moderate them and even highlight the best ones in eye-catching editorial spaces. Many sites are embracing the concept of “news as a conversation,” and trying to create active conversations among reporters, editors and readers online. The New York Times released a more robust commenting function recently, where readers can recommend each other’s comments, and there are “Editor’s Selections” for the best comments in a thread. And last weekend BusinessWeek.com started highlighting one commenter per day on its home page, with a photo of the commenter.

Jonathan Landman, deputy managing editor for digital journalism at the New York Times, told me he thinks a balance of positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement is the way to go in moderating online comments. He likes the way Amazon.com gives people special badges when they use their real name.

more . . . http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2008/01/digging_deepertraditional_medi_1.html

[Angiewnsb]

1. NY Times' reader comment selection is biased though

Unfortunately when sites like the New York Times provide readers with the
ability to comment on news articles, readers don't realize the selection
process of displayed reader comments can be biased. And that can be dangerous as
it allows them to pretend that they are inviting their readers into a robust discussion
in which all relevant viewpoints are being aired and instead really limits the discussion
within very narrow boundaries. I'll give you an example of this biased selection process
in action. On 1/15/08, a Times blog article entitled "2008 RACE DOMINATES MEDIA COVERAGE" permitted
readers to add their own comments to it. I submitted mine (copied below) which was not published on the site along with other reader comments. This is what my non-published comment said:

"Instead of covering a national election almost a full year away, news media should be addressing the most pressing issues facing humanity. That such election related stories were almost half of all media coverage demonstrates that's simply not the case. Front page news, news that SHOULD dominate coverage, should have to pass a litmus test - that it involve stories which affect the LARGEST number of people in the MOST serious (life and death) ways. To get such front page news, you have to surf the internet because the traditional news media, including the Times, report on news that would pass this test only sporadically. My website http://www.WhatNewsShouldBe.org is one example where you can get REAL news which does pass this litmus test. This is the type of news that SHOULD dominate media coverage as it is the only way that the most pressing issues facing humanity can be addressed and considered by the masses. Shame on all mainstream media that do not utilize this Journalism 101 definition of what constitutes "news".
Angie
www.WhatNewsShouldBe.org"

The NY Times FAQS indicate that they don't "review individual moderation decisions because of the volume of reader comments". Not content, I emailed about my censored comment experience to the NY Times Public Editor - more than once in fact. The first email I sent them had this as the subject heading:
"possible investigation needed into Blog Comment selection". Then, I got back a only a standard:

"Thank you for contacting the Public Editor. An associate or I read every
message. Because of the volume of e-mail, we cannot respond personally to every message, but we forward many messages to appropriate newsroom staffers and follow up to be sure concerns raised in those messages are treated with serious consideration. If a further reply is warranted, you will be hearing from us shortly."

On 1/15/08, after my comment to the "2008 RACE DOMINATES MEDIA COVERAGE" was not published, this is what I emailed the Public Editor:

To: [e-mail]

Re: please respond personally this time re: biased Blog Comment selection

Below is the 2nd written example I'm providing you to demonstrate that there is bias in the selection process of comments posted on the Times' blogs. The Times' apparently doesn't publish comments that contain sharp criticism of mainstream news...Today, for the 2nd example, I submitted a comment only about an hour after the blog topic was posted and BEFORE any other comments have been published. It clearly is on point with the issue, contains a unique viewpoint on same with a discussion of a litmus test for media coverage which weren't repeated in any of the comments posted which were sent in after mine, and doesn't violate any of your rules. There's no reason why it should not have been selected for the subject blog unless the Times wants to censor comments that contain sharp critiques of itself or mainstream media generally - something that you as public editor should not permit. Please respond personally because there's a pattern here that needs addressing. Here's the comment that should have been published on your site today but wasn't . . .

What did I get back? The same "don't call us, we'll call you response" automated response was the only response I received. This is an example of how the Times' human monitors cannot be trusted to sort through readers comments. It's not surprising really, since, of course, they can't be trusted to decide what front page "news" is either, the very subject of my censored comment.

Angie
http://www.WhatNewsShouldBe.org"

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Welcome to DU!

My local newspaper is dominated by comments by racists who can't spell. :shrug: