The comment sections in some blogs, and many online community newspapers, is becoming a cesspool of bigotry, sexism and intolerance. Nobody has struggled more with the idea of online community than the American press. 

I’ve wondered why newspapers, who have so staunchly defended the integrity of the published word, would suddenly open the floodgates of stupidity just because the forum has moved to the Internet.  My conclusion: Bigotry must be good for business.  My friend Jack Lail disagrees.  Jack is the much-respected News Director of Innovation for the Knoxville News Sentinel and a pioneer in online media.  He’s re-thinking the newsroom in the context of the digital era and dealing with these difficult issues every day.

Jack and I sparred on his blog recently and he has agreed to a point-counterpoint format for {grow}.

Mark’s point:

If I submit a letter to the editor of the newspaper and comment on a news story or issue, it has to come with clear proof of who I am, and even then might be subject to editing for appropriateness. Why then, would the same newspaper allow the public commentary in their online versions to turn into a virtual free-for-all of hate?  It just doesn’t make sense except that if the newspapers didn’t allow that liberal allowance for sensationalism, another media outlet or blog will — and there goes the readership and the page views that drive advertising revenues, just when traditional media need it most.

Nothing drives page views like controversy, and nothing drives controversy better than a redneck pissing match fueled by the anonymity of an online comment forum. 

Some newspapers have justified this practice by explaining that our country has an important tradition of anonymous dissenters like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine.  But the irony is, serious dissent found on an op-ed page would require editorial identification, while the ugliness in the comment section goes unabated.

I believe the press has applied their standards inconsistently for economic reasons. They fear the anonymous comments (and readership they generate) will go elsewhere if regulated online. True?

Jack’s counterpoint:

The short answer is Web site operators don’t have the same legal liability in online comments as print publishers have with printed letters to the editors.

Yes, I believe comments increase the “stickiness” and time on site and a sense of community that articles alone can’t achieve. Anecdotally, I often hear people say the comments were better than the story (maybe in an entertaining if not enlightening way).

But basically, I don’t view comments as “letters to the editor.” I often find them more akin to callers on talk radio, where people are identified as “Jim” or “caller from Knoxville.” (If you applied the “same rigorous identification standards” to radio call-in shows, they wouldn’t have any callers.) The dynamics of online story comments are similar to what happens in forums and fairly open mailing lists.

They are, I think, a participatory experience unique to the online medium and whose benefits outweigh its negatives. That said, we’re still grappling with ways to minimize the negatives without stifling the speech.

Do we have story comments merely to generate additional page views? Maybe, but I suspect the cost of managing comments negates nearly all of the additional revenue. A page view on a news story is worth at best just a couple cents.

As Google’s economist Hal Varian recently said: “The fact of the matter is that newspapers have never made much money from news.”

Where does the {grow} community come down on this issue?   Over to you …

This dialogue was inspired by a post that originally appeared on Jack’s excellent blog, Random Mumblings. His original post also contains many important references on this issue.  For another timely perspective on the subject of hateful comments, read Jeff Jarvis’ blog post this week.

10 Comments

• 

  By Jim LeBlanc, March 24, 2010 @ 8:24 am

  I recognize that this is a very difficult issue, but managing the comment section based on what the legal liability is, versus what is right to do, seems like a weak policy. Jack may be doing both but that just struck me as an odd strategy. Thought-provoking post, Mark.
• 

  By steve_dodd, March 24, 2010 @ 9:16 am

  Mark, very though provoking post indeed!IMO bigotry is a basic human characteristic. It all depends on how you define it. In one way or another, we all can be deemed as bigots from another person’s perspective on varying topics. If an opinion is stated, there will be opposing views. This is our fundamental right. Some will identify themselves, others will not. But, just because someone is uncomfortable with identifying themselves, doesn’t mean their opinion isn’t valid, worthy of consideration or an indication of underlying sentiment within society itself. Unlike the controlled practice of “Letters to the Editor”, the online commentary allows for a better and more immediate understanding of public opinion. Controversy is a good thing. It helps us consider all the alternatives to make informed decisions. The free flow of information within the social web has given us a better understanding of the underlying issues and opinions that shape our society. We need to protect this.
  And, is it good for business? Absolutely, from many different perspectives!
• 

  By Mark, March 24, 2010 @ 10:33 am

  @Steve I have to vigorously disagree with you. I think you are confusing diversity with bigotry. Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions and our quirks — which is our diversity — but that doesn’t mean that publishing hatred of a religuous or ethnic group is tolerable.

  Likewise, there may be rare cases when somebody would be legitimately uncomfortable identifying themselves for fear of reprisal but otherwise people should be accountable for their opinions. Spreading hate and fear in an anonymous way, and that’s what I’m addressing here, is cowardly.

  @Jim Appreciate your point.
• 

  By Mark, March 24, 2010 @ 10:47 am

  I would like to add a comment to my own post : )

  I think where I am most conflicted on this issue is that the sensationalism is being carried under the same banner as the traditional news authority. I grew up honoring the dignity of the free press and hate that it is being turned into a reality show.

  I actually think the local paper is doing a good job allowing the community to self-monitor and flag the most offensive comments.

  I just wish we could preserve some good old civility SOMEWHERE in our society. I think that’s what really nags me about the whole thing. Why not force people to identify themselves? That would preserve the freedom to comment and also make the debate more meaningful. Editors could allow anonymity on a case by case basis, as they do now.

  Perhaps a separate forum could be created to allow the reality series to take place — and create a new set of advertising opportunities!

  Maybe there is no good answer and our culture is destined to be determined by the whatever drives the most profitable Google ads.
• 

  By steve_dodd, March 24, 2010 @ 12:47 pm

  @ Mark, yup, you’re right. Thanks for clarifying, my misunderstanding.
• 

  By Billy Mitchell, March 24, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

  Unless the success of your business depends on selling to biggots, I don’t think bigotry is good for anything. And I don’t think much of any business selling to biggots either.

  As for obscenities, slander and outright lies, there’s really no accounting for bad taste, weak minds and haters but there are, thank goodness, scroll bars and delete keys plus the freedom to avoid most of the unpleasant or misleading trash and noise of any source that does a poor job of moderating or filtering out the hatred.

  Great debate is such a wonderful thing either participate in or enjoy as a spectator it would be a shame if the idiots overtake the open forums. As for the online or print forums run by those I think are idiots, I try to avoid them altogether.

  But for the sake of arguing one side or the other in this discussion, I agree with you that not allowing total anonymity is a great idea. I believe it would eliminate most of the problem.
• 

  By Kimmo Linkama, March 24, 2010 @ 8:13 pm

  In Estonia, one of the top dailies went from one extreme to the other.

  Comments on online articles used to be open for anyone, and the result was similar to what Mark describes.

  Then they introduced compulsory identification by ID card (we have chip ID cards) and the number of comments dropped to a fraction of what they used to be.

  My take: The prominent commenters were a very small group of people with an unproportionally loud voice and unproportionally unyielding views, making some kind of control necessary. On the other hand, you could see the control as stifling the _vox populi_.

  This brings about an interesting dilemma. I, for one, have always advocated free speech and the minimum of communication control, but in this case it might just be that control will ensure a more unbiased discussion.
• 

  By Mark, March 24, 2010 @ 10:41 pm

  @Kimmo — Fascinating story! Interesting impact. I wonder if the level of commenting dropped back to about what it was in the old “letter to the editor days?”

  @Billy — Thanks!

Other Links to this Post

1. Storytelling Social Media Marketing PR Technology & Business Curated Stories Mar. 24, 2010 — March 24, 2010 @ 5:19 pm

2. Social Media and the Decline of Editing | B2B Memes — March 26, 2010 @ 9:15 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment