Why Newspapers Shouldn't Allow Comments

[DeepModem Mom]

Gawker: Why Newspapers Shouldn't Allow Comments
Mon Jul 21 2008
By Sheila

Let's begin with some truisms: a newspaper is not a blog—not even its online version. Conversely, a blog is not a newspaper. However, newspapers have been in the toilet lately, partly due to the proliferation of blogs. One easy pseudo-solution some newspapers have settled on is to act more and more like blogs. After all, this 2.0 world is all about "You," the user, which in practice means it's all about a false sense of democracy through publication of comments and user-generated content—just like a common blog.

Comments are thought to be an added value to a newspaper's site—providing another reason to read. You come for the article, and stay for the interesting discussion. The only problem is, there is no interesting discussion. Almost never. Not even from the mythical supersmart New York Times readers.

Let's take some examples from the weekend press.

First, there was New York Times reporter David Carr's book excerpt in the NYT Magazine, a reported memoir of his crack addiction, recklessly bad behavior, and subsequent redemption. Sample comments, notable only in how uneducated and un-thoughtful they were?

"if he wasn't a reporter for the new york times, would we be reading this?"

"Monetizing your shameful past is disgusting. Haven't you harmed your loved ones enough for one lifetime?"

"Who cares. grow some guts. we all have problems. most of us don't blame drugs or alcohol... you want a medal for doing your job and being a father?"

Opening a deeply personal article up to the peanut gallery does these writers a great disservice—and yes, I include Emily Gould here, whose NYT Mag article was similarly pilloried in the comments section. (Thanks for writing; your check is in the mail, and oh—have fun getting senselessly torn apart in the comments. No, there's nothing we can do about it—it's 2.0!)...

***

You could argue that newspapers should rigorously vet and moderate their comments, or at least require them to use their full names. I'd argue that this is a silly misuse of their time; I'm not suggesting that newspapers should actively patrol their comments, like this and some other websites do. (We're a blog; comments are in our blood.) I'm suggesting they get rid of them altogether. (This doesn't include the blog sections of various papers, which the NYT and Washington Post are stuffed full of.)...

As Arthur Sulzberger's relation Benjamin Dolnick lamented in the comments section of Carr's NYT story (noticed by Choire Sicha at Radar): "If you ever want to lose faith in humanity, read any comments section on the internet."

P.S. Also, nobody wants to hear the tired old "free speech" argument as a defense of comments. We've had free speech in this country for well over two hundred years, long before it was ever an option to comment on newspaper websites and blogs.

http://gawker.com/5027287/why-newspapers-shouldnt-allow-comments

[babylonsister]

1. Hmm. Not a great anything. nt

[katandmoon]

2. What was so "uneducated and un-thoughtful" about the Carr book excerpts comments cited?

They didn't call him a goddamn stupid asshole for getting hooked on crack, or accuse him of trying to make a quick buck off gullible readers, as I would have.

"Opening a deeply personal article up to the peanut gallery does these writers a great disservice..."

:nopity:

[Miss Authoritiva]

3. There are more than 300 comments....

There are more than 300 comments on Carr's story. Curiously, the Gawker writer picks three comments from the first 23 comments. (Also, annoyingly, the writer didn't include the direct links to the cited comments.) But if you follow the links to the Carr article and comments, you will indeed find some thoughtful comments that are well worth reading.

[zbdent]

4. "if he wasn't a reporter for the new york times, would we be reading this?"

So, explain how Glenn Beck has a career ...