You know how the comments on the Boston Globe suck big time? Here is how they can fix it:

[beachmom]

http://xark.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/05/why-comments-suck-ideas-on-unsucking-them.html

And rather than just accepting that comments on news stories are America's No. 1 troll breeding ground, what can be done about this nationwide disappointment?

WHY COMMENTS SUCK

Because you don't value them. Let's face it: Newspapers were slow to add comments and many if not most people in the newsroom thought they were a bad idea to begin with. The winning argument for comments was often page-loads, not engagement with readers, and it shows. If you don't have policies that encourage your editors and writers to read and participate in comments, and user agreements that speak about positive values of civil behavior, then your comments ghetto is really just a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Because you think you can't touch them. Why are newspaper people so convinced they can't "moderate" comments? In part it's because they don't understand the legal principle behind the "prior approval" policy, but it's also because two-way community involvement is a job few journalists actually want. Listen: If you want good comments, you simply have to think of them as a dinner party at your house. You wouldn't let one guest's bad behavior ruin everyone else's time, and you wouldn't invite people to your house and then spend the evening in another room. If you're going to have comments, you must set the tone or live with the consequences.

Because you don't have time. Because of staff cuts. Because of new initiatives. Because of work loads. You could do all these things for comments, "but right now we need to focus on the core product." And by core product you mean the print edition.

Because you're afraid. Not because you're a chickenshit, but because comment threads between professional journalists and anonymous trolls are intimidating. It reverses the asymmetrical relationship and puts you in the hot seat. And how can you deal with trolls in a way that's effective, doesn't demean your own value, and supports the good commenters? And can you be human without calling down the wrath of some senior editor who insists you adhere to some outdated inhuman standard? Those are good reasons to be afraid.

Because you're not a community. Have you ever noticed that online communities tend to have great comments -- even if there's a great deal of disagreement? But most newspapers aren't communities, and for all our talk about loving our geographic communities, we're not actually a PART of those communities. You can't be a one-way communicator and be part of a community. You must be reachable --and vulnerable.

Go to the link for suggestions. But as I think about this, the Boston Globe has been in big trouble, and really, comments are part of their problem. There is NEVER a good conversation over there. I think the writer nails way here. The BG just didn't put any effort into it. What you get out of it, is what you put into it.

[Luftmensch067]

1. Excellent point

The media that will survive are the ones that manage to become *real* communities. We need good journalism, not some free-for-all, but Americans are becoming accustomed to the idea that they, too, are entitled to a voice when it comes to commentary. I like the point that truly respecting readers means making a worthwhile place for discussion, not a trash bin.