The Chicago Tribune has shut down commenting on a range of political stories, and public editor Timothy McNulty tries to explain why. But the Tribune got it wrong from the start by allowing auto-published comments without even the basic step of authenticating the user's email address. This irresponsibility led to the an outcome that was utterly predictable.
McNulty's defense of the shutdown, however, doesn't stand up. For example:
"Bill Adee, who helps oversee the editorial online operation ... said he took that action with the same caution that newspapers adopt in the final days of any campaign when there is little time left for other readers or the candidates to answer scurrilous last-minute charges."
That's 20th century thinking. You can't play gatekeeper these days. All the Tribune has accomplished is to move the scurrilous rumors and mudslinging away from a place where the Tribune might have been able to monitor, detect and correct error, had it understood the modern role of the journalist is guide and not gatekeeper.
"Many readers make no distinction about authorship, whether it's a newspaper staff reporter, a syndicated columnist, a blogger, a local community contributor or an anonymous online message sender."
Pulling on my old copy editor's green eyeshade, I have to ask: Says who? You have some documentation to back that up? Or are you just pulling it out of your ....
"But is it worth it to have these immediate online comments on the news from anonymous strangers? ... I don't see much value to anonymous rants."
Why not let the people decide whether they see value, and who they will believe?
"What separates a news organization's Web site from others is the reputation of the newspaper company. Corporate executives call it branding, journalists call it credibility."
And a lot of people call it arrogance.
"In the long term, media companies will have to protect their brand in the Internet world. If nothing distinguishes them from thousands of other Web sites that allow falsehoods and calumny, they will fail."
Straw man, false choice.
I don't advocate the abandonment of the conversation space to the worst of human nature. The problem is that shutting down commentary, which the fossilized last-century mass-media mindset regards as an act of responsibility, is in fact an act of abandonment. Many things have changed. The conversation is everywhere, and you can't control it. But you might try listening, participating, and leading.
[Thanks to Martin Stabe.]
Comments
Getting comments right
Once you try to lead the conversation you have to try to control it. Authentication won't do it.
Absolutely right
You're absolutely right; authentication is only a step in the right direction, not a solution. A responsible host will remove personal attacks. Part of the problem, I think, is that too many newspapers are treating the conversation as a cheap, technology-powered way to boost pageviews. The costs of doing it well are much higher, but also, I think, are the rewards.
Agreed.
I agree. A lot needs to be done -- both internally and externally -- in order to facilitate a true social media environment. Hopefully we'll see some changes from all "old" media outlets soon!
comments on news stories
Do you think readers see comments -- which at my small newspaper range from thoughtful to asinine -- as a reflection of the newspaper? We monitor them and quickly remove anything hateful, obscene or that otherwise violates our fairly strict commenting policy, but a co-worker insists that even briefly have such a comment on the site diminishes our credibility.
Comments belong to commenters
I think that maintaining a disorderly house reflects poorly on the newspaper, but there is no evidence that improper comments that are removed promptly reflect on anything other than the commenters.
The greater risk is in silencing the conversation.
In general, newspapers do not have the credibility that editors and reporters imagine. A large part of the "former audience" is deeply resentful of the power of the press, regarding it as an exclusionary rather than inclusive institution. The typical editor is blind to this, seeing the press as a great enabler.