My post yesterday on the comments on our Dean Smith story triggered an irony alert: I had to delete a couple comments in a post about the high quality of comments. (Just FYI, if you start comparing people to Hitler, your comment is not long for this world.)
While we're on the topic, here's two other things you should read:
The Buffalo News is doing away with anonymous comments. As you might imagine, there are a lot of comments about that.
And Gene Weingarten likens comments on some stories to a sirloin steak with a side of maggots. Although I suspect Gene would admit that some news stories resemble Salisbury steak instead. And I've written a couple of things more like that protein loaf they serve in prison.
Gene does say he generally likes comments. I do too. But we can, and ought to, make them better. Thanks for the ideas so far.
UPDATE: NYU's Jay Rosen tweets (@jayrosen_nyu) in response to the Buffalo News story: "Just so typical of newspaper thinking that the middle way—persistent identity using a pen name-is removed from the debate."
I think Rosen is talking about getting rid of the ability to post as Anonymous, but letting people post under an assumed name. This is how the Observer does it on our regular stories online, but not on blog posts, which run on different software. Do you think assumed names work?
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
A little more on comments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
you remind me of hitler
OK, I'm gonna leave that one in just for the comic value.
Assumed names do work, although (predictably) often the Comments space attached to an article degenerates into "Troll Call", drifting away from the original topic and into a familiar round of name-calling from a familiar cast of characters. That's the downside of anonymity, the crossing over from exercising liberty into taking liberties. Is it not still possible to simultaneously disagree AND respect? (I know, I'm going to get flamed and snarked at. So be it.)
I will admit to being one who reads the comments, and will occasionally respond. Typically I try to avoid being caught up in liking every societal ill to a political party and/or their leader, or being drawn in to some ridiculously self- perceived argument between posters, and there's always the frustrated journalist-wanna-be who comments on the asthetics of the article and how poorly its written. While I do believe the standard should usually be much higher, I gave up on proper speling and grammer (pun intended)long ago with the wonder of Spellchecker. I do miss objectivity in news journalism both written and on the small screen. It's not a perfect world, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There is a way to make a statement without directly attacking other's opinions. Unfortunately people have a false sense of security believing because they are "anonymous" there are fewer consequences. Just my two cents worth for today because you asked...
Its hilarious to move from another region and hear rednecks call others rednecks who are both from the south. This is the pot calling the kettle black. Listen up all native southerners. If you are from the south you are a redneck. No exceptions. There are rednecks elsewhere but thats another story.
While I would love for all posters to use a real name or at least, a traceable post name, a lot of sites would see less traffic. It's like looking at a car accident, you shouldn't look but you just can't help it. Some comments are just so ridiculous you can't stop from seeing if someone has been drawn in and responded.
I truly abhor some of the mean and vicious comments I have seen regarding deaths and certain crime stories but I do value freedom of speech.
I wish some of these posters had been taught civility but in the end I DON'T have to respond. I dislike when I am then unable to leave a civil comment.
If setting up a system that allows tracking (and banning)of posters, anonymous or named allows you to leave an open forum, I'm all for it, I have a right to free speech, too.
It would be more convenient if the blog posting procedure was to be the same as for article procedure
Maybe he meant that "other" hitler, (Jesus Hitler)?
tommy tomlinson said...
Irony alert: I've had to delete a couple of comments on this post about high-quality comments. For future reference: If you throw Hitler into the discussion, that's pretty much an automatic DQ.
11:49 AM
HOW MANY TIMES HAS THE
"H" WORD BEEN USED ON THIS PAGE?
For the record, whenever I have a comment to make here in The CO or elsewhere online,I do it with my own name. I have never commented on an article using "Anonymous" or another pseudonuym, so this doesn't apply to me anyway.
The last time I wrote a Letter to the Editor using my real name got me a load of Nazi propaganda in my mailbox - anonymously. It felt threatening. Since then, it became apparent that newspapers are not to improve or educate us but to make money. So I no longer feel the need to add my 2cents.
Post a Comment