Some of the nation’s biggest online news outlets still haven’t unraveled the mystery to managing readers’ comments. According to The New York Times, both The Washington Post and The Huffington Post are resorting to an “Animal Farm” system that gives greater prominence to readers who use their “real” names when leaving comments or to trusted readers who have left comments in the past — the “all animals are created equal, though some animals are more equal than others” approach to moderation.
Meanwhile, The New York Times requires readers to register with the site before leaving comments. And most recently, Hawaii’s Peer News announced it would close its articles to reader comments completely, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday.
What a pity that these news outlets should resort to ranking systems, registration and closed-door policies to moderate what is designed to be a two-way conversation. That type of open communication is the whole point of Web 2.0, a point that these outlets miss by a mile.
At the other extreme, readers should not be permitted to spew venom as anonymous specters adrift in the ethernet. After all, a news site is its publisher’s virtual property, and it’s the publisher’s obligation to establish a rule of order. One can manage the site like a erudite salon and ask (even demand) readers to conduct themselves with self-restraint. Or one can run the place like a bar (as I did with my former site) and allow readers to speak freely, smacking them in the back of the head when they get too rowdy, or bouncing them completely when they’ve had enough.
But if a publisher merely opens the door to an online establishment and expects visitors not to steal the virtual silverware at first chance, then all hope is lost for civil or constructive discourse. That’s what The Washington Post did, maybe in reverence to the First Amendment. As a result, its comment section is more like a landfill of bigoted rants and axes in search of grinding.
Sifting through ranked comments, or closing articles to comments completely, are terrible solutions. The former creates an echo chamber, where those ranking the comments (presumably other readers or the site’s staff) can amplify agreeable opinions and mute dissenting ones. The latter only makes the publication seem aloof, and can cut off potential story leads and angles for reporters to follow.
In the end, a website is its publisher’s blank wall. One can lead readers to paint a flowing mural of constructive ideas, or one can abandon it for graffiti artists and taggers to maul.
Photo courtesy of Flickr user cauchisavona.
Exactly and precisely.
Anonymity’s not the problem. Hands-off “management” is the problem. Somebody else writing about this recently said it quite well: Some sites have “turned on (the comment feature) and left the room.” I am consistently saddened to see that it’s usually the old media, who really have no excuse – they could even hire moderation help if they wanted – they’re giving the rest of us a bad name.