Pulling the plug on online comments

[ZLoth]

From USA Today:

Rieder: Pulling the plug on online comments

Autumn Phillips had had enough.

Last Friday, the executive editor of the Quad-City Times visited her website, qctimes.com, and checked out a story about a man who had been fatally stabbed the night before in a local park.

When she got to the reader comments section at the end of the story, she was appalled by what she found.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

From Quad-Cities Times:

Phillips: Why we shut off online comments at qctimes.com

Early Friday morning, I visited a story on qctimes.com about a man who was stabbed and beaten in LeClaire Park the night before. The victim was rushed to the hospital but succumbed to his wounds. It was in a public park, right after sunset. The park was full of people playing Pokemon Go and enjoying the riverfront.

At the end of every story, we provide a place for comments. It's supposed to be a forum where people can debate the issues presented in a story or editorial, where they can connect with each other or grieve together. Or, in the case of a violent crime like the one in LeClaire Park, the space could be used to check in with concerns about public safety.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

[LM117]

Sounds a lot like the comments section on most articles on WITN, the local NBC affiliate for most of eastern NC, which is based in Greenville.

[AlexandriaVA]

NPR recently closed comments on their news articles as well.

http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2016/08/17/489516952/npr-website-to-get-rid-of-comments

[SP Cook]

Most newspapers and TV news comments sections are quickly taken over by the loonies, be they left, right, or just independently crazy. 

[froggie]

I wouldn't say "most".  But the "loonies" are certainly there and are a very vocal minority.

[jeffandnicole]

People just like to voice their opinion about their most-hated political figure.  They will find any way possible to make it relevant to the story...and sometimes, they don't.  If today John Doe said he would run for President, there'll be people out there saying John Doe is threatening to take their guns and free speech away and they're going to move to Canada if John Doe is elected.

What can be most insightful about comments is what these people are tuned into.  For 7 years, people complained relentlessly about Obama in the comment sections.  Suddenly, when Hillary & Trump started running for President, it was like a switch...suddenly, you barely see anyone complaining about Obama, and now they're talking (or trashing) Hillary & Trump, as if anything they do today will affect them. 

[formulanone]

Pros of news comment sections:
- It's a good way to point out a journalism or technical error that might actually affect the meaning of story.

Cons of news comment sections:
- Everything else...either people bitch "it's not news", or its somehow related to whatever agenda or conspiracy theory they're clutching at.

Ever so rarely, a comment does complement the story; in that case, go back to the old way of displaying hand-picked "Letters to the Editor" (if there's any editors left).

[bandit957]

The racist and Nazi comments that always fill news comment sections are inexcusable. And I am not exaggerating when I call them Nazi. The comments are very often out-and-out fascist.

And most of the people posting them are paid trolls.

YouTube comment sections seem to be almost as bad in some cases, but usually the person posting the video has better control over this. So usually the worst comments I get are about my bad teeth, which isn't that a big of a deal. Granted though, if you have bad teeth, and you make YouTube videos, you WILL hear about it.

[bandit957]

Ever so rarely, a comment does complement the story; in that case, go back to the old way of displaying hand-picked "Letters to the Editor" (if there's any editors left).

Letters to the editor got to be pretty bad too by the mid-'90s. I think the big story that did it was the story of the young man who was caned in Singapore after he was accused of vandalizing cars. This prompted ranting, idiotic letters about how America (especially a certain politician of the time) was "S0FT 0N CR1ME lolololol" and how we need to be more like Singapore and ban bubble gum and flushing toilets.

I remember around 1994 a letter to the Kentucky Post by someone complaining that the paper didn't endorse their candidate. The letter went on and on against "Mr. Editor." But the newspaper added an editor's note below it that said, "The editor of The Kentucky Post is not a 'Mr.'"

[jeffandnicole]

Ever so rarely, a comment does complement the story; in that case, go back to the old way of displaying hand-picked "Letters to the Editor" (if there's any editors left).

Letters to the editor got to be pretty bad too by the mid-'90s. I think the big story that did it was the story of the young man who was caned in Singapore after he was accused of vandalizing cars. This prompted ranting, idiotic letters about how America (especially a certain politician of the time) was "S0FT 0N CR1ME lolololol" and how we need to be more like Singapore and ban bubble gum and flushing toilets.

I remember around 1994 a letter to the Kentucky Post by someone complaining that the paper didn't endorse their candidate. The letter went on and on against "Mr. Editor." But the newspaper added an editor's note below it that said, "The editor of The Kentucky Post is not a 'Mr.'"

Up until the 1990's, papers would get numerous letters and really had to pick and choose what got published, and edited down some letters so they would fit.  In the 2000's, it appeared that anyone who submitted a letter got it published, including those that rambled on, had serious factual errors, etc.  Today, it's common for the Opinion section to go without any letters especially at the smaller papers, since so few are written to the paper anymore.

[bandit957]

Up until the 1990's, papers would get numerous letters and really had to pick and choose what got published, and edited down some letters so they would fit.  In the 2000's, it appeared that anyone who submitted a letter got it published, including those that rambled on, had serious factual errors, etc.  Today, it's common for the Opinion section to go without any letters especially at the smaller papers, since so few are written to the paper anymore.

I think a lot of this is because people really don't even read printed newspapers anymore. They read everything online.

Newspapers really did create a lot of physical clutter, so this shouldn't be too surprising. Newspapers probably were the biggest contributor to clutter in people's homes.

But I remember as a teenager in the late '80s seeing some really hilarious letters to the local paper, which I cut out and saved for years. Usually it was someone ranting about something. I'd entertain people by reading the letter aloud in a voice that sounded sort of like Reverend Lovejoy of 'The Simpsons'.

[vdeane]

I think it's interesting that anonymity is considered to be the reason that people act the way they do in comments sections, when it's actually been debunked: http://qz.com/741933/internet-trolls-are-even-more-hostile-when-theyre-using-their-real-names-a-study-finds/

[ZLoth]

I've been on forums in one fashion or another since 1990, whether it be dial-up BBSes, Fidonet (or, as some people called it, Fight-o-net), online forums such as DBSTalk, and online comments. The biggest problem is that people can hide behind their anonymous handles and say things that they wouldn't dare say in real life. When I was a moderator for several Fidonet boards related to Star Trek, the number one rule was "BE POLITE! Remember, people do judge you by what you say AND how you say it!" This was transferred over to when I was a moderator of DBSTalk back around 2003-2006 as "BE POLITE! Remember, people do judge you by the way you post AND how you post."

I also look at some of the comments on the major online news portals, and I sometimes wonder if some of the posters are actually employed by people of a particular point of view (either left or right), and their entire job is to make extremely biased posts to the point of "Astroturfing" (the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant(s)). It used to be that I could publically disagree with someone online, and then I would buy that person a drink in real life. Now, if I disagree with a particular point of view, I must be either a demon or the village idiot, and must be not only be humiliated online, but completely demonized. The end result is that many posters get extremely frustrated and STFU (Shut The *BLEEP* Up). That's a bad thing.

[bandit957]

I also look at some of the comments on the major online news portals, and I sometimes wonder if some of the posters are actually employed by people of a particular point of view (either left or right), and their entire job is to make extremely biased posts to the point of "Astroturfing" (the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant(s)).

Most are paid trolls.

They often repeat the same arguments verbatim. I was involved in a popular movement several years ago, and every news article about it was followed up with comments that people should "get a job." I always replied, "So where's your book?" That shut them up.

When I was a teenager in the late '80s, some of the few places where the extremism that now fills comment sections was considered acceptable was my high school and local BBS's. Back then, you just couldn't talk that way anywhere else and expect not to be treated as a pariah. I think talk radio and the Internet changed that.

[mtantillo]

I kind of liked comments at first, as it provides a window into the minds of what real people think of the news, as opposed to what journalists and government people want us to think about the news. Very often, the journalists put some kind of spin on the article, whereas real people will chime in and say it is a load of crap.

For example, every article about HOT lanes has a positive "congestion reduction" spin in the newspaper, and then you get to the comments and realize that the concept has very little public support.

But then again, I think we've seen from the way our presidential campaign has gone, that populist opinion isn't necessarily the best opinion, and sometimes it is downright depressing knowing what the average Joe really thinks about something.

Obviously it has been pointed out that lobbyists and PACs pay people to write online comments in order to sway public opinion on certain topics. And once the first few comments get posted, most of the rest simply echo the first ones.

[hbelkins]

A number of media outlets in my area have switched from their own comment systems, which allowed anonymous commenting, or Discus, which allows people to use a throwaway AOL or Twitter account, to Facebook commenting, which ostensibly requires using your real name.

Such a switch certainly caused me to cease participating in the Lexington Herald-Leader's political blog, where I used to enjoy trolling liberals under a pseudonym. Using a combination of over-the-top rhetoric and insider information gleaned from elected officials and other political sources, I used to yank their chains fairly regularly, then grab the popcorn and wait for the inevitable reaction. No more. In fact, I removed my place of employment from my Facebook profile because I once made a comment on a news story regarding an elected official whose father's company got a lot of state business, and then was queried by a reporter if I had any inside information or if I was trying to feed them a story from the inside. (I wasn't, I was just making an observation about a slimy politician who got beat last time because he ran a smear campaign against his opponent).

Facebook says it insists that all profiles be a real person, with their real name, but I've seen a lot that are obviously fake. Makes me wonder if I can't create a fake profile to troll the daylights out of the clueless libs who comment on the Herald-Leader's site.

[noelbotevera]

It's amazing of how much of this translates into real life. Thanks to internet memes, people now just repeat them, despite the novelty already having worn off. I can link to MANY sites where the comment section is THIS. Comment sections are already bad, but real life makes comment sections look like really friendly forums.

There's also the people who just make fun of deadly events going on right now and whenever you talk sense into them, they think it's an alien language and just reply with "it's just a prank bro".

[US71]

Facebook says it insists that all profiles be a real person, with their real name, but I've seen a lot that are obviously fake. Makes me wonder if I can't create a fake profile to troll the daylights out of the clueless libs who comment on the Herald-Leader's site.

Until someone flags your profile. Many SCA folks like using their persona names on Facebook, but many are eventually flagged. One person lost her account totally and had to start from scratch.

[74/171FAN]

I think YouTube would not be the same without video creators laughing at how bad many of the comments are.   

I remember hearing that PewDiePie had gotten rid of them on his channel at one point, but he ultimately brought them back at some point at least temporarily. 

[bandit957]

I'm damn sick and tired of lies and memes from comment sections and talk radio being picked up by people in real life. Not long ago, I was at some event, and someone started complaining about some new government policy that wasn't even real. He said he heard it on talk radio.

And it was completely made up. Completely. Someone on talk radio made it up for political purposes.

Nothing corrupts democracy quite like news outlets making up stories to try to sway how people vote.

[freebrickproductions]

WHNT 19 here in Huntsville, AL stopped allowing users to comment on their stories that they post on their website.

[bandit957]

Until someone flags your profile. Many SCA folks like using their persona names on Facebook, but many are eventually flagged. One person lost her account totally and had to start from scratch.

Facebook won't delete the multiple accounts held by paid political trolls, but they deleted a friend of mine because she disagreed with these trolls. Facebook also wouldn't delete those who attacked her because of her presumed ethnicity. (They just presumed her ethnicity based on her last name.)

[bandit957]

I think YouTube would not be the same without video creators laughing at how bad many of the comments are.

One of the most hilarious is when they tell me, "FIX THOSE TEETH!!!" (usually in those exact words in all capitals). They never say how this is to be accomplished. The uproarious thing about it is that they actually think it's something I have control over. Similarly, I had a video about the word 'crest' being a scary word, and someone on another website saw it and said, "Speaking of Crest, he should invest in some."

On the other hand, I don't tolerate people dragging personal vendettas onto my YouTube videos. The bad teeth stuff is funny (usually). Some other things are not.

[OracleUsr]

I got tired of the *##()% on the FB political pages so I unfollowed every one I had and never looked back.  I found I'm looking now at stuff I really like to look at, such as road enthusiast, alumni and lighthouse enthusiast pages.

[bandit957]

The New York Times comment section seems to be much smarter than other publications. Their readers tend to be pretty smart.