At least one Canadian news organization has a new policy moderating how its journalists interact (or don’t) on online comment sections. But what about news readers? Racist, classist and sexist remarks are increasingly dominating spaces once intended to foster discussion and communication amongst fellow readers — never mind the nasty remarks made about reporters. Is it time to ditch the soapbox? Carly Lewis reports.
What was once the Internet’s most attractive feature has become the most repulsive thing about it.
From derogatory slurs to unfounded “facts”, the comment sections on news websites have become, as Christie Blatchford likes to put it, “a refuge for the vicious and illiterate.” While the latter may not be the most accurate term to describe the anonymous individual who leaves poorly constructed and minimally thought out commentary beneath news items online, “uninformed” and “ignorant” are usually not far off.
Since the advent of Web 2.0 in the early to mid-2000s, the Internet has been characterized by the concepts of information sharing and user interaction. Twitter provides a soapbox to anyone who wants one and Facebook’s popularity stems from its ability to connect people who crave a virtual social life. These are precisely the same desires of people who leave comments on news websites: they want to be listened to. Don’t we all?
The problem isn’t the increasingly interactive nature of the Internet; this is what our generation will be remembered for, and this is a good thing. It’s that people take to these forums to anonymously banter and insult. Giving a soapbox to anyone who wants one has its drawbacks, too.
“[This] certainly contributes to the notion that we are all journalists and all opinions are equal,” says Blatchford. “But I think that’s a fraudulent egalitarianism that permeates the world now. I used to occasionally look at comments, but they were just mean-spirited judgments and starkly different from the emails that I got from people. I’m sure there are lovely people out there, but I’m not going to wade through the filth to find them.”
And why should she? Blatchford’s often right-leaning and contentious opinions in The Globe and Mail have inspired anonymous Internet commenters to leave her some pretty nasty remarks, including some about her appearance. It’s easy to be a bully when no one can see who you are.
Eye Weekly‘s assistant online editor, Rob Duffy, says he reads comments left beneath his stories with a smile on his face. “If [commenters] are respectful in disagreeing with what I’ve said, then I’m open to hearing them out. At the end of the day, it’s my story. I’m the journalist and I’ll say whatever I want. And if there are ridiculous potshots at me, then I’ll have a good laugh.”
Journalist’s feelings aside, these potshots are not only directed at the writer or publication, but often at the subject matter of the news. Racist, classist and sexist remarks dominate the spaces intended to foster discussion and communication with fellow readers.
So do we ban people from trying to communicate with others, thereby defeating the entire purpose of the Internet? Make would-be commentators take a crash course on politics and etiquette before letting them speak? Well, no. But many online editors, such as Duffy, believe we should make it mandatory for users to register before they can comment so that they are accountable for what they say.
“It would probably create a better discussion if people had some sort of responsibility for what they were saying,” he says. “Anonymous comments are almost taking an easy way out. It would benefit the goal of having a reasonable discussion, but that’s a responsibility people sometimes don’t want to take.”
As for Blatchford: “I care about freedom of speech and issues related to that, but I don’t care about comments. I don’t think it’s about people finding a voice. I think it’s people in their mom’s basement whacking off and being mean.”
Carly Lewis is a freelance writer and music critic in Toronto. She is working toward her Master’s of Journalism at Ryerson University
[node:ad]
Comment Sections: A Blessing or a Curse?
At least one Canadian news organization has a new policy moderating how its journalists interact (or don’t) on online comment sections. But what about news readers? Racist, classist and sexist remarks are increasingly dominating spaces once intended to foster discussion and communication amongst fellow readers — never mind the nasty remarks made about reporters. Is it time to ditch the soapbox? Carly Lewis reports.
What was once the Internet’s most attractive feature has become the most repulsive thing about it.
From derogatory slurs to unfounded “facts”, the comment sections on news websites have become, as Christie Blatchford likes to put it, “a refuge for the vicious and illiterate.” While the latter may not be the most accurate term to describe the anonymous individual who leaves poorly constructed and minimally thought out commentary beneath news items online, “uninformed” and “ignorant” are usually not far off.
Since the advent of Web 2.0 in the early to mid-2000s, the Internet has been characterized by the concepts of information sharing and user interaction. Twitter provides a soapbox to anyone who wants one and Facebook’s popularity stems from its ability to connect people who crave a virtual social life. These are precisely the same desires of people who leave comments on news websites: they want to be listened to. Don’t we all?
The problem isn’t the increasingly interactive nature of the Internet; this is what our generation will be remembered for, and this is a good thing. It’s that people take to these forums to anonymously banter and insult. Giving a soapbox to anyone who wants one has its drawbacks, too.
“[This] certainly contributes to the notion that we are all journalists and all opinions are equal,” says Blatchford. “But I think that’s a fraudulent egalitarianism that permeates the world now. I used to occasionally look at comments, but they were just mean-spirited judgments and starkly different from the emails that I got from people. I’m sure there are lovely people out there, but I’m not going to wade through the filth to find them.”
And why should she? Blatchford’s often right-leaning and contentious opinions in The Globe and Mail have inspired anonymous Internet commenters to leave her some pretty nasty remarks, including some about her appearance. It’s easy to be a bully when no one can see who you are.
Eye Weekly‘s assistant online editor, Rob Duffy, says he reads comments left beneath his stories with a smile on his face. “If [commenters] are respectful in disagreeing with what I’ve said, then I’m open to hearing them out. At the end of the day, it’s my story. I’m the journalist and I’ll say whatever I want. And if there are ridiculous potshots at me, then I’ll have a good laugh.”
Journalist’s feelings aside, these potshots are not only directed at the writer or publication, but often at the subject matter of the news. Racist, classist and sexist remarks dominate the spaces intended to foster discussion and communication with fellow readers.
So do we ban people from trying to communicate with others, thereby defeating the entire purpose of the Internet? Make would-be commentators take a crash course on politics and etiquette before letting them speak? Well, no. But many online editors, such as Duffy, believe we should make it mandatory for users to register before they can comment so that they are accountable for what they say.
“It would probably create a better discussion if people had some sort of responsibility for what they were saying,” he says. “Anonymous comments are almost taking an easy way out. It would benefit the goal of having a reasonable discussion, but that’s a responsibility people sometimes don’t want to take.”
As for Blatchford: “I care about freedom of speech and issues related to that, but I don’t care about comments. I don’t think it’s about people finding a voice. I think it’s people in their mom’s basement whacking off and being mean.”
Carly Lewis is a freelance writer and music critic in Toronto. She is working toward her Master’s of Journalism at Ryerson University
[node:ad]Lauren McKeon
April 12, 2011
Depending on the publication,
Depending on the publication, if it’s mainstream I read the headline, then very quickly scan the article, and then move to the comments.
If it’s a respected alternative publication I read the entire article carefully and then the comments.
Ultimately, and regardless of the publication, I always read the comments, not all of them, just the comments that make sense. I ignore the rest – hardly even see the nutbars anymore. Seems the sped reding course I took in grade school finally paid off. Duffy has the right attitude.
I am more interested in what an anonymous insider is saying (wikileaks) than I am in the biased reporting that too often emanates from the main. I’m not saying most reporters are biased or corrupt, far from it, but enough of you are so that it makes it hard to believe any of you. You did this to yourself by turning a blind eye to your less-than-ethical colleagues. The comment section is the best tool readers have to call reporters on their B.S.
It’s a new era with mainstream media losing credibility while alternative publications with well managed comment sections fracture the news market even further.
Go ahead Blatchford, axe the comment section, and while you are at it erect a paywall. No one who matters will notice or care. Only the idiot “whack-jobs” in their mothers’ basements will read you. You deserve each other.
Or . . . maybe you could adopt a progressive position like TheTyee.ca and manage your comment section more intelligently and responsibly. I’d rather mine for a few nuggets in the crazy comments than have to try and guess which advertiser or political party is influencing my community’s mainstream reporter, editor, or owner.
Back in the day I agree that it was all about numbers. Surprisingly though, grey hairs in the main still boast of subscription #’s like it’s the Holy Grail. It’s not. Wake up from your afternoon nap boys. I suppose numbers would be important if they weren’t so skewed, and of course if advertising could still float your boat. Tell us how many newspapers you actually sold, not gave away. Today, the smart money is on quality over quantity.
April 18, 2011
I was kind of hoping for a
I was kind of hoping for a little more depth (in the story and the discussion) on this pretty seriously broken part of most news websites. Insulting Christie Blatchford or taking swipes at “grey hairs” doesn’t advance things much.
The Tyee and other sites that might do well tend to be by their very nature communities of interest – and it’s that sense of community that makes self-policing a big part of why commenting works.
News sites, on the other hand, are still broadcasters, trying to appeal to a (usually) geographically defined, but riotously heterogenous audience. It’s different.
I tend to think myself that some verifiable, continuous identity (not necessarily actual id) is critical and that finding a way to reward useful commentary (funny, insightful, critical or supportive) is one piece of the puzzle. There are options available: use Facebook commenting, require paid registration, build a self-operating reward/punishment system a la Slashdot… but I don’t know ANY Canadian news site that’s doing it well. Anyone have any good examples?