For decades, newspaper readers who wanted to comment on the news had one option: Write a letter to the editor and wait. These letters had to be signed and were always reviewed. With luck, the reader's comments might appear in the newspaper days after the story that evoked the response.
The internet has transformed that process, and now readers of almost every newspaper, from the New York Times to the Portland Oregonian, can comment on news stories online, anonymously and unedited, in real time.
Story commenting has become hugely popular. In a report about story commenting published in the Lawrence Kansas World, the newspaper notes that its online stories receive 20,000 comments per month. However, story comments can range anywhere from lively, thoughtful discussions of the issue of the day to racist, off-topic rants that critics argue reflect poorly on the newspaper as well as the anonymous author. As a result, opinions are sharply divided over whether this new technology has improved or harmed public discourse and news reporting.
The Poynter Institute reports that some newspapers have restricted or even turned off story comments because of uncivil online discourse. For example, the Star Tribune in Minneapolis has identified several categories of stories - crime stories, racially sensitive stories, and stories about gays, to name a few - where comments aren't permitted based on previous experiences with "flame" posters. The Grand Island Independent turned off reader comments entirely. The Boston Globe published an op-ed piece entitled: "Got a comment? Keep it to yourself.
These critics complain that anonymous commenting allows uninformed readers to degrade discourse and the news organization’s image. But to the extent that there are uninformed readers, technology is not to blame. Those readers were just as uninformed when reading the print edition of the newspaper. All technology did was enable them to make their views public.
Critics also complain that the anonymity of online story comments encourages uncivil discourse. To be sure, news story comments can degenerate into playground-like name-calling at times. However, anonymity enables readers to express opinions they might hesitate to honestly express if they were publicly identified. In its report on the commenting controversy, the Lawrence, Kansas World noted that some posters said they would fear retribution for speaking their minds if their name was publicized, and others noted concerns for their privacy in the online sphere. Ironically, journalists themselves have been willing to go to jail to protect the anonymity of sources who fear retribution for speaking their views publicly.
Thurlow et al (2008) note that it's too simplistic to blame technology for uncivil online discourse. Critics who wish to turn back technology and unplug public comments are guilty of technological determinism. In reality, people have behaved rudely to others long before the internet. What is racist graffiti if not anonymous hate speech in the pre-internet world? How many of us have known otherwise polite people who turn into road raging drivers when encased anonymously inside their cars during the rush hour commute?
Neil Postman (1998) argued that every new technology creates winners and losers. In the old days of newspapers, editors had all the power and readers had none. Editors decided what would be in the newspaper, and readers could only passively read it. The internet has transformed that power relationship. Online commenting technology has given readers a voice and shifted power out of the hands of editors. Postman’s theory of technology winners and losers may be the best explanation for why a survey by the Associated Press Managing Editors of newspaper editors and readers found that 64 percent of editors opposed anonymous comments, while the majority of readers favored them.
Rather than try to turn back technology, online editors should look for ways to utilize both technology and basic communication tools to encourage constructive dialogue and discourage uncivil speech. Kurt Greenbaum, Director of Social Media for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, recommends starting with clearly posted guidelines. Editors must then aggressively review and remove posts that violate those guidelines. Those are just common-sense communication principles applied to this new medium. Technology can also help. Greenbaum notes that web sites like Digg.com and slashdot.org have extra commenting features that enable readers to rank and sort comments, elevating "quality" comments. 
The solution to managing comments on news stories is not unlike the problem of getting kids to play nice at the playground. The simple rule we all learned in school is that every playground has its rules and, as long as the kids obey the rules and play nice, they can stay and have fun with all the other kids. The internet is just a different playground.
References:
Bailey, D. (2009). Got a comment? Keep it to yourself. Boston Globe. Retrieved on September 12, 2009 from http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/15/got_a_comment_keep_it_to_yourself/
Fleming, K. (2008). Online Journalism Credibility. Associated Press Managing Editors. Retrieved on September 12, 2009, from http://www.apme.com/credibility/online/summary.shtml
Greenbaum, K. (2009). Seven news story comment guidelines worth looking at. Retrieved on September 12, 2009, from http://www.igreenbaum.com/2009/01/7-news-story-comment-guidelines-worth-looking-at/
Hittle, S. (2009). In the world of online comments, there are plenty of opinions, but few names. Lawrence Kansas World. Retrieved on September 12, 2009 from http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/jul/23/plenty-opinions-few-names/
Mitchell, B. (2009). Dialogue or diatribe? Poynter Institute. Retrieved on September 12, 2009 from http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=103&aid=123290
Postman, N. (1998). Five things we need to know about technological change. Denver, CO. Speech.
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L. & Tomic, A. (2008). Computer mediated communication: Social interaction and the Internet. London: Sage Publications LTD.
No comments:
Post a Comment