On Posts, Comments and Moderation
May 13th, 2008 | by Brad King |Here is a really insightful piece about how newspapers should handle reader comments and discussion boards — particularly for sensitive stories.
It’s not a piece that comes with any answers, but it certainly brings up mainly salient points: how do you deal with comments when a child has been killed, how do you make sure you aren’t posting factually irrelevant information and how do you verify people are who they say they are.
The problem I have (not with the piece, but with the idea of moderating comments) is that the decision to moderate discussions is oftentimes made without a complete understanding of the options.
Although to the credit of the piece, there are some ideas that are there, appropriately marked as agree by the writer:
other suggestions for moderating online comments included requiring users to confirm their identities with a credit card (impractical — my comment); grouping registered and anonymous posters separately (really? seems confusing); blocking users who submit too much irrelevant ranting (a given, if possible); disabling the comment function on certain stories (I agree); and depending on users to flag other users’ inappropriate comments (again, I agree).
I wrote a few comments for the piece that I wanted to share here as well.
I think newspapers take the easy road by claiming they are protecting their readers by once again exhibiting some editorial control over the comments. It shows a lack of understanding about two aspects of community building online:
- create a system that is self-contained and self-monitoring; and
- you are a part of the community, not the community in total
I get why the initial reaction is to shut down certain aspects of comments. It’s the natural, human reaction if — as the piece points out — a baby dies.
However, that’s not our job. I always tried to make the argument that if you build the tools correctly for users, you shouldn’t need a take-down policy because the community will do that for you.
The end result is the same for the company, but the net gain for the community is they have a vested ownership in what is happening.
News companies believe that everything must be washed down, scrubbed and cleaned up for the masses — but in doing so, they have inadvertently (or maybe on purpose) treated their audience disrespectfully. They have said: We know better. Shut up and read.
They have arbitrarily removed themselves as the hub of their community. They’ve created a moderated Free Speech Zone. As a newspaper.
Is it ugly at times? Yes. Does it make you wince? Absolutely.
But to paraphrase: show me the person who will defend the absolute right of someone they fundamentally disagree with to speak freely and I’ll show you someone who understands the First Amendment.
That’s the type of media outlet I want.
