Commenting on comments
As expected, a big subject today at the Religion Newswriters Association convention is how print journalists can adapt to a world in which an increasing fraction of our audience (including, obviously, anyone who is reading this post) is reading us on the web. A panel of journalists -- Cathy Grossman of USA Today, Sam Hodges of the Dallas Morning News, and David Waters of WashingtonPost.com, spoke about their different approaches to this problem -- Grossman has successfully persuaded her paper to publish a religion page on its web site, Hodges participates in that paper's group blog about religion, and Waters, the former religion writer for the Commercial Appeal in Memphis, is the editor and producer of On Faith, which is a web collaboration between the Washington Post and Newsweek.
For me, one of the most interesting subjects that came up was that of comments. Grossman was a strong advocate of enabling comments on stories and blogs, because, she said, it keeps readers present longer, and thereby persuades editors, and advertisers, that your beat is worthy of support.
But Waters noted that comments about religion are often ugly -- something I've observed here in my short time blogging. Here's what he said:
"Even Jerry Springer would be ashamed of the comments that we have on our site. They're that bad. Our philosophy is that the web is a platform that we are part of -- it's not ours....We have to abide by the rules of the Web, and the Web rules have always been very democratic, very open, and anonymity is fine...We will remove comments that go over the line, but some really awful comments go on line. I think eventually somebody’s going to get sued for a comment on some site, and we’re going to find out how the courts feel about this.''
Waters observed that at On Faith, they now talk about the three Ms -- Muslims, Mormons, and Moosekillers -- that are most likely to generate discussion, and vitriol. And, he made this observation about the impact of so-called metrics -- the endless measuring of web site traffic -- on journalism.
"When you are measuring and judging your content by clicks, it changes the way you think about what you’re offering. In some ways, that’s good, but it’s also bad...The temptation is to have more posts about things that you know are going to click, which skews your news judgment.''
This is a subject that has received some attention elsewhere. GetReligion's Terry Mattingly weighed in earlier this summer, in a post cheekily titled, "How to avoid comments at GetReligion." An excerpt:
"Here at GetReligion, we are well aware that certain subjects cause more comments than others, including the work of trolls that like to set straw men on fire — thus driving up comment-page statistics. Some cynical readers out there may even believe that this leads to lots and lots of GetReligion writing about clashes between lesbigay Episcopalians and conservative believers in California. If Mormons are involved, that’s even better...We also know how to avoid receiving comments on GetReligion posts and what we have learned, frankly, often makes us depressed. We realize that this is a comment on the nature of cyberspace communities, but all we have to do to avoid comments is write posts that: Praise the work of mainstream journalists. Negative writing inspires more debate; Focus on trends in Judaism, Islam or other faith groups that (in U.S. media) are not all of that powerful or viewed as out of the mainstream; Try to call attention to journalistic issues linked to foreign-news coverage about religion; Openly seek calm, informative feedback from readers about how to solve a journalistic puzzle that really needs to be solved. So if you want to throw cold water on a comments board, all you have do is write a post that praises a mainstream news organization for its insightful coverage of an important event on the other side of the world, while also asking for feedback about the issue that’s involved. Right, that’s the ticket."
In my own brief blogging career, Sarah Palin has been the gift that keeps on giving -- she has generated an astonishing number of comments, from both ends of the political, and theological, spectrum, many of them saturated with incredible hostility directed by the non-religious at the religious and vice versa. And, I must say, four groups in particular seem to draw a huge amount of venom on this blog: Catholics, Evangelicals, Muslims and Scientologists. I've junked all kinds of comments that I have found just beyond the pale -- those that use certain obscenities, of course, but also those in which readers allude to the sexual fantasies they have projected onto Sarah Palin, those in which people express pleasure at the crucifixion of Jesus, and so on. But that still leaves plenty of room for name-calling and a lot of mean-spiritedness, bias, and, arguably, hatred, that, at least to me, is unsettling.
A colleague of mine suggests that the web is self-correcting; one person posts a nasty comment about the Catholic Church, and another posts a comment rebutting the criticism. And there's an element of truth to that. But the tenor of that exchange is often ugly. I haven't yet figured out what it all means -- I don't know what relation the opinions expressed by commenters has to the opinions of our overall readership, and I don't know what fraction of non-commenters even bother reading the comments. A local Episcopal priest e-mailed me yesterday and told me that, upon reading the comments to an item I posted about the local mosque, "I encountered the blogging (comments) about it - reminding me once again why I don't blog or read much blogging. My hair gets on fire too fast - and it would even if I were bald."
Nonetheless, here at the Globe (and many other news organizations are doing the same) we are moving rapidly in the direction of enabling comments on more and more content, as one part of an effort to allow readers more ways to engage with our site. But as news organizations try to find their way in this brave new world, the whole question of what it means to host a conversation seems ripe for a lot more consideration.
As always, and fully aware of the irony here, I'd love to hear your thoughts, so comment away.
(Image above is of the Fremont Troll in Seattle.)
Comment
Permalink
E-mail
I haven't been reading your blog all that long, and it is unusal in that, of all the blogs I read, it is the only one that has prompted me to comment on anything. My experience with online forums (which goes way back to the hallowed days of Fidonet some 20 years ago) is that the bile and vitriol isn't really any different now than in the past. Trolls will always be with us. The secret to withstanding them is, as so many have found out over the years, not to feed them.
I tend to not pay attention to longer posts, especially the vitriolic ones. Ultimately, who has the time and energy to waste? One of the problems with the so-called "new media", as democratic and participatory as it is, is that the sheer volume of the "noise" generated in comments sections undercuts any usefulness they might have in better understanding issues at other than the most basic - position "A" bad - position "B" good - kind of way.
djd said; Trolls will always be with us.
Great way to describe non elite, non college educated forum responders! These people have no business throwing their caveman views in any of the forums.
What we need is the cream of the crop of thinkers to tell us what to think! Average people have no personal achievements to validate any of their opinions.
I mean if you don't have a degree in something than you must not be smart enough to respond to comments in the proper tone and with erudition.
One thing I would never want to be is a troll, you?
djd writes;
The secret to withstanding them is, as so many have found out over the years, not to feed them.
So the forums are not for everyone!
Freedom of speech!, but watch you say!
We need to respect people, even if we do not agree with their religion or politics.
We need to recognize the simple fact that all people have a God-given right to choose for themselves...and bear responsibility for those choices.
I'm also attending the conference and I thought David's comments about not falling into the trap of the three M's was interesting. I think there is definitely a tension between writing what's provocative and writing what you think ought to be written. One of the things I like about your blog is the depth and context of its entries, which I think may help stem the tide (somewhat) of knee-jerk commenters. Blogs are an interesting medium and sometimes, unfortunately, I think they bring out the worst of people, at least when it comes to comments. It's sometimes shocking what people will say when they can hide in cyberspace.
"Average people have no personal achievements to validate any of their opinions."
No, they do--they have average personal achievements, which is why they are interesting to novelists, politicians and heavy-handed satirists who when they spot a living "average" person can't wait to scurry across the street. (This, of course, is in contrast to their worship of theoretical "average" persons, whom they revere and respect.)
Mr. Welch, save it for your Conservative Club meetings. There, you can bask in the idiots' applause for your idiocy.
A definition of troll -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
I blame Bush.
Dave Welch was obviously being sarcastic when he wrote "What we need is the cream of the crop of thinkers to tell us what to think! Average people have no personal achievements to validate any of their opinions."
Sorry DW, but average people DON'T have "personal achievements to validate any of their opinions." If you haven't read the Koran, you have nothing useful to say on Islam. If you haven't read the Bible, you have nothing useful to say about Christianity or Judaism. If you don't know basic facts about the economy, you have nothing to say about the economy. If you don't know biology, you have nothing to say about evolution.
You don't have to have a degree, although the chances of someone having anything useful to say without that level of knowledge is small. But if you want to have "personal achievements to validate your opinions," then switch off the TV and go out and achieve something.
Elitist? Take it to someone who cares. I've decided we need to stop verifying voter ID's and start verifying voter IQ's.
Especially about atheists on the forums. Don't they realize that without a god, they couldn't be known or labeled as atheists? It seems silly to me to base beliefs around something that they refuse to acknowledge exists, yet by refusing it, they are acknowledging it! Ugh. Show me a man that believes in nothing and labels themself similarly, and I would be very interested in the exchange. Otherwise, your religion is good, I like mine better, whatever works etc. etc. Except atheists of course...
One of the things that most web sites don't do well is community building. It's true that the web is open to all and it can be hard to police harmful comments. But there is a reason some on-line communities do well. The secret to their success is to engage the good guys. When someone does post a serious comment, e-mail them directly and thank them for it. Invite them to come. In the beginning, perhaps even recruit them as a moderator. You''ll never eliminate the riif raff, and that's a good thing because they can provide a fresh perspective. But you can build a solid community that isn't just screaming. But it takes effort, more than just trashing a few nasty posts.
I would point out, though, that this has already gone to court once in Michigan, if I recall correctly. The Web site was not held responsible for what someone commented on it.
Politics and religion seem to inspire a bounty of hatred and vitriol.Of anything one could discuss on the web,these two subjects seem to inspire the most intolerance,prejudice and outright hate.
How one balances trying to maintain a modicum of decency versus the right to free speech is simple:hate speech is not protected speech.Maintain a strict policy of deleting anything that meets the legal standards of hate speech,and leave everything else alone,even if it offends.
Of course,that's just my opinion.
I guess I can't find a lot of sympathy for people who assume everyone has a mandate to act like them and then gets indignant and censory when they don't.
The smart thing might have been to look at other sites that discuss religion and find what problems they've encountered. But then religious people are notoriously both naive and thin skinned.
As a general policy, I very seldom read past the first dozen or so posts on any topic, anywhere (excluding blogs, which are strictly read at my discretion anyway). The flame wars and innuendo generally begin after the first dozen comments, which is after the pinheads have something to react to besides the related article.
Many news sites allow commenting on articles... but in a separate forum that is NOT displayed below the article itself. That seems like a good compromise, because blog-style comments really are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to Internet discourse.
Great way to describe non elite, non college educated forum responders! These people have no business throwing their caveman views in any of the forums.
What we need is the cream of the crop of thinkers to tell us what to think! Average people have no personal achievements to validate any of their opinions.
I mean if you don't have a degree in something than you must not be smart enough to respond to comments in the proper tone and with erudition.
One thing I would never want to be is a troll, you?
Posted by Dave Welch September 19, 08 09:44 AM
___
are you serious? If you dont have a degree in something you arent smart enough to comment? Wow, that is one of the most idiotic comments ive ever read. Maybe you shouldnt post .
In response to David Welch's comment, the idea of "not feeding trolls" isn't really a free speech issue. The poster is referring to people who aren't expressing an opinion, which would be ok, but are merely seeking to be as nasty and disruptive as possible. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, so why defend the guys who bring the torches?
In the short term, I agree with the main point of this article - the comments will continue to be sharp and biting, as if spears, hurled from high atop impregnable walls.
But soon - unsure how soon - people will start to see each other as an "us" and no longer a huge faceless jumble of "them". When this occurs, I think things will become more civil.
People are not socialized to the web yet.
Tom
http://www.dare2believe.com
They don't bring out the worst in people, so much as bring out how pathetic a lot of people truly are. You see the same thing on the highways. Funny thing is, you might never realize who they are if you met them face to face.
As for respecting people--well, the problem there is one's definition of respect. Some of my religious buddies don't think it respectful of me to call their deity an imaginary fairy or figment of their imagination. Some of them label that as hate speech. Is it? Really? Or perhaps, just oversensitivity?
Of course, I'll be the first to say that ardent atheists aren't very tolerable of religious folk, either. Both sides speak different languages, in effect, and neither side desires to listen to and understand each other...because, quite frankly, they believe the other side is nuts. So instead, both sides resort to name-calling, belief-bating, logical fallacies of all orders, and outright lies to paint each other in a negative light.
Is it any wonder the blogosphere is dotted with fiery exchanges of insults and poor manners?
Internet + anonymity + audience = complete jerk
I believe the question of the responsibility of the host site re the comments is an imperative one as some people cannot sometimes be trusted to behave in a civil way. In fact, if this were a physical environment and owned the property and you were utilizing it, the owner would be somewhat liable for the behavior of the guests. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that there would be some monitoring of blogs that encourage unedited speech. Even news blogs that promote free speech. Free speech should not be mistaken for libelous slander and that's the problem.
That said, I also realize I can simply scroll down when I don't wish to read someone's bile.
I was very concerned when a reporter expressed to me recently, after writing a very moving piece, that they were afraid after reading blog entries about an article they wrote, they may have been too biased in their reporting on an event they covered. After encouraging the writer, as an editor, I expressed that the people who had chimed in probably had very little experience evaluating this particular piece, they did not weigh it in comparison with other pieces offered on the event, and they were not in a position to judge this veteran writer's word.
My advice was that they stop reading blog entries about their own work, especially when a controversial issue was involved and they were tasked on writing one of the pieces in a package approach.
My two cents.
"Average people have no personal achievements to validate any of their opinions." wow this sounds incredibly dumb, please tell you are not american....americas decisions are made by the "average" person b/c simply its the majorty and if you dont understand maybe...well probably school has failed you terriblely.
You have to moderate comments if you are associated with a news brand. It's that simple. I hire, train and supervise a team of moderators who approve and disapprove comments on news stories on WRAL.com. We have weekly discussions and make the rules as we encounter new issues. Religion is a very hot topic for us. We do not allow bashing, but we do allow differing opinions. And we allow an atheist to chime in about their lack of beliefs just as we allow people of faith to discuss their beliefs. It's tough, but it can be done. You have to realize that it's a moving target, moderating is subjective that not everyone will be happy with the decisions.
Are you seeking comments on the contradictory aspects of your responsibility? That is, responsibility for building clicks conflicts with responsibility to keep your visible demographic from degrading past a certain point. It seems that only a couple of folks have addressed this. If so, you point out that these matters are article-based, rather than site-based. So, presuming you obtain needed funds from advertisers who are interested in traffic, you always have the option of writing articles that attract unappealing comments as well as mild, non-confrontational articles that don't touch on hot-button topics.
That said, I think it would be best if everyone stuck to writing thoughtfully about topics that were of interest to themselves, irregardless of the anticipated response. Each person on the web is responsible for finding their own way of dealing with what we may loftily call degenerate elements. Maybe building some kind of tolerance for or resistance to them will make us stronger. I certainly find no responsibility to aid in that self-correction your colleague told you about; it seems rather like a wasted effort, especially down here in comment-ville.
USERS GENERATED CONTENT IS THE FUTURE. WHO NEEDS REAL JURNALISTS WEN U CAN GET ALL UR CONTENT FROM GOOD HONEST PPL LIKE ME!!
WEEP, FOR I AM THE VOICE OF UR READER AND THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE.
@KCH:
"It seems silly to me to base beliefs around something that they refuse to acknowledge exists, yet by refusing it, they are acknowledging it!"
I'm curious as to why, on a religious site, where the subject is divisive comments, you, as a religious person, would take the opportunity to try to insult people who don't agree with you.
As for your offer, I am a man that doesn't believe in a supreme being and labels himself an atheist, and I would be very interested in having that discussion of why you find atheism so "silly" yet find the belief in an invisible man in the sky that reads your thoughts and controls the world perfectly rational.
I have found that many comments following an article are only loosely based on the article itself. Instead, the blogger connects something in the article to a pre-existing belief or viewpoint that they have, which is either supported or criticized in the article (sometimes only tangentially), and they use that as a jumping-off point. For example, an article concerning a new trend in elementary education might then be followed by comments on how a particular political party has ruined/will save education, or how religious views must be separated from/included in any worthwhile education, etc. In this sense, the articles are not serving to help inform, enlighten, or change a person's viewpoint at all, but are made to fit in to someone's already entrenched beliefs and opinions. These types of posts are regularly followed by harsh rebuttals from people with an opposing view, occasionally interspersed with posts saying that people have missed the point or are off-topic. There seems to be many posters who have closed their minds to accepting any information that conflicts with their beliefs.
I recently retired from a newsroom where enabling readers to comment -- angrily, hatefully -- was actively pursued as something we had to do to remain relevent. To that I say phooey (since what I really want to say would be deleted). If I enable and/or assist in this hateful display, do I bear part of the responsibility for it? I think so. We're growing more and more dedicated to the lowest common denominator, and that scares the screaming bejeezus out of me.
Sean M. says;
Each person on the web is responsible for finding their own way of dealing with what we may loftily call degenerate elements.
Degenerate elements! I feel like the Geico caveman!
We all get the joke.
To the all caps writer, methinks that's what some journals like the National En----- and others thought when they took to the newstands. Not so quick. I do believe there are still some discerning readers, viewers out there who know the difference between the comment section and an article--although I have to admit if we don't get serious about education, that gap will become even more narrow in the future :)
"Openly seek calm, informative feedback... if you want to throw cold water on a comment board." Boring. More engaging is skewering the logic of posters such as #10. The argument, of course, should read "without a "belief" in God," rendering it moot; or misquotes, such as poster #18. Or poster #1 who says a better way of understanding these issues is "position "A" bad - position "B" good." In the context of this article, what is position "A".
Pointing out the absurd is not trolling. The subject here is "what it means for news organizations to host web comments," in particular, religion newswriters. Yet, only posters #22, #24 and #29 really address the issue. Not very productive.
Dave Welch said;
"djd said; Trolls will always be with us.
Great way to describe non elite, non college educated forum responders! These people have no business throwing their caveman views in any of the forums.
What we need is the cream of the crop of thinkers to tell us what to think! Average people have no personal achievements to validate any of their opinions.
I mean if you don't have a degree in something than you must not be smart enough to respond to comments in the proper tone and with erudition.
One thing I would never want to be is a troll, you?"
What a fine example of trolling.
This comment is late - I just came across this posting - but I hope at least Mr. Paulson will read it and take it to heart.
The outrage and disgust people feel toward American Christianity, myself included, is based on (1) outragous and disgusting behavior by far right Christian extremists as well as (2) the unwillingness of other Christians to speak up in rebuttal, either due to fear, denial, or perhaps even latent agreement with their extremist bretheren.
I mean, what response but disgust and outrage *should* an open minded person have when reading the mental illness spewed from Christian fascist Jim Bramlett, a former official at the Christian Broadcasting Network and Campus Crusade for Christ?
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/was-sarah-palin-sent-by-god-to.html
So, to Mr Paulson and all Christians here who would hotly protest, "Well, Jim Bramlett doesn't speak for me," where the heck have you been the last 8-20 years? Where are you and where are the millions of fair-minded Christians openly protesting this perversion of their religion? Where?
As the saying goes, "Sleep near dogs, wake up with fleas." Christians who keep mum for whatever reason, who remain blind deaf and dumb in response to the horrid behavior of right wing political Christian extremists, have no one to blame but themselves when people like me express justified outrage and contempt for the plentiful Christian facsicm behavior in Bush-Rove-Palin America.
A follow-up to Mr. Paulson:
You bemusedly mention Sarah Palin generates a lot of comments...
I urge you to show some chops and blog about exactly what it is Palin believes in.
Max Blumenthal has done yeoman's work exposing the meticulously hidden underbelly of the Christian far right, including an expose on Palin's far right church and the Kenyan pastor who 'protected her from witchcraft' (can't make this stuff up):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/the-witch-hunter-anoints_b_128805.html
Mr. Paulson, I respectfully urge you to show some chops and blog about this expose and Blumenthal's upcoming video.
Or just post about poor Christians who whine are victims of brutal attacks by non-Christians who just don't understand... etc. etc.
Thank you Dave for your succinct comments. As one of the educated elite, I admit that we are not able to lead society. Instead our role should be to stick to our special talents, stay on campus and lead protests, push racial identity, disavow spiritual teachings, and, close down all corporations but Ben and Jerrys.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Blogger
E-mail mpaulson@globe.com.
Articles of Faith on Twitter
views
featured comments
Faith-based gardening: A rose for the popebrowse this blog
by categoryEVENTS
CAUSES
BLOGROLL
Headlines
Media blogs
Media criticism
Politics
Catholicism
Episcopalianism
Evangelicalism
Islam
Judaism
Mormonism
Unitarian Universalism
ALSO OF INTEREST
From our archives
Ma Siss's Place
Benedict visits the US
O'Malley's elevation
The new pope
Pope John Paul II
Parish closings
Catholic church abuse
INside Boston.com