Would Political-News Websites Be Better Without Comments?

Please answer in the comments below.

National Journal
Brian Resnick
See more stories about...
Brian Resnick
Sept. 24, 2013, 11:55 a.m.

It was a Sat­urday morn­ing, I was on duty, and Na­tion­al Journ­al had a story on Janet Na­pol­it­ano that was picked up across the Web. Un­leash the trolls.

For about an hour, I de­leted com­ment after com­ment on the then-Home­land Se­cur­ity sec­ret­ary that used every anti-gay epi­thet ima­gin­able, and some not-so ima­gin­able. (Na­pol­it­ano has nev­er com­men­ted on her sexu­al ori­ent­a­tion.) Very little of the con­ver­sa­tion was rel­ev­ant to the art­icle — a short pickup on a rev­el­a­tion that she does not use e-mail. What does that have to do with her ap­pear­ance or ori­ent­a­tion? Na­pol­it­ano was a po­lar­iz­ing fig­ure, worthy of de­bate, but not in these terms.

Grip­ing over com­ments isn’t any­thing new in me­dia, but few sites have yet to re­solve the prob­lem. Na­tion­al Journ­al‘s sis­ter site Quartz has just pi­on­eered an an­nota­tion fea­ture, which lets read­ers leave com­ments on in­di­vidu­al para­graphs. Good com­menters are en­dorsed, bad thoughts are kicked off. Gawker like­wise has spurred ef­forts to get com­menters more in­volved with the ma­ter­i­al by al­low­ing users to reb­log stor­ies with com­ment­ary. The idea be­hind both of these ef­forts is to lit­er­ally lift the com­ments out of the gut­ter and per­haps, be­cause they are more prom­in­ent on the page, the user will think through their thoughts a little more care­fully.

In either case, it takes a lot of ef­fort, and some bad com­ments are sure to still get through. At The At­lantic, an­oth­er NJ sis­ter pub­lic­a­tion, Bob Cohn, the top ed­it­or of the web­site, says it just takes man­power to do­mest­ic­ate the com­ment sec­tions. “Writers or ed­it­ors have to jump in­to the con­ver­sa­tion to keep it on track, or to mete out justice by re­mov­ing com­ments or even ban­ning the worst of­fend­ers,” he writes.

Which sounds great, un­til you have to de­lete hun­dreds of com­ments in a go.

And then there’s the oth­er side to it. Com­ments are con­tent on the site, con­tent that the site im­pli­citly ap­proves by al­low­ing it to stay. How does a 100-plus com­ment thread of po­lar­ized, sparsely in­formed re­sponses re­flect on their ad­ja­cent stor­ies?

There’s been some sci­ence on this lately. Moth­er Jones re­ports on re­cent re­search in­to trolling, and it boils down to this: Po­lar­ized com­ments po­lar­ize the read­er­ship. “It ap­peared that push­ing people’s emo­tion­al but­tons, through derog­at­ory com­ments, made them double down on their preex­ist­ing be­liefs,” Moth­er Jones ex­plained. So in­stead of act­ing as a salon to grow pub­lic un­der­stand­ing of a sub­ject and to re­con­cile con­flicts, com­ment boards can do a dis­ser­vice to the journ­al­ism they un­der­lie. (And it’s not like the journ­al­ism is ever without flaws. There are le­git­im­ate reas­ons to ques­tion an au­thor on sources or meth­ods or facts.)

Today, Pop­u­lar Sci­ence has de­cided to opt out of com­ments al­to­geth­er, writ­ing that “com­menters shape pub­lic opin­ion; pub­lic opin­ion shapes pub­lic policy; pub­lic policy shapes how and wheth­er and what re­search gets fun­ded — you start to see why we feel com­pelled to hit the ‘off’ switch.”

Ba­sic­ally, they’re say­ing that if the com­ments don’t fur­ther the in­ten­ded goal of journ­al­ism — in­form­ing the pub­lic in an in­tel­lec­tu­ally hon­est way — than why have them? It strikes a sim­il­ar tone to the de­bate over “false equi­val­ence,” the me­dia’s tend­ency to give both sides of an ar­gu­ment equal mer­it, without con­sid­er­ing that one side might be cat­egor­ic­ally wrong. One role of the me­dia is to be a dam to mis­in­form­a­tion, right? Pop­u­lar Sci­ence said com­ments are bad for sci­ence. Maybe they are bad for polit­ics, too.

This is tricky for me­dia or­gan­iz­a­tions, which are huge fans of the First Amend­ment. Cen­sor­ing the com­ments can there­fore seem hy­po­crit­ic­al. And I know that when I write, I do so with the un­der­stand­ing that my word is cer­tainly not the last on the top­ic. There has to be a way to do it bet­ter. In a re­cent piece in The New York Times magazine, Mi­chael Erard says that we need to re­think “the re­la­tion­ship between cre­at­ors and com­menters in more fun­da­ment­al ways.”

So, brave com­menters of Na­tion­al Journ­al, I have a chal­lenge for you. How can we make bet­ter com­ments on polit­ic­al-news sites? Yes, I know I just spent the last few para­graphs de­grad­ing you, but let’s have some op­tim­ism. If there is a pleas­ant com­ment­ing ex­per­i­ence on the In­ter­net, where is it? And how can we foster great­er un­der­stand­ing on a top­ic by en­ga­ging all of you?

What We're Following See More »
ON GUN RIGHTS
Trump Jr. Meeting with GOP Members
1 minutes ago
THE LATEST
FLOPPY DISKS
US Nukes Rely on Decades-Old Tech
3 minutes ago
THE DETAILS
‘NO BASIS IN LAW’
Eleven States Sue Administration Over Transgender Bathroom Access
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

The great restroom war of 2016 continues apace, as eleven states have sued the Obama administration in federal court, claiming its federal guidance on how schools should accommodate transgender students "has no basis in law." "The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The lawsuit argues that the federal government has worked to turn workplaces and schools 'into laboratories for a massive social experiment.'"

Source:
NEXT STOP: THE FLOOR
Puerto Rico Debt Bill Passes House Committee
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

By a 29-10 vote, the House Natural Resources Committee today passed the bill to allow Puerto Rico to restructure its $70 billion in debt. The legislation "would establish an oversight board to help the commonwealth restructure its un-payable debt and craft an economic recovery plan."

Source:
WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOMINATION
Wyden Bill Would Make Nominees’ Tax Disclosures Mandatory
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Though every major party nominee since 1976 has released his tax returns while running for president, the practice has never been required by law. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) wants to change that. The senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, which handles tax issues, introduced a bill on Wednesday that would force presidential candidates to release their most recent tax returns. The Presidential Tax Transparency Act, as the bill is called, would require candidates to make their latest three years of tax returns public no later than 15 days after becoming the nominee."

Source:
×