Would Political-News Websites Be Better Without Comments?

Please answer in the comments below.

National Journal
Brian Resnick
Add to Briefcase
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 »
Chef Jose Andres Campaigns With Clinton
1 hours ago
White House Weighs in Against Non-Compete Contracts
2 hours ago

"The Obama administration on Tuesday called on U.S. states to ban agreements prohibiting many workers from moving to their employers’ rivals, saying it would lead to a more competitive labor market and faster wage growth. The administration said so-called non-compete agreements interfere with worker mobility and states should consider barring companies from requiring low-wage workers and other employees who are not privy to trade secrets or other special circumstances to sign them."

House Investigators Already Sharpening Their Spears for Clinton
3 hours ago

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz plans to spend "years, come January, probing the record of a President Hillary Clinton." Chaffetz told the Washington Post: “It’s a target-rich environment. Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.”

No Lobbying Clinton’s Transition Team
6 hours ago

Hillary Clinton's transition team has in place strict rules to limit the influence that lobbyists could have "in crafting the nominee’s policy agenda." The move makes it unlikely, at least for now, that Clinton would overturn Obama's executive order limiting the role that lobbyists play in government

Federal Government Employees Giving Money to Clinton
6 hours ago

Federal employees from 14 agencies have given nearly $2 million in campaign donations in the presidential race thus far, and 95 percent of the donations, totaling $1.9 million, have been to the Clinton campaign. Employees at the State Department, which Clinton lead for four years, has given 99 percent of its donations to the Democratic nominee.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.