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?

MOST READ
What We're Following See More »
FIRST WOMAN NOMINATED BY MAJOR PARTY
Hillary Clinton Accepts the Democratic Nomination for President
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"It is with humility, determination, and boundless confidence in America’s promise that I accept your nomination for president," said Hillary Clinton in becoming the first woman to accept a nomination for president from a major party. Clinton gave a wide-ranging address, both criticizing Donald Trump and speaking of what she has done in the past and hopes to do in the future. "He's taken the Republican party a long way, from morning in America to midnight in America," Clinton said of Trump. However, most of her speech focused instead on the work she has done and the work she hopes to do as president. "I will be a president of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. For the struggling, the striving, the successful," she said. "For those who vote for me and for those who don't. For all Americans together."

COUNTER-CHANTS AT THE READY
Protesters Make Good on Threat to Disrupt Speech
5 hours ago
THE LATEST

Supporters of Bernie Sanders promised to walk out, turn their backs, or disrupt Hillary Clinton's speech tonight, and they made good immediately, with an outburst almost as soon as Clinton began her speech. But her supporters, armed with a handy counter-chant cheat sheet distributed by the campaign, immediately began drowning them out with chants of "Hillary, Hillary!"

SUFFOLK POLL
New Survey Shows Clinton Up 9 in Pennsylvania
13 hours ago
THE LATEST

If a new poll is to be believed, Hillary Clinton has a big lead in the all-important swing state of Pennsylvania. A new Suffolk University survey shows her ahead of Donald Trump, 50%-41%. In a four-way race, she maintains her nine-point lead, 46%-37%. "Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in the past six presidential elections, going back to Bill Clinton’s first win in 1992. Yet it is a rust belt state that could be in play, as indicated by recent general-election polling showing a close race."

Source:
THREE NIGHTS RUNNING
Democrats Beat Republicans in Convention Ratings So Far
14 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Wednesday was the third night in a row that the Democratic convention enjoyed a ratings win over the Republican convention last week. Which might have prompted a fundraising email from Donald Trump exhorting supporters not to watch. "Unless you want to be lied to, belittled, and attacked for your beliefs, don't watch Hillary's DNC speech tonight," the email read. "Instead, help Donald Trump hold her accountable, call out her lies and fight back against her nasty attacks."

Source:
SHIFT FROM ROMNEY’S NUMBERS
Catholics, Highly Educated Moving Toward Dems
18 hours ago
THE LATEST

Catholics who attend mass at least weekly have increased their support of the Democratic nominee by 22 points, relative to 2012, when devout Catholics backed Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, a Morning Consult poll shows that those voters with advanced degrees prefer Hillary Clinton, 51%-34%. Which, we suppose, makes the ideal Clinton voter a Catholic with a PhD in divinity.

×