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 »
"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."
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!"
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."
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."
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.