When posed the question, “Should reputable news agencies
incorporate comment forums attached to news stories?”,
my immediate response
was ‘yes.’ However, I quickly recognized that my opinion wasn’t very
informed…
When
I considered this further, I decided I would need to investigate some key
factors:
· First,
not being a regular newspaper reader, I wasn’t sure if the papers that I
consider to be “reputable” even have online presences;
· Furthermore,
I figured that I should review how online comments are currently being handled,
so I could gauge if I think they are effective; and last
· I would
need to ascertain how I think the details should flow, like if the journalists
should participate in the comment threads, and what guidelines should be in
force for the “commenters.”
“Reputable Newspapers” with Online Presences
What
does it mean to be a reputable newspaper? For me, first and foremost, the
journalists have a history have reporting accurate and detailed facts, while
resisting the urge to add commentaries. Additionally, their stories are
objective and relevant. And while newer news agencies could meet this
criterion, older newspapers should be more revered if they have practiced these
standards consistently. It’s one thing to publish sound new articles, but
it’s another thing to do so repeatedly over time.
So
who are these reputable news agencies, and do they have online presences?
My list of most respected new agencies includes the New York Times, the Wall
Street Journal, and the Economist. Like most news agencies, all three
have joined the digital era- meaning they each have a presence online.
[Note: The Pew Research Center advises that a majority of readers report that
they still read the news in print- not online; but this means readers would
have to write letters to the agencies to share their comments, which is not the
topic of this post….. (Barthel, 2015)]
Can You Comment?
In
reviewing how comments are currently handled by my three media moguls, I
discovered that I couldn’t locate the comment section for the NY Times (thus,
I’m assuming it doesn’t exist), but I did find one for the Economist- thank you
very much, Economist Group! (And as I mentioned previously, I was banned from
accessing the WSJ, because I didn’t want to spend money subscribing just to
take a peek…..)
Thus,
focusing on the Economist, I selected an article titled, “Worse than Clouseau:
When Egypt investigates tragedy, don’t expect results (The Economist,
2015). At the bottom, there was a link to connect you to their comment
page. Upon doing so, I found that there were 37 comments to this
apparently controversial article. The harshest word I read was “sissies,”
but tempers were certainly evident. In fact, one commenter wrote,
“I’ve
been reading the Economist since well before they had an online version.
I’ve found that this online format brings out people who seem to lack
education, i.e. trolls are just smart enough to find a website and spout out
their ignorant thoughts “(the Economist, 2015, Comments).
Who
is allowed to post these comments? The website advises that “The
Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of
other readers (the Economist, 2015). They also post that you are allowed
to share up to 5,000 characters. Then, they invite you to follow the link to
read their comments policy, which is a subset of their Terms of Use, called
User-Created Content. Here, they spell out that you cannot be hateful,
abusive or libelous. You’re responsible for your content, which you
cannot post if it’s obscene or copyrighted. You must also post in
English; and you must follow several other paragraphs of rules.
In
this study article, the author was not named, so I wouldn’t know if he/she
participated in the comments. Furthermore, it appears that you can post
comments as a guest or by using a pseudonym.
What’s My Conclusion Regarding Comments?
I
initially thought that, 1) comments should be allowed; 2) the comments should
be separate from the articles; 3) the journalists should/could comment if they
wanted; and 4) anyone could add a comment, even anonymously. And, my view
is still the same.
Comments
should be allowed, because when readers comment, there is the potential that
they can correct errors, add insight, or add different perspectives. Comments
that do not follow this spirit should be scrubbed from the comment chain, as
they hold little, or no, value.
However,
these comments should be separate from the article itself, as to protect its
integrity. The comments should be housed on a separate page.
Keeping in mind the nature of the comments I would allow, by accessing this
page, the readers could potentially be, in effect, verifying what they have
read by reading the additional comments.
The
journalist who wrote the article should be welcomed to participate in the
comment stream. They may want to defend a statement, clarify the
information presented, explain how they gained the data, or respond to the
comments of others.
And
last, everyone who is interested should be invited to participate, regardless
of the disclosure of identity. Keep in mind, useless, tasteless, and
irrelevant comments are being scrubbed from the stream. (Note: this would
not mean that the agency would remove comments just because they are
contradictory to their ideas, or because they have not been verified.)
This
is how I would design the comments for news agencies. Any comments??????
References
Barthel, M. (2015).
Newspapers: Fact sheet. Pew Research Center- Journalism &
Media.
Retrieved from: http://www.journalism.org/2015/04/29/newspapers-fact-sheet/
The Economist (2016). Worse
than Clouseau: When Egypt investigates tragedy, don’t
expect
results. Retrieved from: http://www.economist.com/node/21699716/comments#comments
