Editor’s note: This op-ed is by award-winning journalist Telly Halkias. It first appeared in the Portland Daily Sun.
With news media catching up to the Digital Age, new frontiers to explore are constantly landing on the desks of publishers and editors. The last few years, one of the more challenging phenomena on their slate has been moderating blog comments to articles and opinion pieces – now a de rigueur staple of online editions everywhere.
For the few uninitiated left, a blog (short for Web log) is a space on the Internet where a user can write commentary. There are many types of blogs, but for traditional media outlets they are simply an add-on to an online offering where readers can remark on what they just read.
How to properly monitor such feedback, and when necessary edit or even remove it, has become a hot topic.
Reader commentary came into vogue in the last 15 years when political blogs such as the liberal Huffington Post and the conservative Town Hall drew so much online traffic that they, and others like them, evolved into news organizations in their own right.
Web traffic equals advertising revenue potential, and newspapers – other than a few large conglomerates – were slow to get on the blog bandwagon. But with the IT industry’s continued software development to offer an easy online posting experience, publishers have been quick to add reader comments to their Internet arsenal.
On a daily basis, we’re all trying to keep pace with technology that seems to challenge even the savviest online user.
Â
The question in newsrooms is what to do when citizen feedback gets out of hand. Libelous missives, scatological offerings, unsubstantiated information, and other foibles are just some of the few widespread trends. To compound the matter, many news websites simply require an anonymous screen name for the posting reader, ostensibly to stimulate open commentary.
The idea was solid, but like any new development, it needs tweaking as time passes. As such, two schools of thought now govern the issue. One side favors unfettered free speech; the First Amendment rules supreme. The other side contends that, at a minimum, ad hominem comments are unacceptable, and notes that readers are given far too long a leash to cross that line, too.
Both are valid views. The former not only is in line with our uniquely American way of life, but even more so attracts the largest number of readers to a news site. In turn, this is exactly what publishers must consider when setting ad rates, or wooing advertisers to invest in web displays.
But the latter also has its merits. Foremost among them is that reader feedback in print editions — in the form of letters to the editor – is subject to scrutiny. Submissions must carry verification in the form of name, address and phone number, and can be edited at will for length, mechanics and content.
The overarching question news professionals must answer is this: If print feedback runs this gauntlet, then why don’t online reader comments? How exactly can we police them?
Staffing is one problem, as larger newspapers are finding that they need to hire extra moderators because of the posting volume. Smaller outlets, however, don’t have that luxury – newsroom gatekeepers already wear multiple hats as a matter of course. And always lurking are potential lawsuits as a result of reader input.
Several years ago, the Portland Press-Herald temporarily had to shut down its reader blog comments due to their rising acerbity. They returned with a new software module that facilitated editorial moderating, and subject to further refinement.
Indeed. Today, posters to the Portland Press Herald can only contribute by using a real name social media network such as Facebook to verify identity. In other words, unless you have a fake social media account, anonymity is gone.
These are good first steps. Some larger national publications such as the Wall Street Journal allow only online paid subscribers to comment on story blogs. The by-product there, as with the Portland Press Herald, is transparency: Readers must use their real names when posting. While not solving all civility issues, this approach enables more issues-oriented debate and criticism, as opposed to random mudslinging.
But problems with freedom of expression persist. For example, The New York Daily News does not allow any blog comments on opinion pieces authored by sports columnist Mike Lupica, a longtime lightning rod. What makes Lupica immune to reader feedback?
And there are outlets, such as the Portland Daily Sun, that simply don’t allow reader comments. That may change in the future, but so far has been the answer for many lean news organizations.
On a daily basis, we’re all trying to keep pace with technology that seems to challenge even the savviest online user. While competing in the cutthroat Internet environment, the news media must strike a balance. Business development is their right, but the freedoms we take for granted often run amok in the time it takes us to click a computer mouse.
You may e-mail Telly Halkias at tchalkias@aol.com or follow on Twitter: @TellyHalkias.