I've always heard lots of complaints from decent readers who object to the anonymous comments that used to be left on stories at KansasCity.com. Especially in articles about crime and accidents, particularly those involving teens, the level of racism, character assassination and just-plain cruelty was sometimes unreal. The new design unveiled this week introduces new commenting software, and requires people to sign up for an account with a real e-mail address. It's of course still possible to remain anonymous, but that extra layer of accountability helps on other sites to keep the worst of the worst away.
This is something that all Web sites deal with, of course, but newspaper sites all seem to attract a lot of it. My personal theory is that it's because newspapers try to be all things to all people, and attract a very wide cross-section of users, wheras a lot of other sites are much more niche-minded -- and users there seem to be much more successful at driving off the trolls.
I think the journalists posting need to keep a thick skin about attacks on themselves. I know that's difficult sometimes. (I was called a "useless Apologist/Excuse Maker/Todie and part times sales girl" on a site recently. Ouch.)
But usually the targets of the attacks in story comments were the people involved in the news. No matter the circumstances, commenters interjected race into every crime. Teenagers injured in their cars were labeled reckless, promiscuous and worse.
Requiring people to register hasn't amended human nature overnight -- but it's made people happy to see the level of discourse raised a bit. You can still report offensive posts for a Web editor to evaluate. As always, though, they have a pretty high bar to remove a post, as they should.
One reader called the new policy "a very welcome change that was way too long overdue. You should have had this from the very beginning because the comments ran lots of other people off at the disgusting behavior."
When does this get addressed.
I believe VOR has asked for information and you were going to deal with it.....
http://adastrum.kansascity.com/?q=node/443#comment
Yes, Denise Tiller edited
Yes, Denise Tiller edited the entry to make it correct. These comments aren't really the best place to bring up an accuracy concern with me, though. Send me e-mail whenever you see anything wrong or biased. I don't always make it through everything in the comments.
Your blog.
I prefer to bring this stuff in a public forum, so feel free to delete my comments as you choose. But since VOR had made the request and on multiple times asked for follow up, it seemed to me that this was ignored.
If I'm going to pay an additional $2 a month, and since the paper has been shrinking in quantity, I think I ought to get my money's worth.
Jenniferm, I'm just saying I
Jenniferm, I'm just saying I don't always read all the comments, and that's why, honestly, I didn't get back to VOR's item. I truly forgot about it because it wasn't in my inbox, which is how I organize things. Totally my fault. I dropped the ball.
I'm personally a fan of simply fixing errors online instead of adding a note that it **used** to have a mistake that isn't there any longer. You can disagree with that policy -- I just think the note to say something was wrong but is OK now is redundant and kind of confusing. But I don't knock those sites that do it. I may bring that issue to the main blog.
And jenniferm, the only comments I have ever deleted from this site are a few that have come from a political operative -- not an everyday reader -- who has been harassing me and other people at The Star for years. A while ago, he and another person accused a Star reporter of career-ending misconduct. I initiated a serious investigation, and discovered it was based on black-and-white lies. And so both of them have forfeited their right to be heard in the future. Are you going to keep petting a dog that bit you, or are you going to try to shoo him out of your yard?
I have deleted a handful of posts for the usual reasons: Name-calling or untrue allegations of ethical misconduct. As you see from other comments here, it's hardly like I delete any criticism of myself, much less The Star. To read that person, I'm a "fascist" or a "Stalinist" for trying to maintain a modicum of decency and truthfulness here. Whatever. He's just mad he got caught lying.
Disagree.
Simply fixing an error online without comment to me is very dishonest and frankly isn't very ethical for a newspaper. Yael made a change on one of his posts on voices last week when he insulted east coast people. If it wasn't for the comments, no one would have ever known about it. It strikes directly at his and the Star's credibility. Maybe that doesn't concern you and maybe it should. There is nothing wrong with fessing up to the mistake, owning it, take whatever lumps there are and move on.
As for the Tiller post--the fact that she changed it months later hardly seems okay now. And really her re-wording it without comment or adding sources of her claims should be against the rules.
I keep going back to the same thing. Your product is professional journalism. Whether its newsprint or a blog, it doesn't matter to me.
Derek, either deliberately
Derek, either deliberately or not, you are totally missing the main point here. The main point is Tiller’s unethical act, i.e., her stating an Internet rumor as if it were a fact. If the Star is really serious about ethics, it would issue some sort of statement (perhaps the online equivalent of the corrections on page A-2) acknowledging the breach of ethical standards and apologizing for deliberately ignoring the matter for three months. Frankly, I think the Star is simply hiding behind the “fix” excuse in order to avoid admitting it screwed up.
Guys, I get your point here
Guys, I get your point here -- and I'll write about it.
Jenniferm, thanks for the support.
Here is the language from the infamous Sept. 6 blog entry: "Sarah Palin's oldest son had behavior problems and they got him in the army where he will have the necessary structure and discipline that he needs."
Apparently, here is the language that replaced that sentence: “There have been many reports that Sarah Palin's oldest son has had behavior problems. If there is any truth at all to these rumors, the army will give structure and discipline.”
I say “apparently” because there is no way of knowing for sure. None of the words is italicized to indicate they are new, and there is no note from Tiller or her editor indicating that anything has been changed. A casual reader would have no way of knowing the language that appears there now was not in the original blog entry. So much for transparency in journalism.
Also note that Tiller states “there have been many reports that Sarah Palin's oldest son has had behavior problems.” So, she has now elevated a “rumor” to the status of a “report.” You know, kind of like the rumors about Palin's son have the same status as, oh say, the Warren Report. Report, rumor, what’s the difference, right?
I am reminded of the words Derek gave us in his Nov.19 entry on the Wavy Gravy ice cream recipe scandal: “Among the many dumb things on the Internet, one of the dumbest is how bad information gets propagated just because it's, well, free.” Tiller just decided that using bad information that was free met her journalistic standards. On the bright side, it only took the Star three months to do something (even though the mistake was pointed out on Midwest Voices from the very first day it was posted).
I too like the new system
and I disagree. An apologist you may be, but douche bag is over the top. Obviously every system has its flaws.
Personally, most of the folks running the blogs are very fair minded in their handling of comments. James Hart and Matt Schofield do an excellent job. You and Aaron Barnhart and Midwest Voices are the worst and most self-serving of the bunch.
The nice thing is that now each article can become a blog and so your readers can choose which issues they feel are worthy of discussing. Eliminated are the multiple posts by just a couple of folks posing as many. Accountability is good. You should try it at The Star.
Not it at all
"My personal theory is that it's because newspapers try to be all things to all people, and attract a very wide cross-section of users, wheras a lot of other sites are much more niche-minded -- and users there seem to be much more successful at driving off the trolls."
You're incorrect. The truth is, they hate you, and what your paper stands for. They don't call it the KC Scar, The Red Star, The Fallen Star and a half dozen other names for nothing. You (as in your management) violated the very principals the paper was founded on, which was political neutrality and in the process alienated more than half of your potential subscribers along with countless advertisers.
Your monopoly mentality as a business model is failing you and in the process making people very angry with brain dead authorship from the likes of Lewis Duiguid, Rhonda Lokeman, Mike Hendricks and the gang. The KC Star has replaced KCTV as the gutter dwellers of journalism in KC. Many people take that personal. Especially when they are the butt of jokes because of Star Folks.
As for your attempt to track all your users. Pft, anyone can login as nobugme and the same password, 123456, so you really didn't stop anything but the phony hit count that you can use to draw advertisers.
Derek, you are a douchebag
Just leave the comment boxes open for only those you want to see. Select the little group who don't challenge your stupid ideas & poorly written stories & then you can hold hands & sing kum-bye-yah. I mean, why not just require social security numbers, bank account routing numbers, birth certificates, religious views & voting records? Makes sense, don't it?
Great Step Forward..
... in the promotion of good discussion. I quit reading most of the regular story comments because they were simply inane.
The Star shouldn’t pat
The Star shouldn’t pat itself on the back just yet. The next critical step is to achieve some consistency in the standards applied when removing comments. Easy things, such as removing comments which use the N-word, seem to be fairly consistently performed by the Star’s staff. Beyond that, there isn’t much consistency. A few weeks ago I reported as a violation a comment which fairly explicitly referred to anal sex, and that comment was left intact. At the other extreme, I have read numerous comments in “Faith Walk” which I thought were impolite but fairly tame by today’s standards (things akin to “atheists are slime” or “fundamentalists are slime”), only to return later and find that they had been removed. In short, the Star needs to better communicate to its staff the criterion to use in deleting comments.
VOR, I agree with you that
VOR, I agree with you that they aren't consistent -- mostly because there's more than one person who reviews them. I'll point out those examples to Greg Farmer, the assistant managing editor who oversees that staff. I think the sheer volume of requests they get means that sometimes more attention is paid than others -- which isn't necessarily good reader service.
Next step, I hope, is to allow individual users to simply put some commenters on "ignore." I believe the software allows for that, or will in the future.
ignore button
That's what I'm talkin' about!
Big mistake
to hide from the opinions of others who disagree with you. Isn't it the purpose of public discussion to foster such dialog? Certainly there are the trolls, but if they don't formulate an argument then why bother responding?
Maybe they’re overreacting?
I just went to the Faith section to review some of the articles. I noticed that none of them allow reader comments. Have the people in charge of the Faith section made a decision not to allow comments? If that is the case, that is an awful decision (even worse than their blatant ageism in not allowing Faith Walk columnists to be over 45). They should give the new registration process time to work before they do something as draconian as pulling the plug on comments.
A welcome change.
Blog-like, even.
Reader comments
Thank you for this change in policy. I reported many outrageous comments for removal, but felt that there should have been a way to stop them from ever being posted at all. I enjoy reading thoughtful, even thought-provoking comments, but many were simply posted for the shock value.
I think you're absolutely
I think you're absolutely right. A lot of people get a very strange thrill out of being as outrageously offensive as possible.