For those who aren’t aware of the case, the Washington Post’s online division experienced firsthand the curse of interactivity recently. A report on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer lays out the details and features an interview with washingtonpost.com executive editor Jim Brady. #

Here’s part of Brady’s response: #

I think basic rules of decency is what we’re looking for: No profanity, no personal attacks. Don’t pose as somebody else when you put your name on the site. Just follow the basic rules, and if you follow those basic rules, you can attack the Post and its journalism as much as you’d like. We’re just asking you to try and stay civil and because a lot of people want to participate in civil debates, and the minute they see name calling, they think, why am I here, I’m just going to go to somewhere else. #

And we want The Washington Post Web site to be a place where people will have a conversation that discusses facts and doesn’t, you know, disintegrate into name calling and baiting in a sense. #

Journalism Professor Jay Rosen has an interview with Brady as well, and an extensive round-up of other bloggers who commented on the issue in this weblog post . #

How is the Post’s experience relevant to college media? Given the often shaky nature of student press rights, will interactivity invite more meddling by campus administrators? #

I know that some college news sites have experimented with online forums (mostly unmoderated). Should blog comments be handled the same way? Should journalists respond to readers in the comments to a weblog post? What benefit is gained from allowing public comment on news stories? What costs? #

Print Friendly