Via cyberjournalist.net, there’s this fascinating online chat with New York Times digital editor Jim Roberts. Roberts discusses a lot of things, but one thing that should be of interest to college media folks is the discussion about reader comments (something we’ve discussed previously).
The first thing that readers should know is that unlike some other news sites, we review every single comment that readers send in. We have considered trying software that filters profanity or doing what other sites do and allowing readers to flag objectionable comments. But so far we have not found anything that substitutes for having trained editors or news assistants read each one to make sure it is suitable for publication.
So, what is suitable? Well, we do want to know what people think, and we grant our readers a degree of leeway in criticizing newsmakers and in finding fault with how we present the news. But we draw the line in these ways:
1.) No profanity. No obscenity. No asterisks that take the place of letters in objectionable words.
2.) No name calling or insults. I don’t like it when I see the words “idiot” or “moron” or “fascist.” I can be somewhat tolerant of harsh criticism of public officials, but I am super-aggressive in deleting comments in which other commenters are being attacked. And while I don’t mind criticism of The New York Times, personal attacks on our reporters won’t be tolerated. And forget about ethnic, racial, religious or sexual slurs. Finally, try not to dominate the conversation so that other people have the opportunity to express their opinions even if they disagree with yours.
3.) Stay on point. Comments that stray from the topic are pointless and will be bounced. And we tend to set the bar even higher when we have a huge flow on a certain subject and some of the sentiments seem repetitive.
4.) Don’t bother sending press releases.
5.) Don’t rage and don’t SHOUT. Lot’s of readers seem to think that UPPERCASE comments are more effective in getting their points across. We prefer a more tempered conversation.
6.) Please use your real name. We don’t require this but we’d like to know who you are. If you sign your name Bill Clinton or Frank Zappa, we’ll in all likelihood delete it, unless we’re certain you’re the former president or the reincarnated Mother of Invention.
Since Kate deals with political issues, it’s worth taking a second to mention one specific problem we have in that area. We’re constantly on the lookout for sock puppets and aliases. If you’re working for a candidate, tell us. Your comment could still be valid and worthy of being published. But if you mislead us, forget it.
A couple of final notes. We’re not perfect; on more than one occasion we’ve let bad things slip through. Readers can help us by drawing attention to any comments that seem to cross the lines as I’ve spelled them out above. We also don’t have a huge squad of people moderating the comments. It takes time to go through them all, and it’s not unusual for comments to sit for an hour or more awaiting approval. And we have even fewer people doing it at night and on weekends. So, please be patient.
I’m on record as supporting something I’ll call “passive moderation,” but it’s nice to see the Times reveal their policy. I don’t necessarily agree that it’s the best way, but they’ve obviously put a lot of thought into their approach. This week, I actually used the “flag as offensive” button on Washingtonpost.com, and it was nice to feel like I was a part of the community, keeping the conversation going forward instead of getting mired in personal attacks.
0 Comments on “NYT editor talks comments”
Leave a Comment