"Comments" section for stories: Why are they allowed?

OK, Singapore, I agree with you there. Hire people to delete the comments, and not just because of lawsuits, because of having a quality product.

Would letters saying the dead "deserved it" be on letters to the editor pages? No. Why should they be on the newspaper's official website?

 

You have to stop equating the two. It's a different world, with different rules.

It has as much in common with the editorial page as a columnist's personal email back-and-forth has to do with what he or she files every couple of days.

And they shouldn't have to hire anyone. Webmasters should be able to handle the workload, and I wonder how much laziness and making excuses comes into play.

 

Why shouldn't I equate the two? It's owned by the newspaper. My guess is if they removed the comments section you'd lose the psycho-nut jobs, then people would go back to reading stories online.

 

Just be sure to send a follow-up email to all the print-side people at the newspaper whose jobs you cost them when the online advertising falls off. Because that's who will lose a job.

 

Page views. Page views. Page views. People like trash news, trainwreck comment arguments, pets and photo galleries of borderline soft porn. I've seen it start to dictate coverage paper-wide. As long as execs are on the quest for knockout page view numbers to send back up the chain of command, I'd say get used to it.

 

Most of the print-side people would like the comments to die a quick death.

 

Yeah, Webmasters are typically the laziest people in the newsroom. :

Its being new does not automatically make something better.

And the line of reasoning that "well, it's just one libelous comment; as long as you catch the others, no one will be upset" seems akin to saying that it's OK if one libelous story makes it through as long as you catch all the others.

There are curbs that have a more dramatic falloff than is possible in most newspapers' online advertising.

Except what's in that personal e-mail isn't disseminated publicly, is it?

 

That is terrible.

 

I think a great story would be to go interview a handful of folks who are always spouting off on message boards. Do a story on what they do, take a photo, etc.

 

Love Ace's idea ... still more dirt-bag posts ridiculing the death of the teacher and The Idaho Statesman won't edit it or delete posts. We are 24 hours after the fact and the newspaper just lets it roll. I wonder if these dumb-a$$ advertisers know where they're putting their money. There's some bad radio out there, but if someone were to call in ridiculing a local death, they would be cut off. Newspapers let it roll because of more "hits."

Why not just become a porn magazine then? Your readership will skyrocket, your cyber-hits will go through the roof. Journalism be damned. If it's all about hits, just go into cyber-porn.

 

A name, phone number, email and address should be required for comments. People will hold back if their name is actually out there.

 

Correct Jake and Elwood, a simple registration with a verified name and phone number -- which will take extra time to check -- would clean out the slime. Why not do that? And then put a note at the top that the comments may be used for letters to the editor of the print edition. We'll see how the cowards react then.

But the paper refuses to clean it up, claiming it is not "their content." It is, it's on their site.