Seattle's Steve Kelley hates anonymous comments

Yeah, but we do it ironically.

 

Steve Kelley after a visit to SportsJournalists.com.

 

The NY Post has Facebook comments, and people regularly post racist, sexist, xenophobic comments under their real names with a link to their Facebook account showing their real jobs. It still astonishes me.

I think it shows remarkable contempt and arrogance to say that all media website comment threads are filled with idiot trolls. The mainstream sites are bound to attract their fair share of d-bags, but it's been my experience that sites tend to attract the caliber of commenters they deserve -- or if it's a local paper/website, it's reflective of the sophistication of that locale. When the NY Times allows comments on their articles, I usually find the discussions to be quite civil.

 

I often read the comments just to see what the psychos are saying. You've got to know what's out there these days, and especially in the cities. So much anger about so many things.

 

I think it shows remarkable contempt and arrogance to assume mainstream sites somehow deserve less than the little blogs you're talking about. Of course niche sites generate more articulate comments. That's a product of market, not quality.

 

If that's how you interpreted my post, I apologize for not being clearer. I meant that mainstream sites are destined to attract their fair share of troll commenters no matter what. Otherwise, I find the level of discourse in comment discussions tends to correlate with the quality and intelligence of the writing, or the general sophistication of the local readership.

 

Newspaper websites attempt to appeal to the community at large. The idiots are part of that. And newspaper websites were what was being discussed. Of course discourse at some level of intelligence can be had without using real names. This thread is an example. But newspaper websites are more or less hopeless.

 

The real problem is that most newspapers don't have the resources to pay for full-time moderators for their comment sections. Comment threads are no different than message boards. If they're unmoderated, they'll inevitably deteriorate into chaos. The Globe and Mail tends to have reasonable discussions in their comment threads because they set clear guidelines and delete comments that violate them. Unfortunately, most newspaper websites can't afford that kind of staffing.

 

Is improving discourse in comments sections even a worthwhile goal, particularly at this point? Does anyone expect substantial conversation in comments under an article at these sites? Haven't the trolls dominated those forums for a decade or more?

We cost ourselves hits with comment enforcements of any tack, especially cheaper ones. Is it worth the loss in hits to provide a gentler form of idiocy?

 

So you're saying we on newspaper sites are now supposed to interact below that eighth-grade level I'd always heard about? Because what you're really advocating is a dumbing-down.

 

I'm saying maybe we should stop trying to turn shit into shit sandwiches.