Message boards/comments on stories

I'm working with a site right now that is trying to be sort of message board/social network for more of the dinner-party set. We had a debate amongst ourselves over this topic when, after posting some stuff about John Amaechi, we got the predictable anti-gay stuff started spewing up. We've had some Ann Coulter fans come on and write noxious love letters to her, as well. I weighed in, as SF did, on the side of leaving things open. What you hope is that you build up enough regulars who decide to self-police the board and keep the craziness to a minimum. If you're seeking opinion, you're going to get some opinions you're not necessarily seeking.

Not that you don't need someone formally policing the boards -- mainly, to root out spam, cancel accounts for those getting way too personal and over the line with other posters, and stuff like that. You do want to make sure people don't get scared off by the trolls.

 

The less we act like newspapers, and the more we try to be something else, the closer we come to joining the chorus of voices telling the public newspapers are losing their relevance.

 

Don't get that one. If newspapers are going to put resources into the online space -- and they have to -- then treating it as simply a newspaper on a computer wouldn't be very smart. They have to take advantage of all the technology has to offer to be relevant, and that includes interactivity.

 

See, I don't necessarily think we have to. There is a market for it. We have that capability. But it does not automatically follow that we have to be in that line of work.

There is also a market for porn. We have the capability to produce it. We choose not to diversify into that line of work.

Seeing as A.) there are limitless options for people to spew elsewhere and B.) I don't believe you make much revenue by hosting such a forum, I don't think it's such a damaging thing as a business to separate ourselves from the fray. They can get unedited spewage anywhere, we can offer something a bit better than that for a more discriminating reader.

 

We started message boards attached to our stories a few months back. We have 30 or 40 regulars who do most of the posting, and most of them quickly devolve into race-baiting, slander of people in the stories, or general idiocy. This is visible online directly underneath every story we write. I\'m not sure what it adds to our equation.
I still think people come to newspapers, be they in print or online, for smart local news they can\'t get elsewhere. That\'s what we offer. That\'s what we do best. Publishing the rantings of anonymous trolls doesn\'t help our cause.

 

yahoo disabling its message board isn't too far removed from the problems wikipedia is experiencing - lawsuits over fraudulent data supplied by "participatory" authors.

personally, i don't read readers' comments on stories - not enough hours in the day

editors exist as gatekeepers of commentary - i still trust them - don't need unfiltered comment - except on this board of course

 

Obviously I agree with Frank. I do not see what we stand to gain except maybe the get-them-on-your-site-and-they-might-stay-there-awhile effect.

 

Gotta have that reader input, man.