Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Thing is, when comments first became a "thing," every lowly sports writer I know expressed disdain and disgust and said these things can be mean, cruel and yes, libelous. And the suits got upset and said it was one of the keys to the future of journalism and comments were here to stay. They said, "Maybe you should engage these people. Maybe they are right about you with their concerns." Gee thanks for the support, suits. Now, years later, comments have died years before the official death of newspapers. Yet those suits remain unapologetic and rich and just move on to nodding in agreement with upper management about all their bad ideas. Here's an idea: Hire some efficient salespeople, not the dregs of the sales world (my apologies to those sales people who actually are hard working and effective; Fredrick realizes there are some of you out there).A lot of papers made this move a long time ago. If you knew how much time newsrooms were having to put into monitoring the comments on their sites and the fake accounts trolls would register, you'd understand why. We did it here, and it hasn't hurt traffic in the slightest. The people who still want to comment just migrated over to Facebook and post there, which has actually been much easier to deal with.
I'm curious. Given that web reader comments were and are an absolute cesspool, why does that leave no reason to visit the site?NJ.com at least, haven't looked at others. That officially leaves no reason to visit the site, ever. And I began my career at the Star-Ledger.
I'm curious. Given that web reader comments were and are an absolute cesspool, why does that leave no reason to visit the site?