Second to the loss of revenue, nothing about the internet seems to irritate the old media establishment more than the public’s expectation to participate in discussions about the merits of published work. Thanks to free services like WordPress.com and free publishing packages like Movable Type, open commenting and debate has been a de-facto standard in blogs for many years. Only recently have traditional media sources like the New York Post and the Globe and Mail expanded their online editions to include interactive comment sections with only minimal editing. Traditional columnists, perhaps more used to the lecture format than the open mic, are having trouble getting used to this. The Toronto Star’s Kathy English recently wrote a piece called “Online Comments Lose Civility” that attacks the boorishness found in the Star’s comment section:
In accord with the values set forth by long-time Star publisher Joseph Atkinson, this newspaper has consistently fought for social and economic justice and better lives for those less advantaged.
As a long-time activist for the poor and marginalized of our community, Pat Capponi well understands the Star’s values. So why, she asked me in an email this week, does the Star allow online comments that degrade, stigmatize and add to the burden of the poor?
…
I agree that it’s time to re-evaluate the Star’s online comments function, launched last July with the worthy goal of “promoting freedom of expression in a respectful and constructive atmosphere.”
Capponi’s question speaks to the heart of a matter I’ve given much thought to since the Star began allowing online comments. How far should the Star go in allowing ill-informed, mean-spirited, uncivil, anonymous “conversation” to be published in the name of “freedom of expression”?
It would be fairly easy to concur that some discussion board participants on the Star and elsewhere need to improve their communication skills and show a little more respect for their fellow readers. However, English goes beyond to suggest that mere dissention of opinion should also be censored:
What impact does publishing commentary that is so misaligned with the Star’s values have on the Star’s mission to be a progressive voice in our country?
One can almost see the lot of prim Star columnists, assured by their professors and cultured latte buddies that their overt concern for the disadvantaged and unyielding desire to force a redistribution of the wealth away from the middle class is beyond reproach, going into simultaneous cardiac arrest. People actually don’t place welfare cases on a pedestal! Even worse, they don’t want to unquestioningly surrender their earnings to the lady with 4 children by 4 men and no job that still manages to fill her subsidized home with an HDTV and leather sofas.
As usual, the well-entrenched and entitled in the media are missing an opportunity to connect with their audience. So-called ignorant and extremist comments can be very useful in gauging how the crowd feels about opposing or fringe ideas. On the Toronto Star website, one would expect a negative comment about single mothers to inspire angry responses tenfold (the Toronto Star also has an anonymous agree/disagree counter which should indicate how dissatisfied other readers are with the offending comment). Frequently this doesn’t happen– the occasional comment assailing single mothers for being irresponsible or declaring that Ontario’s problems aren’t ALL due to Mike Harris gets more agrees than disagrees. Sometimes the Star is to the left of its own readers and they should treat this as occurrence as market research. I’ve found all kinds of interesting implied group opinions by attacking supposed extremists on some of the sites I host.
The bottom line is that once a news organization has committed to pushing an agenda along with reporting basic news, they have committed to pushing people’s buttons and evoking reaction. The rise of the internet has given the public an avenue to express their approval or disapproval with any agenda, no matter how lofty or well-intentioned. Any opinion that can be produced will find dissention and any “holy cow” of politics will be attacked. If journalists in the mainstream media feel they need to be shielded from any criticism of their ideas, then perhaps they have truly lost touch with the people they wish to help.
How sad. Your theory, as I understand it, is that simply by having a few comments on the website lean in one direction, indicates a majorities opinion. I have rarely noticed a comment on the Stars site that has more than 40 agree’s/disagree’s in either direction. Your theory that this places the Star left or right of it’s own readers is rather specious. The Star has the highest readership in Canada, and while not knowing specific numbers I would be astonished if it was less than 100 thousand. Fourty agreements hardly represents a true agreement by the readers. Furthermore, as they state in the article, they have no way of knowing if that is but one person posting several times, or a variety of people.
Secondly, you talk about the rise of free commentary sections on other papers. While I would agree in some theory that such a system is the best, their is another part of me that would disagree. That part of me would be the one who looks back on human history and sees the many many times in our past when a small group of zealots or radicals have misled or simply whipped into a fury of fear, a majority. The average human would like to believe that they are proud and independant and in charge of their own destiny and beliefs, but that is sadly untrue. I know I am guilty of this on several incidents, but those are irrelevant to this. Humanity has risen as a group, and not surprisingly some of us would rather let others do our thinking, or at the very least our leading. By having a public and free for all comment section, you open the risk of allowing people to be misled from the truth, especially in a situation where they may believe they are being shown something related to the newspaper, and that represents truth and or fact. Open forums can be highly useful, but they are fraught with challenges, the ones that Mrs English was trying to point out within the article. Ones in which you succumb.
Lastly, I do not drink latte’s, I would not call myself prim, and I cannot think of the last time I spoke with a professor. Also, I rather think if you read the Toronto Star, you would find that their push is to reward the middle class, not remove from it as has been happening in North America for the past twenty or so years. You seem to feel the need to insult, or at the very least, make the editors and writers of the Star out to be the stereotypical left winger. That I think was your biggest failing in this writing. You seem to have taken it personal, and have written as if it was personal, you have also written showing that you have no respect. Respect is one of the hardest things to find on the internet, either in the giving or receiving, but it is one of the most important things to show in any conversation if you hope to find a viable consensus. That is why the open comment section has a failing, too many people out there, especially the impassioned and zealous, who are the most likely to find and comment on something, lack respect, and common courtesy in the presentation of their argument. In most comment sections, once respect has been lost, it is very difficult to have it return. The Star’s comments section has had this failing on several occasions. That, as I believe it is their biggest failing, and I would agree with Mrs English in her thoughts that they need to do something about it, wether it is one of their own idea’s, or, as I would guess her rationale for writing the article, inform the public you have a problem with something, and casually ask them for their opinion and suggestions on it.
I think the Star has the right to do as they like with their paper and website, and media consumers have the right to not buy into it.
And it would seem that many folks are doing just that.
I guess my comment didn’t pick up the URL, but here are the headlines from a Globe Business report: “Torstar laying off about 60 employees.”
Reuters: “Toronto Star cutting 38 advertising jobs, union says”
(Why is it that media outlets see to take so much glee in reporting their colleagues’ business problems?)
Anyone familiar with the internet knows the right wing zealots are far more organized and tenacious with their online tirades than their counterparts on the left. I read the Toronto Star regularly, including the comments when I have time, but never comment myself. It is clear to anyone who reads the comments regularly that there is a core group of conservatives who post CONSTANTLY. You even start to remember their names because the same ones post all of the time. How you can possibly take this tiny group of people, who are clearly online all the time spewing conservative rhetoric, and claim they represent the majority is extremely laughable. It is a small group of people who post a lot. They do not represent the Star’s readership, the people of Canada (as is made clear by the fact the Conservatives cannot get a majority) and certainly not the people of Toronto thats for sure. Its weird though, whenever I try to make a comment there (rarely) it doesnt seem to show up!
Yeah, this may happen. In fact, it is a pity that it happens pretty often. In my opinion it shows the level of education. Concerning this example and many more others that we can come across in the published mass media the comments should be moderated, otherwise they will reject potential readers.