As was mentioned in the comments to Leading Off this morning, the Dallas Morning News had to turn off comments to its story about LeAnne Novacek’s apparent suicide due to “numerous violations” of their terms of service. It makes one wonder how anyone — much less numerous someones — could possibly say something offensive in response to that story. It also makes me wonder how much longer the DMN will allow comments to its stories.
21 comments
I scanned over the DMN comments briefly last night. The comments had devolved into a hostile debate over religion.
It wasn’t about her, it was about the evangelicals trying to shove their point of view down our throats followed by the Athiests cramming their point in through the out door. The collision made me sick to my stomach.
I wish they would do away with comments. Unfortunately, the majority of the posts I read at DMN are really mean and offensive. I think most if their readers, at least those who post, need professional help.
Dallasite, and while the evangelicals and athiests were butting heads and shouting at each other, God was saying, “What have I done?”
They had to do the same thing last week (for different reasons) on the story about the 9-year-old who committed suicide at school. Belo brother WFAA has stopped allowing them. But I heard that part of a reporters evaluation now includes the number of comments his or her story generates.
@Tim
Maybe you can share your insight with DMN on how restricting comments creates an adverse and long term impact on visits and ad revenue.
On a completely different note, as of today I love the Facebook widget that shows D Magazine’s fans. Why? http://www.facebook.com/stella.fitzgerald1
Blogs are often enhanced by moderated comments, but they almost always denigrate a hard news story. At a minimum, they should be put on a separate page from the news item, as the NYT does. A journalist researches and writes a story, which is then is reviewed, fact-checked, and published. Then an anonymous commenter spews some ill-informed bile, often based on a scan of the lede. It’s downhill from there.
This is one of the main reasons I rarely read the DMN anymore. The comments on this weekend’s “I’ll do anything to keep my kids out of DISD” story (http://bit.ly/cz3CxS) made me want to puke.
part of the problem is that there is no way to mark a comment as like/dislike. trying to report a complaint about a comment to the DMN is useless as it opens a MS Outlook rather then a web-based complaint form
I’ve pulled back from commenting on most of their stories and blogs as I wonder if other commenters understand what they have read
this is not just at the DMN but a lot of other online papers and zines
The DMN could learn a lot from the NYT (or from D Magazine for that matter). The comments section is just one of the problems.
The comments section is not only cumbersome and awkward; it seems to bring out the lowest common denominator in people posting.
I only read DallasNews.com for general local news. The design/layout and functionality of that site is terrible! It’s a second rate website not worthy of serving a major urban area like DFW.
I think they should be more selective on which stories offer comments, and just turn it off when the story is posted, if that’s possible.
You know, history might show that we were trendsetters when we globally shut down comments awhile back.
Engadget just turned off their comments:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/02/were-turning-comments-off-for-a-bit/
Creating a queue/reviewing the blogs was trendsetting and the right thing to do. Shutting down the blogs was avoidance of the monster you created.
How about putting each original writer in charge of comments to his or her own story. Turn on, Turn off, edit, filter, comment back,.. whatever. Or would that be too much responsibility for a JOURNAList?
@Steve:
You don’t read the DMN because you don’t like the comments? Ummmm, how about just not reading the comments?
I know, it makes no sense.
When people make horribly cruel statements, not to mention lies about someone they have never met, I think they shoould sign their name to their message. Maybe that would make them be a bit more thoughtful.
JB,
Journalists are often out doing their jobs — talking to people, visiting neighborhoods, researching, covering trials, attending meetings, traveling with candidates … you know, journalism. They’re not sitting at their computers all day long. And when they are at their computers, it’s usually to write stories, not to police comments.
Also, journalists — while they’re paid for 8 hours a day — usually work 10 or 12. Should it be their responsibility to monitor comments on their stories 24 hours a day? And on weekends? If some nimcompoop posts an offensive comment at, say, 2 a.m., is it the reporter’s responsibility to check that?
Look at how many stories get posted each day to dallasnews.com, then count how many blogs the paper maintains, then count how many items get posted each day to each of those blogs, then multiply the total by the average number of comments that each story or blog item attracts … If reporters spent just five seconds reviewing each comment, the aggregate time consumed would be hours every day — and quite possibly more hours than there are in a day.
I’ve wondered on over to the DMN site a couple of times (at least until the “REGISTER NOW” page pops up) and I’ve been absolutely, totally, shockingly, FLOORED at what I’ve read. It scares me that we have people in our world that will write such hateful things (sadly, they are usually written “with the love of Christ”).
Every other article turns into vile, hateful discussions filled with homophobia, racism, and a vengeful God.
Of course, I can quickly see why Texas continually votes Republican.
The DMN is a lost avenue
censorship from a government is the worst
self censorship is “worser”
@ Bruce
No Argument. I do not mean to dismiss journalism. My comment is admittedly snarky. To elaborate, a story, not a blog post, after going through the cradle to grave process to being published and owned by the paper/mag will at that point by us public folk be attributed to the writer/reporter. If that reporter, because of workload, personal policy, or just plain feeling, does not want comments to his/her story then it should be at the reporters’ discretion to have “comments off” or if say, the reporter is up and coming and may have time to monitor the comments, then allow that as well. I am just saying let the original journalist manage comments or choose to turn them off entirely regarding a published story. When D turned off comments, SideDish still kept them.
Like it or not, blogs and comments are now a part of modern journalism and the professional management of that should be added to the responsibility of conventional journalism. Comments sometimes, as in the case of this blog post, often become a story. Sometimes they may break or enhance the story. When they don’t, let the journalist make the professional decision.
As far as how to pay journalist, I dunno, but with the advances in technology, journalists can now be both “out doing their jobs” and typing (voice recognition dictating?) their stories while never sitting at a desk. If you are saying time is money, then maybe management should go to a billable hours model.
Sorry.. ‘wandered on over to’…
Comments = more pages to shove pop up, pop under and plastered on ads down ppls throats. . If for this reason only, I don’t see them turning comments off. I do see them adding more ads though. Local news sites are full of adssholes running the show.
@Tomaso: “…then count how many blogs the paper maintains…”
847?