Brave New World: The Arguments Against Online Commentary
Introduction
Online commentary is…
In late 2014, a wave of publishers including The Week and Reuters had joined Popular Science and the Chicago Sun Times in closing their comments section on their website (Ellis, 2015).
This report will look at why these publishers decided to remove the comments section from their website and the risks associated with it. Following this will be some reasons to include online commentary with the benefits it can bring to news and magazine publications. From the information gathered, conclusions will be made and an answer given to the question on whether Brave New World should include online commentary on its website.
The Arguments Against Online Commentary
Uncivil Commentary
http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/why-the-comments-section-of-your-average-website-is-full-of-rage-aggression-rudeness-and-foul-language/story-fnjwnhzf-1227332039091 …show more content…
Perhaps the major reason publishers have decided to move away from facilitating online comments on their websites has been due to the presence of offensive, irrelevant and uncivil comments. These comments have the ability to polarize the viewing audience, skewing the tone of what may have been an unbiased article or report.
One publication that took down online commentary on their website due to this primarily this reason is The Chicago Sun Times. In a statement issued to readers in 2014, managing editor Craig Newman writes, “… these forums too often turn into a morass of negativity, racism, hate speech and general trollish behaviors that detract from the content” (Newman, 2014). He also notes that there have been several complaints with regards to the prevalence of these comments due to their general tone and demeanour.
Another website to take down their online comments for the same reason was news magazine The Week. Editor-in-chief Ben Frumin justifies their decision by stating: Too often, the comments sections of news sites are hijacked by a small group of pseudonymous commenters who replace smart, thoughtful dialogue with vitriolic personal insults and rote exchanges of partisan acrimony. This small but outspoken group does a disservice to the many intelligent, open-minded people who seek a fair and respectful exchange of ideas in the comments sections of news sites. (Frumin, 2014)
This highlights the issue of allowing users to comment under false names or anonymously. A consequence of all online commentary is that it opens the door for such people to engage in consequence-free behaviour and defy social norms (Jolkovski, 2013). As a result of this, many publishers feel the need to moderate online comments. However moderation of online comments is often a full time job and depending on the size of the website, may require several people to track them (Greenslade, 2013).
The Popular Science magazine also decided to remove their comments in 2013, stating that, “Comments can be bad for science (LaBarre, 2013).” To justify their decision, online content director Suzanne LaBarre pointed towards a study conducted by the University of Wisonsin-Madison where 1,183 Americans were shown a blog post on nanotechnology and then surveyed on their risk perceptions toward the subject. After reading a sample of fake comments with either uncivil or civil comments, it was then determined through survey questions whether or not their risk perceptions on nanotechnology had changed. The report concluded by stating:
Online communication and discussion of new topics such as emerging technologies has the potential to enrich public deliberation. Nevertheless, this study’s findings show that online incivility may impede this democratic goal. (Scheufele, Brossard, Anderson, Xenos, & Ladwig, 2013)
It is important to note however that in the results section of the report it states, “Our findings did not demonstrate a significant direct relationship between exposure to incivility and risk perceptions.” They found that readers who already had some bias one way or another on the topic of nanotechnology were most affected by the uncivil comments, further consolidating their view on the matter.
The Move to Social Media
The rise of social media has also been a major factor contributing in the decision of publishers to move away from facilitating comments on their websites. When a newspaper or magazine with a large audience on social media publishes something new on their social media network, an almost immediate reaction is obtained from their audience. This reaction can be either through commentary or sharing of the stories and issues raised.
Dan Colarusso, executive editor of Reuters.com has stated,
We’re not the kind of news organization that’s about giving our ‘take’ on something. We’re not looking to start an argument; we’re looking to report the news. We felt that, since so much of the conversation around stories had gravitated toward social, that was the better place for that discourse to happen. (Ellis, 2015)
Reuters did however decide to keep comments on opinion pieces to spark discussion among readers and columnists on controversial and interesting topics (Colarusso, 2014).
Several other websites including tech blog Re/code have also shut down online comments due to the growth of social media.
Due to its robust growth, they found that most of the discussion of the stories they had published was taking place there which made using onsite comments a less attractive option (Mossberg & Swisher, 2014).
When considering that the discussions centred on articles published by magazines will inevitably take place on social media, it begs the question of whether facilitating comments on the magazine’s website is necessary at all.
The Arguments Supporting Online Commentary
Community engagement
The aim of any information-based website is to create engaging content for the organisation’s target audience. The inclusion of online commentary is seen by many as a means to achieve this, allowing the community of readers to participate in discussions and view the opinions of others on certain issues.
Nilay Patel, editor-in-chief of technology news network The Verge remarks that his company has decided to include online comments “to have a big community, a vibrant community, and find ways to grow and nurture that community over time”. For a startup company this is an important mission and something that must be strongly considered.
(Reward – build community/audience base)
The drawbacks of off-platform …show more content…
publishing
Conclusions
(Moderation is necessary)
Being a new publication – reward of building community.
Recommendations
A decision on whether or not online comments should be included on the website of Brave New World ultimately comes down to the type of magazine it wants to be. If the vision for the magazine is to become one that is known for providing content reporting on new scientific news and discoveries, then including online commentary will only be a roadblock in achieving this goal. However, if the magazine would like to become one that aims to provoke heavy community discussion and debate on scientific issues, online commentary should be included as it will only help in achieving this goal.
Should Brave New World decide to go down the path of including online comments, there definitely needs to be a moderation system put in place to eliminate or limit uncivil commentary. Strategies such as pre-moderation or hiring multiple moderators could be trialled iteratively in order to find the most efficient way to minimise the power this minority group would have on other readers and the magazine’s brand. There should also be some system or plugin used such as Disqus or Facebook login to help diminish the impact of users posting anonymously.
If the magazine chooses not to include online commentary, it should not completely close itself off from interaction with readers as this is an important part of building trust and integrity – especially important during the early phases of the life of a new publication. Social media should be used in a smart way that encourages readers to visit the website and acts as a facility where they can interact with the writers for the magazine.
There is also the option of going both ways as many news and magazine publications do and include an opinion section on the website to allow writers to start a dialogue with readers through online comments. Once again, these comments need to be moderated and pseudonymity should be minimised.
After this question on the company’s direction has been clearly answered, the choice on whether to include online comments or not should be an easy one.
References
Colarusso, D. (2014, November 7). Editor’s note: Reader comments in the age of social media. Retrieved from Reuters: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/11/07/editors-note-reader-comments-in-the-age-of-social-media/
Ellis, J. (2015, September 16). What happened after 7 news sites got rid of reader comments. Retrieved from Nieman Lab: http://www.niemanlab.org/2015/09/what-happened-after-7-news-sites-got-rid-of-reader-comments
Frumin, B.
(2014, December 15). Why TheWeek.com is closing the comments section. Retrieved from The Week: http://theweek.com/articles/441774/why-theweekcom-closing-comments-section
Greenslade, R. (2013, August 22). Huffington Post ends commenter anonymity. Retrieved from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/aug/22/huffington-post-ariannahuffington
Gross, D. (2014, November 21). Online comments are being phased out. Retrieved from CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/21/tech/web/online-comment-sections/
Jolkovski, A. (2013, October 4). Online comment moderation: emerging best practices. Retrieved from WAN-IFRA: http://www.wan-ifra.org/reports/2013/10/04/online-comment-moderation-emerging-best-practices
LaBarre, S. (2013, September 24). Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments. Retrieved from Popular Science: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments?src=SOC&dom=tw
Newman, C. M. (2014, 4 12). Sick of Internet comments? Us, too - here's what we're doing about it. Retrieved from Chicago Sun-Times:
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/787258/sick-of-internet-comments-us-too-heres-what-were-doing-about-it
Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Anderson, A. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2013). The "Nasty Effect:" Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 380, 383.
Online commentary is…
In late 2014, a wave of publishers including The Week and Reuters had joined Popular Science and the Chicago Sun Times in closing their comments section on their website (Ellis, 2015).
This report will look at why these publishers decided to remove the comments section from their website and the risks associated with it. Following this will be some reasons to include online commentary with the benefits it can bring to news and magazine publications. From the information gathered, conclusions will be made and an answer given to the question on whether Brave New World should include online commentary on its website.
The Arguments Against Online Commentary
Uncivil Commentary
http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/why-the-comments-section-of-your-average-website-is-full-of-rage-aggression-rudeness-and-foul-language/story-fnjwnhzf-1227332039091 …show more content…
Perhaps the major reason publishers have decided to move away from facilitating online comments on their websites has been due to the presence of offensive, irrelevant and uncivil comments. These comments have the ability to polarize the viewing audience, skewing the tone of what may have been an unbiased article or report.
One publication that took down online commentary on their website due to this primarily this reason is The Chicago Sun Times. In a statement issued to readers in 2014, managing editor Craig Newman writes, “… these forums too often turn into a morass of negativity, racism, hate speech and general trollish behaviors that detract from the content” (Newman, 2014). He also notes that there have been several complaints with regards to the prevalence of these comments due to their general tone and demeanour.
Another website to take down their online comments for the same reason was news magazine The Week. Editor-in-chief Ben Frumin justifies their decision by stating: Too often, the comments sections of news sites are hijacked by a small group of pseudonymous commenters who replace smart, thoughtful dialogue with vitriolic personal insults and rote exchanges of partisan acrimony. This small but outspoken group does a disservice to the many intelligent, open-minded people who seek a fair and respectful exchange of ideas in the comments sections of news sites. (Frumin, 2014)
This highlights the issue of allowing users to comment under false names or anonymously. A consequence of all online commentary is that it opens the door for such people to engage in consequence-free behaviour and defy social norms (Jolkovski, 2013). As a result of this, many publishers feel the need to moderate online comments. However moderation of online comments is often a full time job and depending on the size of the website, may require several people to track them (Greenslade, 2013).
The Popular Science magazine also decided to remove their comments in 2013, stating that, “Comments can be bad for science (LaBarre, 2013).” To justify their decision, online content director Suzanne LaBarre pointed towards a study conducted by the University of Wisonsin-Madison where 1,183 Americans were shown a blog post on nanotechnology and then surveyed on their risk perceptions toward the subject. After reading a sample of fake comments with either uncivil or civil comments, it was then determined through survey questions whether or not their risk perceptions on nanotechnology had changed. The report concluded by stating:
Online communication and discussion of new topics such as emerging technologies has the potential to enrich public deliberation. Nevertheless, this study’s findings show that online incivility may impede this democratic goal. (Scheufele, Brossard, Anderson, Xenos, & Ladwig, 2013)
It is important to note however that in the results section of the report it states, “Our findings did not demonstrate a significant direct relationship between exposure to incivility and risk perceptions.” They found that readers who already had some bias one way or another on the topic of nanotechnology were most affected by the uncivil comments, further consolidating their view on the matter.
The Move to Social Media
The rise of social media has also been a major factor contributing in the decision of publishers to move away from facilitating comments on their websites. When a newspaper or magazine with a large audience on social media publishes something new on their social media network, an almost immediate reaction is obtained from their audience. This reaction can be either through commentary or sharing of the stories and issues raised.
Dan Colarusso, executive editor of Reuters.com has stated,
We’re not the kind of news organization that’s about giving our ‘take’ on something. We’re not looking to start an argument; we’re looking to report the news. We felt that, since so much of the conversation around stories had gravitated toward social, that was the better place for that discourse to happen. (Ellis, 2015)
Reuters did however decide to keep comments on opinion pieces to spark discussion among readers and columnists on controversial and interesting topics (Colarusso, 2014).
Several other websites including tech blog Re/code have also shut down online comments due to the growth of social media.
Due to its robust growth, they found that most of the discussion of the stories they had published was taking place there which made using onsite comments a less attractive option (Mossberg & Swisher, 2014).
When considering that the discussions centred on articles published by magazines will inevitably take place on social media, it begs the question of whether facilitating comments on the magazine’s website is necessary at all.
The Arguments Supporting Online Commentary
Community engagement
The aim of any information-based website is to create engaging content for the organisation’s target audience. The inclusion of online commentary is seen by many as a means to achieve this, allowing the community of readers to participate in discussions and view the opinions of others on certain issues.
Nilay Patel, editor-in-chief of technology news network The Verge remarks that his company has decided to include online comments “to have a big community, a vibrant community, and find ways to grow and nurture that community over time”. For a startup company this is an important mission and something that must be strongly considered.
(Reward – build community/audience base)
The drawbacks of off-platform …show more content…
publishing
Conclusions
(Moderation is necessary)
Being a new publication – reward of building community.
Recommendations
A decision on whether or not online comments should be included on the website of Brave New World ultimately comes down to the type of magazine it wants to be. If the vision for the magazine is to become one that is known for providing content reporting on new scientific news and discoveries, then including online commentary will only be a roadblock in achieving this goal. However, if the magazine would like to become one that aims to provoke heavy community discussion and debate on scientific issues, online commentary should be included as it will only help in achieving this goal.
Should Brave New World decide to go down the path of including online comments, there definitely needs to be a moderation system put in place to eliminate or limit uncivil commentary. Strategies such as pre-moderation or hiring multiple moderators could be trialled iteratively in order to find the most efficient way to minimise the power this minority group would have on other readers and the magazine’s brand. There should also be some system or plugin used such as Disqus or Facebook login to help diminish the impact of users posting anonymously.
If the magazine chooses not to include online commentary, it should not completely close itself off from interaction with readers as this is an important part of building trust and integrity – especially important during the early phases of the life of a new publication. Social media should be used in a smart way that encourages readers to visit the website and acts as a facility where they can interact with the writers for the magazine.
There is also the option of going both ways as many news and magazine publications do and include an opinion section on the website to allow writers to start a dialogue with readers through online comments. Once again, these comments need to be moderated and pseudonymity should be minimised.
After this question on the company’s direction has been clearly answered, the choice on whether to include online comments or not should be an easy one.
References
Colarusso, D. (2014, November 7). Editor’s note: Reader comments in the age of social media. Retrieved from Reuters: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/11/07/editors-note-reader-comments-in-the-age-of-social-media/
Ellis, J. (2015, September 16). What happened after 7 news sites got rid of reader comments. Retrieved from Nieman Lab: http://www.niemanlab.org/2015/09/what-happened-after-7-news-sites-got-rid-of-reader-comments
Frumin, B.
(2014, December 15). Why TheWeek.com is closing the comments section. Retrieved from The Week: http://theweek.com/articles/441774/why-theweekcom-closing-comments-section
Greenslade, R. (2013, August 22). Huffington Post ends commenter anonymity. Retrieved from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/aug/22/huffington-post-ariannahuffington
Gross, D. (2014, November 21). Online comments are being phased out. Retrieved from CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/21/tech/web/online-comment-sections/
Jolkovski, A. (2013, October 4). Online comment moderation: emerging best practices. Retrieved from WAN-IFRA: http://www.wan-ifra.org/reports/2013/10/04/online-comment-moderation-emerging-best-practices
LaBarre, S. (2013, September 24). Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments. Retrieved from Popular Science: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments?src=SOC&dom=tw
Newman, C. M. (2014, 4 12). Sick of Internet comments? Us, too - here's what we're doing about it. Retrieved from Chicago Sun-Times:
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/787258/sick-of-internet-comments-us-too-heres-what-were-doing-about-it
Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Anderson, A. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2013). The "Nasty Effect:" Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 380, 383.