Question for you... | Photo: flickr user rjhuttondfw
Online comments break down a lot of barriers — people who once had little or no voice have, for a decade or more now, been able to add their viewpoints, questions, facts or, often, attacks and asides to stories written by professionals.
This no-longer-new relationship asks a lot of questions that media types still aren’t prepared to answer just yet. Here’s one that just occurred to me during the course of my workday: What’s the etiquette on a contributor commenting on a story posted by a staffer? And, to broaden the question, what’s the etiquette on commenting on a colleague’s post?
Camera science and environment reporter Laura Snider wrote a story about two massive solar flares. Here it is, in its entirety, as it appeared at 3:20 p.m. today. As an employee of parent company Prairie Mountain Publishing using it for educational/analytical purposes, I’m hoping nobody gets mad at me for it, but you know where to find me if you want it truncated or removed:
–
A pair of massive solar flares that erupted from the sun’s surface Tuesday at about 5 p.m. Colorado time are expected to slam into the Earth early Thursday morning, possibly affecting communications and power, according to the Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder.
The two X-class flares erupted within about an hour of each other, and they’re now screaming toward Earth at speeds of at least 1,100 miles per second, according to NASA. When the flares arrive, they’re expected to further agitate Earth’s magnetic field, which is already being affected by a solar flare that occurred Sunday.
“Things are already disturbed, and we’re going to pound on them some more with another shot from the sun,” said Joe Kunches, a scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, where the Space Weather Prediction Center is housed.
The resulting geomagnetic storm has the potential to disrupt high frequency radio communications, global positioning systems and power grids.
–
Not long after it was posted, there were the usual wise-cracking comments — as well as this one, from Dave Taylor, who writes a weekly approximately monthly (see comments) column for the Camera (in addition to a plethora of other things).
Dave Taylor's comment, posted about an hour after Laura's story went live.
Aside from the fact that Dave uses his real name and a mugshot, it’s got the usual hallmarks of a snarky online comment, right? And who doesn’t enjoy a bit of snark?
I happen to disagree with Dave, and think that writing science stories, especially for general consumption, calls for approachable, active language. My disagreeing with something in a comment isn’t what’s interesting, though.
The interesting part is that Dave’s work appears in the same space as Laura’s, albeit on a different topic, so you’d think he’d be less quick than most to compare her writing about scientific phenomena to tabloid journalism. I’m a big believer in tweeting at colleagues — often even if they’re in the same room. And I think there are great opportunities for colleagues commenting on each other’s stories, you know, collegially.
But the “National Enquirer” thing distracts from any point he hopes to make about Laura’s word choice. From my point of view, this is not a particularly useful piece of criticism — just a slightly mean-spirited bon mot. Again, exactly what you’d expect to see in comments, but the fact that Dave is a contributor makes it sort of a fascinating dynamic (to me, at least).
I hear this kind of lightly barbed criticism of voice — only occasionally — within the newsroom. Good-natured ribbing, to use the cliche. As far as I know, Dave isn’t close with Laura, so that sort of rules that out.
So here are my questions for you, some of which are inspired by Dave’s comment today:
- Do or should colleagues hold themselves to a different standard than the everyman commenter?
- Is there a place for publicly commenting on a colleague’s style?
- Is there a place for publicly commenting on a colleague’s accuracy?
- Does it serve journalists better to be asked these questions publicly?
- Does it serve news consumers better?
Great topic, Dave, and fair game for a discussion. While I do write an approximately monthly column for the Camera (not weekly), I consider myself more as an active, participatory member of the Boulder community than as a staffer with the Daily Camera. Perhaps that's my bad, but I write daily for some sites, weekly for others, and I believe my Daily Camera tech column is the most infrequent regular writing gig I have.
Subsequent to my post on the Camera Web site, Laura and I talked via email about my comment, her reaction and my explanation. As I said to her, I certainly didn't mean any offense, but whether we're making science writing accessible or not, I find the use of "screaming" as a description of speed out of place in a journalistic article. Hence my comment. Yes, 1100mi/sec is fast. Okay, so maybe "racing towards Earth" would work. The word struck me in this particular context – in a daily newspaper – as overly dramatic rhetoric.
I didn't question her accuracy, and for all I knew, an anonymous editor at the paper had changed her piece to add the additional drama. It's one of the less obvious wrinkles associated with modern journalism, actually, that we writers produce the original copy, but what appears in print or online is the product of additional hands, particularly captions and headlines.
I have apparently struck a nerve there in the newsroom with my comment, and for that I apologize. It was never my intent to do more than ask in a humorous manner whether "screaming" was an appropriate word choice for this particular story. I'm well known in the online community — including the Daily Camera comment pool — for my wry comments and dry wit (at least, I think it's dry wit. Your mileage may certainly vary).
As it happens, yes, I believe it's fine for us to examine each other's work in the public eye, and comment upon it there too. If the issue is mild and benign. The use of a dramatic rhetorical flourish in a story is surely within that category, Dave, don't you think?
Oh, and de facto you must agree with my position, Dave, or why would you be identifying me by name and offering links to my other work in this blog post if you didn't believe it was appropriate in certain contexts to publicly comment on a colleague's style?
Posted by Dave Taylor | March 8, 2012, 12:11 amDave, thanks for the great reply!
I didn't realize you were so infrequent a contributor, but yeah, I agree that you're less part of the Camera family and more a guy out in the world doing his own thing, which is why I indicated that I was more interested in the broader questions of a colleague commenting on a colleague's work — your comment happened to be the one that inspired the questions. I think some of the same questions are relevant to your case, though I might ask them another way, like:
Are there separate rules of etiquette for media-savvier commenters?
Or something like that. But that question doesn't interest me as much, because I figured the answer would mostly be the "stick my finger directly in your eye" type (see comment below). I already know that people feel entitled to that.
I identified you by name because you commented on the story publicly with your name and all that and it's a nice relatively "mild and benign" case study, in your own useful words. I provided links because I like to provide context — as we've already covered, you've got a far deeper online presence than the Camera site would indicate. It's much more interesting and educational that way because, for one, it brings you here to defend it.
No, I don't agree with your assessment, particularly in the specific contexts of the questions I asked at the end of the post. I think it's more useful to communicate with someone directly and privately about writing style. This is partly out of politeness, but also out of efficiency and the hope that my suggestions wouldn't fall on deaf ears.
To address your actual comment, and not the hypotheticals, because I'm guessing that's what you'd prefer: I don't know any writers who respond better to online comments about their word choice than they do by email, phone or face-to-face conversation. And my approach, though certainly not everyone's, is to be a little more constructive than you were there. If you were sincerely concerned about her word choice, there were other, more productive channels and forms. Again, though, relatively mild and benign, and I'm not hugely concerned with all of that today…
But the larger question is such a new one that I wanted to ask it of a larger audience. I'd like to answer it for myself based on more than the immediate reaction I had to reading your comment — and see if anyone has other ideas for having that dialogue between colleagues, whatever their specific job descriptions may be. One example for consideration: Gawker Media's "Campfire" internal chat.
Posted by Dave Burdick | March 8, 2012, 8:12 amThanks for the response, Dave. I think we might already be belaboring the point a bit, but I want to observe that as I said earlier, I see any article in a newspaper as the product of multiple contributors, not just the person whose name is on the byline. I know from interaction with other Camera reporters that they don't write captions for the photos or images used in the stories, and I know from my own experience that headlines are the purview of another editor too. So while it seems reasonable to say "email the writer" if there's an issue, I had no way of knowing that Laura was responsible for that particular word or the tone of the piece. Indeed, she later admitted that she asked for the piece to be toned DOWN because she felt it had too many rhetorical flourishes.
Nonetheless, from the reaction here I can see that my perspective on feedback of this nature in a public forum is different to the staffers there at the Daily Camera. In the future I won't be posting any sort of comments or feedback on writing, journalistic integrity, or accuracy direclty on the site. Que sera, sera.
Posted by Dave Taylor | March 8, 2012, 8:27 amNo matter the organization, if employees publicly make negative comments about one another's work, it makes the organization look bad. If the people working there think it's bad, people not working there will simply assume that it is, indeed, bad. So, yes, as professionals, colleagues should absolutely hold themselves to a different standard than other commenters.
Whether comments are being made about a colleague's style (which seems like walking on thin ice, in the first place) or a colleague's accuracy, these comments should be made within the organization first. Both out of respect for the one's colleagues and the organization one works for.
It would seem to me that calling out one's colleagues publicly would not ever be something to take lightly. I would think there would need to be a major breakdown of the internal hierarchy of a news organization for this to result in any sort of positive and/or productive result. If a story wasn't being reported correctly, for instance. Certainly something to be avoided or used in rare instances.
As a news consumer, I like order. If there's disagreement within a news organization, I like to see it officially framed by the news organization, with the reasons for why there's disagreement. The lone commenter snarky remark just looks like someone has a personal axe to grind.
–Reid.
Posted by Reid Levin | March 8, 2012, 12:22 amWhich begs the question Reid, when is someone "part of the organization" or an "employee" and when is someone a freelancer who is contributing to the publication but not really part of the organization? I mean, I've never attended a single editorial meeting, I haven't stepped foot in the editorial offices for years, and I wouldn't recognize my editor if they bumped into me on the street. Once every 4-5 weeks I send in 500 words. Am I an employee?
Posted by Dave Taylor | March 8, 2012, 7:10 amI could be wrong, but I think he's just answering the questions I asked at the bottom. I'd love for your take on those specific questions, too (if you've got any more time to dedicate to this blog post — ha — thanks for the time you've already spent here)!
Posted by Dave Burdick | March 8, 2012, 9:29 amNo, that's my point: Dave. At what point is a freelancer or stringer part of an organization or an employee, and at what point do they more reasonably get lumped in with the proletariat, the people on the outside who are just interested and engaged members of the community and passionate about the organization? Think Apple Fanboys, for example….
Posted by Dave Taylor | March 8, 2012, 11:17 amOK, I'll take a crack at it:
I'd say there's a pretty bright line between Engaged Member of the Community and Person Whose Work Appears on the Site.
So that probably the reasonable place to start of a spectrum of some kind. From there, it's pretty fuzzy and I can see feeling a lot less like an insider/colleague as a once-a-month contributor than a once-a-week type, multiple-times-a-week type, part-time staffer and full-time staffer.
Posted by Dave Burdick | March 8, 2012, 11:29 amAs Dave Burdick correctly surmised, I was just answering the questions he had asked. That said, Dave Taylor, my opinions remain fairly constant and so I have fairly similar answers to your questions.
I realize that there's a distinction between being an employee and being a freelancer. They interact with the hierarchy of organizations in different ways and their work experiences are generally different. However, this doesn't mean there's reason for either employees or freelancers to ignore certain levels of professionalism, etiquette, or courtesy when it comes to publicly commenting on one another's work in the comments section of columns.
It seems to me that a person is a brand ambassador of an organization if they regularly get paid to do something for that organization, especially if they're regularly publicly credited for doing so. That is, even if they're not a full-time employee, even if they only represent that organization once a month, they still represent that organization.
Online news consumers reading the comments after columns won't take the time to discern between commenters who are full-time columnists or freelance columnists. If they recognize a name as one that's written a column for that same news organization, they will associate that name with that news organization, whether fairly or unfairly. I'm not suggesting censorship in the least; I'm suggesting the professional courtesy of giving private, constructive criticism.
–Reid.
Posted by Reid Levin | March 9, 2012, 1:46 amI reserve the right to stick my finger directly in your eye ( your overinflated sense of self importance) any time your claims are exaggerated and seriously embellished. We need a few reminder critiques that bring us back to the light instead of wandering on our own.
Seth Godin said so eloquently, We all need a tribe of followers, If you are out and No one is following you are out for a walk.
David Pylyp
Living in Toronto
Posted by David Pylyp | March 8, 2012, 7:27 amWhen Dave solicited comment via Facebook I assumed I would skip it as not caring or that perhaps thicker skin might be in order. Turns out my reaction is a culture or professional issue. Debate would be great but this comment is unproductive and unprofessional and should have been asked offline. Curse of freelance outsider relationships I imagine.
Posted by David Sandusky | March 8, 2012, 7:31 amAs a PR professional – and more importantly, a reader of the Camera – I find this very interesting. I know Dave and I like his dry wit. Because of that, I recognized that his comment on Laura's post was a bit tongue-in-cheek. There's a fine line between using language that is descriptive and language that is sensational….and of course, that line varies from person to person.
What's missing from Mr. Burdick's post is what Laura's reaction was to Dave T.'s comment to her article. Did she think it was "snarky" – or more importantly, inappropriate?
All of this aside, I think the second that someone – employee or not – is not permitted to speak publicly about an article, then we start running the risk of censorship. "Who" would determine whether or not a comment is appropriate? Should employees (and/or freelancers) only be able to post on a colleague's column if they are 100% supportive? Again, who would determine that? I found Dave's comment funny, while Mr. Burdick and Mr. Levin seems to have not. The articles that I read the most in the Camera are in the field of sports and I often find the commentors offensive. However, I would never dream of saying they shouldn't be able to post.
Dave Taylor had the integrity to use his own name and picture in his post. He could just have easily created a fake persona and commented that way. Is that what we want people who disagree to have to do or do we welcome open dialogues?
Posted by Deb Krier | March 8, 2012, 8:39 amDeb, thanks for the reply!
My questions aren't about being permitted to post, and I don't think I implied anywhere that the comment should be deleted or censored or anything — they're about propriety and etiquette. I'd love to read your thoughts on how colleagues should behave. What do you think are the benefits and risks of writers for the same publication publicly critiquing one another's work?
(And again, I'd love to see a discussion about that in more general terms — I'm pretty well set on the discussion of Dave's specific comment. His input here has been great and unfortunately my hurried writing last night made him personally more of a focus than I set out to!)
Agreed that Dave using his name and face raises the standard of discussion — I wish everybody would do that!
Posted by Dave Burdick | March 8, 2012, 10:37 amDave – LOVE this discussion! It is a complicated subject…and probably one that's impossible to actually make a decision on.
Here's my in general thoughts…
For example, I'd think it would be great for colleagues to post positive comments on their co-workers articles. But, if positive is allowed (and encouraged), then why not negative…as long as it's reasonable. I definitely think there's a huge difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism, but again, who would determine which is which?
It's also complicated because of the issue of when someone is an employee and when someone is just a freelancer. What if someone only contributes an article a quarter…or once a year? In addition (and I admit I'm often a "slippery slope" type of person), while it may be decided that an employee can't be publicly critical, what if their immediate family, best friend, or… (you get the point) wants to post a comment?
All of this said, I do believe that no one should post online something they wouldn't say in person. I think that having the ability to comment online gives many people the feeling of anonymity – or at least the feeling that it's "safe" for them to be critical without fear of retribution. Online comments also lose virtually all context – even if we post a smiley face or "LOL", things can easily be misconstrued.
Glad this isn't a decision I have to make!
Posted by Deb Krier | March 8, 2012, 3:43 pmFor the verb in question, I like to think I would have chosen "careening" over the choice of "screaming". The latter word has a theatrical if not anthropomorphic quality not suited to the material, and not fitting either to Laura's usually superb handling of scientific matters.
But still, who cares? It's just one word. If it's a lapse, it's a benign and entertaining one.
However for Dave to toss in the comparison to National Enquirer is also gratuitous and uncalled for, so in a sense he tossed on the unneeded rhetoric just as he pinged Laura for doing. Smooth move Dave!
Posted by trumpetvine99 | March 8, 2012, 9:01 amWell, sure, "Trumpet", but there's a different standard of writing and, if you will, journalistic integrity, in comments left on a blog-style newspaper article site and an article actually published in a newspaper. Don't you agree?
Posted by Dave Taylor | March 8, 2012, 11:19 amI'm a Site Editor for a technical publication (SearchSoftwareQuality.com) and I work with many freelancers, so this is an interesting discussion for me. (Plus I know Dave and saw an invite on his Facebook page to come join in the discussion!)
In general, I think snarky comments, regardless of whether they are from a colleague or Joe Blow, do more harm to the criticizer than the one being criticized. (I notice the comment got a -4 on the thumbs up or down scale.) However, in this case, as has been noted, the comment was relatively benign and I believe was more an attempt at humor than hard criticism. The interesting thing, I always think, is the response of the person being criticized. For example, I think it would have been great for Laura to come back with some kind of funny retort – perhaps National Enquirer style about how she purposely left out the part about the aliens or the world coming to an end. But I know when we're being all "professional" we don't usually engage in that kind of back-and-forth. (Probably why I much prefer personal blogging to professional writing…)
Another point here is that most readers would not know that Dave did any work for the Camera, so probably wouldn't recognize him as an employee publicly criticizing his "colleague."
That all being said, yeah, I do think that (unless you're in some kind of writer's group that offers group critiques) it's always better to offer advice or criticism privately first, particularly if you are a colleague or friend.
One thing to note, though… Public debate or criticism does bring in more traffic, which is usually the ultimate goal of online publications. Everyone loves a good debate. So… as much as I can get annoyed by a snarky comment, it does help publicity!
Posted by Yvette Francino | March 8, 2012, 9:57 amDave Taylor,
Thanks as well for taking the time to add your insight and engage. Aha! I do feel like I've learned something.
Posted by Laura Snider | March 8, 2012, 11:45 amJust a few thoughts of my own. I think, if there's anything I could use more of at the Daily Camera, it's useful critiques. We have a very thin staff who are incredibly busy, and it's difficult for anyone to take the time to offer useful feedback to the reporters. I sometimes worry that it's difficult to become a better writer in that environment.
My general experience with the comments section of the Camera is that there's a lot of "feedback," but it's rarely useful. Most of it is pretty acidic, and frankly, I think it's rarely worth my time to read through them. (And in fact, I only noticed Dave's post because a colleague read it first and pointed it out.) Though I will say they have given me a thick skin. The things that people will write about people they don't know is fairly astounding, and I've never had anyone say to my face the kinds of vitriolic things they will say in the comment section.
The reason I contacted Dave after he posted his comment was that I was bummed out that a colleague (or if not really a colleague, then another writer whose own work can also be commented on at the Daily Camera's website) would give a critique that was written that way. In fact, I think it's really interesting that other people would find “screaming” to be an example of sensational rhetoric. I personally don't, but it's good to remember that subtle word choice has a range of impacts on how readers perceive a story. But I just don't think wading into the comments section and attacking each other's writing in a snarky fashion is actually helpful to anyone. I don't expect my colleagues to withhold their opinions of my work, especially if they're doing so to not hurt my feelings. But I do think it's not too much to ask that those opinions be delivered as part of a civil conversation.
And just a personal note, the most useful feedback I receive from readers is via email and phone calls. It allows us to have a conversation and both come to a place where we better understand each other's position and learn something from each other. Typically, when I try to respond in the comment section, it just leads to further attacks – not a conversation.
Posted by Laura Snider | March 8, 2012, 11:54 amThanks for adding your two cents to this discussion, Laura. Your input has been lacking. I agree that had I have recognized I was seen as a fellow journalist and part of the Daily Camera team I would have best just emailed you. The funny thing is, I *do* email writers there about hiccups and glitches in stories. Ask Alicia. :-) Good discussion, for sure, thanks for launching this ship, Dave.
Posted by Dave Taylor | March 8, 2012, 11:22 amI'm a retired editor and probably a bit old-fashioned, but I would not criticize a colleague in a public forum. If being helpful is the objective, why not speak to her privately or send an email? Criticizing in public risks embarrassing someone and looks unprofessional, especially when served up with a dose of snark. Keep such things in house.
Posted by PiedType | March 8, 2012, 4:00 pmDear Dave(s), Another question to ask – and this occurred to me after reading through the actual 'low-quality' comments on the article in question – is why a news website doesn't curate their own comments section. It may be a human resources issue, as Laura referenced above, but the absence of an obvious "policy of community standards" on the website makes me wonder if any thought has been given to it?
The commenters on Laura's piece are not interested in discussing the issue, just applying their ideology/paranoia to the topic:
ex: "And the Fox News ticker will proclaim: 'With the help of Satan, Comrade Obama creates solar flares to distract real Americans from the economy.'"
The New York Times not only has a clearly stated policy re: acceptable behavior in the comments area, they also actively curate comments.
From the Nytimes website: "Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we have created a space where readers can exchange intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information. While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can." The entire policy can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/site/usercont…
The question of Dave's judgement in criticizing Laura publicly is interesting (I personally think we need active verbs when describing science… We need kids to be excited about this stuff), but I would have never made it down to his critique, so low was the quality of the other comments.
Does anyone else think that the publication that sets the standards for the content of an article has a responsibility to curate (not censor, just keep on topic) the conversation?
Posted by Ian Howell | March 9, 2012, 8:49 amIan, thanks for the reply!
You're broadening the topic even more here, so I'll lean a bit on things I've written about comments in general before…
It may surprise you to find out that those are the (lightly) curated comments. I don't have the policy in front of me, but the Camera's editors delete offensive comments and ad hominem attacks, and repeat offenders often find themselves in moderation, so their comment doesn't post instantly.
As for "low-quality" comments, that's a much more difficult line to police, and yes, I imagine staffing is part of it and I imagine legal liability is another. ("You removed this comment, so it appears you're ensuring the accuracy of some of the information in the comments section, but you didn't remove this other comment in which my client was slandered.")
A funny thing happens when you do start deleting comments simply because they're dumb, too — people start thinking you're violating their First Amendment rights. Obviously you're not, and I'm not saying it's a reason not to do it, just that it's a funny and strange side effect. It might underscore the notion that you're The Man a bit, which can at times work pretty heavily against you.
You have to determine (and I don't think this is done nearly intentionally enough anywhere) what the purpose of the comments are for you. Do you want them to be ongoing watercooler chat? High-minded debate? Citizen journalism? Do you have the type and size of audience for what you think you want?
Ian, I've blogged on a couple of thoughts on ways to clean up online comments, but they all have their pitfalls. I wonder what you'd think of them:
Moving all comments to Twitter would change the context they're displayed in and, importantly, not display them inline with the story.
Charging users to comment would raise the bar — at least a little — for what people thought was worth leaving in the public forum. You might get fewer rimshot-type comments, you might get fewer "paranoid" comments to use your description… or you might not and you might completely stifle the people you actually want to hear from.
Maybe I'm due to collect a few varying comment policies and compare them in one post. (Got any favorites? Let me know here or on Twitter: @daveburdick.)
My own policy here (regarding moderation, at least) is that users have to have been approved to comment somewhere on IntenseDebate before. This is mostly to block out spam. On this post, for example, I've received approximately as many spam comments as real ones. I haven't had any nasty comments to deal with, so I haven't actually come up with what I'd do in that case. Probably delete it. (Seen Gary Hart's policy?)
A note to future commenters on this post, by the way: I'm going into (minor) surgery this morning so I will not be able to approve comments for several hours. I would love to have more thoughts on this to read when I'm back and healing, however, so please don't be deterred!
Posted by Dave Burdick | March 9, 2012, 8:29 amDear Dave,
Thanks for your quick reply. I too curate the comments on my website (http://www.thecountertenorvoice.com) to keep the conversation germane, and I think that my community participates more fully because of it. Akismet handles most of the spam for me :-).
I hope I am not hijacking this thread! Feel free to curate me away :-)
I think that the "move comments to twitter" and "charge users" solutions both fail to accomplish the main goal, which should be to cultivate an educated and involved readership that contributes to the community's understanding of an issue, while filtering out noise. This may not be the goal of every website, but I think it should be for a news outlet. If it is on twitter, we'll just ignore it there instead. I think that charging would never work.
Removing inappropriate comments (not just the offensive, but the non-sensical & irrelevant ones as well) creates the sort of online environment that articulate people will want to participate in. (imho) This is subjective, or course, but so are the conclusions of any online author.
I think that we do not have a first amendment right to insert content into another's website. Only the website's owner does. If the website's owner were prevented from publishing something, that is another matter.
I think that website owners can fall into the trap of wanting participation from the community at all costs. When I see comments sections like on the website in question it lowers the quality of the publication in my view, and (I think) discourages contributions from more thoughtful and articulate readers. If I were the editor, fewer than half of the comments on Laura's article would have been approved. :-)
~Ian
p.s. my favorite comments policy is still the nytimes
Posted by Ian Howell | March 9, 2012, 11:32 amI keep an eye on my comments and state on my "About" page that "I reserve the right (rarely employed) to edit or delete objectionable material (spamming, obscenity, personal attacks, etc)." I've deleted only about half a dozen comments in ten years. I've blocked only one commenter, deleted several ad hominum attacks, removed one link to some deliberately disgusting images while leaving the comment itself intact, and removed one that was actually an entire post from the writer's own website. Akismet catches the spam. I try to foster a friendly environment of thoughtful, respectful comments and I think doing so helps set the tone for the blog as a whole.
I've seen people on other blogs complain bitterly that deletion of their comments constituted censorship and violated their free speech rights, but they are mistaken. A blog or website belongs to the administrator/owner and being allowed to comment there is a privilege, not a right.
Posted by PiedType | March 18, 2012, 12:11 pmI'm late to this party, but Dave alerted me via Google+… What occurs to me is that the Daily Camera's new uber-parent company, Digital First Media (which is up the corporate food chain from MediaNews Group and Prairie Mountain Publishing), is pushing toward ultra-transparency. For instance, a showcase newsroom transformation took place at the Torrington, CT, newspaper owned by DFM where the newsroom meetings were opened to the public — and live-streamed! I don't see how you can have an effective daily news meeting without editors criticizing work that was published the previous day. And of course any member of the public who chose to sit in on the meeting or watch the live-stream would hear editors and reporters criticize colleagues' work.
So, how is it different if you, Dave, post a comment that's critical of Laura's work? In terms of corporate policy or the newsroom culture that DFM is trying to create throughout all its news properties, to be more transparent?
But that's an academic theoretical case. In practice, I know i wouldn't be comfortable criticizing my newsroom co-workers in the comments section of the news website we both work for. Or if I were to dare do so, my personal ethics would make me write it in a very diplomatic way so as not to offend; I wouldn't state it as forcefully as Dave did in his comment about Laura's story.
One last point: I think it's generally a very good thing when news staffers (especially the writer of a story) participate in their story's comment threads. It can help keep the discussion more civil. If other newsroom folks also participate — i.e., not just the author of the story — that might go even further to keep the trolls at bay. Would no, I wouldn't advocate that newsroom colleagues behave like comment trolls. 8^)
Posted by Steve Outing | March 26, 2012, 2:42 pm