By Susan Matthews, APR, principal
I’ve said on many an occasion: “If I want to get really down on humanity, all I need to do is read some reader comments in response to an online article.” Too often these jibes are beyond nasty; they’re downright cruel.
In conversations with reporters from the Indianapolis Star, the Wall Street
Journal and elsewhere, I hear them lament that they hesitate to interview some people for fear that the innocent interviewee will suffer taunts and insults through online reader feedback. How sad and ironic that in the spirit of increased dialogue, we’re limiting the stories, people and ideas that are offered to us through the news media.
So it was with great interest that I read Andrew Alexander ‘s article in today’s Washington Post. The Post is striving to balance respect for others on the one hand, with the benefits of free speech on the other. And they’re coming up with some creative solutions.
Alexander reports: “The solution is in moderating — not limiting — comments. In a few months, the Post will implement a system that should help. It’s still being developed, but [Hal] Straus [who oversees commenting for the Web site] said the broad outlines envision commenters being assigned to different ‘tiers’ based on their past behavior and other factors. Those with a track record of staying within the guidelines, and those providing their real names, will likely be considered ‘trusted commenters.’ Repeat violators or discourteous agitators will be grouped elsewhere or blocked outright. Comments of first-timers will be screened by a human being. When visitors click to read story comments, only those from the ‘trusted’ group will appear. If they want to see inflammatory or off-topic comments from ‘trolls,’ they’ll need to click to access a different ‘tier.’”
Sounds like a good approach to me. What do you think?
Tags: borshoff, communication, dialogue

Posts
Sounds like the only good idea I’ve heard on this topic. And yes, as circuitous as a tiered system sounds, I agree that something must be done. It truly is like the internet coming back to bite itself.
Also: Thanks for not blocking this.
Comments aren’t sacrosanct. The worst thing that can happen is that the site might get comment-flamed if comments are moderated. I would not just a website if all the comments left were not well thought out. I’d judge their readership.
I have no qualms deleting comments on my websites, and the “news” websites should not either. The comment quality is often based on the quality of the readers. Have you ever compared the quality of Amazon book reviews and YouTube video reviews?
I agree that the comment quality reflects the quality and or character of the readers. That said, does the quality of the readers reflect the quality of the source/website/content originator?