NPR joins other news orgs banning comments from its stories

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,288
19,776
136
because trolls

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/24/fin...the-loudest-drunk-in-nprs-online-bar_partner/

"
Good riddance to NPR’s comment section, which shut down Tuesday after eight years. There has to be a better way for news organizations to engage with the public.

NPR is joining a growing list of media organizations that have said “finito” to comments including, “This American Life,” Reuters, Recode, Mic, the Chicago Sun-Times, Popular Science, CNN, the Toronto Star and The Week.

When comments sections were initiated on news sites, they were hailed as a means to democratize the media, allowing a two-way conversation between readers and the journalists who serve them.

But readers are often talking to each other because most journalists don’t engage. And there’s a reason. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza enthusiastically embracedhis audience when he started his political blog, the Fix, in 2006.

I know firsthand how futile and frustrating comments sections are.
“I would regularly go into the comments to interact (or try to interact) with readers. I incentivized and deputized regular commenters to keep order,” he wrote in a column that extolled NPR’s decision. “Then I gave up. Because none of the tactics or strategies we tried ever had any real impact on the quality of the dialogue happening on The Fix. No matter what the original post was about, a handful of the loudest — or most committed — voices in the room hijacked the comments thread to push their own agendas.”

As NPR’s ombudsman from 2007 to 2011, I know firsthand how futile and frustrating comments sections are. Even though NPR had a sign-up system, and hired an outside moderator to check comments before posting, a listener could still create an alias and write whatever he (and it was usually men) liked. The comments were often mean-spirited and did little to foster civil conversation.

‘The goal is dialogue,” I wrote in a 2011 essay on comment sections for the Nieman Reports, “but it’s pretty clear that the debate between dialogue and diatribe is still being waged. From the view I’ve had for the last three years as NPR’s ombudsman I’d say diatribe is winning—hands down.” It’s still true today.

The trolls who rule the comment seas may actually have won because they often scare away people with their vicious attacks. An infinitesimal number of NPR’s 25 to 35 million unique monthly users bothered to join story-page conversations."
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,101
5,640
126
yup. This is why when worthless POS's like that Yannopolous(sp) dude gets banned off Twitter I don't shed a tear. Trolls are disruptive to Free Speech and Discussion, they forfeit their Right to Speech when they abuse it and Others.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,751
3,068
121
I'll still check NPR on a daily basis, but trolls are so pervasive these days, I do not blame them.

At least they try to keep news real and unbiased for integrity for the most part for many decades, they do not need an unwarranted attack of n00bs randomly posting like it is Reddit.
 
Last edited:

Kazukian

Platinum Member
Aug 8, 2016
2,034
650
91
Meh, comments just turn into a morass of fools, if I have a valid concern, I email or tweet the author or editor. And that's pretty rare, have only done it once and the author edited the story per my suggestions.
 

BxgJ

Golden Member
Jul 27, 2015
1,054
123
106
Not trolls, it is because of people disagreeing with main stream media.

Kinda difficult to push an agenda when readers call you out on it.
It is trolls. If you think it's not you've never read comments on news sites before..... That or you identify with them.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,030
5,321
136
It is trolls. If you think it's not you've never read comments on news sites before..... That or you identify with them.
student-raising-hand-300x300.jpg

Ooooh! oooh! Pick me, I KNOW the answer to that last query!!
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,446
7,508
136
Good riddance to NPR’s comment section, which shut down Tuesday after eight years. There has to be a better way for news organizations to engage with the public.

Rely on a service that specializes in moderation and filters.
Set it so clients determine the quality level of displayed posters.

Do this by hiring a diverse team of moderators who can upvote (like) posts. Over time, if a post is not liked... that's an automatic down vote and the users lose points. Lose too many points and find yourself designated a troll. Client says no trolls allowed... the general public won't see their posts.
 
Last edited:

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Not trolls, it is because of people disagreeing with main stream media.

Kinda difficult to push an agenda when readers call you out on it.
Isn't 'calling them out on it' an agenda of its own?
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,751
3,068
121
Rely on a service that specializes in moderation and filters.
Set it so clients determine the quality level of displayed posters.

Do this by hiring a diverse team of moderators who can upvote (like) posts. Over time, if a post is not liked... that's an automatic down vote and the users lose points. Lose too many points and find yourself designated a troll. Client says no trolls allowed... the general public won't see their posts.

It has been a nationally run non profit organization that has ran for decades on its own, they do not need to hire moderators etc to filter through everything on 900 hundred sites.

Or even the main one. The quality of their reporting has stood before the internet became a thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sheik Yerbouti

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,446
7,508
136
Great, so their comments section is working well for them.
Oh, no... you were speaking out your...
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
26,165
24,100
136
I though underroos whined about this earlier in the week. TH beat me to what was going to be a sarcastic comment about the MSM oppressing the truth, but he actually believes that shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

Humpy

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2011
4,463
596
126
What disturbs me the most about comment sections isn't so much the trolling, it's the huge number of absolute retards that insist on being heard (irony not intended).
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,555
9,937
136
What disturbs me the most about comment sections isn't so much the trolling, it's the huge number of absolute retards that insist on being heard (irony not intended).

This. Reading the Yahoo comment section makes me hurt for humanity, and it isn't just because of trolls. Now if only we could get news sites from including tweets from random nobodies in every damn article, we'd be set.
 

elitejp

Golden Member
Jan 2, 2010
1,080
20
81
Really is both ways. The media is trying to push an agenda and not every reader agrees with it. And then you got trolls who are just that.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
News sites should have the equivalent of "letters to the editor". You can't just shout instant feedback at a newspaper and have a comment appear magically on the printed page, but you can write to the editor on a story, and have it published.

I don't see why online sites can't operate the same way. Have a send comments to the editor entry, and have an editor (or team of people, whatever) pick comments to display on the site. It could simply happen much faster than with a newspaper article, and of course weed out most of the obvious trolls, most of whom would probably get bored as soon as their comments stopped appearing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
It is trolls. If you think it's not you've never read comments on news sites before..... That or you identify with them.

I read comments on news sites, and post comments on sites like motherjones and huffpost.

Even sites like Sciencedaily have leaned towards agenda based articles, rather than posting facts.

There is an article on NPR about the clinton foundation. The author praised the foundation and defended hillary, neither of which should be in an unbiased article.

In the recent Louisiana flooding and whites were helping blacks, was the national media calling out black lives matter for not helping? Nope. Were the black panthers and nation of islam called out for not helping the flood victims? Nope.
 

BxgJ

Golden Member
Jul 27, 2015
1,054
123
106
I read comments on news sites, and post comments on sites like motherjones and huffpost.

Even sites like Sciencedaily have leaned towards agenda based articles, rather than posting facts.

There is an article on NPR about the clinton foundation. The author praised the foundation and defended hillary, neither of which should be in an unbiased article.

In the recent Louisiana flooding and whites were helping blacks, was the national media calling out black lives matter for not helping? Nope. Were the black panthers and nation of islam called out for not helping the flood victims? Nope.

Which article? Link?
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
Which article? Link?

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/25/49128...ling-access-explaining-the-clinton-foundation

These are opinions,

It is ambitious. It is sprawling and, at times, unfocused.

What, exactly, does the Clinton Foundation do?

A lot.

The article does not state the facts,

Namely: whether they gave because of the promise of access to and favors from Hillary Clinton, who was just beginning her career in public office at the time that Bill Clinton had ended his.

The access was when she was secretary of state.

The article says when "she started her career in public office", which is wrong.

New York post says

http://nypost.com/2016/08/23/majority-of-foundation-donors-got-special-access-to-hillary/
More than half the private citizens who got face time or spoke with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state forked over bundles of cash to the Clinton Foundation, a stunning new investigation revealed Tuesday.
 
Last edited: