NPR joins other news orgs banning comments from its stories

[jackstar7]

Hey look, another personal jab.

What jab? I envy people who have that kind of time. Mine is nearly all consumed. I barely have time to keep up with a given thread/topic.

But since that wasn't even directed at you, I'm glad you jumped in to criticize me. Stay vigilant!

 

[realibrad]

What jab? I envy people who have that kind of time. Mine is nearly all consumed. I barely have time to keep up with a given thread/topic.

But since that wasn't even directed at you, I'm glad you jumped in to criticize me. Stay vigilant!

Lol ok. So your argument is that you envy him.

I was also glad to see you jump in and comment on a post that I made to someone else.

 

[jackstar7]

I was also glad to see you jump in and comment on a post that I made to someone else.

I know you enjoy the banter.

 

[HumblePie]

Since we are on the topic of NPR I'll give my two cents.

First, about NPR. I listen to it almost everyday. Is it the most unbiased news for the mainstream media? I'd have to state yes. Does that mean it is without bias in the articles they present? Nope.

There are journalists that unabashedly present their articles for their specific side of the political spectrum. But at least NPR employes journalists that do hit both sides of the spectrum so I see/hear articles for both. I know which journalists are a bit off in the looney bin in their story coverage and just roll my eyes when I hear them or read anything by them. As a consumer of news, it is still up to me to figure out for myself is a truer unbiased representation of a new article I am looking at. As such, I don't use NPR alone when I am actually looking for more details about a specific news discussion. Especially a politically charged news discussion.

As for their decision about blocking comments. I don't really care. I rarely post in here and while we all like to make fun of AT P&N, it is surprisingly not nearly that bad when compared to the comment sections I've seen in some news sites, youtube, facebook, or other places.

Their site they can do what they want. Although I will say that NPR isn't like a typical for profit company where decisions are made to drive in revenue since they supposedly run off donations more than anything else. Who knows if blocking comments will affect that or not.

 

[realibrad]

Since we are on the topic of NPR I'll give my two cents.

First, about NPR. I listen to it almost everyday. Is it the most unbiased news for the mainstream media? I'd have to state yes. Does that mean it is without bias in the articles they present? Nope.

There are journalists that unabashedly present their articles for their specific side of the political spectrum. But at least NPR employes journalists that do hit both sides of the spectrum so I see/hear articles for both. I know which journalists are a bit off in the looney bin in their story coverage and just roll my eyes when I hear them or read anything by them. As a consumer of news, it is still up to me to figure out for myself is a truer unbiased representation of a new article I am looking at. As such, I don't use NPR alone when I am actually looking for more details about a specific news discussion. Especially a politically charged news discussion.

As for their decision about blocking comments. I don't really care. I rarely post in here and while we all like to make fun of AT P&N, it is surprisingly not nearly that bad when compared to the comment sections I've seen in some news sites, youtube, facebook, or other places.

Their site they can do what they want. Although I will say that NPR isn't like a typical for profit company where decisions are made to drive in revenue since they supposedly run off donations more than anything else. Who knows if blocking comments will affect that or not.

Honestly, I would bet that it helps NPR. Most news site's comments sections are filled with people who do nothing but push talking points. It does not matter what the article was about, someone will bring up how Trump/Hillary are evil and going to ruin the world. I don't think comments sections work like most would think. Its a way for people to virtue signal to complete strangers.

 

[TeeJay1952]

One is not obligated to give a Soapbox and Microphone to everyone.
News Stories have always been curated and edited. The first edit is in where story is placed. NYT or Breitbart.
Tell me who you walk with and I will tell you who you are. (Mexican Proverb as stated by Hillery)

 

[MovingTarget]

Shitting disrespectfully all over news articles where someone died, or ranting your opinions about illegal immigration in every news article that includes a Hispanic-sounding name, or spewing profanity and threats at anyone who doesn't agree with you, is not free speech. It's just being a douchebag troll.
These media outlets have been incredibly generous in providing their private space for public comments and, unfortunately, much of that has been abused by idiots who wouldn't know the 1st amendment from a hole in their own head.

This. NPR, like any other news outlet, is under no obligation to provide a public forum. Having people express their views on an article is often constructive to public discourse, but there comes a point where it becomes more of a liability. The comments section on many news sites have become cesspools of hate, bigotry, and opportunities for free ipods. No amount of moderation can save them after a point. I'm honestly surprised that more sites haven't shut down their comments sections like NPR has.

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

Most flame wars have moved to twitter. I'm guessing the change has less to do with unsavory commentary and more to do with loss of traffic, not worth hiring competent moderation.

Exactly. To be honest, I don't know why there are as many sites with comment sections as we have now. You'd think they would offload that to facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc.

Via NPR.

"We've reached the point where we've realized that there are other, better ways to achieve the same kind of community discussion around the issues we raise in our journalism," he said, with money, and spending it efficiently, part of the issue. More than 5 million people each month engage with NPR on Twitter, compared to just a fraction of that number in the NPR.org comments. "In relative terms, as we set priorities, it becomes increasingly clear that the market has spoken. This is where people want to engage with us. So that's what we're going to emphasize," he said.

...

Other organizations such as The New York Times manage to keep their comments relatively civil. But they use heavy in-house human moderation that costs far more than NPR currently spends on its outsourced system, according to NPR executives who are familiar with the numbers. The Times also opens only 10 percent of its articles for comments (but is working to increase that percentage), and keeps the comment threads open for just one week. NPR currently allows comments on all articles for two weeks.

 

[bozack]

I remember seeing a number of articles as of late which had comments disabled and thinking it was a way for the site to stifle the opinions of the readers and instead simply push their agenda with no mechanism for folks to interact, had no idea this was a larger movement within the companies hosting news sites.

 

[master_shake_]

I don't even bother reading articles where the comments are filtered or disabled. Look at every video on youtube and you'll see an immediate pattern. People who are lying always turn off the comments. People who are being honest always keep the comments turned on and unfiltered.
Look at any creationist video. The comments will always be turned off or heavily filtered.
Look at any video debunking creationism. The comments are never filtered.

One of the funniest things I've ever seen on youtube was a video about a single mom looking for dates. It was actually a makeup commercial, Revlon I think, and the comments were filled with hilarious trolling. People would post stats about single moms raising criminals, single moms consuming enormous amounts of welfare, single moms abusing children, and saying any guy who dates a single mom is a cuckold. It was highly educational. Response? Shut down the comments. Too many facts were happening.

this.

especially on youtube.

and it's even better when they turn off the likes and dislikes.

how dare someone have a different opinion. or have some kind of fact that makes you look like a lunatic.

 

[PlanetJosh]

If the agendas of the trolls were posted without insults or very few insults and with an ear toward trying to understand the opposing side, then is it possible they never would've been listed as trolls? And then NPR would've let the comments remain? Or am I being too simplistic about this what if suggestion?

 

[werepossum]

Here's the article I think TH is referring to:

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

But I don't think, after reading it, TH did any reading of it at all. It certainly doesn't say what TH suggests it says.....

As The New York Times explained it:

"Instead of handing out grants, the foundation recruits donors and advises them on how best to deploy their money or resources, from helping Procter & Gamble donate advanced water-purification packets to developing countries to working with credit card companies to expand the volume of low-cost loans offered to poor inner city residents."

To many of us, "more than $2 billion dollars" seems like rather a lot to spend helping other people spend their money.

 

[werepossum]

This is not the same as pointing out that dangerous or useless speech, when presented on a news site, doesn't offer any real value towards the public good. There are and have always been places for newspapers to corral the opinions of the common, uninformed pleb--but linking those comments to specific stories is not useful and is no replacement for honest discourse.

Confusing the open access of unfiltered public opinion with censoring of free speech is a common fault of the right--something that I am coming around to accepting that a right-leaning individual is simply incapable of understanding. But this is why we have Fox News and now infowars and the like: It appears that the simple base need for confirmation bias and outright rejection of thought-challenge among the rabble has replaced the notion that informed thought is, quite truly, the actual intent of the First Amendment. But hey, as long as these hillbillies have that 2nd Amendment to protect what they believe (and only what they believe) the First Amendment to mean, then all is good, right?

lol Luckily, there are highly educated people who know what speech is "dangerous or useless speech" which "doesn't offer any real value towards the public good". It's the same people who know what size soda we should be allowed to drink, or what is the proper racial make-up of any group. They are going to fix everything - all they need is total power and lack of dissenting opinions.

 

[shortylickens]

One is not obligated to give a Soapbox and Microphone to everyone.
News Stories have always been curated and edited. The first edit is in where story is placed. NYT or Breitbart.
Tell me who you walk with and I will tell you who you are. (Mexican Proverb as stated by Hillery)

I dont walk with anybody.

 

[TeeJay1952]

I dont walk with anybody.

Not to put too fine a point on it but you are here!

 

[realibrad]

Not to put too fine a point on it but you are here!

Did you ever consider that he may not walk?!?!?!?!?!?

BOOM!

 

[shortylickens]

This is a prime example of why we really dont need comments on news:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/2...-raped-shot-eaten-by-alligators-fbi-says.html

You dont even have to read the article, just scroll down to the comments.

I already know theres tons of assholes in the world. Dont need more evidence.

 

[TheGardener]

The trolls who rule the comment seas may actually have won because they often scare away people with their vicious attacks.

Sounds a lot like this board.

Exactly. To be honest, I don't know why there are as many sites with comment sections as we have now. You'd think they would offload that to facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc.

Very few news outlets have there own comment sections anymore. For the reason you stated about social media sites. And having anonymous people commenting, doesn't add to the quality of the news outlet.

 

[John Connor]

Jesus tap dancing christ! I seen that article actually. Never read it or seen the comments. I just saw the headline. But if this is who the voter base is -- yeah this country is fucked!

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Jesus tap dancing christ! I seen that article actually. Never read it or seen the comments. I just saw the headline. But if this is who the voter base is -- yeah this country is fucked!

what the crap are you going on now about conner?

 

[Jaskalas]

Jesus tap dancing christ! I seen that article actually. Never read it or seen the comments. I just saw the headline. But if this is who the voter base is -- yeah this country is fucked!

Haha... spoken like a man living under a rock.
Comment sections are the true face of evil.
P&N would slowly trend towards that with zero moderation.

 

[John Connor]

LOL I'm not living under a rock, man. I live in a lighthouse on a private island. From my vantage point I know all too well that comments are usually trash. But seeing those comments in particular is like a major WTF? I mean that's worse than YouTube! LOL! Actually, YouTube comments can be quite funny and informative at the same time.

 

[John Connor]

"because... you know... the Cold War has been over for 20 years."

And look at what happened in Crimea.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

LOL I'm not living under a rock, man. I live in a lighthouse on a private island. From my vantage point I know all too well that comments are usually trash. But seeing those comments in particular is like a major WTF? I mean that's worse than YouTube! LOL! Actually, YouTube comments can be quite funny and informative at the same time.

Looks like this?

I mean that would definitely clear up some questions about you conner.

 

[shortylickens]

that article did serve an important purpose to me: I had never heard the term "Mudshark" before, so that was enlightening.