More on Reader Comments
I was on a panel this week in front of the Maine Press Association regarding the news media and PR, and couldn't help bringing up one of my pet peeves, readers' comments, those mostly nasty rants at the end of online stories at newspaper websites.
As an earlier post explained, I just don't understand the policy that allows anonymous readers to post just about anything they want at the news sites while the media company hosting the site takes no responsibility for publishing the comments. Two typical cases were related by the panel, one by me and one by Steve McCausland, the able spokesman for the Maine State Police. McCausland told the story from a few years ago about a hit and run accident in Falmouth involving a woman in a big Cadillac. Because the investigation was ongoing and charges had not been brought, the police refused initially to release the driver's name.
That sent the readers' comments echo chamber and other bloggers into a frenzy with speculation that the driver in question was Sen. Olympia Snowe, who happens to live in Falmouth and happens to drive a Caddy. It forced the Senator to release a statement saying she wasn't even in Maine at the time of the accident, and the mainstream media followed suit with a news story saying no, it wasn't Snowe.
My story, which I've related here before, involved a Press Herald article about an apartment manager in Portland who was indicted for embezzling tens of thousands of dollars by failing to deposit payments from renters. I happened to know that this guy blew most of the money at the Hollywood Slots casino in Bangor, a detail that was left out of the story. So I e-mailed the reporter who said he knew about the gambling connection but couldn't print it because he learned it off the record. Fine. I understand the policy of a newspaper not printing off the record information or information that it cannot confirm from mulitple sources.
But right under the reporter's embezzlement story, several readers posted comments saying they knew the guy was taking the money on gambling trips to Bangor. So the paper was scooped by its own readers. What kind of policy prevents reporters from printing unsubstantiated information but allows anonymous readers to do it ON THE SAME WEBSITE?!?!?
The reporters and editors in attendance defended their practice of allowing their readers free, unedited access to their websites. One of the editors said something about how the courts have ruled that the public has free use of the web and the newspapers aren't responsible for what's said in the readers' comments, anymore than you can hold ATT responsible for what's said over the phone lines.
Ok, I'm not a lawyer (although some people in their readers' comments have claimed I am), but this makes no sense to me. The Portland Press Herald website is not analogous to the telephone lines. Sure, people should be free to access the Internet just as they are the phone lines. But the Press Herald website is more like the telephone itself, which allows people to access the lines, and which you have to buy in order to gain access to those lines. I wouldn't let anyone use my phone to make an obscene call. If I did, the call could be traced and I would be held responsible. So why isn't the Press Herald - or any other newspaper - responsible for everything published on its website, readers' comments included? Let the readers get their own website if they want to post damaging, inflammatory and libelous comments.
Imagine this scenario: a reporter gets tipped off to some slacious information about a politician, but is frustrated by his paper's policy against using off the record information, or imformation that can't be confirmed. So he logs on to his paper's website, anonymously, and posts the information in the readers' comments section for public consumption. Mission accomplished. It could happen. In fact I suspect it already has.
As an earlier post explained, I just don't understand the policy that allows anonymous readers to post just about anything they want at the news sites while the media company hosting the site takes no responsibility for publishing the comments. Two typical cases were related by the panel, one by me and one by Steve McCausland, the able spokesman for the Maine State Police. McCausland told the story from a few years ago about a hit and run accident in Falmouth involving a woman in a big Cadillac. Because the investigation was ongoing and charges had not been brought, the police refused initially to release the driver's name.
That sent the readers' comments echo chamber and other bloggers into a frenzy with speculation that the driver in question was Sen. Olympia Snowe, who happens to live in Falmouth and happens to drive a Caddy. It forced the Senator to release a statement saying she wasn't even in Maine at the time of the accident, and the mainstream media followed suit with a news story saying no, it wasn't Snowe.
My story, which I've related here before, involved a Press Herald article about an apartment manager in Portland who was indicted for embezzling tens of thousands of dollars by failing to deposit payments from renters. I happened to know that this guy blew most of the money at the Hollywood Slots casino in Bangor, a detail that was left out of the story. So I e-mailed the reporter who said he knew about the gambling connection but couldn't print it because he learned it off the record. Fine. I understand the policy of a newspaper not printing off the record information or information that it cannot confirm from mulitple sources.
But right under the reporter's embezzlement story, several readers posted comments saying they knew the guy was taking the money on gambling trips to Bangor. So the paper was scooped by its own readers. What kind of policy prevents reporters from printing unsubstantiated information but allows anonymous readers to do it ON THE SAME WEBSITE?!?!?
The reporters and editors in attendance defended their practice of allowing their readers free, unedited access to their websites. One of the editors said something about how the courts have ruled that the public has free use of the web and the newspapers aren't responsible for what's said in the readers' comments, anymore than you can hold ATT responsible for what's said over the phone lines.
Ok, I'm not a lawyer (although some people in their readers' comments have claimed I am), but this makes no sense to me. The Portland Press Herald website is not analogous to the telephone lines. Sure, people should be free to access the Internet just as they are the phone lines. But the Press Herald website is more like the telephone itself, which allows people to access the lines, and which you have to buy in order to gain access to those lines. I wouldn't let anyone use my phone to make an obscene call. If I did, the call could be traced and I would be held responsible. So why isn't the Press Herald - or any other newspaper - responsible for everything published on its website, readers' comments included? Let the readers get their own website if they want to post damaging, inflammatory and libelous comments.
Imagine this scenario: a reporter gets tipped off to some slacious information about a politician, but is frustrated by his paper's policy against using off the record information, or imformation that can't be confirmed. So he logs on to his paper's website, anonymously, and posts the information in the readers' comments section for public consumption. Mission accomplished. It could happen. In fact I suspect it already has.
Posted by Dennis Bailey at 4/3/2009 3:48 PM 
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: newspapers Reader comments news media
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: newspapers Reader comments news media
You're absolutely right. Moreover, the comment boxes on newspaper sites demean the good work reporters and editors put into producing a good story. You read though it, get to the end and then have Joe shut-in screaming unreasonably, anonymously, and usually ungrammatically, about how uninformed the reporter and newspaper is. You have no hint about their agenda or even who they are, brave souls. Like you said, let them get their own website.
Reply to this
great articles and has great knowlege i liked it very much actualy i take interst in this kinds of articles and reports. i will come back on this blog for reading new story or articles.
Reply to this