For the Record
Dean Wright on Ethics, Innovation and Values
Toward a more thoughtful conversation on stories
Email 
Print
Visitors to this space may recall that I wrote this summer about the issues Reuters and other news organizations face in dealing with reader comments on stories.
I’ve become increasingly concerned about the quality of discourse in comments on news stories on Reuters.com and on other major news sites. On some stories, the “conversation” has been little more than partisans slinging invective at each other under the cloak of anonymity.
I believe our time-challenged, professional readers want to see a more rewarding conversation—and my colleagues who lead Reuters.com are introducing a new process for comments that I believe will help bring that about.
The new process, which gives special status to readers whose comments have passed muster in the past, won’t address the anonymity issue, but I do think it is an important step toward a more civil and thoughtful conversation.
Let me introduce Richard Baum, Reuters Global Editor for Consumer Media, to tell you about the new process:
——————————————————————————————
Like many major news publishers, we’ve agonized over how to balance our enthusiasm for reader comments on stories with our belief that few people would benefit from a free-for-all. Most of our readers respect our request for comments that “advance the story,” by submitting relevant anecdotes, links and data or by challenging our reporting when they think we’ve fallen short of our editorial standards. It’s rewarding, sometimes even exhilarating, to see the way our audience builds on our coverage.
Where we struggle is with comments that we believe contribute nothing useful to the conversation. I’m not talking about obscenities and spam — we have software that aims to block the publication of those — but something more subjective. Most of our readers are business professionals who value their time highly. We believe they want comments that are as rewarding to read as they are to write. The challenge is how we deliver that experience in a way that doesn’t delay the publication of good comments nor use up resources that might be better deployed on other parts of the site.
I’ll explain how we’re tackling that shortly. But first, here are some examples of the type of comments that fall foul of our moderators:
– racism and other hate language that isn’t caught by our software filters
– obscene words with letters substituted to get around the software filters
– semi-literate spelling; we’re not looking for perfection, but people shouldn’t have to struggle to determine the meaning
– uncivil behavior towards other commentators; debate is welcome, schoolyard taunts are not
– incitement to violence
– comments that have nothing to do with the story
– comments that have been pasted across multiple stories
– comments that are unusually long, unless they’re very well written
– excessive use of capital letters
Some of the guidelines for our moderators are hard to define precisely. Mocking of public people can be fair sport, for example, but a moderator that has just approved 30 comments calling someone an idiot can rightly decide that there’s little incremental value in publishing the 31st. When we block comments of this nature, it’s because of issues of repetition, taste or legal risk, not political bias.
Until recently, our moderation process involved editors going through a basket of all incoming comments, publishing the ones that met our standards and blocking the others. (It’s a binary decision: we don’t have the resources to edit comments.)
This was unsatisfactory because it delayed the publication of good comments, especially overnight and at weekends when our staffing is lighter.
Our new process grants a kind of VIP status on people who have had comments approved previously. When you register to comment on Reuters.com, our moderation software tags you as a new user. Your comments go through the same moderation process as before, but every time we approve a comment, you score a point.
Once you’ve reached a certain number of points, you become a recognized user. Congratulations: your comments will be published instantly from now on. Our editors will still review your comments after they’ve been published and will remove them if they don’t meet our standards. When that happens, you’ll lose points. Lose enough points and you’ll revert to new user status.
The highest scoring commentators will be classified as expert users, earning additional privileges that we’ll implement in future. You can see approval statistics for each reader on public profile pages like this, accessed by clicking on the name next to a comment.
It’s not a perfect system, but we believe it’s a foundation for facilitating a civil and rewarding discussion that’s open to the widest range of people. Let me know what you think.
Comments RSSPost Your Comment
-
Author Profile
-
Being able to see and read what others think about a particular subject is an important reason for having a news website, and censorship defeats this purpose, as well as destroying your credibility as a news source. agreed and nice
Question to Dean Wright: Is Rupert Murdoch invited to your Christmas Party?
I believe this is a fair and balanced approach. I share your concern for the massive drop in quality in many comments sections – especially Yahoo, and USA Today. I think a high quality discussion board will become self promoting and draw yet more high quality posters who are tired of the “juvinile playgrounds” so many sites have become. Thanks for the effort to improve the process in a rational manner.
I was amazed that my comment on an article about anti-american sentiment at an Afghan dogfight was trashcanned. I posted a second one which is pending. I complained that the article was, in my opinion, gonzo journalism. I asked what was a reporter doing at an afghan dogfight. The comments that were approved for posting were ALL anti-afghan. No, I am not afghan, or even pro-afghan. What I am is pro-balanced journalism. This article was not. And the rejection of my comment makes me wonder about Reuters.
This is a typical elitist attitude towards writing and publication. Censorship at its most foul. If we don’t like what you say then we won’t publish it. I guess the 1st ammendment is only for them.
I took the time and agreed to share my yahoo information with rueters in order to post and I’m looked down upoon because its my first comment. gee I hope I earn enough points so I can state my opion. sorry that new commenters aren’t worthy, maybe if we only use your website and build up enough comments on articles that we don’t really care about we will have enough points to be able to make a comment, great system hope it works out for you.
Typical right-wing bias of the mainstream media. The dialogue should be factual. Opinions are like bungholes, everyone has one. Just do not let paid trolls monopolize any given thread. Easy. If someone is posting 100 times per day then they are a paid troll. Limit the number, but not the content. Limit comments to relevancy to the article and common decency.
“Most of our readers are business professionals who value their time highly. We believe they want comments that are as rewarding to read as they are to write.” Well let me ask you this: How much “time” does it take a bussiness proffessional to NOT read a comment, to simply skip over it if they are not interested? As you may have gathered by the majority of comments – no one here is buying your lame excuses for censoring the comments section. The only fair thing to do is allow all comments (with the exception of spam, and profanity maybe) or do away with the comments section all together.
I support your decision on all points. However, I will be looking for fairness on your part to differing points of view, even the ones to which I’m opposed. If you appear to favor one over another, that will affect my opinion of Reuters as a news source. As you know, you have a responsiblity as journalists to be fair and impartial. I trust you will be faithful to your calling.
A VIP preference for commenting smacks of censorship. It’s one thing to eliminate comments that are not tasteful but when it’s clear the comment is civil and informed -why the delay? In the end you’ll end up loosing some of the most interesting people
who come to your site.
I do not consider this to be a coincidence.
While you seem to have “loosened up” somewhat in terms of your heavy censorship, on some other articles you clearly have a long way to go to achieve what I consider a reasonably balanced viewpoint.
shanghai apartment
This sound like what the demos want to do to freedom of speak
At least if we post something and you deny it, do us the courtesy with a response as to why so that we may improve.
For awhile you seemed to loosen up a bit on your heavy-handed approach to comments, but now I have recently had two blocked (one rebutting the comments made by the head of your breaking news department, and now one by David Cay Johnston).
Apparently the head of your breaking news department is a “Sacred Cow” whose pronouncements can’t be challenged, which I can understand.
But the one I submitted today criticizing Johnston for (once again) missing the point of the article he is writing, is beyond justification.
I gave up trying to submit comments to any of Ms. Freeland’s articles because it is obvious you will not permit me to comment on what she says, no matter what it is. I also quit reading her articles for the same reason.
———————————————————————————————
I’d like to point out something you are clearly ignoring. By offering to accept comments from readers and then arbitrarily denying them the right to comment is a violation of a person’s right to free speech, as guaranteed under our constitution.
When I submit a comment I KNOW whether it is within your stated abuse policy or not. And you are flagrantly in violation of your own stated policy.
You may want to take this up with your attorneys.
Frankly, given the way you handle comments, I am surprised no one has filed a class-action law suit against you for infringing on their right of free speech.
PseudoTurtle
CPA/MBA
If we want to solve our problems as a society, we must do so in true and full earnest. In doing so, always speak your heart and true feelings as they will never be considered a lie or unjustified, but rather the window in which you see things through. Those different perspectives are what form the greatest of society’s successes, and in their honesty, yield a guaranteed assurance of good will, nurtured through the heart, for the well being for all of mankind. God Bless
I CERTAINLY can agree with the INTENT of your program here. It is totally insulting to hear ignorant comments coming from what should be intelligent people-thay have a computer, a reasonable education, and an interest in the story as well as the motivation to contribute-but all of this invective and racial ABUSE is not needed.
ON the other hand, the news media does their level BEST to put a story line together (including a choice headline) that sends the reader over the top in their thoughts on the matter. Some of these stories are absolutely UNBELIEVABLE, yet they are true. The arrogance, stupidity, and comedy of the principals in these stories are not just entertaining but DEMAND an equally arrogant and comedic response-even sometimes a stupid response.
I write with a full lifes’ experience. I’ve seen the best of man and the worst. I KNOW hypocrisy when I read it, see it, and live amongst it. But when a news organization puts in front of me a news story of a patently dumb act, WHY must I be held accountable to keep the conversation civil?
Obscenities I understand. Personal attacks have no place in the conversation. But when you ask ME to listen to the juvenile drivel of a celebrity (The Tyler Perry Story in Atlanta) whose only claim to fame is his ability to cross dress on TV, and you want me to “contain myself”??? I have a hard time doing that. Hypocrisy, law breaking, and “crying wolf” MUST be responded to with the same level of irony as it was presented. We live in dangerous time now. The Trayvon Martin case is proof of that. But the answer is NOT to hide racial differences or racial opinions under a rock. It either comes out in a venue like THIS or in a venus as was found in Sanford, FL. I have a sharp mouth but it is NOT tainted toward the racial divide of this country, rather toward the racial facts as the appear on the ground.
I believe that organizations likes yours serves a greater good when you let the reader have instant feedback on a story matter. I ask that as you exercise your right to filter the language used here, you err on the side of being a bit on the wild side.
Larry D. Owens, Jr.
By allowing the capital gains tax to increase, it seems baby boomers would be adversely affected since many of them have retirement accounts invested in the market. I’m thinking we would’nt be in this pickle if the government had not spent so much in the first place. By allowing the government to collect more revenue without making them accountable for they’re spend seems like an act of stupidity “by the People”, which is what politician have come to expect from us. Now they’re pissed because “we the People” are paying attention.
Censorship is wrong. Stop it.
You should implement a democratic system to allow the ideas to be presented but “filed” under categories by other readers. One category would reflect “contribution”. Another could be called “rant” where yet another “does not apply”.