Why should websites bother with reader comments?

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins/ When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins…

In the beginning, there were messageboards.  And messageboards were with the Internet, and messageboards were the Internet.

Then, as webpage design simplified and WYSIWYG templates advanced, came the glamour pages.  Flashing backgrounds, hideous text, and idiotic open-source GIFs started plugging up the intertubes in all their horrifying glory.  The age of individualism began in the glow of CRT moniters.

There’s a traceable thread that leads from the origins of the Internet to the culture of entitlement and anonymity in which we live today.  Years ago, newspapers naively decided to host content for free.  That shortsighted decision (yes, the same one that’s currently crippling the business) was paired with another genius move: streamlining online “letters to the editor” by adding a comments section.

Perhaps newspapers can be blamed for being too eager or, even earnest.  The revolutionary opportunity for instant reader feedback was an exciting notion, and the utopian possibilities seemed endless.

What they failed to realize, of course, is that it takes a certain type of person to comment on a news story.  As Rudyard Kipling wrote in 1919 in his poem, “Brave New World,” there’s a certain sense of entitlement fostered in an anonymous, liberated, and individualized climate.  The Internet amplifies this infinitely.  Newspapers never considered (or at least not thoroughly) that Hotdog87 might not comment on a story because he’s particularly concerned or interested, but because he’s an asshole being provided with a platform.

As Roy MacGregor says, “stupidity really pays off.”  In an online drive-by culture in which business is measured by fleeting eyeballs and mouse-clicks, the loudest and most provocative usually win.  Reason is a worthless defense when rational thought is forced to contend with 14-year olds writing “FAGET!!!”  Adding anonymous comments sections to professional journalistic ventures is like setting up Han Dynasty porcelain at a county fair, and giving all the kids pellet guns.  

But, like the devaluing of news distribution, has the damage already been done?  Not likely.  The temper of the online collective may be fierce, but its memory is shot. 

And the necessary overhaul is imminent.  Newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post are reevaluating the means by which users can participate in the journalistic process.  And it’s about time. 

This is not, of course, a cry for censorship.  In the online age, the press is freer than ever before, and that’s a wonderful thing.  But pro-comments sections advocates keep calling the restriction (or outright banishment) of the forums an outright assault on freedom of speech.  How so?  While the Charter of Rights and the American Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and of the press, they don’t detail that trusted, widely read, listened to, and watched media organizations must share their means of distribution with first-year political science students in college dorm rooms.  The freedom of the press protects the right to print what you want to print, not what some schmuck in a basement thinks of your story.  To offer readers a chance to respond is merely courtesy.

So why should online media organizations feel the need to provide a forum for unregulated, unrestricted reader comments in the age of Blogspot, WordPress, Tumblr, and Twitter?  Why should they share the ears of their audience with anyone with an Internet connection?  Let them build their own audience.

Feel free to comment below.

Short URL: http://www.newbrunswickbeacon.ca/?p=6448

Posted by TJ Milburn on Apr 26, 2010. Filed under Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.