Should Online News Sites Get Rid of Comment Boards?

OK, I'll admit right up front that I enjoy them, in a strange sort of way. One of the first things I do when I find an interesting article to read online is to browse through the comments that readers have posted. I even have commenting enabled on my own site . . . and I check for new comments regularly, even if it's always in vain. Rarely a source of any kind of wisdom, comment boards are generally a source of amusement. You can see what stupid, funny, offensive things people say about news. It's like a thousand mini-editorials without hardly any restriction on content. Many of the boards, while supposedly "moderated"e; by site administrators, are largely user patrolled--adding to the craziness. For me, comment boards are a source of amusement, much like the Opinion Section of BYU's student-run newspaper, The Daily Universe, was for me when I was a student at BYU (all of three months ago).

But lately, I've been thinking that perhaps comment boards aren't as harmless as I thought. In fact, I sometimes feel relieved when I read an online article from a site that doesn't all user comments. I don't feel compelled to browse through the comments and see how other people react to the piece. This surprises me a little bit, since I oft-times enjoy reading comments so much. My thoughts are so undefined at this point that they're probably better referred to as feelings. So, more accurately stated, I've got a feeling that comment boards are doing some damage and that we might be better off without them. Here's my attempt to put all this into words.

In the best worlds, comment boards exists so that a writer can get feedback on what they've written. Anyone who's ever been willing to go through the pain of letting someone else read what he's put down on paper knows how valuable another reader's perspective can be. But I rarely see any of this type of commenting on the stories of any large-scale publication or news source. Inevitably, it seems, when there are a large number of readers, the comments posted on online boards degenerate into tangential arguments (in the most childish sense) so rambling that they are impossible to follow, snide and offensive remarks, and personal rants/gloats by those to whom the issue involved has special significance. I'm not sure what's gained by it all. Although I'm sure it's something of an exaggeration, I can't remember the last time I saw any really valuable constructive criticism posted in the comments for a story on a major news site. It doesn't happen. People react to the news, not any analysis that happens to be in the posting. To me, there appears to be no benefit to it all.

Arrayed on the other side, I think there are some serious negative effects from comment boards. Not only are people using the anonymity of the Internet in order to engage in socially irresponsible behavior (as is the case with the creation of much Internet content), but there's something more wrong with it. I can't exactly put my own gut feeling into words, but it has something to do with the glorification of childish argument masquerading as legitimate debate. It's not a good thing, and I think that it does some harm to the people who post in that way and the people who read it. The apparent "e;thrill" that comes from posting comments results generally from tearing down someone else's work in a way that makes you look superior. This type of tear-down takes many forms . . . even (and perhaps especially) the self-righteous form: by criticizing other people for tearing down others (am I engaging in this type of tear-down right now?).

There's not much good that comes from all this. I'm not a Lincoln expert, by any means, but I've heard stories that he had a fairly large collection of letters he wrote but never sent. Generally, these were "angry" letters . . . ones in which he (usually justifiably) took another person to task for something they had done or failed to do. He wrote quite a few of them--but he didn't send most. Instead, he put his frustration down on paper, and then gathered his thoughts and responded again when he was more measured. This is the antithesis of the modern Internet commenter--who dashes off little more than an emotional response to what someone else has said, and hits the "send" or "post" button and then continuously reloads to page to see others' immediate responses. While his heart rate is still elevated, he finds that another has responded to him and dashes off a reply. Even better is when someone gives one of his responses a "quot;thumbs up." Before he knows it, an afternoon is wasted and the comments page is miles long.

While I've have seen good commenting on the internet, I've never seen it on a news site. It's generally found is small doses, and on small blogs, where an author writes about something with an uncertain and questioning attitude. Readers then respond with helpful feedback. But where an author takes a strong position on something, or simply reports a happening, commenting inevitably degenerates in ways that are no good for the author (because the response probably simply encourages him to stir up some more contention), the commentators, or the comment-readers. That's why I think that "reporting" or "position" sites should disable comments.

I think I'm going to be boycotting the comment boards of internet news sites, and any large-scale online publication, from now on. And feel free to laugh at my astounding hypocrisy as I leave the comments feature on my site enabled for now. It's really mainly so I know if anyone has even read what I've written. Perhaps I'll write in a disabling comments feature into my code for posts where I take a position.

#44 Kenneth Pike on July 21, 2008 10:58 PM

Too late--you just took a position! d^_^b

Is it possible that you've taken a narrow view of the value of comments? Certainly, we'd like to think that every word we and others write forms valuable discourse, thesis and antithesis inevitably melding in world-changing synthesis. And as you point out, this seems to happen more frequently on small sites rather than large ones. Some sites (like Slashdot or Digg) meet with varying degrees of success implementing systems intended to improve the signal/noise ratio. I usually learn more from comments on Slashdot than from the summaries or even, in some cases, the articles. Would you feel better if news sites took a more Slashdot-esque approach to commenting? (For the record--I think it would be awesome to see something like that on CNN!)

But there may be something even deeper going on here. The deluge of useless or even offensive commentary is a manifestation of free expression, turning the tide of top-down delivery systems. "Web 2.0" means that whatever deliberate or unconscious biases the media may have in delivering the news, the "consumer" can do more than just "take it or leave it." Is it democracy or mob rule? It turns out that, when everyone has an opportunity to speak their mind, most of what gets said is of little community value. But what is the value of a system where such robust communication is possible?

To analogize: the primary use we get out of the Emergency Broadcast System is tests of the Emergency Broadcast System--random static noise on our radios and bizarre colors on our televisions that provide us with no immediate value. But those tests are not the system's purpose; they just exist as part of the background "cost" of having the system.

Having comments on a news site will frequently be without much value. But what if you were interviewed for that story and the reporter miscontextualizes your words? I actually saw an example of this the other day and I should have bookmarked it--basically, a witness who was quoted in the article (it was a local newspaper somewhere back east) pointed out that the way she was quoted gave the wrong impression, and related the rest of what she had seen. I found that extraordinarily interesting.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that discourse has intrinsic value, a sort of metaphysical potential energy, even when its extrinsic value proves to be zero. Yes, this will often make for offensive trolling and flame wars, but you can write those off as simple tests of the Essential Discourse System.

#45 Curt on July 27, 2008 06:51 PM

Kenny--

How's the summer treating you?

I thought about this as I was writing the post. I suppose I'm one that thinks communication can be "too robust," at least in the sense that more speech isn't always better. People already have a platform to express their views. They can talk, they can write a letter to the editor, they can blog . . . why do we need to facilitate it more with comment boards on news sites were the stories tend to inflame and bring out the worst. Those means of communication are only minimally more costly (speaking of time/effort involved) than publishing a comment on a news story, but that minimal cost might serve the valuable purpose of preventing some of this discourse that I think has some real negative consequences.

I think that making speech too easy has costs along with restrictions. And I'm not convinced that those costs are always outweighed by the intrinsic expressive benefits of publishing your opinion.

what's new?

i recommend...

posted by Curt, on July 21, 2008 08:05 am

#44 Kenneth Pike on July 21, 2008 10:58 PM

#45 Curt on July 27, 2008 06:51 PM

Add New Comment