At about the same time last night, I reported as abusive two very similar comments about Chelsea Clinton's personal appearance, posted by readers on stories on the websites of the WSJ (here) and USAT (here). The Journal took its down; as I post this, USAT's, seen below in a screenshot, has not. Click on the image for a bigger, more readable view.
Did the comment violate USAT's TOS? If it does not then there's no reason to remove. What was the comment removed on WSJ?
ReplyDeleteThe WSJ's also used the word, ugly.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to gauge what the sensitivity issues really are, check out the Courier-Journal's comments on the Rick Pitino stories. They make "ugly" seem almost like a compliment.
ReplyDeleteOh come on, what they wrote was a matter of fact - why should they take it down?
ReplyDeleteFor what ever it matters, I think she is very pretty.
ReplyDeleteI used to moderate a Gannett forum. I think "ugly" is opinion and not a violation of Gannett TOS. Although I find the opinion repugnant, that alone wouldn't have allowed me to remove it.
ReplyDeleteDepending on WSJ's TOS, it might be the one to be criticized for removing it. I always argued that there's a danger in credibility if newspapers don't treat moderation seriously by staffing with multiple editors with seasoned news judgment.
A competing newspaper has no moderation, except what people flag. The result is very partisan so-called chats in most towns, because thin-skinned and propagandist Republicans have all comments unfavorable to them removed on demand while Democrats tend to be interested in true debate of issues. I'm not trying to be partisan in saying that, but that's consistently my observation from the battlefield.
Frequently, the bullies will claim righteousnous because of the apparent volume of support, and I've heard reporters and editors actually believing that, too! Such a distortion of reality memorialized on supposedly objective news copy is unconcionable consumer abuse and a danger to the intent of the First Amendment.