In a column this weekend, News-Press Executive Editor Terry Eberle says the paper in Fort Myers, Fla., will be one of two Gannett newspapers requiring readers to use their real names -- via Facebook accounts -- when they post comments online. The change begins this week.
"We hope this will restore some civility to the conversation,'' Eberle wrote, adding: "Anonymous comments became fertile ground for hate and did little to move the conversation toward a solution. In some cases it sounded like spoiled children."
He doesn't identify the other GCI paper that also is adopting the same policy. The paper chose Facebook "because we wanted to be able to verify the identity of the person and Facebook allows us to do it,'' Eberle says. [Updated at 10:54 a.m. ET Aug. 8: A Gannett Blogger notes that the second newspaper is The Des Moines Register. Here is its story.]
The News-Press' decision comes as newspapers industry-wide wrestle with the double-edged sword of wide open commenting. They often lead to coarse language that can turn off readers and advertisers. But unlimited comments also are an important source of pageviews when newspapers are battling for online marketshare.
This isn't the first time the company has changed policy. A year ago, with editors overwhelmed by the volume needing review, GCI outsourced moderation of comments flagged by readers.
"We hope this will restore some civility to the conversation,'' Eberle wrote, adding: "Anonymous comments became fertile ground for hate and did little to move the conversation toward a solution. In some cases it sounded like spoiled children."
He doesn't identify the other GCI paper that also is adopting the same policy. The paper chose Facebook "because we wanted to be able to verify the identity of the person and Facebook allows us to do it,'' Eberle says. [Updated at 10:54 a.m. ET Aug. 8: A Gannett Blogger notes that the second newspaper is The Des Moines Register. Here is its story.]
The News-Press' decision comes as newspapers industry-wide wrestle with the double-edged sword of wide open commenting. They often lead to coarse language that can turn off readers and advertisers. But unlimited comments also are an important source of pageviews when newspapers are battling for online marketshare.
This isn't the first time the company has changed policy. A year ago, with editors overwhelmed by the volume needing review, GCI outsourced moderation of comments flagged by readers.
Treating the internet like the printed publication will not work in the future. I am sure this site would not have as many comments if we were required to put our names. This is a STUPID idea. If you want to increase reader engagement this is the the way to do it.
ReplyDeleteSomething needs to be done in this area. Certain forums, like the Star Ledger's on NJ.com, are absolutely vile.
ReplyDelete12:02 PM here and I meant this is NOT the way to do it.
ReplyDelete12:06 PM - moderators should be controlling that.
Moderators should be controlling the comments. Gannett probably wants access to the personal or “marketing” information Facebook gathers. At one time The Indy Star tried to require readers to register and give personal information such as birth date and zip code in order to have access to a story. The decline in page views quickly persuaded management to drop the idea.
ReplyDelete@12:10 p.m. They do and they don't. It's incredibly weak and inconsistent. One of the reasons why they let such shit fester on there is because it generates page views. NJ.com actually allows you to buy ads on the forum pages - so why moderate them and keep the scumbags away?
ReplyDeleteGoogle around. NJ.com's forums have been the target of a handful of lawsuits.
This is huge and long overdue... if the goal of Gannett is to facilitate meaningful dialog. Validation and attribution of comments is the way (as the Web has already showed) to have constructive dialog around issues, stories, programs etc.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine town hall meetings where anyone could speak about any topic for as long as they wished using whatever language they wish and being from any place on this planet? How would the public's business ever get done? How would your voice be heard?
Anonymous comments are like a public demonstration or a rally. It's an exercise of freedom of speech that should be allowed, but not the only format in which to participate online. Instead, set the anonymous submissions aside from those of us who want to deliberate on the issues with attribution. Give me the options for me to view them if I want. I'm from Fort Myers and a daily reader of the online version. I'm looking forward to the change.
This will no doubt lower page views, but it's the right thing to do. At some point we need to decide whether we are news organizations or page-view whores. If we're the latter then, sure, anything goes. We should also start publishing legitimate porn, not just racy photos of scantily clad women at night clubs.
ReplyDeleteIf we're a news organization, this is the right way to go. In most cases, reader comments add zero to a story. And if reader engagement means allowing people to make racist comments or having every story -- no matter how benign -- devolve into a conservative-liberal debate, then screw reader engagement.
I might disagree if we did have people properly moderating stories, but we don't. And the reason is that Gannett refuses to pay someone to simply sit at a desk and approve or deny reader comments. Especially since that person should have some basic training in libel, slander, etc.
You just can't have everything if you're not willing to pay for it. This should help make the comments that are published more interesting. There won't be as many, but they also won't be the tiring, hateful and mostly redundant crap that we see on our sites now.
I'm torn about this. You shouldnt' have to belong to Facebook to comment on a newspaper website. Facebook's attempt to collect as much info on each user as possible (and to eventually monetize that info) makes me suspicious of why a newspaper would adopt its platform for commenting.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I applaud efforts to eliminate the racism and other vile opinions that dominate many newspaper comment threads. People have a right to their vile opinions, but media have no obligation to help spread them.
You don't have to use your real name to open a Facebook account but it's a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteShocked very rare the company does the right and responsible thing. Good for them.
ReplyDeleteI never use my Facebook account on ANY system other than Facebook.
ReplyDeleteSo if the commenters have real names, they're just like journalists? That will make up splendidly for all the folks we're losing from FlaToday. Let the hard-hitting journalism begin!
ReplyDeleteGood move.
ReplyDeleteSounds like an effort to silence people from this blog to my ears. Why would he possibly care about people posting anonymously. Gannett employees and others do it daily on this blog, and they are all anonymous except for the easily identified corporate trolls.-- Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteThis is the easily identified troll for the Naples Daily News. Yes, we're coming after you and we're going to eat your lunch.BWHAHAHA.
ReplyDeleteAnybody shocked to hear that professional journalists disdain unfettered expression? Or that they disdain the hoi polloi they supposedly serve? What does this tell us about the decline and fall of professional journalism?
ReplyDeleteBetter technology would give individual users tools to search, sort and filter comments based on personally relevant criteria. But heavy-handed moderation or restrictions are elitist and self-defeating. It just means less participation.
The "vile" comments in story chat come from a surprisingly small number of always-on, morally-off loudmouths. They drown out and scare away actual, meaningful commentary by the readership at large.
ReplyDelete"Banning them" is impossible because they simply cook up another Yahoo email address and re-register with our sites.
Using Facebook logins would complicate life for this group, but wouldn't eliminate the problem. This is a very determined bunch.
While the idea of moderators moderating the comments/forums is an obvious one, you over look one problem for GCI. Most of the people who policed the websites have been laid off.
ReplyDeleteOh well. Good move corporate(again).
8:56 -- We have long kept these people out of newspaper opinion pages. If Gannett is willing to pay for proper moderation, keeping them off the sites is easy. Or have we now lost control of the content on our own sites?
ReplyDeleteDes Moines Register is the other Gannett paper taking the Facebook route:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110807/NEWS/110806038/DesMoinesRegister-com-move-Facebook-comments
Cincinnati has used Facebook on occasion for some time now. The result: Few, if any comments at all. And, of the few who have used it, many are clearly bogus names. Why? One example: Few people in their community want to be known as publicly raising issues against a school levy.
ReplyDeleteIs more thoughtful discussion needed? Absolutely, but using a third-party like Facebook with whom Gannett has no financial stake in is absurd. There are clearly other ways to achieve it that don’t include sending Gannett’s users to an entity that already has a greater share of those users time, let alone the ability to reach that audience with ads better than Gannett.
DM Register has nearly 300 comments now about the change to facebook - I'd guess 85-90% of them are not happy about the change. And they are not the abusive posters, they are the thoughtful commentors. Gannett should rethink this decision.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThis is the easily identified troll for the Naples Daily News. Yes, we're coming after you and we're going to eat your lunch.BWHAHAHA.
You can have it troll, it's baloney and it's moldy