In a column today, Cincinnati Enquirer Editor Carolyn Washburn reprises what Gannett has said in the past -- Facebook-driven commenting will help reduce the number of nasty posts by encouraging more readers to post under their real names.
She also acknowledges, indirectly, that GCI has lagged the industry in moving to Facebook, writing: "We watched as a couple of news organizations in the industry experimented with it and had good results."
The Enquirer will switch to Facebook a week from tomorrow, Washburn says. GCI disclosed its network-wide shift to Facebook at the end of October.
Related: the Enquirer's 10 frequently asked questions about Facebook comments.
 |
| Washburn |
The Enquirer will switch to Facebook a week from tomorrow, Washburn says. GCI disclosed its network-wide shift to Facebook at the end of October.
Related: the Enquirer's 10 frequently asked questions about Facebook comments.
http://KCRG.com uses Facebook.
ReplyDeleteWish they'd be completely honest. When you sign up via Facebook, they ask for permission to acess all user data. That is super valuable to them. Getting rid of nasty comments might be one benefit, but there are others as well. Why not disclose that information to their less tech-savvy readers at the outset? Transparency is critical.
ReplyDeleteWow. 575 comments on the Washburn article, not a nice one in the bunch. Why do readers hate the Enquirer so much?
ReplyDeleteKCRG is a TV news station.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I don't think there's anything wrong with holding people accountable to what they say. Newspapers don't allow anonymous letters to the editor, so why should we embrace a different policy for the Internet? Yes, people feel freer to express their thoughts, but it is true the thoughts expressed are often less civil in tone and not always relevant to the conversation at hand when they're anonymous.
Oh 6:59...but newspapers do allow snarky comments that are anonymous under sections like "Your 2-cents worth"
ReplyDeleteNewspapers have always held themselves to be "Greater Than Thou" from a perception standpoint....while willing to bend those rules whenever it deems it responsible journalism that serves the reader.
Please......
6:59 provides a great example of an anonymous comment that is not relevant to the point.
ReplyDelete8:07 p.m., see title of the post, "Washburn on move to Facebook comments."
ReplyDelete8:05 p.m. : I agree - the "Your 2 Cents" section is not the best outlet for expressing opinions and goes against the grain of newspapers' policies for its editorial letters. Personally, I don't support "Your 2 Cents" formats. Fortunately, the paper I work for does not have one. I also believe in standing firm on rules. If the reason Gannett is moving to Facebook log-ins is to aid in thoughtful commentary, I think that's appropriate. If the reason is to gather user data about its readership, as Joe Wessels rightly pointed out, then I think it's dishonest and unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, after reading the link below, it seems like it helps Facebook more in the end to provide this system of commenter validation: http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2011/11/publishers-need-to-focus-facebook.html
Louisville too and news greeted with LOTS of nasty comments.
ReplyDeleteThe reader comments are often the most interesting part of the story.... I wonder if this new policy will reduce reader comments, then online readership, clicks and eventually online ad rates....
ReplyDelete875 comments and counting...most against the move with high reader scores never seen on the Enquirer site before (one score at 148) nor will such high responses be seen again after Dec 5.
ReplyDeleteNewportJeff with a score of 72 sums it up well:
7:02 AM on November 27, 2011
“So you run off most of your actual subscribers by being nothing more than AP reports and three day old stories from the USAToday. You get rid of any decent writers by hiring freelance hacks like your concert reviewer who hasnt liked a concert of more than 50 people in probably all of his life. The amount of typos misspelled words and incorrect names has gone through the roof. Your site is so overrun with popup ads for businesses I will never use as a result that its shameful. And now this. Congratulations. Hasta La Vista Baby.”
Gannett must have an ulterior motive in pushing for people to use Facebook to comment. Last Wednesday -- the day before Thanksgiving -- Facebook quietly changed its guidelines on how it turns over members' data to the police. In an era where America is morphing into a police state, Gannett may be eager to find a newfangled way to snitch to the fuzz.
ReplyDeleteHow can Washburn write she “believes that this change will encourage even more” to engage when tests clearly suggest the exact opposite will happen, that comments and page views will shrink?
ReplyDeleteWashburn can do that because she sold out long ago and just mouths what she is told to mouth.
ReplyDeleteThis from editor JoeLong3 on the comments on Washburn's column.
ReplyDelete"Cincinnatus, we aren't trying to 'control' the culture of commenting, but rather to change it. One of these changes it allowing all stories to be commented on, with our current system this was not enabled."
That's BS. He's lying to the readers! We can enable comments on any and every story on our sites.
Just guessing, but I think the 8:07 poster meant to refer to 8:05, not 6:59.
ReplyDeleteOf course, all this need for time references can be taken as another problem with streams of anonymous posts.
2:11 is correct. Long is not being straight. They can monitor any string of comments. However, on many stories, particularly crime, they don't want to dedicate the manpower to that.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't have the budget to pay for the outside monitoring of comments on all the stories, you don't have the ability to allow comments on all the stories.
ReplyDeleteNot a technological issue, it's a financial issue.
-or- for many years we could not run comments on wire stories, he may have been referring to that.
(PS, 'Cincinnatus'? C'mon you guys, if you want to get all high-falutin' roman on us, you need to build a Parthenon for no apparent reason. Love, Nashville)
Since yesterday's change, Wilmington, DE's delawareonline.com comments have been pretty much halted, except for a few posters who have set up bogus Facebook accounts and a few others. Most of the stories have no comments at all. Gannett has basically shut it's readers up in their local markets. I would have no problem using FB to comment on a national news source, but I and many others feel that using it for commenting on a local newspaper opens people up for harrassment.
ReplyDeleteAs of today, 12/1, the Journal News in Westchester switched to their new Facebook driven commenting. I guess this is the new norm for Gannett now. As many as 400 posts in the JN, most against, saying this is a huge mistake.
ReplyDeleteMany see this as censorship, many posts were against editorials, and it looks like the editors of the paper couldn't take the critics. I for one wonder why a so called community paper had a prime resource, real time reader imput, and decide to get rid of it. Even a former staffer admitted from learning from some of the readers. I believe this to be a huge mistake and thus adding another nail in this once good suburban newspaper.
I've watched the local Gannett rag Web site for a few days now and their comments have shrunk ... to almost zero. Yeah, Facebook is so much more legitimate. Baloney. About the only comments I see are from "Ben Dover," "Frank Furter" and "Fred Fakebook."
ReplyDelete