Wausau | Police: woman held men hostage for sex

Boyd

That story in yesterday's Wausau Daily Herald about the accused woman, Terry Boyd, is strange enough all on its own. Stranger still? As I post this, there isn't a single reader comment on it. (Other than mine, that is.)

Yet, at Wausau's WAOW-TV, which played catch-up with its coverage today, there are 23 comments.

Are Daily Herald readers really that shy when it comes to sex? Or is there some other explanation?

Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.

Federal regulators are ordering employers to scale back policies that limit what workers can say online

Employees have a right to discuss work conditions freely and without fear of retribution, The New York Times reports today -- whether the discussion takes place at the office or on Facebook, or other social media such as Gannett Blog.

“Many view social media as the new water cooler,” said Mark Pearce, the National Labor Relation Board’s chairman, noting that federal law has long protected the right of employees to discuss work-related matters. “All we’re doing is applying traditional rules to a new technology.”

The board’s rulings, which apply to virtually all private sector employers, generally tell companies that it is illegal to adopt broad social media policies -- like bans on “disrespectful” comments or posts that criticize the employer -- if those policies discourage workers from exercising their right to communicate with one another with the aim of improving wages, benefits or working conditions, the NYT says.

But the agency has also found that it is permissible for employers to act against a lone worker ranting on the Internet. And one example involves a reporter for The Arizona Daily Star in Tucson, which is published by a company owned equally by Gannett and Lee Enterprises.

Frustrated by a lack of news, the reporter posted several Twitter comments. One said, “What?!?!?! No overnight homicide. . . . You’re slacking, Tucson.” Another began, “You stay homicidal, Tucson.”

The newspaper fired the reporter, according to the NYT, and board officials found the dismissal legal, saying the posts were offensive, not concerted activity and not about working conditions.

Earlier: News-Press reporter leaves Fort Myers, Fla., paper after being disciplined over Chick-fil-A post on Facebook last August.

How do you feel about posting online comments critical of the company? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.

I'm test-driving a new comment display format

Google's Blogger publishing platform may have finally fixed the bugs in a format where comments are threaded within comments. For an example, see my first three comments in the thread below.

By the numbers | Debate story reader comments

Here's one measure of reader engagement. The much-anticipated first presidential debate last night was covered wall-to-wall by major newspapers and broadcast outlets. Here are the number of reader comments posted* so far to main live stories at four dailies:

231

USA Today

381

The New York Times

1,427

The Wall Street Journal

5,000-plus

The Washington Post

* the NYT only allows a relative handful of readers to post comments on their own; most require editor approval first. The Post offers the most liberal policy: readers aren't required to use their real names.

How does your site use reader comments to develop ideas for stories? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.

USAT | A possible glimpse of traffic on beta site

How's readership of the new beta version of USA Today's website since it launched on Saturday?

Last night's headline-grabbing story about presidential candidate Mitt Romney's 47%-are-dependents may offer a clue. On the version posted at usatoday.com, there are now 258 reader comments.

But on the same story published to beta.usatoday.com, there are just three. (Could this simply be a problem with comment display?)

To be sure, the beta site isn't the default version readers will see in the future when they go to www.usatoday.com. Still, editors are promoting it heavily on the homepage.

The Romney story has also sparked lots of comments at other large dailies, although The Wall Street Journal is lagging big time:

• The New York Times: 1,577 comments
• WSJ: 106
• The Washington Post: 4,675

See print No. 3
Here's a .pdf of today's print front page, the third since the redesign's debut. What do you think?

Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.

Big Al | When reader comments are really tricky

Some stories by and about Gannett executives pose especially thorny challenges when it comes to moderating reader comments. Invite readers to post their thoughts, and you've just created an opportunity to piss off the top brass.

One obvious solution came in 2008 at The Arizona Republic, when Sue Clark-Johnson retired as president of the newspaper division.

So, here we are today, and the Father's Day gift USA Today's editors almost certainly hope to get: an Al Neuharth column that doesn't mention the holiday.

Oh, well: better luck next year.

In culture shift, 'mutinous' Gannett Blog comments

The Pew Research Center's new Project for Excellence in Journalism study shines a spotlight on the cultural divide between print and digital employees -- one I think is illustrated by last week's sudden power shift within the USA Today Sports Media Group.

The Poynter Institute's Rick Edmonds highlights this section of the 28-page report, which was published today:

“Newspaper executives described an industry still caught between the gravitational pull of the legacy tradition and the need to chart a faster digital course. A number of them worried that their companies simply had too many people -- whether it be in the newsroom, the boardroom or on the sales staff -- who were too attached to the old way of doing things.”

The report also notes the growing centralization of decision-making, as power shifts from individual worksites to corporate headquarters.

"For a striking example of that tension," Edmonds writes, "check Gannett’s upbeat corporate announcements against the mutinous comments from the trenches in Jim Hopkins’s Gannett Blog. One of the steady complaints from the troops is that initiatives that were doing well locally -- like many of the Moms Like Me websites, now shut down -- got ruined by cookie-cutter standardization from Corporate."

And the 100,000th Gannett Blog comment is...

"Would that be the Murdoch whose products actually sell, unlike our products?"

 -- Anonymous (who else?!), who posted that just seconds ago, at 3:04 ET, in response to criticism of press baron Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns The Wall Street Journal. That comment is the 100,000th posted here since I first began publishing Gannett Blog on Sept. 11, 2007.

WUSA | Reporter quits teen-age drinking story after her own teenagers are said to be threatened

Andrea McCarren said viewer comments at the CBS affiliate in Washington started out being nasty, then grew outright threatening toward her two teen-age children, online and in school.

"The volume and intensity of the backlash became so overwhelming last week," The Washington Post reported yesterday, "that Mc­Carren and WUSA decided on an extraordinary step: She would pull herself off the air and hand her latest teen-drinking story to her colleague."

Related: One of McCarren's recent reports on underage drinking.

Earlier: At WUSA, a recipe guaranteed to stir up comments. Also: McCarren interviews CEO Martore for a Make A Difference Day story.

Note: My publishing software is having a hiccup

[Updated at 11:26 p.m. ET] I've changed the form used to post comments to Gannett Blog so that it's now a pop-up. This switch deals with a software update Google's Blogger publishing platform rolled out today without notice.

The update was designed to introduce "threaded comments," which are supposed to make it easier to differentiate between whether someone is making a general comment on the thread, or responding to another comment on the thread.

But it isn't ready for prime time. Many of you noticed the new comment type was too small, too hard to read -- and was in the color green, to boot.

So, I'll check back with Blogger in the near future to see if the threaded comment option is worth a second look.

Post-anonymous, legal risks in Facebook comments

Gannett websites recently switched to a Facebook-powered commenting system in hopes readers would be more civil; after all, the thinking goes, they'd be using their real names.

Now, readers are discovering the more immediate legal consequences of posting out in the open.

This week, two Wisconsin real estate developers sued a Wisconsin Rapids resident, Mark Larson, for posting what they say was a defamatory comment about them on a story published last month by The Daily Tribune of Wisconsin Rapids.

The Dec. 16 story said the developers, brothers Brad and Pat Pavloski, had sold a Nepco Lake boat landing to another developer -- a deal that could halt public access to the landing by ice fisherman.

Larson, commenting on the story via his Facebook account, wrote: "What a travesty. IMO, why does there seem to be a taint in every endeavor of the Pavloski boys, from papa on down." He also wrote: "I fear this is just a harbinger of whats to come when public lands and spaces are increasingly gobbled up by private interests."

Pre-Facebook, Larson might have posted that comment anonymously, making it harder for the Pavloskis to track him down. Harder, but not impossible, of course. Gannett's online privacy policy says: "Please be aware that we may occasionally release information about our visitors if required to do so by law."

Paper zapped all comments
The newspaper subsequently removed all the reader comments on the story -- including Larson's -- according to an independent news weekly, VOICE of Wisconsin Rapids; it reported the Pavloskis' lawsuit, filed Tuesday, in a story today.

Larson's comment is still on his Facebook page, where it was posted as well, after it first appeared on the Tribune story. Indeed, he subsequently reposted it a second time on his Facebook page, to defend it against criticism by other Facebook users.

Tribune readers, meanwhile, started posting new comments on the original story, demanding that the paper return the original comments. "By removing those posts," wrote Steve Abrahamson, "it would seem you are hiding something or protecting someone. Please give me some feedback as to why this happened."

Echos of Wausau
In its story today, VOICE of Wisconsin Rapids said the Tribune isn't named in the Pavloskis' suit. It quoted media attorney Bob Dreps saying the paper "is not responsible for third party comments on its website."

This isn't the first time one of Gannett's 10 Wisconsin papers has had trouble with reader comments. In 2009, the Wausau Daily Herald was accused of turning over the identity of an anonymous poster to a local government official after the poster wrote critical comments about the official on the paper's website.

That prompted a memo from News Department Vice President Kate Marymont, who reminded editors that it's company policy to shield the identities of anonymous posters.

Related: VOICE of Wisconsin Rapids was founded by former Gannett employees Jeff and Kathy Williams.

Indy | Star appeals order to ID anonymous poster

Attorneys for The Indianapolis Star told a state appeals court yesterday that giving up the name of an online commenter would be a slippery slope, comparing the need to protect a source to the work by the pioneering investigative journalists who uncovered Watergate.

The paper's appeal followed a Marion County judge's order last spring that the Star reveal the name of a commenter who claimed that a former Junior Achievement executive had mismanaged money.

Attorney Jan Carroll told the court that protecting the poster's identity was "no different than Deep Throat saying to Woodward and Bernstein, 'You need to follow the money,'" according to WRTV's account of yesterday's appeal hearing.

"The commenter said 'you need to see where the money is,'" Carroll told the court. "All journalistic organizations need help from the public to know where the other lines of information to follow." 

WUSA | A recipe guaranteed to stir up comments

[Anchor McGinty is shocked -- shocked! -- by comments]

Gannett's CBS affiliate in Washington posted a Pearl Harbor Day anniversary story yesterday designed to stir up lots of reader comments online. Then it broadcast a report on the outcome. Here's how it unfolded.

The headline
"Sidwell Friends School, Sasha and Malia Obama's School, Opts For Asian, including Japanese Food On Pearl Harbor Day"

The menu
Here, the station said, "were the options for Malia Obama and her sister, Sasha on the 'Day that will live in Infamy.'"

• Asian Mushroom Soup

• Oriental Noodle Salad

• Classic Spinach Salad
• Teriyaki Marinated Chicken Strips

• Szechuan Tofu & Veggies
• Garlic Roasted Edamame

• Vegetable Fried Rice

• Fortune Cookies

The plea
The station asked readers: "What do you think about the menu? Insensitive, or is it just time to move on?"

The reader comments
Among the nearly 200 so far, it's clear mandating Facebook IDs doesn't guarantee civility.

• Patricia Bayless writes: "What else would anyone expect out of the fraud and his brats and the Liberals? BTW, the brats are extremely homely."
• Aaron Shupp replies: "Patricia I'm guessing you're a homely, trainwreck of a trashy whore yourself considering you don't even use a portrait on Facebook."

The follow-up 
The station then broadcast a segment about the story it had posted and the comments that followed.

On behalf of his co-workers, WUSA weekend anchor Derek McGinty expressed shock that the comments grew so divisive: "The absolute rage and name calling from some of you was frankly way over the top."

Related: Blogger Gil Asakawa writes, "This about takes the cake for lame-ass non-issues."

Cincy | Washburn on move to Facebook comments

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.

Washburn

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.

GCI switching all sites to Facebook commenting

In a major shift in its social media strategy, Gannett is adopting Facebook-driven commenting on all websites for U.S. community newspapers, TV stations, and USA Today, according to a memo distributed to employees on Friday.

The deployment follows tests in four pilot markets that "resulted in increased civility in comment threads, increased participation from local public figures and a increase in Facebook referrals," the memo says.

Two of the test sites were at The News-Press in Fort Myers, Fla., and The Des Moines Register. I do not know the locations of the other two markets.

Facebook accounts generally reveal a user's real identity, which then appears with comments they post. During the tests, editors assumed readers would be less likely to make personal attacks or engage in other unacceptable behavior if their identities were known. Readers who don't establish Facebook accounts would no longer be able to post comments.

In spot checks I've done since the U.S. Community Publishing (USCP) tests began in early August, I've noted a significant decrease in the number of comments -- a point not discussed in the memo. The memo also doesn't disclose the impact on pageviews or any related loss in advertising revenue.

Full memo text
Gannett Digital Announces Facebook Comments Deployment 
After a successful pilot, Gannett Digital is pleased to announce the general deployment of Facebook Comments on all USCP and Broadcast sites as well as USATODAY.com. The Facebook Comments platform allows any visitor to your website currently logged into Facebook to leave a comment on an article using their Facebook identity. In the four pilot markets this resulted in increased civility in comment threads, increased participation from local public figures and an increase in Facebook referrals.

Deployment Timeline
The rollout of Facebook Comments will start with USA TODAY Travel and all Broadcast sites the week of November 7th.  The USCP phased rollout will begin the week of November 14th. The remainder of USATODAY.com will launch the week of November 28th. The full deployment schedule will be available on the project SharePoint site Tuesday, Nov. 1.

Audience Impact
We expect the change in commenting systems will require audience education in the form of explanatory articles at the time of the change, an FAQ, clear language on the comment page to make it clear that users need to be logged in at Facebook.com to participate, and links to the FAQ and the article on the change. Facebook comment threads will replace existing Pluck comments on all non-archived stories. Pluck persona pages will no longer include comments left by a user. In addition, Facebook Comments will be added to the mobile sites for each USCP and Broadcast market, to present users with a consistent experience across platforms. At this time we are not replacing other site features and functionality powered by Pluck, but will be exploring alternatives in the coming months.

Implementation
Detailed implementation instructions, moderation training materials and schedule, as well as a recommended audience education plan will all be available on the project SharePoint site on Tuesday, Nov. 1.

Reader: How do you deal with gossip and rumor?

Anonymous@11:40 last night asked me an important question: "Is there some point at which you stop counting unsubstantiated claims, throw your hands up, and just run it?"

Short answer: No.

Here's the longer answer.

I've devoted more energy to comments in the past month than ever before in the nearly four-year history of this site. Some of you will groan about another discussion about comment moderation here.

But it's worth returning to the subject, because comments are far and away the most-read posts on Gannett Blog. Plus, Gannett is now experimenting with a new policy at two of its newspapers: The Des Moines Register, and The News-Press in Fort Myers, Fla. Early evidence points to a dramatic decline in reader participation.

I'm constantly moderating, as I look for a balance between a more civil tone, and respecting the fact there are few places where employees can share information.

Starting with this post last month, I began editing comments much more aggressively. The response has been mixed. Some readers welcomed the change; others objected, saying I was being too aggressive.

To be sure, I could let readers post whatever they want. That's actually easiest for me, because it requires no time-consuming editing at all. This was very nearly the approach when I launched Gannett Blog.

But starting with its relaunch nearly two years ago (yes; it's already been that long), I've sought -- sometimes in vain -- more civility. I join threads more frequently to, as the CEO of Topix said recently, keep "the conversation on the rails." (Topix is the social media site owned jointly by GCI, Tribune Co. and McClatchy Co.)

I fail too often. Yet, I try to never throw my hands up.

Better for business?
And I know I'm not alone. If I could poll GCI's newspaper publishers, I suspect a majority would eliminate reader comments entirely, so long as Corporate didn't require them to make up any lost revenue.

After all, largely unfettered comments are better for business, Topix CEO Chris Tolles told the New York Times. His remarks were revealing for their candor on the subject.

"He defended it on free-speech grounds," the NYT reported. "He said the comments are funny to read, make private gossip public, provide a platform for 'people who have negative things to say' and are better for business."

At the risk of stating the obvious, I welcome your feedback. Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.

Topix | Online, small-town gossip turns vicious

From a New York Times story about social media site Topix. Gannett owns about 34% of the company, which is based in Silicon Valley's Palo Alto, through a partnership including McClatchy Co. and Tribune Co. The NYT's A.G. Sulzberger writes:

In Hyden, Ky. (population 365), the local Topix forum had 107 visitors at the same time one afternoon this month. They encountered posts about the school system, a new restaurant and local arrests, as well as the news articles and political questions posted by Topix.

But more typical were the unsubstantiated posts that identified by name an employee at a dentist’s office as a home wrecker with herpes, accused a gas station attendant of being a drug dealer, and said a 13-year-old girl was “preggo by her mommy’s man.” Many allegations were followed with promises of retribution to whoever started the post.

Topix CEO Chris Tolles acknowledged the biggest problem at the site is “keeping the conversation on the rails.” But he defended it on free-speech grounds. He said the comments are funny to read, make private gossip public, provide a platform for “people who have negative things to say” and are better for business.

At one point, he said, the company tried to remove all negative posts, but it stopped after discovering that commenters had stopped visiting the site. “This is small-town America,” he said. “The voices these guys are hearing are of their friends and neighbors.”

[Updated at 1:49 p.m. ET Sept. 21.] In a post on The Rural Blog, former Courier-Journal reporter Al Cross writes:

"That's about enough, Mr. Tolles. You and your newspaper paymasters (Gannett Co., the McClatchy Co. and Tribune Co.) are hereby invited to take your foul product out of rural America. And perhaps newspapers in towns where Topix draws many readers should ask themselves if that's partly because they don't turn over enough rocks and/or run vigorous editorial pages that inspire responsible debate."

Earlier: Under new comments policy, Gannett readers clam up.

Under new comments policy, GCI readers clam up

One month after two Gannett newspapers switched to Facebook-powered commenting policies, the number of reader posts on the most-discussed stories remains dramatically lower compared to other papers.

In early August, The Des Moines Register and The News-Press in Fort Myers, Fla., said readers would need to comment via Facebook accounts, which typically reveal their true identities. Editors hoped readers would be more civil if they couldn't post anonymously.

The tradeoff would be lower reader participation, a fact illustrated by the falloff in comments over the past month. That shows many readers are either unwilling to post under their real names, or won't make the effort to open the required Facebook accounts.

The News-Press said it would test the new policy for 60 days and evaluate the results. The Register didn't give a time limit.

A key question remains unanswered: What's been the impact on pageviews and advertising revenue, since comments are one of the traffic drivers?

Numbers vs. other papers
Following are the total comments on the 10 stories drawing the most comments at the Register and the News-Press. They're especially small when compared to lower-circulation papers that allow anonymous comments, in Pensacola, Fla., and Springfield, Mo.:

Note: Circulation is at March 31, from the ABC's lookup database.

Poynter says: News sites using Facebook comments see higher quality discussion, and more referrals

The journalism training center's story is here. Note: Starting last week, Gannett began testing Facebook comments at The News-Press in Fort Myers, Fla., and The Des Moines Register.

Comments, and my challenges in policing them

You'll likely see versions of the following note on a regular basis. I'm publishing it here, to give it the widest possible audience. 

This addresses readers' very legitimate complaints in this thread about inappropriate comments on Indianapolis Star Publisher Karen Crotchfelt. But it applies generally to all comments on Gannett Blog.

The Blogger software platform I use doesn't allow me to build an exceptions list, which would block comments that include specific words. And even if that option were available, I'm not going to block all posts that include certain names; that would eliminate legitimate ones.

I will do my best to remove any inappropriate comment as quickly as possible. These include making fun of people's appearance and -- in the case of the Star's publisher -- their name.

Sometimes, there are lags between when comments are posted, and when I'm back online to take them down; I'm not here 24/7. Other times, I miss inappropriate comments entirely. Much the same happens at every Gannett website -- including, ironically in this case, at the Star itself.

For example: On Dec. 22, the Star reported news of the paper's just-appointed publisher. Among the comments posted:

• "The name makes me think of TSA screening at the airport."
• "There's a name you don't want to Google Image Search without turning on the Safe Search feature."

I checked that story just moments ago, and those comments are still there -- eight months after they were posted, and five days after I first pointed to them in a comment of my own.

If the Star and its more than 500 employees can't keep up, you can imagine the challenge I face.

[Updated on Oct. 9, 2011: Those two comments are still on the Star's website.]

Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.