Top Story

Young Journalists Use Facebook Ads to Reach Prospective Employers

1.	Foursquare partners with New York Times for Olympics 4:39 PM Feb. 9, 2010
2.	Social networking is banned in Baltimore courthouses 4:15 PM Feb. 9, 2010
3.	Glitches, Delays Disrupt Plans for Virtual Border Fence 11:33 AM Feb. 9, 2010
4.	Young Journalists Use Facebook Ads to Reach Prospective Employers 5:20 AM Feb. 9, 2010
5.	What Great Bosses Know about 'No Surprises' 4:20 PM Feb. 8, 2010
More Recent Articles

Most E-mailed

Article Feedback

View all Top Stories feedback

When Comments Cross the Line
(Read the Article)
Post Feedback | Feedback Guidelines | Report Feedback Abuse

Sorting options:	most recent	\| author
Display options:	expand all	\| collapse all

Page 1 of 1

Okay, that clarifies
Posted by Alex Dering 12/14/2007 4:32:37 PM

but...

How does this reflect a news org violating the trust of its readers?

and we're back to a point I raised in my initial post: you see, media organizations aren't trusted anymore. You tell me that no, no, it wasn't about the media being afraid to take a hard look at itself and I just don't buy it.

Why?

Here's some answers.

1. Lax discipline of "name" reporters. Mitch Albom wrote a article/column/whatever it was for the Free Press. It was in the past tense, but about an event that hadn't happened yet.

What was his punishment? He certainly wasn't fired from that publication. I believe the "final verdict" was something like "it's been handled internally."

Has any newsroom, anywhere, ever, taken the stance that it will not interact with those newsrooms that don't come up to the first newsroom's ethical standards? You know, something like the way certain people boycotted apartheid South Africa. Any newsroom? Ever? Seriously.

2. Over at the NY Times a few years back, they covered the RNC protests in which hundreds of protesters (that includes people who just, honest to god, were standing there wondering what was going on).

Okay, that clarifies (2)...
Posted by Alex Dering 12/14/2007 4:28:11 PM

Surprise! Most of the official police reports turned out to be completely contradicted by videotaped evidence provided by protest organizers who realized what was likely to happen.

Can you provide me with the link to the huge, multi-part series of articles the Times wrote about police officers lying in hundreds of cases and what impact that would have on, well, every case any of those officers had been involved in in the past?

As a journalist, can you think of a series of articles that would be more important to write about than wide-spread fibbing in the police department?

Don't spend too much time digging around for that piece; they never wrote it. That's another reason the media isn't trusted; the media doesn't go after those in authority.

3. Media organizations far and wide try to sell us on how tough, hardcore, integrity-filled etc. they are. So there's no swear words. And a whole lot of words are given "codes": the A-word, the N-word, the X-word, the J-word, etc.

I'm supposed to believe you're going to tell me the truth? My God, you can't even bring yourselves to let a swearword through your precious, perfect, holy lips! And don't try to sell me the notion of, "We have to think about the children." I can blow that out of the water, but I've already used up two screens and I don't like to go over the limit.

More on Washpost incident
Posted by Steve Myers 12/13/2007 12:56:13 PM

Alex, I think you misunderstood my comment about Howell. When I said that I don't know more about the Howell incident beyond what I've read, I meant that I don't have any scuttlebutt from inside the Post operation. What I know, I've read online, including what I checked out after your comment yesterday.

At your encouragement, I have read more, including this, and I still don't think this is a good example of a site clamping down on feedback because users pointed out a mistake. The issue is how people expressed themselves on the forum. That's the Post's account, and I don't have any evidence to say that's not true (I am accounting for the comparisons people made between various iterations of the comments page). My question is, if you read all the material, how can you be so sure the Post misrepresented why it shut down comments? How does this reflect a news org violating the trust of its readers?

I think the larger lesson here is the counterproductivity of vicious comments, even when they contain a valid point. Harsh criticism is fine, but insults make it less likely that someone will consider the criticism, and more likely that the comment will be removed because it violates a site's feedback policy.

Taboos
Posted by Jeff Riggenbach 12/13/2007 12:38:47 AM

Journalism is not in the business of preventing people from being offended. It is in the business of truth. Taboos are the enemy of truth, whether they are taboos forbidding certain words or taboos forbidding certain opinions or taboos forbidding the expression of certain ideas. All comments should be printed, or none. Let the marketplace of ideas sort out the truth in the situation.

JR

...
Posted by Alex Dering 12/12/2007 9:43:26 PM

I'd be interested in checking out other examples besides the one you referenced, so if you have them, send them my way.

Without getting too arch, you haven't really checked out the example that was given. When I provide a second one, will that also be given the old "Well, I only know what I read in the papers" razzmatazz?

Sorry. That dog won't hunt. If you want to analyze the event -- one way or the other -- then do so. A search of the DailyKos archive (try "Howell" and "Abramoff") will give you enough information and non-DK reportage to come to a conclusion.

You don't need any more help from me, and I'm certainly not doing any more work on the subject. I stopped doing journalism when I realized I was never going to get paid for it.

Response to Alex and Mike
Posted by Steve Myers 12/12/2007 6:38:12 PM

Mike and Alex, thanks for responding.

Alex, I know about the incident involving the Post's discussion group being shut down, and at one point I was considering mentioning it as context for the overall discussion. You can read Howell's response to the comments that led to the shutdown here. Poynter's Bob Steele also did an interview with her about user feedback.

I don't know more about the incident beyond what I've read, but I see plenty of criticism of reporters in article feedback sections -- about accuracy, bias, even laziness. Certainly the Taylor stories had plenty of that.

I'd be interested in checking out other examples besides the one you referenced, so if you have them, send them my way.

I agree that news organizations need to retain (and in some cases regain) people's trust, and I think transparency can do that. News organizations are much more upfront about how they do their work than they used to be. They can do more, though.

As for Mike's point, I wondered the same thing as I was scanning page after page of comments on the Taylor articles. After a certain point, are there any more perspectives to share? The editors I spoke with, though, referred to the occasional gem, and there's always the chance that someone will frame the discussion in a new way or relate the discussion to their own experience.

Can you hear me?
Posted by Mike Peterson 12/11/2007 9:53:12 PM

"Both WashingtonPost.com and ESPN.com editors said the level of problematic comments on the Taylor stories wasn't high -- Straus said about 200 of the more than 5,000 comments were deleted, and Stiegman said there was a slight increase over the typical rate of less than 5 percent."

What's the point of 5,000 comments, or, after the deletions, 4,800? Who's going to read 4,800 comments? How will one comment in that torrent, no matter how well it is written, no matter how cogent, not matter how persuasive, rise out of the crowd?

Comments work only in micropapers, or in very selective communities. For the most part, comments are just a matter of screaming into a hurricane. You click the link and it says "536 comments" and it means the conversation is over. Anything more than 50 is nonsense.

Given that sites are trying desperately to get as many visitors as possible, the possibility of intelligent discussion is nil -- if the conversation is intelligent, it means the site isn't getting enough hits and will eventually be abandoned in favor of some yahoo-attracting site that posts 743 comments on whether Britney is a fit mother.

I think you're missing a big point ...
Posted by Alex Dering 12/11/2007 6:56:28 PM

Those are the posts we can see. Others -- the venomous posts, the personal attacks, the irresponsible accusations -- were deleted. Even among the comments that remained, many were heated, accusatory, angry -- both from people blaming Taylor and those defending him.

A big problem that rarely gets discussed is this.

Here's the main point:

People (Which ones? Follow the link provided. It jumps to several other links, so pour a cup of coffee.) don't believe you. Not you, personally, Steve Myers, but the institutions of journalism.

When one of the gang gets caught making a mistake (unless their last name is Merrill) and is called on it, the Washington Post suspended the message boards.

I may be told the messages are deleted for being X or Y or Z, but I simply can't believe it on its face.

That's the line the media has crossed. And I see very little evidence that there's any concerted effort to gain back reader trust.

Cue Princess Leia's line to Darth Vader about how the tighter he grips, the more subscriptions (er, star systems) will slip through his fingers.

Page 1 of 1

View all Top Stories feedback

See All Jobs

Add Your Resume

Post Your Job

Become a Member

More media jobs

Article Feedback

Latest Poynter Blogs (See All Blogs)