The Trend Of Killing News Comment Sections Because You 'Just Really Value Conversation' Stupidly Continues

from the mute-button dept

Over the last year, there has been a tidal wave of websites that have decided to close their news comment sections because the companies are no longer willing to invest time and effort into cultivating healthy on-site discussion. While that's any site's prerogative, these announcements have all too often been accompanied by amusing, disingenuous claims that the reason these sites are muting their on-site audience is because they're simply looking to build relationships or just really value conversation. Nothing says "we care about your opinions" like a shiny new muzzle, right?

And judging from this NiemanLab conversation with a lot of the sites that have chosen to shutter comments, most of the websites have no intention of looking back. After all, what's the use of a local, loyal, on-site community when you can just offload all conversation (and that traffic) to Facebook and Twitter, right? Dan Colarusso, executive editor of Reuters, for example, doesn't think comments are important because damnit people -- Reuters isn't looking to argue!
"We’re not the kind of news organization that’s about giving our ‘take’ on something. We’re not looking to start an argument; we’re looking to report the news. We felt that, since so much of the conversation around stories had gravitated toward social, that was the better place for that discourse to happen. We did keep comments on our opinion pieces, because we felt that that is where you are trying to start an argument in the best possible way."
Except comments aren't just about having arguments, they're a legitimate and transparent avenue for readers to publicly correct your errors right below the original article, which is something many of these sites likely grew tired of. Sure, poorly managed comments can devolve into a cesspool of banality, but good commenters almost always offer insights the writer or website may have missed, could have been wrong on, or never even thought of. In short, we want you to comment -- we just want you to comment privately so our errors aren't quite so painfully highlighted. For the sake of conversation, of course.

Last week On The Media was the latest to quietly kill comments on the bottom of its newsletter, informing readers that comments just don't provide the "kind of dialogue" they wanted:
"We value our listeners above all and are always keen to know what you're thinking, to hear your questions and concerns, to get feedback on what you like and dislike. So why shut down the comment section? As we hear more from listeners through Facebook and Twitter and directly through our website, we've concluded that the comment section just isn't the best way to have the kind of dialogue we want with our listeners."
By "kind of dialogue" you mean transparent and public? Over at the last bastion of website interaction known as Twitter, Mike amusingly highlighted the disjointed logic of claiming to value dialogue while dramatically reducing the number of avenues for it, and the website's response doesn't really make sense:
Of course "nobody in our writing or editorial staff wants to take the time to cultivate local on-site community" or "we don't like having our mistakes highlighted publicly right below our articles" don't make for very good explanations when it's time to save a little money and axe ye olde comment section. So what we get instead are these vague bloviations about how this is really about an evolution in conversation, and punting the problem to Facebook is really the best thing for everyone. It's really time for some new, flimsy excuses for why websites can't be bothered to value local, on-site dialogue, because "we killed a major, on-site avenue of conversation for the sake of conversation" still doesn't really sound all that convincing.

Filed Under: comments, news, on the media, value conversation

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Monday (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 9:32am

    OK. I wanted to read everything again just to be sure. Dropping the comment section, because it might be laborious for many, is also beneficial for DHS, NSA, etc because comments can no longer be made anonymously. You have to have an identity to make comments on Twitter, or Facebook - the two main alleged venues for comments, cited here.
    I have stated this before that I am not PC. I think PC is Gay! Nevertheless, I occasionally enjoy making the anonymous comment. Facebook and Twitter doesn't allow this to happen. If the comment is so offensive, it generally ends with the account's deletion, eventually meaning or resulting in no harm, no foul; ending any neutrality in the process.

    I don't believe any website is responsible for an individual's comments, but eliminating a comment section is, as well pointed out, excising your loyal followers from having any kind of discourse... be it constructive, or inflammatory.

    Personally, I like a good laugh now and then, and I find what might offend some people, really funny, and I can get beyond those comments and suss out the true dialogue. What I don't enjoy is when the conversation gets so off topic, it becomes disruptive to the flow of the article's intention. Most of these types of comments are their own satire.

    However, I do believe major sites eliminating the comment section is unproductive, but there’s a deeper reasoning behind the move – eliminating anonymity.

    I fully understand the sole proprietor, mom / pop operations etc., getting rid of them because of the time constraint placed upon the web owner. I have noticed, a relatively decent percentage of sites I follow, never had a comment section to begin with. I also follow their Facebook and Twitter pages, and I have had to make my comments to them through DM / PM‘ing them. I resorted to this earlier this week, and was amazed that I received a response – even flattered! Because, if you think about it, it actually required as much if not more, time, to read my comment and make the reply. This sacrifice was made in lieu of having my comment either debated on, or deleted.

    Anonymity, just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean that they are not out to get you. 1984 is a walk in the park compared to today. I’m just saying…

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.