Comments on: Washington Post Blog Shuts Off Comments

By: jim

jim — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:42:57 +0000

Here's the archived copy of the posts on the Post, before they were deleted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/archive/2006/wapo/

I know, I know, it's DU; but they didn't make it up. Jim Brady, the Posts' editor, has already admitted that these were deleted. Perhaps some other posts showed 'profanity' and 'hate speech'. But these posts don't show that. So why were these posts deleted?

The only reasonable explanation is that they utterly shattered Howell's lame excuses for even lamer reporting. And the Post just couldn't handle seeing their own ombudsman spanked in public like that.

So, I think that a larger question than the 'dealing with profanity in comments' issue, is the question of a media outlet's commitment to truth, and the ability to engage in the exploration of truth.

Everyone on the internet, including the Post, has every right to deny readers the opportunity to blog on their own site, for any reason. But if the Post, as a newspaper, has a commitment to truth and accuracy, they have nothing to fear from the rich two-way dialogue that commenting makes possible.

And the fact that they would shut down such an exchange, when their ombudsman is clearly at fault, indicates the Posts' lack of commitment to telling the truth.

By: Venomous Kate

Venomous Kate — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 04:57:53 +0000

In other words, WaPo is telling its more annoying commenters that they're free to spout off... on their own blog.

By: Herb

Herb — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:31:37 +0000

James:

While you may not get as many comments as other blogs, your site seems to attract those who have a very real appreciation for your content and style. One thing you might consider is, "No news is good news". fewer comments should be taken as a compliment and a sign that most agree with the content of your posts.

By: G A PHILLIPS

G A PHILLIPS — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:23:23 +0000

Dang, seeing that every word i type is almost always taken as hate speech they would have never even known i had tried to BLOG there.I learned a lot about "hate speech" anybody Know what happened to that thing called "free speech" or is that just more "hate speech".please help me i am lost again,help me,quick somebody get Randell the Great. p.s. sorry Randell just trying to have a little fun,or was that like "hate fun" ?

By: Ron

Ron — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:09:30 +0000

This is even on sites where the site authors themselves maintain a civil tone. See Political Animal, for example.
While I would agree that Kevin maintains a civil tone in his posts, I believe they are slanted to draw the extreme left. They are certainly successful at drawing the extreme left, whether intended or not.

I defend that as follows: Kevin used to have basically as large of following as he has now, but the atmosphere of the comment section has degenerated drastically as he became less inclined to present both sides of an argument. At the same time, other moderate and moderate-left blogs have been able to maintain a civil atmosphere in their comment section. Kevin's posts, while civil, draw the type of commenter that has allowed his comment section to become what it is.

He still does a fine job of presenting a reasoned, liberal view; but he no longer provides any indication that a sane alternative view is available. This, I suspect, is what has drawn the extreme left; to get their worldview reinforced.

Or maybe I'm all wet.

To the WaPost thing, high profile sites are high profile targets. And, it seems to me that successful bloggers would have to adapt to maintain any type of control over their comment section. The WaPost is used to force feeding news, not working with news consumers.

Given Kevin's problem, and the WaPost's problem, I have to applaud blogs with civil comment sections.

By: Andy Vance

Andy Vance — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:23:05 +0000

WaPoNI should have seen this coming a mile off. The lefty bloggers' fuse was lit with the Froomkin Flap, and it was they who organized the pitchfork brigade to hunt down Howell.

Rather than pull up the drawbridge - which will only lead to more resentment - I'd invite a proxy to represent the mob. Brad DeLong would be perfect.

WaPoNI claims to understand the blogosphere, but they're missing a big opportunity. Can you imagine what kind of traffic a DeLong-Howell online showdown would draw? They could charge admission.

By: Jonk

Jonk — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:06:14 +0000

I have always enjoyed the level of participation here. I hope it can continue without devolving into the usual you find on the internet.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:19:02 +0000

I've got a few regular commenters that engage in more ad hominem than I'd like but mostly they're reasonable enough. For whatever reason though, I don't attract as many comments as other blogs with similar traffic levels.

By: Herb

Herb — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:11:34 +0000

I read the blogs on a daily basis. I find them most interesting and sometimes informative. I also watch the news on a daily basis and the same applys, interesting and sometimes informative. The comments ARE the blog for the average everyday person. Where else does the average person have the opportunity to "blow off a little steam". Without the comments, I most likely would not bother to read the blogs. Most of the time I learn of news items on the local and national TV news and follow through with the blog sites. The attraction to the blogs are the comments, good or bad, and without them, a blog site is usually "old news" of little intrest to most.

On OTB, there are comments that just p you off and some that you agree with, but most comments here are very civil in spite of the vast array of different opinions.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:09:06 +0000

As a matter of course, I imagine that some of this falls into a discussion about what constitutes reasonable debate. The definition of that seems to depend on what blog you're on. What passes for reasonable on Kos' blog, may not here, as an example. OTOH, I don't consder Kos to be reasonable, either. Or sane, for that matter. When I opened up comments on my own blog, I did so cautiously. I was ready to turn them back off quickly, I assure you. However, as it turns out, I've been blessed with quality readers as have most of the blogs I'm a regular on.... this one included. One thing that troubles me, in the WaPo's writeup, is their editing out 'hate speech'. That strikes me as a value judgement, and constitutes not reflecting opinion, but bending it.... soemthing they've been accused of often enough as regards their "news" content. If the trends follow from one content to the other, what we have here is an MSM trying to bend public opinion and finding out it's more of a job than they bargained for.