Nieman Lab. Predictions for Journalism, 2025.

 Prediction: "Readers will seek out well-moderated spaces," by Scott Lamb

Human moderation at the Times

The process of moderating comments at The New York Times is the subject of this piece. The Times uses both computerized and human moderators for its comments section.

Annual story from The New York Times community desk

I have not posted in a long time - pandemic fatigue I guess.

The New York Times has posted its annual review of online comments. It's a heartening story, although not widely commented on (?). It attracted just eight comments in a week.

It supports my contention that there are carefully moderated comment spaces online that provide an extraordinary service. The difference between the Times and other spaces is the commitment of time and resources the Times can make to its online comment sections.

Columbus Dispatch

The Columbus Dispatch, a Gannett paper, ended its online comments about the same time as USA Today.

Yahoo! "suspends" comments

Which probably means that Yahoo! comments are gone for good.

Many media outlets that end comments do so saying the suspension is temporary, but I rarely see the comment sections return. Here is the statement posted in place of the comment sections on Yahoo!:

"Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting. In the meantime, we welcome your feedback to help us enhance the experience."

I have been trolling around looking for any additional statement from Yahoo! but I have not found anything. The reception on Twitter is predictably angry.

Inside Higher Ed removes comments

Inside Higher Ed, a trade publication for academics, has closed its comments. I always thought the comments were pretty good, but I guess I did not read them enough (or closely enough) to dwell on the problems cited by the editors. There clearly were plenty of comments from critics of the academy, but they seemed easy enough to ignore. Editors have instituted a letters to the editor section.

Incivility and lack of representation were reasons cited for ending comments. Comments were dominated by a small portion of the readership, editors say. (This is a common point made by editors closing comment sections.)

Wanted: Online comment writer

"Defend our online reputation." Everyone knows this takes place, but I have never encountered a job advertisement for an online comment writer.

USA Today ends comments

You would think these things would be easy to figure out, but not always.

USA Today once had online comments (beginning in 2007 and at least until 2016). Sometime between those times the paper banned anonymous posts. The paper's redesign late last year removed all comments (Nov. 1, 2019). This change went by without much notice.

From the Editors:

Commenting changes: We've decided not to include commenting on stories for now. We're thinking about other ways for you to interact with our work and our journalists. You can find most reporters' Twitter handles at the bottom of their stories, and you can also join us on Facebook and across social media. 

Fair enough, but I always wish the editors would talk more broadly about the role of comments, if any, in the larger mission of newspapers in the marketplace of ideas.

Changes at the Boston Globe

Changes at the Boston Globe comments policy, published March 9:

We’re experimenting with new ways to generate conversation at Globe Opinion. For the next month, instead of our usual anonymous comments section, we’re inviting you to submit signed 100-word responses to what you read, some of which will get published in our Letters section. On select op-ed columns and editorials we’ll have an audience tool like the one here to collect and publish your feedback.

What do you think about this idea? What would you most like to see in online conversation here and what would entice you to participate?

Ordinary comments appear to still be available at the Globe.

Telegraph limits comments to subscribers only

The Telegraph (based in the UK) has announced a comments policy where only subscribers can post comments, effective April 29. The Wall Street Journal did the same thing last year. (I think The Times of London does the same. Not a subscriber, so not certain.)

The Telegraph had ended comments in 2016, but reinstated them sometime since. The Telegraph also has a set of guidelines for comments.

Artificial intelligence to detect positive comment threads

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have devised an artificial intelligence algorithm which highlights positive comments, or what they call "help speech." Other similar algorithms have been devised to block hate speech. This effort would, "assist with the cybertopian ambition of better making the internet a voice for empowering the voiceless," according to the article here.

OregonLive ditches comments

OregonLive, the website for the Oregonian newspaper, ushered in 2020 by banning comments from its site. Incivility and the cost of moderating comments are the reasons offered, and the paper's editor makes the point that only a tiny fraction of the audience posts comments. All true.

The story attracted 3,600 reader comments, which seems a lot for a publication of this size, before the commenting was shut down. Readers are encouraged to take their conversations to social media.

Update: A short iMediaEthics report on this.

NYT writers comment on their comments

This is a nice piece about how NYT writers feel about reader comments. The sentiment is nearly entirely positive, and I suspect that is not always the case. Nonetheless, the writers nearly all point to differing points of view that further enlighten our understanding of a topic.

The comments on the article, too, show the large audience for this reader content.

Wall Street Journal comments have changed

The Wall Street Journal has changed its online comments to give it more control of the comment process. There are five changes (outlined here).

1. Only WSJ members (subscribers) can participate.
2. Comments will close 48 hours after an article is posted.
3. More moderators have been added. 
4. Comments will be opened with a question: "To facilitate thoughtful and meaningful discourse, a WSJ reporter will initiate the discussion with a question. This will help keep comments on point and give members the ability to interact with our journalists."
5. Immediate e-mails about whether a comment is approved or rejected.

Closing comments after a certain amount of time is nothing new, and most comments are made in the hours after an article is posted. Opening the article comments with a question is unusual, however. I am skeptical it will keep discussions on track, but worth a try. 

The Year in Comments (Washington Post)

The Washington Post offers a round-up of the year in comments.

A Times commenter in rhyme

This is a charming remembrance of Larry Eisenberg, a prolific writer of limericks in the comments sections of The New York Times - and the comments section is filled with limericks in tribute! Writers like Eisenberg and Richard Luettgen make the Times comments worth reading.

Lawyer disbarred for online comments

"A former federal prosecutor has been disbarred for posting anonymous online comments about cases being handled by himself or by his office" - ABA Journal

What is a university obligated to do about online harassment?

A federal appeals court has kept alive a lawsuit from students of the University of Mary Washington who contend that the university did not do enough to protect them from online harassment.

Turning online harassment into art

I have seen several projects like this which try to turn incidents of harassment into art or commentary. It is a way to empower the recipients of online abuse. (I will try to dig out my other examples and add them here.)

This is from Wired: Commenting Back on Online Harassment by Making it into Art.

Trump craves good press from the ‘fake news’ media

A plug for a short article I published in The Conversation about the president's relationship with the media.

The president has attacked the media as “fake news” and journalists as “the enemy of the American people.”

The president’s anti-press assaults are so frequent and potent that newspapers across the United States banded together August 16 to publish simultaneous editorials defending the press’s important watchdog role in democracy.

But for all the president’s complaints, he also craves validation from the media. Trump has given exclusive interviews to The New York Times and, in addition to loving Fox News, reportedly watches CNN and MSNBC every morning.

Trump’s quest for good press is particularly evident in the White House newsletters, a daily email update sent to anyone who cares to subscribe online.