Commenting on our stories
Yesterday, when the Inquirer broke the story that four people accused retired Daily News sports columnist Bill Conlin of abusing them as children, Philly.com took what has become, for us, a routine step for a story of this nature:
Commenting on our stories
Yesterday, when the Inquirer broke the story that four people accused retired Daily News sports columnist Bill Conlin of abusing them as children, Philly.com took what has become, for us, a routine step for a story of this nature:
We turned off readers’ ability to comment on those articles.
By default, commenting is allowed on staff-written stories and columns, but there are some types of content where we do not allow commenting, including obituaries (where readers often have the option of signing a moderated online guestbook) and wire stories. But we often – not always, but often – turn off commenting on stories involving crimes, especially molestation or sex crimes.
Why do we do this? Part of the reason is that these stories are particularly sensitive. Comments can impact serious legal proceedings for the victims and the defendants. The other part of the reason is painful: the comments on those stories can be particularly nasty, blaming the victim or reverting to racist or sexist stereotypes. They don’t add to the conversation and they hurt the victims.
So, in those cases, we turn commenting off. We did this on the first Jerry Sandusky stories; we did this on Kensington Strangler stories; we do this on far less attention-grabbing stories. Not always, but often.
I should add: Personally, I am in favor of commenting on news stories online. For a long time, the news conversation was one-sided, and the best readers who wanted to respond to a story could hope for is to perhaps get one letter to the editor published from the many received. We published a lot, and readers published almost nothing.
In a lot of cases, those comments have been positive additions to our coverage. I will never forget when our commenters revealed that a local school board was posting edited video transcripts of its school board meetings. The comments led to coverage, and the school board quickly reversed its position and posted the full video.
However, I am heartbroken by how some have chosen to use this platform. So, for now, when we have to, we use the crude tool of turning comments off.
But this story is also unusual because it involves a former employee. Readers have said that they want to be able to talk about it, and we want to ensure we are as transparent as possible regarding this story.
We have heard our readers, and we have added commenting to the stories (join in here).
This commenting is highly moderated. We’re devoting special staffing to it, and we’ll keep it up as this story plays out.
And in the long term, we are devoted to finding a better solution to commenting. Right now, we are testing a new way to comment requiring Facebook logins (you can see a test of that on staff-produced articles in our Entertainment section now; here’s an example.)
We’re hoping that requiring the use of real names will encourage better commenting behavior and improve the tone of our comments; assuming this test is successful – and so far, it’s encouraging – we will roll this out to other sections of our site.
In the meantime, thank you for reading. Feel free to leave us a comment below on these changes, or email me directly here.
Wendy Warren
Editor
Philly.com
Ryan: The decision to turn off commenting was Philly.com's, not the Daily News'. And we did, indeed, turn off comments on the first Jerry Sandusky stories. And for the same reasons.— Wendy Warren- Thank you, Duggy. As to your comment about reporting abuse: We DO have that capability, but unfortunately it has not proved enough to clean up our commenting. We remove all flagged comments (unless it's pretty clear that someone flagged them for no good reason) but our comments still can get nasty, especially on crime stories. That's why we often turn those comments off.— Wendy Warren
- I'm hearing here and on your live blog 'comments' that the policy has been used consistently both with Conlin and PSU. I can understand the need for more stringent moderation today. People are understandably upset; I'm among them, I've read Conlin for 30-some years probably and I feel betrayed even though I disliked him anyway. One thing I think I know...one of his last articles on - disgusting coincidence - Sandusky certainly allowed commentary. The proverbial pot calling the kettle black, no less. And maybe I can't prove it but there've been plenty of PSU-related articles like today's B. Fernandez piece that have allowed reader commentary.— PhillySubsMac
- Have you ever considered having a link to the ombudsman on the website?— safetydan
- 617Patrick--This is why we have in this country "innocent until proven guilty". People should not be hanged when accused. I know one of the 37 priests who are accused. I believe him to be innocent of the charges against him based on many years around him as a preteen and teen. NEVER was the man out of line with me, my siblings or any of our peers. Its a case for the courts to decide guilt. In Conlin's case, it will be a case for the civil courts. Anyone can lie-one reading of the California McMartin case in the 80's shows how rush to judgement can muddy the waters.— shirleyf
- PhillySubsMac - yes, you are correct. On later Sandusky stories, we did allow commenting. We often find that it's the initial stories that can drag out the ugliest comments, the hate-filled or even violent comments (Nice, huh?). We do it as a temporary measure. We'd rather allow comments on all stories, but sadly some folks just don't use the ability responsibly. How do you feel about the Facebook option?
And safetydan - we actually don't have an ombusdman. You can contact the editorial pages of either paper, or me, as the editor of Philly.com.— Wendy Warren - I'm not sure about using facebook as the method for identifying commenters, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. And kudos for engaging with your readers and setting the tone for a rational discussion about legitimate criticism in this forum.— loutibbs
- Buzz_Kill: I am sorry, but I am taking your comment down. And I think you know why. If you'd like to engage in a serious debate over commenting, feel free to email me at wwarren@philly.com.— Wendy Warren
Comment removed.- Thanks for your response, Wendy. I'm Scott, I was on the live blog, too, for a couple mins. I understand the problem, see enough of the nasty commentary and the usual racial stuff like Buzzkill seemed to start in with. I don't envy your position. But I agree it's useful. Not sure what I think about the Facebook option. Yes, with real names a lot of that junk will be cut down but FB is social networking and I'm not interested in mixing that with this. This, to me, is not social networking. But I'm not one of those who hides behind their anonymity/keyboard, I don't think. But this should first and foremost be about coverage of Conlin. And I think it's clear from overall reaction that there's been a double standard so far. I'm sure many there are still in shock. I thought your site got hacked when I saw that yesterday. But there is likely much more to come on this, a la Sandusky with more accusers, and suggest you buckle up. It's gonna be a hard ride but hopefully there is something to be learned and society takes a different approach to this evil towards children.— PhillySubsMac
- Wendy - thank you for taking the time to explain this and also to respond to people who wrote about it. While it would be nice to have a free exchange of thoughts not all can do so without stooping to the lower echelons of racism, sexism etc. and while moderating and shutting down from time to time is not a great answer it is probably the best you have.
I also have been a subscriber for most all of my adult life except for grad school and online as well since you offered it. Keep up the good work you do! Joe T., Maple Glen, PA— jmtwhq - Your point is well received, Scott. And thank you, Joe. PS: I really appreciate the use of real names, guys!— Wendy Warren
- It often seems like the comment thread on any DN story I read, regardless of topic (crime, politics, a kitten getting rescued from a tree, etc.), devolves into the grotesquely racist rants and anonymous personal attacks that you describe above. It's the nature of the online beast, however unpleasant.
But thanks, Wendy, for addressing this, and hang in there- I do not envy your task right now. It must be a really unsettling time for everyone in the Philly news business.— careydz - Thanks, Careydz. I really appreciate it.— Wendy Warren
- Wendy, I think Facebook logins is a great idea. The purpose of the hate speech that often occurs here is to stop the free flow of ideas from others. The traffic in Facebook has overwhelmed the traffic in anonymous message boards, as many millions of people have learned that personal responsiblity for the expression of ideas leads to a lot more dialogue and a lot more satisfaction than the anonymous expression of pet peeves and deep hatreds.— State Rep. Mark Cohen
