At first, it was kind of "cute" (for lack of better term) to go to certain websites and news stories to see what kinds of comments would be attached at the bottom. It almost became a game for some, as they tried to come up with more insane and belligerent comments than the next guy. It was like watching a head-on crash in slow-motion. But eventually, the line between ridiculous and unacceptable was crossed. Over and over again.
This has led us to the current situation, where media outlets are re-evaluating how they handle online comments. Some, like the CBC, have announced that you'll have to sign in and no longer be anonymous. Others, like the Toronto Star, shut them down altogether. By no means is this a new phenomenon, as Popular Science did it back in 2013.
The reasoning behind the move is really a no-brainer at the end of the day: it takes up a lot of time and resources to make sure each and every comment is worthy of being on a website. Rightly or wrongly, each comment made is, in part, a reflection on a media outlet. A hateful or threatening comment which is kept on a website for an extended period of time will expose an outlet as either being accepting of that behaviour or being lazy for deleting it in the first place. And as resources continue to be shifted around or chopped down, the priority can't be on babysitting the select few who want to take their liberties on a website.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for you having the ability to voice your opinion on a story. The trouble is very few are actually interested in doing that. They're more interested in attacking others. They're not interested in moving the discussion forward or having a healthy dialogue on the topic at hand. And this mindset has an adverse reaction, as those who are actually interested in commenting on a story don't feel safe enough to post their own thoughts, for fear of being berated, belittled, or worse. This isn't an exaggeration. I see it on probably a weekly basis just going through the comments on the radio station's Facebook page (we don't allow comments on our website either). As I've written on that page, I'm not against debate and disagreement. What I am against is hate-filled commentary, profanity-laced tirades and threats.
What's even more disturbing about this trend is that those commenters are trying to hide behind the "freedom of speech" argument. My question to this is simple: when did freedom of speech get to trump basic human decency? You know the old saying: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. These are the same people who would never actually say these things face-to-face, but instead get to hide behind anonymous profiles to spew their garbage. I hate to break it to those people, but that's not exercising "freedom of speech." That's being a keyboard warrior, thinking you'll never face the ramifications for the things you say online. What the heck did these people do before the internet?
Don't let this debate get to be about "left vs. right" or any of that typical divisive stuff either. People of all shapes, sizes, colours and social statures are guilty of it. It's not the fault of "the media" or anyone else for the closing down of comment sections either. It was the actions of a faceless few, who seem to have this fascination with being mad at the world all the time. It must be tough living life like that.
Then again, life must be tough in mom and dad's basement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs a fellow member of the media who moderates website comments myself, I've learned that, ultimately, if you want to keep those forums on your bottom halves of your site/social channels civil spaces, then you have to devote the time to defend them from the fire breathers who want to turn them into flaming garbage heaps. If you can't devote the time and resources to do that, then don't have them (on your website, anyway. Kind of comes with the territory for social channels though, but a page admin can always erase, or just hit mute in those instances).
ReplyDeleteFunny enough, though I ended up in the digital/print sides of our field, it was actually call screening for radio call-ins (contracted for the CBC in J-school) that helped me develop my approach to moderation: Screen and ensure that they're not unhinged before approving them the forum to express themselves—because you risk getting your outlet into trouble if you don't. I read and approve my comments manually, and I've recently made the decision to IP ban name-calling, racist/homophobic slurs and/or defamatory remarks on first offence.
Obviously, the net's neutral and it's not like the airwaves that have rules and regulations set by a federal governing body you must follow. You're probably more knowledgable on that than me, but picture this: What kind of hot water would you get into when the worst of the CBC comments with, eg., a profane, hateful and/or racist missive from "LOLLibtards" against liberals or indigenous people is broadcast on the air during your program? Imagine the possibility of the trouble you could get into with the CRTC? Just because the Net's an unregulated medium doesn't mean that you can just excuse yourself from making an effort to police your content brand's slice of it and just hope that every member of your audience will behave according to the decent, civil standards that you expect of them.
In fairness though, my outlet's beat is a "softer" one (arts & culture), and it's a smaller alt-monthly that doesn't get the amount of comments a mainstream media outlet that covers hard news/politics/opinion (where a lot of the vitriol does happen) gets. Dozens a month at best for a 30K-views-per-month site in my case, so, I'm fortunate to have a volume of comments that I can easily monitor and control. And I'm also one of the lucky ones who have a good reader community who add to the discussion of what they love about an artist we interviewed or a record we reviewed. I have it good when banning keyboard warriors is the exception and not the norm in my moderating tasks, and as our industry has this discussion and figures out how to snuff the garbage fires, I'm glad that I have the position to say that. Heck, our commenting platform (Disqus) allows pseudonyms but some users disclose their real names anyway! Love those guys!
And you're right about the keyboard warriors and the "freedom of speech" schtick that they spew: Firstly, I think that they don't know the difference between what's censuring and what's censoring. Secondly, I question whether it's really "freedom of speech" that they advocate, or just freedom from the consequences of the words that they choose to use to hurt others.
Maybe if our industry stands up to the keyboard warriors who have that latter kind of mindset, and drive it home to them that the words they choose do have consequences, then perhaps there's hope to restore civility in how we discuss issues of the day online.
Cheers.
- Shane Flug
Great points all around. I do like how we're starting to see the "comment sections" are just extensions of the posts from Facebook. Forces most to sign into an account (although I know some go out of their way to create fake accounts, to which I wonder how much time they have on their hands hahaha!)
DeleteYou're absolutely right about those claiming it's "freedom of speech". For most, they're flaunting it as a way to skirt responsibility for what they're saying. Maybe I grew up in a different kind of household, but I was always taught that "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." In the current climate, I live by the "if I wouldn't say it in-person, I won't say it online."
Your last point is a great one. It's one thing that I find myself preaching on our Facebook, about the fact that we want meaningful discussion. That's what will lead to change. It's not the online hissy fits that some classify as constructive.
Cheers!
Joe