One of the most challenging issues to the reputation of news organizations is how to deal with the stream of online comments, particularly those that stray from civility.

Moderation often only infuriates commenters by delaying or filtering their views and preventing real-time debates. But the absence of moderation can be a free-for-all in no one's best interest, eventually eroding the reputation of the host.

The New York Times is reworking its comments system to permit trusted readers --- those who consistently supply well-received comments --- to jump the queue and be posted publicly immediately. Others will have to await a moderator's touch. The results will be interesting to see.

What do you think of this?
 
 
Online public comments came in for quite the criticism at the annual National Conference of Editorial Writers, the North American body for editorial-page leaders.

The journalists said that oversight of those comments shouldn't have been surrendered, that the comments-for-traffic trade has been a mistake, and that the standards of news organizations have been hurt by the arrival of comments.

While a panel discussion indicated that there is too much value in these comments to eliminate them, there was agreement that vigilant oversight is needed.
 
 
The Yakima Herald-Republic has decided to introduce a registration system to identify those who provide public comments on its website.

"The system we established in 2008 to foster conversations between the newspaper's readers, our website's visitors and ourselves has too often resulted in ugly, nasty or meaningless dialogue," wrote editor Bob Crider.

It has suspended its comments for the time being and will have a new system in place by July. While the news organization recognizes that not demanding registration encourages debate involvement and provides page views, it has concluded that too many are saying things they wouldn't dare if identified.

What do you think?

2 Comments
 
 
The ombudsman for the Washington Post has added his voice to the debate on the value-versus-devalue of the anonymous online post.

Andrew Alexander comes down on the side of permitting anonymous comments and monitoring them.

He believes there are legitimate reasons for people who cannot identify themselves --- either for fear of reprisals or because their work would not permit it --- and sees their contribution as more important to encourage than a system that would demand transparency to drive out the cranks.

He points to new technology coming to the Post --- others, presumably, too --- that provides a preferred ranking to those with experience commenting appropriately.

"Anonymous loudmouths can still shout, but trusted commenters will be easier to hear," he says.

Which might be easy for him to say because the Post has a relatively large staff to review the comments and delete the inappropriate ones. Smaller newsrooms are finding it much more difficult to cope, even when they have filters for words and phrases (the filters are pretty easy to circumvent).

Most difficult are the libelous comments, and different countries have different challenges in not only the definition of defamation but the publishers' responsibilities and how they are legally defined.

Even a so-called "skinny registration," in which someone has to provide an email address, is potentially a big help in dissuading inappropriate remarks and identifying who said what.

What isn't clear is whether it's also a big impediment to traffic and comments. In other words, is the culture of free expression so embedded that even a lighthanded registration will encourage people to go elsewhere and discuss?
 
DA25E68FDEC14EAFA7B2A27D26C48058