Each day, we publish letters to the editor from dedicated readers who want to lend their voice to an issue. During campaign season, the letters pile high in our inbox, arriving by email and old-fashioned envelopes faster than we can publish them. Readers around here have a lot to say, and it’s long been part of this paper’s mission to give them the space to say it.
Our newspaper and the industry in general have always hoped the thoughtful commentary we see in letters would translate to digital, where readers would be able to have a conversation about our stories that would go deeper than we could offer in print. Some website commenters have indeed used the platform in ways that elevate the conversation. But in too many instances, the comments section of our website has fallen below the standards we set in print, and it’s increasingly become a space dominated by a few voices.
On Friday afternoon, we suspended the comments section of our website, a decision that was brought on by our inability to easily block fake accounts set up with the sole purpose of undermining the dialogue. In reality, though, the problems with our commenting section have been far broader, and there’s more to it than one bad internet apple. Among the reasons it fell short:
– Like our letters to the editor policy, we sought to make commenting accessible only to those who gave a real name. We did not want it populated by accounts named to hide the writer’s identity. Facebook was the best way to do this, we assumed, because the social media giant and its vast team of developers had a better way to ensure an account’s authenticity than did the editors in our newsroom. We were wrong. The process is too easily sidestepped by those who’d rather spend time making fake accounts than delivering a thoughtful perspective on a local issue. And it forced readers who purposely avoided Facebook onto a platform they don’t trust.
– Commenting only works in real time, meaning news organizations really have two choices: hire editors to manually approve the comments as they come in or allow the conversation to unfold naturally, warts and all. Neither meets our objective. One takes away a valuable resource better dedicated to reporting on local news, and the other creates a Wild West approach in which the loudest, most aggressive voices only serve to drive away meaningful discussion.
– It’s likely that some readers felt the commenting became so combative that they avoided posting in the comments section, or even worse, decided they wouldn’t write a letter or act as a source on a story for fear of being abused in our comments section. Our moderation wasn’t – and could never be – fast enough to keep up.
We haven’t given up hope that there’s a better way to foster the type of debate that’s vital for any strong community. We’ll explore other options, and we will bring our commenting section back to our readers only when we can do so with confidence that we’re adding a useful outlet for all readers.
In the meantime, send letters to the editor to letters@cmonitor.com. We’d love to run them.
(Do you have a question about the “Monitor,” our newsroom policies, our challenges, our future? We’d love to give you a better understanding of how we operate and what we’re up to. Send questions our way and we’ll do our best to answer them as time and space allow. Send them to letters@cmonitor.com with “Inside the Monitor” in the subject line. Please include your name and hometown, which will be included in our response.)
