Re: NPR is closing its comment section
Published 8.18.2016It's been awhile since I commented on the issue of comment sections on the internet, but I am writing about the issue today because NPR announced that it will be closing its comment section as of August 23. My opinion of comment sections is that they typically have terrible signal to noise ratios and are not worth a read.
NPR, of course, stands for National Public Radio, and as such it does receive some level of tax payer support for its operation. As well as the seemingly endless pledge drives that it runs to get money from listeners. Full disclosure: I used to contribute annually to NPR stations (yes, in the plural because I lived (and live) in a region where there are multiple NPR stations to listen to. The stations don't have the same programming, so I listened to both.) Note the tense there, I seldom if ever listen to NPR now (mostly because I'm not in my car regularly any more) and haven't donated any money in years.
I occasionally visit NPR's website, but have to admit that for me, NPR is a still a radio station, rather than a website. Still, I do occasionally visit and read the stories— I'm less likely to listen though, I prefer to read rather than listen on my computer. I almost never read the comment section though. That holds true universally though, I think comment sections tend to shed more heat than light on a topic— and that's if they don't devolve into a cesspool of hateful or trolling rhetoric. Comment sections, rather than "fostering connections" typically are useless at best, and harmful at worst.
Moderation can help. The New York Times comment section is generally readable— but the paper spends a lot of money on moderators. It also closes comments on articles after some amount of time. NPR's comments are moderated, but via a third party, which apparently couldn't keep up with the trolling.
NPR spun the closing as a means of connecting to listeners in better ways— mostly via Facebook, where most people post under their real names, which tends to lead to self-moderation in many cases. When grandma can potentially read what you're spewing, you tend to mind your tone a bit more. There are obviously exceptions, but anonymous commenting on the internet is an invitation to trolls. Unmoderated comment sections aren't worth the bytes they require. I can definitively say that I have never learned anything of substance from an unmoderated comment section.
The time and expense required for moderation is one reason that I have never even considered having a comment section. I realize that there are potential conversations with readers (few that they are) that I am missing out on, but I do have a contact page (which I think is still working, guess I should check that. For some reason the contact pages on my other sites stopped working, and I had to give an email address for a contact.)
Not everyone agrees that comment sections are worthless, or that they are expensive and difficult to maintain. However, given the increasing number of sites, tiring of dealing with comment sections and badly behaving trolls, I don't buy that argument. Nor do a buy the argument that not having a comment section limits anybody's ability to comment on a story or note a mistake. There are myriad other way sand other places where that can be done— as the NPR piece noted.
I don't doubt that some people found the comments section fun to use— and that some or even many of them weren't "in it for the lulz." All I can do is note my own observation that I can't remember the last time a comment section on an NPR story provided me with any useful information about a story. I think it's much ado about nothing from people who figured out how to dominate a form of communication that is being shifted away from them. If you really want to discuss NPR stories, then start you own blog (with comments!!) then do so.
Or send an email to the author. Of course, then the comment is that the email is ignored (just as authors ignore most comments), and because no one else could dog pile on top of your comment, that's the end.
I'm also not moved by the "public is being removed" from the publicly funded site. While Facebook was the focus, NPR also has more than 50 Twitter accounts, and it's on Instagram and Tumblr. I get that not everyone wants to have a Facebook account, or (my case) necessarily use it for political discussions. I am ruthlessly apolitical on Facebook, I simply don't want to use that space in that way. Friends and family members have different policies, but I don't engage. However, I still don't see how that justifies keeping an anonymous commenting section that wasn't working. Twitter is completely anonymous too, and it's truly a cesspool of trolls.
My comments are mostly written with the assumption that the people objecting are in fact those who trolled the comment section, making rude and inflammatory comments— in other words generating more heat than light. Those types will find a ready home on Twitter. For the segment that did try to have decent conversations, Twitter will not suffice because conversations there are truly not possible. For those folks, a blog or an email will become their way of connecting.
As to the suggestion that removing comments cuts down on traffic, I have no idea if that's true or not. Since I don't tend to read comments, I don't need to return to a story I've already read to see if anyone answered me. The one exception, which I've noted previously, is the Carb-Sane Asylum, where I do read the (moderated) comment section and have even added my own. The comment section wasn't always moderated, apparently, but became so in response to severe trolling. And that's at a relatively small site. Larger sites, such as NPR, Bloomberg, etc, are much richer troll targets.
Bottom line: I still think comment sections are useless, and I'm not sure why any news site has a comment section under articles.
Disclaimer
Search this site: