The Collegiate Times has always encouraged responses from our readership.
We like getting letters to the editor because it incites dialogue. Part of the function of journalism, especially student media, is to generate discussion regarding hot topics.
However, in light of articles pertaining to the recent death in Donaldson Brown and a letter calling for an academic boycott of Israel, it seems people are using the commenting system on collegiatetimes.com and other state paper Web sites as a pulpit for offensive commentary.
From calling reporters racists to bashing the Asian or Israeli populations on this campus, the comments following these stories have gotten out of control. As a staff, we have come to a point where it's time to decide what action to take regarding offensive commentary on the Web site that bears our name.
The Web staff has always done its best to remove any of comments that are libelous or illegal. However, lately the multitude of comments has been difficult to keep up with.
As the events were unfolding in Donaldson Brown, the editorial staff was continually monitoring posted comments and deleting the ones that were flagrantly offensive and unnecessary. However, admittedly this practice waned as the days went on and comment regulation fell to the backburner.
The debate in the newsroom has evolved into how to effectively monitor commenting without depriving readers the right to comment. We're currently searching for a community content editor, whose job it will be to monitor offensive material or abuse of our Web site.
But this position is a new one, and our editorial staff is not entirely sure of the most valuable way of implementing such a role. We try to allow commenting to be as broad as possible before the paper becomes legally culpable.
But lately this policy has challenged us, because things beyond the usual name-calling and spamming have dominated the comment section. Never before have comments been taken to the level of explicit and sometimes blatant racism. But how are we supposed to impose taste? Or are we? Or should we just let any and everything fly?
The community content editor would manage the commenting system, but management is currently struggling with the question of just how far censorship should go. We certainly don't want to prohibit healthy debate or the inquisitive minds of our readers, but we also don't want the system to enable offensive banter.
I will say that to this point monitoring of comments has been less than regular. As public editor, I read the comments daily.
They are one of the most effective tools I have for gauging reader activity and response, and they often point out errors we have missed that need to be corrected. The editorial staff occasionally checked comments and deleted the necessary ones. But something does need to be done to ensure this practice occurs on a daily, if not hourly, basis.
The editorial staff is currently considering making people register with the site before they can comment, as a large number of state and national papers do.
Theoretically, this would eliminate anonymous commenting, which would in turn decrease the number of offensive comments (as the general trend seems to be that most of the distasteful comments are left anonymously).
Ideally, no anonymity would create more responsible commenting. However, I worry that requiring readers to register would discourage participation.
One reporter suggested making readers register but still allowing them to comment anonymously, hoping that would still weed out spammers and other people who didn't want to take the steps to register but keep the good commentary from the dedicated readers.
The problem is that the newsroom is a day ahead of the rest of the world. Writers and editors think in terms of tomorrow's paper, so they're always working a day ahead. Meaning that sometimes the newsroom forgets about yesterday or today, which is why comment monitoring slips through the cracks.
Being that I am the public editor, and you are the public, and comments come from the public, this debate ultimately involves all of you.
I want to hear how the people who are doing the commenting feel about the possibility of having to register or having comments be deleted before they make it to the Web.
So send an e-mail to publiceditor@collegiatetimes.com or comment on this article online. But let's keep it clean, folks. That is the moral of the story, after all.
Leave a comment 14 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Ms. Summers, Might I respectfully suggest that publishing the letter calling for an academic boycott of Israel was incredibly inflammatory in the first place, in light of its content? It had several accusations that one could charitably call unsubstantiated and was sure to raise the hackles of a good number of people. The CT could not possibly have decided to publish such a letter, which addresses one of the most emotional issues of our time, and not expect, shall we say, a spirited debate. When it comes to the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, your selection of the verb "incite" in your second paragraph was spot on. Using "dialogue," however... not so much.
Reply to this Top
May I point out a few things worth acclaim here: 1) You are soliciting input from your constituents, 2) You are honestly disclosing the issues at hand and many aspects of interest, 3) You are presenting your currently considered options openly, and 4) You show that you are doing this in the best interest of both your business and your customers. BRAVO!
Reply to this Top
If this were to happen then all Conservative views would be deleted immediately by all of the CT's left wing liberals.
Reply to this Top
Every time I comment, I sign exactly as seen here. I think registration (with only real names being displayed) is an excellent way of getting people to think a little bit before they comment. It will certainly help quell many off the handle comments and personal attacks on viewpoints. If you're ashamed to have your name associated with your comments, you might want to rethink your comments!
Reply to this Top
But there is some value in hearing comments that are anonymous, Will. It's just like if you participate in a research study, you expect that your identity will be hidden; it allows for more candid feedback. And while things can get out of control, sometimes we need a dose of reality from candid comments - it's a true pulse on the people.
Reply to this Top
Why doesn't the CT quit selling its webspace to ad's by google, and then you can stop publishing inflammatory LTE's like that boycott one. And make both our lives more pleasant.
Reply to this Top
Ken...you have a valid point, I agree.
Reply to this Top
The harsh comments are a problem on every website that posts news/opinion items; so basically the enter internet. An entire movie's plot, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, is based on this well-known fact. Since this problem is not unique to the CT, I think that the editorial staff should spend more time focusing on their articles and brace for intense criticism if their content is obviously controversial.
Reply to this Top
Ken, I agree. Kudos to the CT for addressing this issue. One problem that seems to have been overlooked is the fact that no matter how you name yourself when commenting, there is no validation of who you are. I could post a comment using someone else's name, and the only defense they have against it is to comment for themselves and say that they didn't write that which was ascribed to them. The adoption of a user name registration system would at least ensure that each person's comments always appear with the same handle, while still retaining the level of anonymity desired by the person when they choose their screen name. I think the people who want to have constructive debate and dialogue about the articles would take the time to register. I certainly would. This would also allow the CT to track abuse by screen name and take corrective action against repeat offenders, or perhaps discourage them from writing comments that contribute nothing, since they would have to take the time to deliberately register to do so.
Reply to this Top
Sadly "Penor Man" makes a good point. If what you are talking about is censorship, then I am not interested. Censorship is bad, period. Asking people to register would not be censorship. I would agree that the user name chosen can offer the desired level of anonymity. However, sometimes I use my name and others I don't. This isn't because I'm making an offensive comment but maybe a very controversial one that I don't want everyone with a computer to know I hold. Requiring registration would likely suppress some of the more controversial comments and not only the offensive ones. I would prefer to receive the good (controversial or unpopular viewpoints) along with the bad (offensive for the sake of offensive) and let the system stay as is.
Reply to this Top
Isn't it ironic that THIS article has such constructive feedback and everyone is using their name?
Reply to this Top
As an alum I don't have a problem with registration although it shouldn't be limited to students, alum and faculty (parents?). Certainly the usage of racist or blatantly offensive words / comments should be deleted. I think some of these offenders know they will be deleted but just like causing trouble. I know with free speech there's that subjective line of what one considers an opinion another finds offensive. Sometimes, a free for all debate can point out factual errors in opinion letters and sharpen your arguments (pro or con) by burning away weaker extraneous points. Its also more interesting...since everyone likes to add their 2 cents.
Reply to this Top
Well done Collegiate Times staff. I look forward to the re-shaping of the online comments process. And not as an offense, but to encourage Chris, I believe that certain controversies need to be brought to light, and generally they hold no weight unless the holder of those views is prepared to defend them. Controversies eventually end in either stale mates (respective disagreement) or compromise. Either way, we all gain a greater understand of what, and especially WHO we're dealing with. Hate has always hidden behind a mask. Accountability reverses that.
Reply to this Top
I'm glad the CT deletes some comments that might inspire honest debate but allow such puerile postings as emoticon breasts and penises.
Reply to this Top