Lessenberry addresses why Toledo Blade dropped article commentary…
Not long ago when the Toledo Blade allowed comments on articles, I wondered to myself how long it would be allowed to continue without some type of moderation, because to be honest, some of those who commented there made some of the really insulting comments made here that I let stand seem like compliments. In Sunday’s column by Jack Lessenberry, it addresses in part why the ability to comment was removed:
But there are a number of people who occasionally post inappropriate things. By that, I mean racial insults and sexual comments, along with one person who, no matter what the subject matter, posts long diatribes calling for the legalization of marijuana.
It has not been conclusively determined whether a newspaper has a legal responsibility for statements it allows readers to make on its Web site, particularly when the newspaper has reserved the right to edit those statements.Legal scholars and media lawyers have differing opinions on the subject, which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been fully tested in court. But whether or not it may be legally responsible, The Blade does have standards and sees itself as having a responsibility, whenever possible, not to lower the tone of civil discourse.
I don’t think Mr. Lessenberry is being totally honest, there were more people who posted things that could border on slander than there were that talked about making pot legal, but at least that explains in part why the ability to comment on Blade articles disappeared. It also goes to show you that while I may enforce the rules regarding civil conversation here, and at times some may feel things are too negative, that the focus on trying to provide real discussion still matters, despite those few that try to throw a wrench in create.
What’s unfortunate is those like the wife of a Toledo Police officer who used the Blade website to share her thoughts has not only been silenced but all of her commentary as well as those who disagreed with her has disappeared along with those who used the ability to comment online as a way to let the Blade know they were not thrilled with their coverage on a particular issue. It’s unfortunate that rather than to use the ability to communicate online with some type of moderation system that the Blade decided the way to address it was to delete it all…It’s similar to my disappointment when someone quits blogging and decides to delete all of the previous posts/commentary, it’s why I delete/edit only when I feel I have no choice, it limits our access to information and there was valid information shared in the commentary on these Blade articles that are gone forever.
Thanks for this article, Lisa. I was wondering what happened. I for one loved reading what most of the people had to say about police and fire.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:03 amI believe that the Blade’s influence over our community is dependant upon the continued faith in the fairness of the newspaper’s reporting from the majority of its readers.
With the commentary forum, readers who still have faith in the Blade’s fairness may have their eyes opened to another side of the story when they read other readers’ comments, which often point out the flaws in the reporting. This is bad for the credibility of the Blade.
More readers are migrating to the internet for their daily paper – see today’s editorial page. Seems like the Blade might even be giving a nod to the idea of reducing print like Detroit has.
When I read the Lessenberry story yesterday I immediately wondered why it took them so long to stop the commentary. With more on-line readers, clearly their agenda-driven news department was being exposed for what it is through the on-line commentary, and I’m sure the paper would not be interested in permitting their own website to assist with contributing to the paper’s demishment. Some readers previously unaware of the Blade’s slant would become more informed and begin to read the paper with that proverbial grain of salt.
The liablilty aspect of their excuse to stop the commentary may have validity, but I believe it is nothing more that a convenient “out” for them. They wanted to stop the open criticism from the informed public and they are hiding behind this excuse.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:25 amI think that it’s a bad move for the Blade to totally get rid of the commentary option. They should have picked the moderator or an approval option.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:10 pmI miss Jim Thomas or whatever his name was.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:27 amSome of the comments were pretty good, however a few were pretty slanderous/insulting. It seems it would have been easier to have a comment moderation system than to have deleted it.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:34 amI agree. Some of his comments were stupid and had racist and sexist overtones. However, he did a good job pointing out poor reporting by the Blade. I think they were red faced about some of his comments about their journalism qualities.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:45 am