When I made this comment, it should be noted that most of the comments were pretty negative toward the NYT in particular.
Not paying attention to the publisher, I've gotta say that I find myself agreeing more often than not. Sometimes, comments do great- but anything above a readership in a couple hundred thousand, and suddenly it all goes to hell.
You'll get a mix of misunderstanding, people inserting their own bias, memetic derailing bullshit, and a whole lot of people who think they're experts, for whatever poor reason they found. This isn't because they're trolls, or horrible people; We all have done it. We all do it. It's being human.
But the problem is, finding the signal in all that noise is just impossible given our current means of filtering. Different outlets have tried different ways of getting people to put more thoughts behind their posts- requiring real names, Facebook accounts, hell, entire companies like Disqus have sprung up for the exact purpose of trying to foster better conversations. And while they all make a decent change, none of them even solve a quarter of the problem.
About the only solution I've ever seen, is heavy-handed moderation. But that opens you up to 'censorship' comments, as we've seen here. Personally, I can't help but feel like maybe it'd be better if real, substantive stories and opinion pieces just didn't have comments; If a person wants to respond, let them go through the effort of making their own blog post, and addressing the author with it on Twitter or in e-mail. It'd certainly lead to more productive conversation. It's partly why I wish there were more intellectually-minded Tumblr accounts, as their format for this is perfect, with reblogging.
This isn't to say comments are all bad, or that they don't serve a purpose. Just that sometimes, all this social doesn't actually produce better content.
When reading NYT comment sections, I always sort, but never by the editor's picks. I rely solely on reader's most recommended. This is the best bullshit filter I've found, and I can see why lazy, dishonest, poorly informed, or otherwise sub-par journalists resent it.
I do something similar when reading HN. Scrolling through the headlines, I (almost) never click on the link itself. Instead, I open the discussion tabs, make a snap judgement about the quality of the piece from there, and click through only when it's clearly worthwhile. The ease with which this filter can be applied is the most amazing thing. At this point, it feels so fluid and natural that I do it reflexively.
A few years ago news outlets were coming to terms with the idea that there was no front page online. Yes, some readers did go to the outlets home page and decide what to read from there. But more often than not, they were coming directly to a piece that would have been buried in a print edition. The social layer further diminishes editorial control, in that people can further economize their quotient of attention by finding and trusting informal social groups that reduce the megaphone effect enjoyed by the analog press even further.
The Reddit voting system works fine. On both Reddit and HN I usually learn more from the comments than the actual article, but I still wouldn't want comments in the New York Times.
Heavy handed censorship turns rude commenters who should be simply ignored into internet terrorists, Facebook comments dilutes the conversation by making people self consciously edit themselves and Twitter or Tumblr replies are like shouting into the wind.
Good old semi-anonymous Reddit comments still perform though, even with a user base of millions of bratty kids the best stuff usually floats to the top.
Not paying attention to the publisher, I've gotta say that I find myself agreeing more often than not. Sometimes, comments do great- but anything above a readership in a couple hundred thousand, and suddenly it all goes to hell.
You'll get a mix of misunderstanding, people inserting their own bias, memetic derailing bullshit, and a whole lot of people who think they're experts, for whatever poor reason they found. This isn't because they're trolls, or horrible people; We all have done it. We all do it. It's being human.
But the problem is, finding the signal in all that noise is just impossible given our current means of filtering. Different outlets have tried different ways of getting people to put more thoughts behind their posts- requiring real names, Facebook accounts, hell, entire companies like Disqus have sprung up for the exact purpose of trying to foster better conversations. And while they all make a decent change, none of them even solve a quarter of the problem.
About the only solution I've ever seen, is heavy-handed moderation. But that opens you up to 'censorship' comments, as we've seen here. Personally, I can't help but feel like maybe it'd be better if real, substantive stories and opinion pieces just didn't have comments; If a person wants to respond, let them go through the effort of making their own blog post, and addressing the author with it on Twitter or in e-mail. It'd certainly lead to more productive conversation. It's partly why I wish there were more intellectually-minded Tumblr accounts, as their format for this is perfect, with reblogging.
This isn't to say comments are all bad, or that they don't serve a purpose. Just that sometimes, all this social doesn't actually produce better content.