The Comments Dilemma

Mike Smith
ms983012@ohio.edu
How to handle comments online has been a big debate ever since the internet became the big thing. A ton of people in the world love for their voice to be heard on the internet. Many people share ideas that they can back up with facts and do not offend anyone. However, many people share ideas that can be very offensive.

Comment sections can be a great place to have a healthy debate. Unfortunately, many commentors abuse it and some websites have removed their comments section as a result. One idea to stop the inappropriate comments is to have their Facebook linked, so commentors are not anonymous.

Tim Edner talks about how USA Today is about to implement this new Facebook comment policy.  I think this is a pretty good idea.

I like this idea because it will defiantly eliminate a lot of inappropriate comments. People are not as tough and brave when they are not anonymous. Having their Facebook linked would make people think twice before they write something mean.

I do understand why some people do not want this though. For example, say you have an intense debate about a touchy subject like abortion. You would not want the people you were debating against to be able to find you on Facebook and gain personal information on you. There are a lot of crazy people out there, and some could try to personally attack you and your family.

My response would be to put your Facebook on the highest privacy setting possible. That would make it very difficult for anyone to find out much about you, other than your name. If they sent you a threatening message, you would just block them, and that would end it.

In the end, I think the comment sections online are an important aspect in journalism. They allow people to share ideas, and they should not be eliminated in my opinion.

Another thing that was interesting to me was Steve Myer's article about user generated content.   He talked about how the Chicago Tribune recently published a photo that was from Flickr that was not authentic.

Every website likes to include user generated content that catches people's eyes. However, there is a ton of fake stuff on the internet. That makes it very difficult for websites to try to only publish authentic things.

I think pulling stuff from Flickr and posting it is a terrific idea. Journalists just need to do a thorough authenticity check on it before it is published.  There is way too
much funny and cool stuff all over the internet to not publish some of it.

If something is published that isn't authentic, a simple apology to clear things up would do the job because nobody is perfect. The goods of pulling things from sites like Flickr out way the bad.

In conclusion, the comment section and user generated content is a big part of the internet and journalism. Both of those things are not going anywhere anytime soon either for the most part. Journalists everywhere need to find a way to use both of these things to their advantage.

The Comment War

Madison Stricklin
MS459711@ohio.edu

The first half of the first amendment of the United States Constitution states that no law shall be passed that prohibits the free exercise of religion, speech and press. However, the more recent generations of people believe that the first amendment allows people to say what they please, whenever they please. If a person feels this right is being infringed upon, they have a tendency to cry out.

An example of this is when USA Today decided they would limit the comments that could be written by making readers go through the third party social website Facebook. The reason for this, writes Tim Ebner of American Journalism Review, that stories had “attracted large amounts of offensive reaction, some of it obscene, racist and sexist.” The reactions to this announcement were rather negative.

A large issue with commenting online tends to be the anonymity of it. There are many websites that allow a person to take on an alias – or multiple, depending on the person – or to choose to be anonymous when they comment. Anonymity can come in handy in some cases, specifically if a news source needs to keep their identity hidden as a safety precaution. However, it equally has its negative aspects.

 “There is plenty of debate over the issue, as newsrooms struggle with moderation, the value of anonymity among commenters, and, in some cases, the legal issues that arise from what’s said in the comments.” Justin Ellis writes this in his article “What happened after 7 news sites got rid of reader comments” on Niemanlab.org. The legal issue that is highlighted in the article? Reason.com being subpoenaed over comments from users claiming they would murder a federal judge via wood chipper.

News sources are not the only ones to attempt to moderate their comment sections. In 2014, Swedish YouTube star Felix Kjellberg – known under the alias PewDiePie – noticed that the comment section of his videos were becoming less about the content and more about spamming the comments with self-advertising and ridiculously negative comments between fans and viewers.

Felix discussing disabling the comments.

Similar to the reactions of the news sites attempting different techniques to moderate their comment sections, Kjellberg received many negative reactions from other YouTube stars and fans via social media. There were many that claimed it was denying people their first amendment rights.  Despite claiming that he would disable the comment section of his video forever, the YouTuber did eventually re-open the comment section. However, some sources state the Kjellberg’s viewership dropped after he initiated the decision of disabling comments.

At the current moment in time, it seems that there is no correct answer on how to properly moderate comments on pieces of media. Simply allowing viewers to do as they please has various consequences, the example of the subpoenaed website being a prime example of such, and therefore should probably not be the answer the problem. Disabling commenting altogether also has consequences, including the loss of subscribers and readers. Perhaps the best route to take is that which USA Today decided to take: limiting comments to users of a third party social media site that puts a name to a face online, rather than having the aliases and anonymity that seems to be the base of the issue.

Putting a Name to a Comment

JJ Russo

Jr925512@ohio.edu

Putting a Name to a Comment

In reading the article “Is Facebook the Solution to the Obnoxious Comment Plague?” it brought up the situation of Internet abusers taking to comments to express how they feel in an untasteful way. The first magazine that took action in trying to stop this was USA Today. They started the system where if you wanted to comment online on any of their articles, you had to be signed in to your Facebook so others would know who is saying the comment rather than keeping it anonymous. I think this was a great move by the magazine to bring focus to obnoxious comments that surface the Internet. However I do believe there can be a more efficient way to do this.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

I do fully support the idea of putting a name with the comments and yes; the most logical way is Facebook. Every one, old or young, that uses the Internet enough to comment on articles has a Facebook. What this connection with the specific social media site, it is completely disregarding the use of all other ones and shows the full support for Facebook. This is basically saying to the public, “You must be on Facebook if you want to hear your opinion heard on our article.” The article also brought up the tactic of creating a fake Facebook profile. It would be a pretty drastic act to do but there are some people out there that do not want their name associated with their opinions. We live in a very untrustworthy world on the Internet.

Fake profiles are things that we will never be able to get rid of in today’s world unless it was taken to drastic measures. What I can suggest is breaking ties with Facebook and creating your own account with whatever magazine you want to comment on. This shows the magazine has no direct ties with only one social media and allows people that may not have Facebook to sign in. Let’s be honest, the only people that will make an account with the magazine are the ones who want their opinions heard and those are the people we want commenting.

There is also the concern that people are getting bored of Facebook and looking for new social media sites. A writer from uncrunched.com said, “Facebook today is so crowded and messy that no one ever goes there anymore.” Today's world has people that are always looking for something new. Facebook has been around for a very long time in the social media world and cannot expect to produce how they have been in the past. With the limitation of commenting being restricted to only Facebook, this will be another concern in the near future that the magazine company will have to address.

Since USA Today took the initiative in addressing the obnoxious comment situation, they have begun to lay down a path for the future. Obviously this is not the most efficient solution and there are many more steps to be taken to stop these annoying people, but this was a move that was truly made in the eyes of the public. 

https://www.uwc.ac.za/Faculties/CHS/Announcements/Pages/We're-on-Facebook!.aspx

Unwarranted Opinion

Namisha Rakheja

nr862012ohio.edu

There is absolutely no doubt that the public is opinionated. It is natural. It is in our human nature to comment on an issue or express our opinion on it. Either we see something that we disagree with and automatically want to bash it, or we see content that we agree with and want to bash those who do not agree. Where does this bashing take place? In the comment section of any given platform; whether it’s the New York Times or Kim Kardashian’s most recent Instagram post. With that being said, the question still stands, is it warranted for publications to remove the comment section of their websites? And the answer is YES.

Yes, yes, freedom of speech is a rebuttal, however, not all user-generated content is either valid or necessary and it definitely does not lead to any positive debates.  

But first, let me clarify this: most publishers are not just removing the comment section, instead are diverting it to Facebook. If one feels the need to comment, they must do so via Facebook for an over all better outcome.

Tim Ebner, writer for American Journalism Review, says, “When USA Today announced it was about to implement a new system requiring everyone who wants to comment on its online stories to do so via Facebook, editors noticed a less than friendly reaction from readers, who submitted their responses under the old anything-goes comment system”. 

The purpose of this requirement is so that online readers can no longer “hide behind the cloak of anonymity” and also “with the Facebook-only comment policy… it leaves out a portion of the public that doesn't participate in the social networking site (Ebner). 

When you go online to read a credible article about a current event issue, you are looking to get educated on the topic. You want to see what this journalist or publisher has to offer you in terms of knowledge. A simple, positive exchange if you ask me. However, lets add the ability to comment on the article/issue to the equation. 

So by the time you finish the article and have retained information, that you may have not gotten had it not been posted, you scroll down to the comments section. You begin to witness a sea of opinions flowing in and out and, most of the times, into each other. Whether you have a solid opinion on what you just read or you have not made up your mind yet, you will still be affected by other readers’ comments. Either your malleable opinion gets swayed to what americancitizen1329 says or you disagree and begin arguing with what user666 comments. Neither option is positive, neither option is necessary. 

Photo by: http://docs.pagelines.com/tutorials/

Evidently, the only thing all of these unwarranted comments are doing is distracting the common reader from what the article is actually about.

At the end of 2014, many news sites were fed-up with the comment section and therefore got rid of it. The Neiman Lab published an article in which Nilay Patel, editor-in-chief, of The Verge, said, in response to the removal of comment section, “The posts that have the most comments on them are not necessarily the most popular posts. But often, what was happening was that the posts with the most negative comments on them were the most popular posts because they were the culture posts.”

The article is not about an argument between two readers over who ISIS is, it’s about the content a journalist worked diligently to publish to give information to those who would not receive it other wise.

I must say, reading the comments under a celebrity’s picture or a YouTube video that has gone viral is extremely amusing; it is just not necessary for any reader to be ambushed by opinions when educating themselves on current events.
 

The Downsides of UGC and Social Media

Ashley Thomas
at849912@ohio.edu

There are numerous issues with user generated content and social media online and in my opinion it stems from the anonymity that online content creates. Also with so much user generated content being put out online, and so frequently, online news publications have so much content to choose from. Because of the influx of content and the fast paced world of journalism, these sites need to verify the user generated content quickly.
According to Craig Silverman, publications need to collect "as much information as possible and practicing triangulation to make an informed decision." This technique can come in handy when having to verify photos that may or may not have been altered.

After the Paris bombings, a Spanish newspaper published a photo of a Sikh man wearing a bomb vest and holding a Quran claiming that he was involved with the terrorist attacks. The photo ended up being an altered selfie that a Canadian man had taken with his iPad.

The image on the right is the original while the left one was the
one that was shared and digitally altered (Source).

The newspaper did offer an apology but the backlash that the man received can not be undone. When speaking about the incident, Veerender Jubbal, the man pictured, stated that not only did the image tarnish his image but it also tarnished the image of the Sikh community.

Jubbal also stated that he thinks "it’s easy for those who really want to manipulate things and manipulate events to take advantage of that [digital media] and we need to be very cautious of that."

This relates to what Matthew Ingram speaks in his article about user generated content stating that the true problem with it is "the loss of control it involves." In the article, Ingram discusses the issues that arise when companies, businesses and products are given unfair or illegitimate negative reviews on sites such as Yelp and Amazon.

In fact, Yelp has been hit with class action lawsuits for allegedly extorting money from companies in exchange for good reviews and/or to remove unfavorable ones. If the companies don't oblige their image would suffer from this alleged deal.

This isn't the only instance of companies exchanging money for favorable reviews and it won't be the last as long as people have loose moral and ethical boundaries.

This switch to voicing your opinions online as opposed to word of mouth can be a positive or a negative aspect of all current media industries and all industries in general. For example, posting pictures of a missing loved one online spreads more awareness to people all over the nation as opposed to just hanging up fliers in your neighborhood. Though for newsrooms using social media, Emily Bell states that it now "means that essential journalism practices like archiving information, protecting sources and controlling the process are left in the hands of technology companies."

Because of Facebook interactions on news pages, these publications now have to not only moderate their visitor's interactions but also decide what should be allowed on the page. In my opinion this is a difficult line to walk across because newspapers are all about freedom of the press so it's somewhat hypocritical of them to decide what can and can not be said on their reader postings.

Regardless, social media and user generated content is greatly effecting not only the media industries but companies worldwide and it's their job and our job to adapt to the current state.

Quality or Quantity

Will Rhodes
Wr989512@ohio.edu

A major reason for reporting the news is to start a conversation.  No matter what the conversation may be about, i.e. taxes, immigration or war, it is never a one-sided.  In order for a conversation to work efficiently there must be more than one person or organization involved.

Reporting the news is only the beginning of our need for debate and conversation.  Everyone has some interest in knowing what's going on and many people have a strong opinion on these events.  But, in order to further the conversation, there must be ways in which we, the readers, can constructively participate. 

According to Tim Ebner, of The American Journalism Review, media outlets across the world strive for this constructive participation.  More times than not, outlets like USA Today will display a section for comments below each of its stories.  This allows for USA's readers to get involved with the issues being reported.  Allowing readers to actively participate in the reporting says a lot about these news outlets and it's awesome.

But, what is not awesome, is that some people take advantage of this privilege.  Some readers decide to use the comment section as a time to "lash out" against the content being reported.  These people write sexist, racist and obscene language in order to further their claims.  Some would say this is an essential part of the conversation but I disagree.

Many times, these commenters add nothing of substance to the conversation, rather they degrade it because they find it amusing to internet 'troll'.  It is great how readers felt comfortable enough to comment, but at the end of the day anonymity allows some people too much comfort when leaving comments.  But it is still important for these news outlets to attract participation from their readers.  One Gannett spokesperson said, "The decision to change our commenting tool was made to provide a welcoming environment that encourages high-quality and relevant contributions".

                                                                                 http://mashable.com/2013/02/10/internet-trolls/#8qu1fgaRDuqB

By 'change of our commenting tool', the speaker was referring to the new system where readers must log in to Facebook in order to post comments, in turn authenticating the user.  USA Today's decision to follow this system caused many people to react negatively, but I couldn't agree with USA's decision more.  People are held accountable when their identity is attached to them and it promotes appropriate, relevant discussion.

USA Today is a serious news outlet.  Serious news outlets don't have the time for and don't need to be associated with the obscenity that has been coming from commenters.  There is no need for news outlets to protect commenters' identities when they individually choose to type their own 'two-cents'.

"User authentication" is a great way to allow the conversation to continue, although people may be weary at first.  It structures the conversation in order to receive the best, most relevant comments, regardless of position on issues. 

The idea is not to regulate opinion, but rather to inspire quality contributions from readers.  The only way to accomplish this is by attaching a profile to each comment, so that people can be responsible for what they say behind a screen.


 

Verifty Before You Post

Katie King
kk429412@ohio.edu

When some online news organizations announced they were no longer allowing users to comment on content anymore, the response was rather offensive.

The decision made comes with positives and negatives, in my opinion.  In today's society, almost everyone you know is on a social media site.  With the increasing amount of channels, social media has "changed the equation", according to Justin Ellis.  So why not adapt a new approach to handling comments for online stories?

With the recent events that have and are taking place in today's news, social media users are the first to post their opinions online about issues, whether they know what they are talking about or not.  This makes it more difficult when trying to find the line between what is and what isn't journalism.

A benefit to moving the comments to social channels, such as Facebook, is that people already enjoy using social media sites to post their thoughts anyways.  It is easy to access and people like commenting and sharing posts to their friends on Facebook.  According to Tim Ebner, Facebook allows for more enhanced conversation about issues and takes away the ability to comment anonymously.  No more anonymous comments could potentially decrease the amount of negative comments, because generally people feel more comfortable sharing those when their identities aren't known. 

This could also influence online commenters to focus more time on actually proving an interesting point when they comment.  Since friends and family are on Facebook, users may feel more inclined to research their sources to avoid sounding silly.  This could help us define more what can be considered journalistic.

Although Facebook is easy for most to adapt to, not everyone is on Facebook and this poses a problem for those reliable readers who enjoy commenting online.  Emily Bell stated that news organizations "need to understand what it means to hand off interaction to a third party social media site like Facebook."

I believe this causes the negative side of moving comments to social channels.  No longer accepting comments means that more journalism appears on social media sites, which isn't really what they are set up to be.  Therefore, in order for Facebook to be a site where news issues can be taken seriously on it, it needs to change what it is known for.

I think Facebook has already taken steps towards this.  For example, users can now search recent news topics in the search bar.  It is slowly becoming more of a source for information, although I would still question how reliable it is.

   Image by: Pew Research Center

One of the main things to consider when trying to decide if your source is reliable or not is to think where the information is coming from.  User-generated content can not always be considered reliable or accurate. 

With the increase in technology, people want their information as soon as possible.  This makes it more important to focus on if the information you are reading is actually correct.


It is very simple to type in key words in Google, click on the first post that comes up, and rely on what you read to be accurate.  I guess that's why we see so many people commenting these days with information that is wrong or doesn't relate.  But what happens when people start commenting back to your post asking you about your false statements and want you to back up your sources?  Or worse, what happens when people believe your post to be accurate and continue to re-post that information on more sites?

Sources must be checked and information needs to be verified or else we are all just pulling information out of nowhere.