NY Times to Readers: Drop Dead

The New York Times has opened a few of its stories-tentatively, selectively-to comments from the public. Between the public and these stories the Gray Lady has installed four part-time staffers whose job it is to uphold the quality of public discourse.

Quoted in Editor & Publisher, Martin Nisenholtz, senior vice president for digital operations of The New York Times Company, said: "A pure free-for-all doesn't, in my opinion, equal good. It can equal bad."

In the same E&P story, Kate Phillips, editor of the Times' Caucus blog: "I almost wish we could go back to the days when we never heard their [readers'] voices."

NYT public editor Clark Hoyt told Editor & Publisher that the paper finds itself "struggling with a vexing problem...How does the august Times, which has long stood for dignified authority, come to terms with the fractious, democratic culture of the Internet, where readers expect to participate but sometimes do so in coarse, bullying and misinformed ways?"

To which I say, to adopt the sort of uncivil language Sulzberger & Co. would never permit on their site: Bite me, you LOSERS!!!!!

Ahem.

To recede back into reasoned discourse: the Times' employees' diction and thinking betray an institutional viewpoint that suits it very poorly, in the first instance, for the Internet: Get this: The new medium has obligated the Times to comes to term with a democratic culture! Far worse, it's a...fractious one! Oh, how vexatious! After all, the Times is "august," and it stands for "dignified authority"!

Frankly, the Times also betrays an institutional self-infatuation that suits the paper very poorly for...well, just about anyone with self-respect.

Nisenholtz, Phillips, and Hoyt ooze supercilious condescension. Readers - unlike the staff members of the New York Times, except maybe Judith Miller, Jayson Blair, and... [you get the idea] - can be misinformed!

Readers can be coarse!

And the culture can be-absolutely unlike the Times, which has never used its power to beat up on a weaker opponent that can't protect itself-full of bullies!

I have previously praised the Times for its sophisticated use of web technology: Its Debate Analyzer tool is a breakthrough product. Its My Times feature demonstrates advanced understanding of the need to provide user control of content in the digital age.

But its policy regarding reader comments reveals a very important way its current management is poorly prepared for the rising era of communication.

At a time when the newspaper is shedding veteran reporters, and in need of developing highly skilled multimedia journalists, devoting 2 slots to sweeping back the sea with a broom is a bad decision. It's sort of sweet, or silly, or just plain batty. It's the stockholders' money, and if they'd rather spend it shielding reader comments from view rather than funding journalism, that's their business.

But the paper's motivation for vetting the comments, as summarized by Hoyt - to uphold the appearance of dignity or augustitude or whatever - betrays a withering contempt for readers.

It shows a lack of confidence in the very people the Times' advertising group is always bragging about: the national intelligencia, the "thought leaders," the discriminating cosmopolitans and patrons of the high arts.

It is a rather transparent form of censorship - the Fourth Estate squelching the voices of the undignified masses in the name of political and economic self-interest-and vanity.

It is a window into an institutional culture that is made ill, deep down, by the unpleasantness of contemporary public life.

It is, in the end, not an expression of dignity. It's an expression of cowardice.

Follow Craig Stoltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craigstoltz

Comments

[JudyGee]

The NYT is fortunate to have readers who comment. Or, any readership at all. We relied on the august lady, to investigate, interpret and analyze this presidency, which brought us to war with lies and treachery. Instead, while our middle class imploded, our healthcare deteriorated, criminals roamed our white house, the NYT remained silent as a stone. They must have been out of the room, lunching with the sycophants of an unconscionable imperial pretentiousness, that made a mockery of our Constitution. All this, while we suffered outsourcing, trade agreements or treaties as they really are, with no congressional oversight, the most vile and shameful corruption, and all the rest that has subverted every facet of our lives.
And, where did the NYT stand? Nowhere. The only reason I read that rag anymore is for the comments.

[Janco54]

Cowards indeed! As a member of the "rabble" I have to say I think some of the thoughts presented are far more reasoned than some of their editorial writers. (David Brooks immediately comes to mind.)
I know they wish we would just go away but guess what - ain't gonna happen. With all that's happened in the last 7 years - some of it with their able assistance - a great deal of us have a great deal to say!
Get ready NYT - there's going to be a lot of bad punctuation and grammar headed your way.

[SamThornton]

On the other hand, is it unreasonable to demand some degree of sanity, reasonableness, and a modicum of ability to express a thought clearly?

Looking at some of the comments on other news sites is enough to make one weep for the general level of literacy among those who own computers and have internet access. It's also a waste of time to even skip over some of these puerile efforts.

I don't mind some mechanism for screening out those who offer illiterate and/or scurrilous screeds. One method is to allow users to create their own filters, blocking the inane and allowing the sane. This is implemented on more than one site I've run across. Can't be that difficult to implement.

[Jazzylady26]

Oh, so now we're the unwashed masses, eh? LOL! That's a hoot. I don't care. In case they wondered.

[Lemeritus]

"...augustitude"

That's priceless! Can I use it?

I've posted to the Washington Post, the SF Chronicle and, of course, here (where the barrier between blogger and poster is frequently permeable and the hand-to-hand interaction between posters is often not for the faint of heart). This is just by way of saying that each of these forums develops or encourages its own unique personality -- I would hope the NYT doesn't stand in the way of exploring that kind of voice.

[wmbear]

PRUFROCK OR NY TIMES?...

Deferential, glad to be of use
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous --
Almost, at times, the Fool.

[wmbear]

"the fractious, democratic culture of the Internet, where readers expect to participate but sometimes do so in coarse, bullying and misinformed ways...."

HAH! ONE HAS ONLY TO LOOK AT THE TYPICAL HUFFPOST THREAD...

To rest the "Times" case. But ya know? Most of us wouldn't have it any other way. Because of this, Huffpost is now THE place to post responses to news stories online. (They vet a little but not much, and only when readers themselves complain, I think.) Does the word "troll" mean anything to the august NY Times eds?

Yahoo used to have far and away the best news boards for sheer trolling until they limited responses to smartass kids sporting cutesy avatars. I hope Yahoo "attendance" has tanked as a result -- AND as a result of their Fox newsish headlines....

[noeltaylor]

The Times should look at the online paper as different from the paper version...which it is. Most people reading the online version are gonna be the type of reader that's Internet centric and are used to commenting ,also, if a commenter is incorrect it's enjoyable to read when another commenter corrects them, and if they are vulgar ban them...you need an account right? There is no way around adding comments so they should just bite the bullet.

[Pneumaticus]

It's that insufferable socialite mentality, or in its most inbred preppy manifestation, the disdain of the debuttante whose party has been crashed by those uncouth, uninvited outsiders. They just don't get it.

[edpell]

And someone might say something negative about Israel and the NYT can not stand for that

[CrankyCurmudgeon]

This attitude will come back to haunt them; of this I have no doubt. As you point out, it is a form of cowardice and, ultimately, elitism.

I was just recently informed that one of the lawyers at my company wants to add moderation to our company blogs, wikis, forums, and in our social networking software. I believe it will be the kiss of death for creativity and innovation, something desperately needed in today's fast-paced markets; even in my industry - aerospace, which has a clock-speed bordering on dead. All because they fear someone might, someday, say something that will end up as evidence in a possible lawsuit. I believe this is called biting off your nose to spite your face.

[peterg76]

It's a pity that, in order to compete with unmoderated Internet commentaries, they didn't think of, say, providing an unbiased accurate quality product. A few more of those would be nice.

[ProfessorDuh]

A newspaper that helped lie the nation into an unjustified has nothing to feel "august" about. Maybe if readers had been able to critique Judith Miller's little WMD fictions, some of our subsequent horrors could have been avoided.

[TheKiddy]

Well, I have to say, the comments (when they get past the barriers) are better written and more thoughtful now. Stop, don't jump on me. Just an observation....

[Boomerwoman]

Yes, the same cowardice as the president, who only speaks to vetted audiences. God forbid you should listen to the rabble. Their civilized and democratic veneer peels away to reveal class arrogance and a corruptness that rivals Rome.