http://wheatfromchaff.net/2008/07/21/no-comments-on-news-stories/ Exploring the impact on business of trends and events in society, culture, and the economy. Sun, 06 Jun 2010 03:33:20 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://wheatfromchaff.net/2008/07/21/no-comments-on-news-stories/comment-page-1/#comment-5723 mjdavis Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:26:58 +0000 http://wheatfromchaff.net/2008/07/21/no-comments-on-news-stories/#comment-5723 Right. I wasn't suggesting no limits, but responding to an all or nothing proposition - comments or no comments. Right. I wasn’t suggesting no limits, but responding to an all or nothing proposition – comments or no comments.

]]> http://wheatfromchaff.net/2008/07/21/no-comments-on-news-stories/comment-page-1/#comment-5722 RYork Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:52:54 +0000 http://wheatfromchaff.net/2008/07/21/no-comments-on-news-stories/#comment-5722 In the abstract, from a tower miles above the surface of the earth, it easy – reasonable even -to make the argument that comments on news stories, obituaries and other vetted and edited content should be open to the masses for unfiltered commentary. As we descend toward the practical reality of sea level, it become painfully obvious that limits are needed. Limits aren’t a new concept in a free society – citizens regularly see limits placed on their abilities to own and carry a gun, buy a drink, adopt a child or sunbathe nude. Away from the public sector, limits are placed on what you can wear in certain restaurants (no shoes…) or which seats you can sit in at the ballpark. These limits are all established to keep some of us from doing things that would have consequences to the rest of us. Pretty simple equation, really. The unending barrage of mindlessly racially divisive commentary on newspaper stories that frequently have nothing to do with race, the penchant for the corner Mensa to vilify a child whose photo runs in the paper because of his or her looks does nothing but put a fire hose on a march toward civility that has enough challenges already. Newspapers have neither a duty nor obligation to continue web publishing unedited and often anonymous commentary if the participants continue to use the forum to attack. In the abstract, from a tower miles above the surface of the earth, it easy – reasonable even -to make the argument that comments on news stories, obituaries and other vetted and edited content should be open to the masses for unfiltered commentary. As we descend toward the practical reality of sea level, it become painfully obvious that limits are needed. Limits aren’t a new concept in a free society – citizens regularly see limits placed on their abilities to own and carry a gun, buy a drink, adopt a child or sunbathe nude. Away from the public sector, limits are placed on what you can wear in certain restaurants (no shoes…) or which seats you can sit in at the ballpark. These limits are all established to keep some of us from doing things that would have consequences to the rest of us. Pretty simple equation, really.
The unending barrage of mindlessly racially divisive commentary on newspaper stories that frequently have nothing to do with race, the penchant for the corner Mensa to vilify a child whose photo runs in the paper because of his or her looks does nothing but put a fire hose on a march toward civility that has enough challenges already. Newspapers have neither a duty nor obligation to continue web publishing unedited and often anonymous commentary if the participants continue to use the forum to attack.

]]>