Moderation a Virtue? How 10 Top Sites Handle Online Comments

By: Ernest L. Wiggins As the number of unique visitors to newspaper Web sites grows, newsroom leaders are contending not only with the challenge of monetizing their product but with how much moderation they can or should provide for their hugely popular user forums.

The cyberspace that's open to user-generated content -- bulletin boards, community listservs, comments pages -- is not like the agoras of ancient Greece, which were only open to free males. Today's marketplaces of ideas (which are too frequently forums of incivility) are open to anyone with computer access, often allowing for anonymous hostile postings, attacks and the disruptive postings of trolls.

It is good to see that the public forum is alive and well in the cyber sphere. However, traffic volume has made it difficult for any but the wealthiest media operations to monitor user comments as diligently as they do letters to the editor or "talk backs" to news directors. The combination of virtually open access and limited oversight has turned these public squares into mosh pits, without the latter's youthful exuberance or bonhomie.

Media operators are wondering how they can enhance both the quantity and quality of the traffic they generate. Is there a way to attain Aristotle's golden mean between stifling regimentation and chaotic liberty?

During a session at the Unity: Journalists of Color Convention in August, the Poynter Institute's Bob Steele and Kelly McBride offered advice on how to more productively manage Web site exchanges and avoid both of those undesirable outcomes. Steele and McBride, both members of the ethics faculty at Poynter, conceded that while registration mechanisms and monitoring are important, media operations must also set a tone that fosters civil discourse rather than simply listing rules that if broken would result in "banishment." As Steele and McBride said, the language inviting contributions should be welcoming and itself civil, while clearly stating the purpose of the forum.

Steele and McBride's suggestions seemed reasonable, so I reviewed user contribution policies at the 10 largest U.S. newspapers to see what mechanisms they were applying to screen user-generated content and evaluate the tone of the messages inviting user contributions. This review revealed both consistencies and interesting distinctions among the operations.

--All of the papers reviewed -- USA Today, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, New York Daily News, Philadelphia Inquirer, Denver Post and Houston Chronicle -- have some mechanisms to monitor user-generated content, ranging from comment screening by staffers to encouraging users to report offensive postings themselves.

--USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, the Daily News, Philadelphia Inquirer, Denver Post and the Houston Chronicle require registration before users are permitted to post. (The others do not.)

--The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, New York Daily News and Denver Post preview comments before they're posted.

Those attending Steele and McBride's sessions acknowledged that requiring users to login seemed a minor deterrent to those truly committed to disruptive discourse (trolling) and that a combination of registering and moderation is the ideal. Of the 10 papers reviewed here, however, only the New York Daily News and the Denver Post employed both registration and moderation.

In this regard, Philadelphia's note to contributors is probably representative of the rationale of most papers that require user registration: "Why are we asking you to register? We've made some changes to the Philly.com commenting system to increase the quality of the user experience and dialogue, and reduce the number of inappropriate or offensive posts. You're now required to have a registered username and account before adding a comment. This will improve the comments for everyone. We apologize for the inconvenience."

Interestingly, Wall Street Journal has the most "liberal" policy of the papers reviewed regarding user- posted material: it neither requires registration nor provides moderation. For WSJ free blogs, those wishing to comment must sign in but they don't have to register or give an e-mail address, which allows posters to tag their comments with whatever name they like. However, WSJ encourages readers to police themselves, and report offensive comments to the section or blog editor.

Of the 10, the Los Angeles Times' "user content posting rules" were the most stringent and severely worded, including several references to discriminatory and inflammatory speech, false advertising and interrupted access to the Web site. It ended with this note: "WARNING: A VIOLATION OF THESE POSTING RULES MAY BE REFERRED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES." Steele and McBride advised against relying on threats to ensure compliance, suggesting that a threatening tone might be perceived as hostile.

Compared to L.A., Chicago's note is less threatening: "Comments are not posted immediately. We review them first in an effort to remove foul language, commercial messages, irrelevancies and unfair attacks. Thank you for your patience."

The Houston Chronicle's note suggests an even more hands-off position. "The Houston Chronicle Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post here. Comments are subject to the site's terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the Houston Chronicle. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification."

The Washington Post sets a friendlier tone as it invites readers to submit videos, photos, articles and comments. "In order to keep these interactive forums enjoyable and interesting for all of our users, we ask that you follow the rules outlined below." Though many of the rules are identical to those listed by the Los Angeles Times (and other papers reviewed), they were not followed by threat of prosecution.

Ratcheting up the civility even more, the New York Daily News writes: "Be nice. Think about others. People often say things on boards that they would be ashamed to say to someone face to face. Please treat other users with respect."

But of the 10 papers, Denver Post was the most congenial as it welcomed readers into the Neighbors forum: Think of Neighbors as a neighborhood gathering, where conversation is lively and civil. What's important to you is probably of interest to others ? if your neighbors don't know about something, they will appreciate if you share your knowledge. The community and its users will decide what the site becomes, but it is not intended to be a free-for-all."

The New York Times, which screens user comments, includes this note under FAQ's on its Web site to address common concerns. "Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we have created a space where readers can exchange intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information."

Not surprisingly, the nation's newspaper of record offers the most soundly and genteelly worded and reasoned statement to readers.