(I think.)
There is a growing debate among online publications about the ubiquitous Comments section, which, we are told, is an important feature to promote dialogue and engagement with readers. (Read more about the issue here.)
Personally, though, most of the time I just feel squeamish when I read through the comments attached to most stories – particularly to any political coverage that I read.
There is a growing debate among online publications about the ubiquitous Comments section, which, we are told, is an important feature to promote dialogue and engagement with readers. (Read more about the issue here.)
Personally, though, most of the time I just feel squeamish when I read through the comments attached to most stories – particularly to any political coverage that I read.
I value reasoned debate, and I enjoy many of the witty comments thrown in – they often serve to break the tension. Unfortunately, one usually has to sift through a lot of vitriol and rhetoric to get to any comments that promote understanding or advance an argument.
Is it because most commenters are able to hide behind their noms-de-plume? Is it because it is easy to slag someone if you don’t really know them? Or is it just because the Internet has relieved us of some of the common decency that used to be expected when one was engaged in public debate?
I’m not sure. But at the risk of attracting a flame war, I’d be interested to read any comments YOU may have about whether publications should end the practice of publishing comments on their articles.
Is it because most commenters are able to hide behind their noms-de-plume? Is it because it is easy to slag someone if you don’t really know them? Or is it just because the Internet has relieved us of some of the common decency that used to be expected when one was engaged in public debate?
I’m not sure. But at the risk of attracting a flame war, I’d be interested to read any comments YOU may have about whether publications should end the practice of publishing comments on their articles.