Magazine & eMedia Publishing Professional & Social Network
Boston Globe to Readers: Keep your Comments to Yourself (Really?)
The Boston Globe ran an op-ed today that really illuminates the traditional publishing mindset about publishers' relationship with readers -- http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2... -- one that is, in my mind, completely out-moded.
Summary: Reader comments on newspaper websites only devalues journalism, blurs the truth, confuses the issues, and diminishes serious discourse. Abolishing reader forums would be the first step toward restoring journalism’s dignity.
Is this guy for real?
On the one hand, I wonder whether the Globe was purposely trying to run something outrageous that they knew would drive traffic and ad revenue. On the other, I suspect that many in newspapers and other traditional publishing companies actually agree wholeheartedly with what he says.
When are publishers going to get it that user-generated content is content? Yes, it's still a reporter's job to sift through complex issues to present a coherent narrative and there will always be demand for that. But why in the world would it be beneath a newspaper to host the lively debates its content sparks? I think this attitude is arrogant, ignorant and self-defeating in the extreme.
What the op-ed writer doesn’t realize is that people do have an incentive to provide interesting, accurate and clear commentary. In an era of personal branding, commenting on stories is a way to establish your expertise and gain credibility, but you won’t get it by posting annoying, useless or spammy content. Take me commenting on that article, for example (see page 16 -- ironically the article has three times the comments of a typical Globe op-ed). What incentive would I have to post misinformation whose inaccuracy would easily be revealed? Even if you don’t know my real name, you can Google my username (mediajunkette) and that’s a brand to which I have no incentive to attach misinformation, griping or sniping (unless snipery were part of my personal brand—and I certainly wouldn’t be alone there!). Content providers can even jump-start crowdsourced quality control through functionality that allows users to rate comments, which then affects how they are displayed, so that the best comments rise to the top, and the boring, pointless, spamorific comments are relegated to obscurity, where they belong.
Thoughts?
Summary: Reader comments on newspaper websites only devalues journalism, blurs the truth, confuses the issues, and diminishes serious discourse. Abolishing reader forums would be the first step toward restoring journalism’s dignity.
Is this guy for real?
On the one hand, I wonder whether the Globe was purposely trying to run something outrageous that they knew would drive traffic and ad revenue. On the other, I suspect that many in newspapers and other traditional publishing companies actually agree wholeheartedly with what he says.
When are publishers going to get it that user-generated content is content? Yes, it's still a reporter's job to sift through complex issues to present a coherent narrative and there will always be demand for that. But why in the world would it be beneath a newspaper to host the lively debates its content sparks? I think this attitude is arrogant, ignorant and self-defeating in the extreme.
What the op-ed writer doesn’t realize is that people do have an incentive to provide interesting, accurate and clear commentary. In an era of personal branding, commenting on stories is a way to establish your expertise and gain credibility, but you won’t get it by posting annoying, useless or spammy content. Take me commenting on that article, for example (see page 16 -- ironically the article has three times the comments of a typical Globe op-ed). What incentive would I have to post misinformation whose inaccuracy would easily be revealed? Even if you don’t know my real name, you can Google my username (mediajunkette) and that’s a brand to which I have no incentive to attach misinformation, griping or sniping (unless snipery were part of my personal brand—and I certainly wouldn’t be alone there!). Content providers can even jump-start crowdsourced quality control through functionality that allows users to rate comments, which then affects how they are displayed, so that the best comments rise to the top, and the boring, pointless, spamorific comments are relegated to obscurity, where they belong.
Thoughts?
Tags: boston, content, globe, user-generated
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Zingalis on -
I am rubber, you are glue. Any user generated content bounces off of me and sticks to you! lol.
-
Permalink Reply by Jon Baldwin on -
I've been fighting "backward thinking" at newspapers and magazines for 20 years. Believe me - if you think editorial and the on-line portion of the business is out-moded - don't even get me started and the circulation model. Magazines are just fine with 2/3 of their press run going unsold and into the shredder - while newsstand distributors complain "we're not getting as much money for recycling".
Hmm... why is advertising dropping so much? Oh yeah, because our magazine is back on isle 9 at the grocery store and no one ever sees it. But that's OK, because at least if no one READS them, they will be properly recycled.
I guess the scariest part is that no one (in the circulation department) seems to care. The glazed-eyed "but we've always done it this way" response has been the norm for all my years in this industry. Hence, so many of my colleagues are out of work - or lost to other industries - never to return.
-
Permalink Reply by Rachel Globus on -
That's interesting -- and disheartening, given how much more critical the role of circulators these days is as community building becomes even more important for content brands. Legacy thinking is the biggest threat to organizations in today's changed business environment. I see it everywhere, whether we're talking about big traditional publishers, the hospitality industry, or the association and conference industry (which I cover). Why people are so allergic to exciting new ideas and practices is beyond me!
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Zingalis on
-
What is the medical term for an alergic reaction to change. Is it an axis 3 disorder?
What's strange is the interpretation that only an publisher is qualified to start a conversation, and that it needs to be a one way conversation only. ..which isn't a conversation.
It is not an aversion to change.
It is an aversion to critique, and intellectual hording (IE: I made you a steak...so eat it)...when the real meat is the reaction. Unless the only driving force in this thing is to put horseblinders on people's heads that can't think for themselves. Unfortunately, not everyone enjoys being bridled.
-
Permalink Reply by Rachel Globus on
-
I think it's just fear of the unknown. The nature of humans is stasis, but the nature of nature is change, which leads to a constant tension!
However, Alex Whalen brought up a point at a MediaBistro panel on the Evolution of Journalism, and I agree with him, that many of the things journalists and publishers are being asked to do are not incredibly foreign to their traditional realm of expertise!
For example, everyone's talking about the rise of content curation over content generation, but curation--bringing together diverse sources to create a coherent narrative stream, deciding what does and does not deserve coverage--has always been central to journalism.
Another thing, this whole big hullabaloo over "free" content--the idea of giving away something little to entice buyers to make a purchase isn't new in the least. Watch an infomercial once in a while! Of course the "free gift with purchase" model is slightly different, but it's not as big of a mental shift as some fear.
What I'll be interested to see is how the recent news that major publishers will be moving to paid content models will affect this renaissance we're experiencing in content distribution. I think it could really put a damper on an exciting democratization of media, but it's too early to tell how the market will respond.
-
Permalink Reply by Rachel Globus on
-
I wonder if the 782 comments on one of Boston.com's current articles tempts the writer change his mind at all.
Probably not.
With that many comments, it seems that there is a place for the newspaper to curate that content to help people consume it. What's the best way to do that?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Zingalis on
-
Curate...Consume. How about read / interpret / respond?
Sign in
Latest Activity
A forum for sharing ideas and experiences, asking questions and discussing best practices for creating, executing, selling, and managing magazine events, conferences, and trade shows.
Groups
-
Magazine Event Strategies
83 members
-
Online Publishing Busi...
284 members
-
Social Media Marketing
178 members
-
Editorial
242 members
-
Cheap Air Tickets Book...
1 member
-
Audience Development
231 members
-
Media Entrepreneurs
78 members
-
Growth Strategies
145 members
Help Us Grow
Please Invite your co-workers & friends to join your network. They'll automatically be added to your Friends List. Click Now
Member Search
Badge
Commercial Use Limitations: Use of any content features (blogs, forums, messaging, etc) for direct self-promotion, spamming, etc. will result in account termination. Profiles are for individuals only at this time, not companies. Profile headshots should not include company logos. Publishing/Media companies (non vendors) may create groups for their employees. Vendors see this post for more information.
© 2009 Created by FOLIO MediaPRO Team
