• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

NPR restricts commenting

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lost Fragment

Obsessed with 4chan
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/03/public-radio-decides-its-time-to-chase-trolls-away.ars

NPR says that its editors and staff have reached their limit with some of the user comments that appear on NPR.org's printed stories and blogs. "We've recently observed a significant increase in the amount of spam in the comments as well as comments from some individuals who participate simply to anger or insult other community members," the Inside NPR blog noted on Wednesday.

Hence the organization "will more aggressively" moderate subscriber responses on the site. New registrants who wish to post comments on the radio service's webpages will go through a vetting process, conducted by a team of community managers. The latter will enforce NPR's Community Discussion Rules, the short version of which can be summarized as follows:

* Be polite
* Don't use obscene words
* Stay on topic
* Don't ramble, and
* Report trolls, but don't respond to their posts

Once a new user "has established a reputation for following the commenting guidelines all of his comments will appear immediately after posting," Inside NPR explains. "Community managers will only review comments in response to a specific report from other community members."

As for existing users, about two percent "who have demonstrated a history of breaking the discussion rules," will have their comments scrutinized. Once these "consistently adhere" to the community rules, "we'll stop reviewing their comments before they are posted."
Appalling things

This new policy has been a while in coming. In October, NPR noted that the site had grown to 350,000 registered participants, and thus needed a little help moderating comments, particularly with trolls who come "to wreak havoc in discussions." Hence, the media organization brought in Canadian-based ICUC Moderation Services to assist.

NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepard insists that the newest move wasn't prompted by subscriber "vitriol" in reaction to NPR's coverage of the attack on CBS Correspondent Lara Logan in Cairo. But those responses obviously vexed the organization. Some NPR.org users said "appalling things online" about the case, Shepard complained, "so ugly, in fact," that staff took down dozens of anonymous remarks that appeared on an NPR blog about the situation.

Among them: "Those dirty Muslims. Now I know why their women wear burkas. It's because the men can't control themselves." And: "They're Arabs, what do you expect? They're nasty people from the dirtiest place on earth."
Face-to-face

Since October, NPR.org's registration total has grown to a total of 450,000 subscribers, the new procedures announcement discloses. In a recent blog post Shepard suggested that the network should go even further in moderating discussion.

"I am a strong advocate of doing away with anonymous comments," she wrote on Friday. "I often wonder what the dialogue might be like in a face-to-face setting, if people would be so harsh or make personal attacks."

News organizations are struggling with the anonymous comment question. Last year Arianna Huffington of the eponymous Huffington Post told The New York Times that the "trend is away from anonymity."

But even as The Washington Post announced plans to revise its comments policy, the Post's ombudsman Andrew Alexander noted that anonymity provides "necessary protection for serious commenters whose jobs or personal circumstances preclude identifying themselves. And even belligerent anonymous comments often reflect genuine passion that should be heard."

Part of me thinks that other popular news sites should follow suit, but the other part of me would be uncomfortable with that because it's easy to disregard someone as a troll just because they don't parrot the majority opinion, or give a false impression of people's reactions just to further an agenda (Fox, etc). I hope if this becomes a trend, that moderation is impartial and focuses only on comments that are blatantly inflammatory.
 
NPR comment boards were no different than Huffingpost or any blog that had a liberal bend. They report the story, the commentors bash the republicans/conservatives/whatever, someone dissents and is called a plethora of names. Over and over and over again for every story. Nothing of value is ever discussed there. They shouldn't even bother
 
I don't understand why NPR feels the need to have any comments on their website.

They have a Facebook page - why not keep them restricted to it?
 
They should just close down comments altogether. Half of the comments these days are spam for dating sites or some other shit, and the other half are trolls.
 
once again the liberals find themselves being immense hypocrites by silencing free speech

fucking disgusting

i for one am NOBAMA
 
They should make it like GAF. Register a proper email and have a waiting period of a week before you can comment.

My two cents.
 
remnant said:
NPR comment boards were no different than Huffingpost or any blog that had a liberal bend. They report the story, the commentors bash the republicans/conservatives/whatever, someone dissents and is called a plethora of names. Over and over and over again for every story. Nothing of value is ever discussed there. They shouldn't even bother
Slightly off-topic:

Are NPR and PBS considered liberal outlets because of allegedly biased reporting or because of their audience? To me, NPR is some of the most quality journalism out there, and the though of someone calling them biased kinda upsets me.
 
Battersea Power Station said:
Slightly off-topic:

Are NPR and PBS considered liberal outlets because of allegedly biased reporting or because of their audience? To me, NPR is some of the most quality journalism out there, and the though of someone calling them biased kinda upsets me.
They're liberal because they don't shill for conservatives.

..nevermind going to conservative think tanks for everything.
 
Battersea Power Station said:
Slightly off-topic:

Are NPR and PBS considered liberal outlets because of allegedly biased reporting or because of their audience? To me, NPR is some of the most quality journalism out there, and the though of someone calling them biased kinda upsets me.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
 
As far as I can tell, you can still comment anonymously, you just need to be registered, right? All they seem to want is any name and an email address. I don't understand how this is news.
 
Battersea Power Station said:
Slightly off-topic:

Are NPR and PBS considered liberal outlets because of allegedly biased reporting or because of their audience? To me, NPR is some of the most quality journalism out there, and the though of someone calling them biased kinda upsets me.

*Ex-Journalism student here*

Journalism in general is a liberal profession simply because of the type of people it attracts. Idealists, folks wanting to "make a difference", etc. NPR isn't nearly as liberal as a lot of people like to claim (Fox News crowd). They don't have to pander to any particular audience like major news networks do.

I'd definitely say that any bias is harder to detect on NPR than it is on other news networks (not saying it isn't there, though). I'd choose it over the other news orgs, and I am a Republican.
 
Jenga said:
once again the liberals find themselves being immense hypocrites by silencing free speech

And on the same day Vivian Schiller was telling us why it was SOOOOO important that NPR continue to get 10% of their money from the CPB, which the Republicans are trying to defund.

I'd definitely say that any bias is harder to detect on NPR than it is on other news networks (not saying it isn't there, though). I'd choose it over the other news orgs, and I am a Republican.

If you've been a fan of NPR, you probably wouldn't detect it as bias. Not all of their shows are biased, but when it comes to anything remotely political, you'll have a hard time finding conservative voices on there who are anything more than Alan Colmes was on Fox News (i.e. there to be brow beaten).
 
Wise move by NPR.

Comments on news sites are mainly just bitch-fests anyway. I wouldn't want that garbage on my site either.
 
CountScary said:
If you've been a fan of NPR, you probably wouldn't detect it as bias. Not all of their shows are biased, but when it comes to anything remotely political, you'll have a hard time finding conservative voices on there who are anything more than Alan Colmes was on Fox News (i.e. there to be brow beaten).
It'd be nice if you'd post without making shit up.
 
The argument for giving someone the ability to anonymously comment is weak, at least in that example. I understand in the cases that someone may not want to publicly speak against their employer if it's a large corporation, or their state, but the anonymity has been abused to death. Half of the things people say on websites they'd dare utter a word of it in a public domain where they are open to scrutiny and a higher standard of discourse. But when your name and face is at stake, you'll see people come forward with a more interesting, well structured arguments and that sets the standard for everyone else.
 
I don't see the need for comments at all. They are never enlightening and quite often depressing. Doesn't matter what news site you are talking about.
 
CountScary said:
If you've been a fan of NPR, you probably wouldn't detect it as bias. Not all of their shows are biased, but when it comes to anything remotely political, you'll have a hard time finding conservative voices on there who are anything more than Alan Colmes was on Fox News (i.e. there to be brow beaten).
I don't get how you draw that comparison, considering there are no opinion "news" shows. Any opinions there are expressed by interviewees, and I've never heard an interviewee brow-beaten, so I'll have to request that you provide some examples.
 
Hitokage said:
It'd be nice if you'd post without making shit up.

i think he has a direct connection from his ass to his computer. There is no more pulling involved, it just straight flows onto the screen.


Battersea Power Station said:
I don't get how you draw that comparison, considering there are no opinion "news" shows. Any opinions there are expressed by interviewees, and I've never heard an interviewee brow-beaten, so I'll have to request that you provide some examples.


i hope you're not expecting anything
 
CountScary said:
If you've been a fan of NPR, you probably wouldn't detect it as bias. Not all of their shows are biased, but when it comes to anything remotely political, you'll have a hard time finding conservative voices on there who are anything more than Alan Colmes was on Fox News (i.e. there to be brow beaten).

Or not? I've heard many a story on Morning Edition or All Things Considered where the conservative commentary was the only commentary, and I've never heard anyone be brow beat. The argumentative setups and shrill debates are something NPR leaves to the 24 hour cable news outlets.
 
Trent Strong said:
I tried listening to some NPR, but 99.9% of it was about Jazz, and I'm not a Jazz fan.
Some NPR affiliates are primarily Jazz or Classical rather than News/Talk/Variety.
 
Hitokage said:
It'd be nice if you'd post without making shit up.

Aside from David Brooks, who would you say are the contributors NPR brings on most often to represent a conservative point of view? I'm not saying how they do their programming is bad or that they even NEED to bring on more conservatives - I just think it's disingenuous for Vivian Schiller to claim they are some straight down the middle outfit and that they need 10% of their funding from the government.

They produce a lot of good content - content that will certainly be supported by underwriters (err, advertisers) and listeners.
 
Hitokage said:
Some NPR affiliates are primarily Jazz or Classical rather than News/Talk/Variety.

I was exaggerating, but yeah, I was probably listening to the wrong segments, since I was listening to it in podcast form.
 
CountScary said:
I'm not saying how they do their programming is bad or that they even NEED to bring on more conservatives - I just think it's disingenuous for Vivian Schiller to claim they are some straight down the middle outfit and that they need 10% of their funding from the government.
Any more than your disingenuous posts? You claimed that conservatives are only put on NPR to be brow-beaten when that is obviously not the case from even a cursory listen to their programming.
 
Sounds like they're learning from NeoGAF.

Heavy moderation increases the quality of discourse on relatively anonymous forums.
 
Hitokage said:
Any more than your disingenuous posts? You claimed that conservatives are only put on NPR to be brow-beaten when that is obviously not the case from even a cursory listen to their programming.

Oh, OK. I thought you were saying they ARE represented in equal proportion on NPR. Perhaps the "brow beating" was a bit of hyperbole.
 
I have XM Radio and on there NPR has 4 stations. A Left station, a Right station, a middle political station, and the regular station. I only listen to my local station and the regular station, but I think it is a good move to have both a left and right station. I do agree though on the regular station and my local station they could be a bit more in the middle on things. They make a effort, but they still lean left.

I am happy with more heavily moderated comments, as long as the moderators continue to be neutral.
 
Universal banning of asshats is why I love GAF. This site has a liberal bent, but you cant really get away with making shit up or using ad hominem attacks for long.

Banning clowns who post drive by hate speech, spam, and blatant misinformation would make any comments section easier to read.

"I am a strong advocate of doing away with anonymous comments," she wrote on Friday. "I often wonder what the dialogue might be like in a face-to-face setting, if people would be so harsh or make personal attacks."

MEET ME SOMEWHERE™
 
Nymeria88 said:
I have XM Radio and on there NPR has 4 stations. A Left station, a Right station, a middle political station, and the regular station. I only listen to my local station and the regular station, but I think it is a good move to have both a left and right station. I do agree though on the regular station and my local station they could be a bit more in the middle on things. They make a effort, but they still lean left.

I am happy with more heavily moderated comments, as long as the moderators continue to be neutral.

Yeah, I liked that Sirius/XM have channels all over the map (hell, they would put up a chess channel if they could get 1,000 people to listen to it). Unfortunately, middle of the road commentary is boring and does not create an audience.
 
The Culture Vulture said:
You mean they don't start every story with "Some people are saying..."?
No, but they tend to end every one with "For reaction, let's hear from this person from the Heritage Foundation/CATO Institute/Brookings Institution/etc."

Spire said:
Or not? I've heard many a story on Morning Edition or All Things Considered where the conservative commentary was the only commentary, and I've never heard anyone be brow beat. The argumentative setups and shrill debates are something NPR leaves to the 24 hour cable news outlets.
Exactly.

CountScary said:
Oh, OK. I thought you were saying they ARE represented in equal proportion on NPR. Perhaps the "brow beating" was a bit of hyperbole.
They are over-represented, if anything. You obviously do not listen to NPR, and you take your criticisms of it from right-wing commentators or your own biases. I wish that "NPR is liberal" trope was true. Maybe it's my market area (DC, which hardly seems a conservative bastion), but like I said, when I want to hear from conservative think-tanks, NPR is my likeliest outlet.
 
ToxicAdam said:
I don't see the need for comments at all. They are never enlightening and quite often depressing. Doesn't matter what news site you are talking about.

Agreed. Virtually all comments sections on news sites are worthless.
 
Nymeria88 said:
I have XM Radio and on there NPR has 4 stations. A Left station, a Right station, a middle political station, and the regular station. I only listen to my local station and the regular station, but I think it is a good move to have both a left and right station. I do agree though on the regular station and my local station they could be a bit more in the middle on things. They make a effort, but they still lean left.

I am happy with more heavily moderated comments, as long as the moderators continue to be neutral.
Why does a news station need to be any political flavour? Can't it just report the news?
 
Dead Man said:
Why does a news station need to be any political flavour? Can't it just report the news?
I wouldn't be surprised if both stations reported the same shit, but people needed to hear of a bias name before tuning in.
 
It's amazing how on every news site, no matter their slant (if any0, 99% of comments are from far right whack jobs
 
Markster said:
Sounds like they're learning from NeoGAF.

Heavy moderation increases the quality of discourse on relatively anonymous forums.

I think that there is more to it than just moderation. Having a lengthy registration process makes the possibility of a ban much more of a threat. Personalized avatars and tags allow people to feel less anonymous, without sacrificing privacy.

It all adds up to an environment where i would feel like a prick if i said something horrible in a Gaf thread, whereas that reaction would be far lessened if it was just a random comment at the bottom of a news story that is of no consequence.

Another solution is to go the Something Awful route, few would spend money on an account just to troll and/or advertise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom