Sun, May 06, 2007 - Page 9 News List

Online media troubled by obscene posts

As newspapers try to become mjore competitive with alternative media on the Internet, editors strugle to achieve a balance between open, uncensored reader participation and decency standards

AP , NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

Faced with declining circulation, many US newspapers are trying to engage readers by allowing them to respond to news stories online. But the anonymity of the Internet lets readers post obscenities and racist hate speech that would never be allowed in the printed paper.

Consider one reader's comment this month on the Web site of Nashville's daily Tennessean. The comment told certain ethnic groups to "go back where you came from," while one was singled out for comparison with insects.

Such rants have long been a part of Internet chat rooms and unmoderated discussion boards. As newspapers try to be more competitive with interactive media online, editors are struggling to find a balance between unfettered reader participation and longtime standards of decency, fairness and accountability.

Sree Sreenivasan, director of the New Media program at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, said the benefits of reader participation outweigh the negatives.

"Lots of people want to take action when they read a story," he said. "In the old days if you were upset about something, you could tell one person at the water cooler. Now you can forward it to 100 friends and say, `We need to do something.'"

But there have been some spectacular failures. In 2005, the Los Angeles Times had to remove an interactive online editorial about the Iraq War after only three days because some users flooded the site with foul language and pornographic photos.

Newspapers can monitor reader comments using automatic filters and staff, Sreenivasan said. But that costs money at a time when newspapers are cutting newsroom jobs.

How to monitor reader comments is "an ongoing question," said Randy Bennett, vice president of audience and new business development for the Newspaper Association of America.

"It's a game of attracting a broad audience, and building loyalty with that audience, to be able to sell that to advertisers," he said.

Papers now get about 5 percent to 7 percent of their revenues from Web sites, and that percentage is expected to grow.

Some editors feel that vigorous monitoring will make readers go elsewhere.

Gannett Co's USA Today began allowing comments on all stories in March and has seen more than 140,000 comments since then.

"We walk a tightrope of creating the right type of environment that reflects well on the brand while at the same time not trying to be overly controlling in how we moderate," executive editor Kinsey Wilson said.

The Tennessean also lets readers to post directly. Employees monitor the comments and take them down "if we know they are false or if they are obscene or vile," said Mark Silverman, editor and vice president of content and audience development.

But once a comment appears on the Web, even if it's pulled, it does not necessarily disappear. Readers can save a copy, and search engines can index it.

Jim Boyd, one of the few readers who identifies himself in his online comments for the Tennessean, loves the rowdy, no-holds-barred exchange of ideas on the Web site, calling it a "new Renaissance."

Of the hateful and vulgar remarks that sometimes appear online, he said, "I really think that's part and parcel of the freedom. If somebody's going to make a fool of themselves, just let them go."

Ted Vaden, ombudsman for the News and Observer in Raleigh, North Carolina, wrote an editorial last month questioning whether anonymous Web posts hurt the credibility of the paper. He supports requiring users to attach their names to comments, just as they are required to do for letters to the editor.

This story has been viewed 2646 times.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

TOP top