What do newspapers know about interacting??
Looking over the assignments on the Arizona Star, and the recent column by Deb Howell in WaPo got me thinking about some of the errors newspapers make well before they bother to take comments to their articles. In word-of-mouth marketing and business blogging circles, one of the very first things that's hammered out are community guidelines for keeping comments civil. These are the same kinds of guidelines that are on many message boards and forums. So, what happenes in the minds of newspaper editors when they simply enable comments without first establishing any sort of community guidelines? Is it really a "free speech" matter, as some newspapers claim? or is it that many simply do not want to look like the "bad guys" when they might have to enforce some of the guidelines they set down?
I also wonder about comment moderation. Who do they hire to moderate comments? My knowledge of a few newspaper forums is that they either assign sales staff or hire students (grad and undergrad) to monitor boards. This is a downturn from the early days, when they hired folks who'd been active in newsgroups to monitor boards. However, message boards/forums/and other types of online communities have been in existence for some time and there are subtle nuances to online communication that differ from f2f. Are comments, then, another thing that newspapers believe to be a "fad" that requires little or no serious attention?
If that's what they think of interaction, we're in serious trouble. what do y'all think?
Natural Order
You can't paint details with a wide brush. Quite often an organization will use the wrong tool, and in the case of newspapers and "commenting" sections, they often try to adapt a tool that works well and is justified using in a specific instance to a process that is not possible in their intended instance. For example, sometimes it is possible to use the heavy plastic handle of a large screwdriver to drive a small nail, but it is not the best "use" of the tool or the best tool in the toolbox for the job.
Companies and organizations evolve. Unfortunately we do not always evolve our interpretations of who they are and how they operate. Sometimes it is our fault, but quite often an organization will leverage "romantic" interpretations of who "we" think they are in an effort to protect their business model. If we continue to think of them like they "used to be" it allows them to continue to generate revenue based on a set of conventions developed in the "old days," but actually operate using new rules and regulations. They want it both ways, but they can't have it both ways because their methods are polar opposites.
Natural order cannot be ignored.
The newspaper model is an old model that instead of adapting with the internet, has chosen instead to try and mold it to their likeness. Good luck. Not only is it an impossible task, they have come too late to the table. In the mid 90's newspapers promoted aggressively that the internet was a fad, and that it would not last. Now they are embracing internet enabled video with fanciful visions of competing with traditional broadcast. What they fail to recognize is that traditional broadcast is also on its way out, which means they are chasing their tails. CRM, or customer relationship management is really "one-on-one relationship marketing." Record companies developed this strategy in the fifties when they realized that in order to create a "superstar," they had to sell one customer at a time. It is the reason they sent artists out on the road to tour. We've come full circle.
Many people forget, and most under thirty don't even know that in the late 80's and early 90's it was a sin to use the internet for commercial purposes. There was a reason many of us thought this way. At the time we didn't want faceless corporations to ruin a good thing. Not much has changed in this respect. I am of the original internet generation and was there in alpha mode when we went from Archie and Gopher to the World Wide Web. If you want to play in our sandbox, you play by our rules. Corporations invited themselves to the party. They were not welcomed in the day, and some are still not welcome today. The music industry is a perfect example of what happens to an industry when they choose to disrespect their customers.
In the interest of full disclosure, I own a company that helps corporations communicate online. I do it ethically and I never lead a client to believe that they can outsmart consumers. That would be foolhardy. The same advice applies to mainstream news companies.
Maurice Cardinal
Enabling (and Disabling) the Haters Posting Comments
I agree these interactions can be managed much better. Newspapers need to understand how they enable a lot of the behavior they're seeing.
the WP has a piece discussing some of the complicty involved and outlines steps some websites have taken. The main response is to try to cut down on anonymity, but of course that effort has limitations and it doesn't get at the need to treat the forums as something requiring some expense and time.
From the Washington Post:
"You would think Web sites would want to keep the hate-mongers from taking over, but many sites are unwitting enablers. At washingtonpost.com, editors and producers say they struggle to balance transparency against privacy. Until recently, many of the site's posters identified themselves with anonymous Internet handles -- which were the site's default ID. Now, people must enter a "user ID" that appears with their comments.
Hal Straus, washingtonpost.com's interactivity and communities editor, says the changes "move us in the direction of transparency." But the distinction is not quite a difference, because washingtonpost.com user IDs can be real names or fictional Internet handles. While the site prohibits comments that are libelous, abusive, obscene or otherwise inappropriate, Mr. anticrat424 could still find a well-amplified podium at washingtonpost.com."
OTOH
the misbehavior does not always come from the commenters, at least at smaller papers, and perhaps larger ones as well.