|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 18 2016 02:54 Falling wrote:
I have heard those comment sections as being described as Internet Ignorance Aggregators. I am inclined to agree. I have very rarely read anything insightful in the comment sections of news sites. Certainly there are rarely any interesting back and forth exchanges.
I see some decent exchanges on comments sections once in a while. I also see a lot of "commoner's opinions" there which are good to understand if you can. I like that they exist but they do often suck ass.
|
There's utility for comments sections in blogs, podcasts, and some other media. But straight news article or news report comments are generally utterly useless cesspools of nonsense (thanks, trolls and crazies).
I don't give a shit about John R's comments on the latest terrorist attack in Kuwait being Obama's fault or showing how stupid Trump is or resulting in more blood on Crooked Hillary's hands.
We could always go back to "letters to the editor" and the like to give a nice big hurdle to leap over. But organized systems like that aren't as appealing to people today and see a lot of filtering.
|
The longer I am on the internet, the more I believe that if someone isn’t willing to take the time to write a letter and mail it out, their opinion likely wasn’t that important. If people don’t want to sign their name, how strongly can they really believe that opinion?
Of course, discussion forums like this are an exception. But we all sign up to participate. Also, with public comments, a lot of it is public performance.
|
Canada11416 Posts
The nice thing with letters to the editor is the letters are curated. Only so many will be published, so then only the best will be- that means if you wish yours to be publish, you have to try a little harder. I think discussions in communities are generally better (so long as people do not become hostile or contemptuous to each other.) News sites garner too many people creating a more hit and run mentality... except for highly repetitive and partisan posters that just blast their political talking point everywhere..
|
United States43571 Posts
On August 18 2016 02:34 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2016 02:21 mahrgell wrote:On August 18 2016 02:17 Evotroid wrote:
Before I would say that Boris Johnson was the Trump of the UK, well, it seems it is two-way :D You can say a lot of shit about Johnson, and he also deserves it... But the guy has still actually not done the worst job as mayor of London. And no matter how you value his performance there: He actually took part and responsibility in the political system, unlike Trump who hasnt ever done shit but talking complete nonsense and now pretends to have any political capabilities. I was thinking about this: Boris and KerryAlso, have no Idea what he was like as a mayor, but the way he campaigned for brexit, and then the way he was caught with his pants down without a plan and everything made me think he is kinda Trumpish.
Boris is a very highly educated member of the political class who acts like it, attempting to maneuver, trade favours and generally shift positions for no purpose other than personal advancement. He went Eton to Oxford into politics. In that regard he is everything Trump claims to hate and couldn't be further from Trump. He's also a buffoon which is perhaps the only area in which he may be comparable.
|
On August 18 2016 02:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's utility for comments sections in blogs, podcasts, and some other media. But straight news article or news report comments are generally utterly useless cesspools of nonsense (thanks, trolls and crazies).
I don't give a shit about John R's comments on the latest terrorist attack in Kuwait being Obama's fault or showing how stupid Trump is or resulting in more blood on Crooked Hillary's hands.
We could always go back to "letters to the editor" and the like to give a nice big hurdle to leap over. But organized systems like that aren't as appealing to people today and see a lot of filtering.
I on the other hand do like seeing what John R is thinking since it gives some insight, albeit simplistic, into how people interpret events like that.
|
On August 18 2016 03:15 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2016 02:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's utility for comments sections in blogs, podcasts, and some other media. But straight news article or news report comments are generally utterly useless cesspools of nonsense (thanks, trolls and crazies).
I don't give a shit about John R's comments on the latest terrorist attack in Kuwait being Obama's fault or showing how stupid Trump is or resulting in more blood on Crooked Hillary's hands.
We could always go back to "letters to the editor" and the like to give a nice big hurdle to leap over. But organized systems like that aren't as appealing to people today and see a lot of filtering. I on the other hand do like seeing what John R is thinking since it gives some insight, albeit simplistic, into how people interpret events like that.
Isn't that better suited as an independent blog or in a discussion forum rather than appended to the article itself, though? Especially because these days there's a good 30% chance they're "trolling."
|
On August 18 2016 03:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2016 03:15 LegalLord wrote:On August 18 2016 02:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's utility for comments sections in blogs, podcasts, and some other media. But straight news article or news report comments are generally utterly useless cesspools of nonsense (thanks, trolls and crazies).
I don't give a shit about John R's comments on the latest terrorist attack in Kuwait being Obama's fault or showing how stupid Trump is or resulting in more blood on Crooked Hillary's hands.
We could always go back to "letters to the editor" and the like to give a nice big hurdle to leap over. But organized systems like that aren't as appealing to people today and see a lot of filtering. I on the other hand do like seeing what John R is thinking since it gives some insight, albeit simplistic, into how people interpret events like that. Isn't that better suited as an independent blog or in a discussion forum rather than appended to the article itself, though? Especially because these days there's a good 30% chance they're "trolling."
The entire point is that I want to see what the knee-jerk, low-content posts are and what their thought process is. The comments sections aggregate them in a way that saves me from having to search around - I can just skim the comments section and see what said people are thinking. And how many people agree with them for that matter.
|
Comment sections on news are a godsgift if you ask me. It's a convenient entry point into the mind of the common idiot. Without the comment section on our local newspaper, I would have no idea how stupid opinions are pervasive among the people. Actually, more politicians, activists, pundits and whatnots should read those - if anything, the comments are great in seeing which trends are up and coming in public opinion. A really big problem of the "intelectuals" is their complete detachment from the people in general and that really shows in their inability to address the problems percievd by those people. This is exactly how Trumps find their niche.
|
On August 18 2016 03:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2016 03:15 LegalLord wrote:On August 18 2016 02:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's utility for comments sections in blogs, podcasts, and some other media. But straight news article or news report comments are generally utterly useless cesspools of nonsense (thanks, trolls and crazies).
I don't give a shit about John R's comments on the latest terrorist attack in Kuwait being Obama's fault or showing how stupid Trump is or resulting in more blood on Crooked Hillary's hands.
We could always go back to "letters to the editor" and the like to give a nice big hurdle to leap over. But organized systems like that aren't as appealing to people today and see a lot of filtering. I on the other hand do like seeing what John R is thinking since it gives some insight, albeit simplistic, into how people interpret events like that. Isn't that better suited as an independent blog or in a discussion forum rather than appended to the article itself, though? Especially because these days there's a good 30% chance they're "trolling."
There is also a discussion to be had about unearned authority of being the counter point an article just because there is an open comment section. Places like NPR have decades of trust with the public to use as capital and anyone in the comment section gets to cash in on that, even if their comment is garbage, wrong, or totally disingenuous.
|
United States43571 Posts
On August 18 2016 03:15 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2016 02:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's utility for comments sections in blogs, podcasts, and some other media. But straight news article or news report comments are generally utterly useless cesspools of nonsense (thanks, trolls and crazies).
I don't give a shit about John R's comments on the latest terrorist attack in Kuwait being Obama's fault or showing how stupid Trump is or resulting in more blood on Crooked Hillary's hands.
We could always go back to "letters to the editor" and the like to give a nice big hurdle to leap over. But organized systems like that aren't as appealing to people today and see a lot of filtering. I on the other hand do like seeing what John R is thinking since it gives some insight, albeit simplistic, into how people interpret events like that.
What John R is saying is "niggers should be shot" if it's anything relating to BLM, the police, Obama or the Middle East. Surely you've seen the internet before. Then the comment below that will have someone earnestly trying to explain why there is more to the issue than that and writing a dozen good points, most of which were in the actual article John R neglected to read before posting his comment. Then two more people reply to that comment, the first one calling the person who replied a nigger, the second one saying that they should be shot.
|
Nobody's forced to read comments on a news outlet. But they're wonderful checks to have because so much of what all journalists print is garbage.
|
The problem is, there are people paid or/and strongly enforced by political leaders to spell their dogma wherever they can.
The public discourse, what a comment section should be, is easyli perverted.
|
On August 18 2016 03:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2016 03:15 LegalLord wrote:On August 18 2016 02:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's utility for comments sections in blogs, podcasts, and some other media. But straight news article or news report comments are generally utterly useless cesspools of nonsense (thanks, trolls and crazies).
I don't give a shit about John R's comments on the latest terrorist attack in Kuwait being Obama's fault or showing how stupid Trump is or resulting in more blood on Crooked Hillary's hands.
We could always go back to "letters to the editor" and the like to give a nice big hurdle to leap over. But organized systems like that aren't as appealing to people today and see a lot of filtering. I on the other hand do like seeing what John R is thinking since it gives some insight, albeit simplistic, into how people interpret events like that. What John R is saying is "niggers should be shot" if it's anything relating to BLM, the police, Obama or the Middle East. Surely you've seen the internet before. Then the comment below that will have someone earnestly trying to explain why there is more to the issue than that and writing a dozen good points, most of which were in the actual article John R neglected to read before posting his comment. Then two more people reply to that comment, the first one calling the person who replied a nigger, the second one saying that they should be shot.
That said, I've been surprised pretty often by those sections. Some opinions there from John R are pretty far from what you would expect. Gives enough insight to be worth skimming.
|
On August 18 2016 03:25 oBlade wrote:
Nobody's forced to read comments on a news outlet. But they're wonderful checks to have because so much of what all journalists print is garbage.
Yeah, we should be happy, those comments exist to add their quality content to those rubbish the journalists are publishing.
|
On August 18 2016 03:25 oBlade wrote:
Nobody's forced to read comments on a news outlet. But they're wonderful checks to have because so much of what all journalists print is garbage.
You clearly did not read NPR’s article, which points out that comment sections serve about 2400 people of the 400,000 or so that visit their site. And they are costly to maintain, while offering little value to the total user base.
|
On August 18 2016 03:27 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2016 03:25 oBlade wrote:
Nobody's forced to read comments on a news outlet. But they're wonderful checks to have because so much of what all journalists print is garbage. Yeah, we should be happy, those comments exist to add their quality content to those rubbish the journalists are publishing.
He's often right though. I've seen a lot of times when the comments rightfully called BS on shitty articles.
|
On August 18 2016 03:25 oBlade wrote:
Nobody's forced to read comments on a news outlet. But they're wonderful checks to have because so much of what all journalists print is garbage.
To me it seems like the more partisan a news site is, the closer to unanimity is the agreement in the comments
|
On August 18 2016 03:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2016 03:27 mahrgell wrote:On August 18 2016 03:25 oBlade wrote:
Nobody's forced to read comments on a news outlet. But they're wonderful checks to have because so much of what all journalists print is garbage. Yeah, we should be happy, those comments exist to add their quality content to those rubbish the journalists are publishing. He's often right though. I've seen a lot of times when the comments rightfully called BS on shitty articles.
They also call BS on quality articles because it doesn't say what they want
|
On August 18 2016 03:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2016 03:27 mahrgell wrote:On August 18 2016 03:25 oBlade wrote:
Nobody's forced to read comments on a news outlet. But they're wonderful checks to have because so much of what all journalists print is garbage. Yeah, we should be happy, those comments exist to add their quality content to those rubbish the journalists are publishing. He's often right though. I've seen a lot of times when the comments rightfully called BS on shitty articles.
How does this compare to comments calling BS on well written, well researched articles of high quality? Because I've seen plenty of people deny climate change in comment sections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
