Letters to the editor have always been a prominent part of American newspapers, the main public forum for readers to respond to the content they consume and debate major political and social issues.

So in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when media outlets began publishing their content on the internet, many editors and publishers were cautiously optimistic that offering online commenting would help solicit more diverse audience engagement and create stronger connections between content creators and consumers.

In 2008, NPR introduced its reader commenting system, an option embedded at the end of most articles on the site. In the announcement it said: “We are providing a forum for infinite conversations on NPR.org. Our hopes are high. We hope the conversations will be smart and generous of spirit. We hope the adventure is exciting, fun, helpful and informative.”

But eight years and millions of toxic exchanges later, NPR announced the abrupt end of the experiment.

“After much experimentation and discussion, we’ve concluded that the comment sections on NPR.org stories are not providing a useful experience for the vast majority of our users,”write  Scott Montgomery, former managing editor for digital news, in his 2016 farewell-to-comments address.

Like countless other news outlets, NPR found itself overwhelmed by trolls, anonymous contributors who had too often hijacked comment threads with offensive and inappropriate submissions.

Simply put, trolls are the loudest voices in the room, the ones who write “crazy, nasty things just to get people all riled up,” as this latest Above the Noise episode (at top) explains in its exploration of trolling psychology. 

“I think that public engagement needs to be a key part of a public media organization,” said NPR Ombudsman Elizabeth Jensen, who emphasized she was speaking for herself, not her employer.  She noted the irony of a public media organization removing one of its central public forums. “I think it’s disappointing that the commenting platform didn’t work the way that it could.”

The big difference between letters to the editor and online commenting is the moderation and selectivity factor. Cost generally prohibit adequate oversight of who can comment in most online forums, and what they can say. And more outlets are finding that their comments are falling far short of the goal of  encouraging debate and civil discourse among a representative selection of users.  

Only a very small and generally unrepresentative slice of NPR’s audience was taking advantage of the comments section, Jensen explained, noting the sharp increase in inappropriate content. In one analysis of site activity, NPR found that just .06 percent of all its visitors actually submitted comments at all. And more than half of all comments were submitted from a tiny group of shockingly prolific contributors.

“We all like to have this ideal that we can engage with readers and reporters,” Jensen said. “But  in reality, that just wasn’t the way it was working. It didn’t seem there was an easy way to fix that.”

NPR has since put greater energy into building robust social media forums to pick up the slack, which Jensen said generally seem to  attract a more representative population of the NPR audience and encourage civil debate.

NPR’s move away from website comments is far from unique. The trend started in 2013 when Popular Science became one of the first major publications to ditch its public comment section, citing scientific studies that found that blog comments can have a profound effect on readers’ perceptions of science.

A series of subsequent analyses found that when readers are exposed to uncivil, negative comments at the end of articles, they are less trustful of the main content (dubbed this the “nasty effect”). 

Since Popular Science’s exit from the commenting business, a slew of  other media outlets — from the Reuters to Recode —  have followed suit.

“Those [social media] communities offer vibrant conversation and, importantly, are self-policed by participants to keep on the fringes those who would abuse the privilege of commenting,” Reuter’s executive editor Dan Colarusso wrote in his company’s announcement.

Vice News is among the most recent large online publications to join the no-comment club.

“Comments sections are really just a continuation of that age-old tradition of letters to the editor, a cherished part of many publications and a valuable way of creating an open dialogue between magazines and the people to whom they are ultimately accountable,” wrote Jonathan Smith of Vice News  in announcing his publication’s move in late 2016.

“Without moderators or fancy algorithms, [comment sections]  are prone to anarchy. Too often they devolve into racist, misogynistic maelstroms where the loudest, most offensive, and stupidest opinions get pushed to the top and the more reasoned responses drowned out in the noise.”

No Comment! Why A Growing Number of News Sites Are Dumping Their Comment Sections 12 March,2018Matthew Green

Author

Matthew Green

Matthew Green is a digital media producer for KQED News. He previously produced The Lowdown, KQED’s multimedia news education blog. Matthew's written for numerous Bay Area publications, including the Oakland Tribune and San Francisco Chronicle. He also taught journalism classes at Fremont High School in East Oakland.

Email: mgreen@kqed.org; Twitter: @MGreenKQED

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor