New York Times Puts Reader Comments on Main Page - Good Idea?
Silicon Alley Insider spotted the New York Times web site displaying reader comments prominently under the top story on their front page today. The comments in-and-of themselves are not newsworthy -- they came from a post on the site's news blog and the Times has linked to comment threads on the main page before. But this is, to anyone's recollection, the first time the site has actually displayed the actual comments themselves on the site.
Henry Blodget at Silicon Alley Insider thought the move was a good one, writing, "Hats off to the company's web team for this smart move!" Other bloggers weren't so upbeat. While it seems that the NYT times took pains to make sure that comments from both ends of the political spectrum were represented for their main page selections -- often to one extreme or the other -- and comments were edited to fit the space, I do question the wisdom of giving reader commentary such prominence on the site's index page.
Image from Silicon Alley Insider.
We've praised news sites for adding reader commenting as a feature to their web sites in the past, and we recently had kind words about the New York Times Facebook app. However, giving reader comments such a prominent position is dangerous. Readers of news sites (and blogs) go to those specific destinations to read news in the voice they expect -- not to see a public argument from commenters.
I would applaud an expansion of New York Times comments beyond blogs to general news stories -- I think commenting is great; it gives readers an outlet for instant response and keeps writers honest. But publishing comments on the main page, especially so prominently under the main story, seems like a bad idea. What do you think? Leave your thoughts in the comments below (we won't publish them on the main page, though!).
1 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1688
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
If The New York Times becomes more web2.0 I am happy. But the problem is that when I go to the NYT site I want to read news written by prefessional journalists. Are they making this just to save money?
I'm in two minds over this. I dislike having to navigate to another page to read comments, but at the same time it would be too easy to turn a simple informative article into a political or self-serving forum when any Joe Bloggs can get his views onto the front page.
The comments that are featured on the homepage are probably heavily filtered. They will probably be limited to news that would be enhanced by getting the public's perspectives.
With so many news outlets reporting the same top stories within hours of debuting - getting the public's reaction may be the only thing that sets some sites apart.
Some news outlets operated 24/7 and immediately feature breaking updates - by the time the New York Times features it, it could have been already out for hours. There are no new facts to report - but as the paper of record, they MUST archive all important historical news.
It is difficult enough as it is to find serious journalism these days. I believe we need a few outlets to remain a place for the reporting of facts, and allow other outlets to show the 'public opinion'. My personal preference is to use several / multiple sources for my news, and I want one of them to still be 'serious'. The problem with comments and so called public opinion, is that it very rarely matches true overall opinions of the public. Comments are too often made by people that either have an opinion at the extreme end, or have vested interests in the story. Allowing debate and comment could be a good thing deeper in the site for those who want to explore, or delve into a story, but a front page of the traditionally 'serious' news outlet is not where I want to see it.
Did they already take them down? No comments found just now.
There's a reason Yahoo took down comments from their news section well over a year ago. For the time it was very forward-thinking, especially coming from a new source that gets a TON of traffic (I think they might still get the most news-oriented reads globally.) But Yahoo already saw first-hand what those comments can do for the perceived quality of your site and that's why they're no longer there. I think the NYT will quickly discover the same thing.
Granted, Yahoo was covering a much larger number of stories from a wider range of sources, so it was much more difficult to moderate. But I think it still holds true. Much like the overlooked (but key) differences between a democracy and a republic, I don't always want a democracy when it comes to my news. Sites like Digg are entertaining because of the comments. But they always remind me why I like a little separation from the mob mentality when it comes to the news.