As The New York Times transforms itself into a multimedia news and information platform ”” the printed newspaper plus a robust nytimes.com offering breaking news, blogs, interactive graphics, video and more ”” it is struggling with a vexing problem. How does the august Times, which has long stood for dignified authority, come to terms with the fractious, democratic culture of the Internet, where readers expect to participate but sometimes do so in coarse, bullying and misinformed ways?
The answer so far is cautiously, carefully and with uneven success.
The issue is timely because last week, with very little notice, The Times took baby steps toward letting readers comment on its Web site about news articles and editorials, something scores of other newspapers have long permitted. On Tuesday, readers were invited to comment on a single article in Science Times and on the paper’s top editorial, using a link that accompanied each. Few did because there was no promotion of the change, but as the week went on and more articles were opened to comment, participation picked up.
The paper is creating a comment desk, starting with the hiring of four part-time staffers, to screen all reader submissions before posting them, an investment unheard of in today’s depressed newspaper business environment. The Times has always allowed reader comments on the many blogs it publishes, with those responses screened by the newsroom staff. That experience suggests what the paper is letting itself in for.
“I didn’t know how big it would become, and I didn’t know how tough it would be to manage,” said Jim Roberts, editor of the Web site.
We have been around and around on similar issues on this blog now for years. Read it all.
Ah, the NY Times is getting its own elves 🙂
Good move. I am all for free speech. Those who wish to cuss or make obscene comments are certainly free to do so, on their own web sites. There is an old adage that your rights stop at my front door. There is no freedom of speech in my house, or on my blog. Comments are always welcome. But civility is a nonnegotiable.
Why would the Times willingly open itself up to the babbling world? It is hard to imagine the world would be damaged if all the blogs were struck with a virus that made them impossible to read. Precisely the same way that the world would be a much nicer place if all he cell phones and their ilk were suddenly unusable. LM
Isn’t that a little hypocritical, Larry? You know you are commenting on a blog. Physician heal thyself.
#4. Hypocritical? Not at all. You and I both know that all the talk on this blog – like all the others – adds up to nothing at all. It is talk for the sake of talk, the opportunity in a culture which has no core for people who need a core to chat with the like minded. This is a social center, a facebook for the Anglican who perpetually hides behind a pseudonym and a persona to go with it, and this is perfectly acceptable in its own way. But it doesn’t alter my judgment that if it disappeared – if all blogs disappeared – the results would be culturally beneficial. The same is true of cell phones and all the other electronic gadgetry that separates people from the real world. The virtual people who meet here are merely virtual; they know little or nothing real about each other, and because they are faceless, can say whatever they want as long as the elves let them get away with it.
Blogs are not like op-ed pieces in a newspaper. Op-ed pieces, well written, can change people’s minds and so change their actions, for the piece itself speaks to ALL readers, not merely those who agree and bow and agree again. And the writer can be known. No one’s mind changes here.
I write here because it gives me an opportunity to clarify my own mind about my own ideas. Only twice have I come across an genuine idea here, and only once has it been such that I had not thought of it myself. An oped piece should exist because of ideas. Blogs exist because the virtual faces like to join those who agree with them and oppose those who can’t touch them. Ideas are not essential. LM
I write here because it gives me an opportunity to clarify my own mind about my own ideas. Only twice have I come across an genuine idea here, and only once has it been such that I had not thought of it myself.
I’m sorry to hear that. I have learned a lot more about anglicanism, catholicism and philosophy since I’ve been reading this site.
An op-ed page is an opportunity for society’s gatekeepers to funnel their propaganda to the masses. I’m glad for blogs and comment threads. The freer a people, the more vocal the individuals. This is a pandora’s box I’m glad has been opened, and I know will never be shut. Call me an optimist but I believe the Truth will out.
One other question, Larry: where would you be getting your news about the Anglican reformation, if not from sites like this. You’d prefer relying on the traditional media such as the New York Times to give it adequate, unbiased coverage?