With the plethora of online comments, newspapers are having difficultly editing responses from their users. Reuters recently noted this problem, claiming the importance of encouraging comments that advance the content of the story while simultaneously blocking tasteless responses. "I've become increasingly concerned about the quality of discourse in comments on news stories on Reuters.com and on other major news sites," reports Dean Wright. "On some stories, the 'conversation' has been little more than partisans slinging invective at each other under the cloak of anonymity," Wright refers to how Richard Baum, Reuters Global Editor for Consumer Media, is handling the comment dilemma.

Baum affirms that newspapers need to have control over what users publish onto professional news sites. He explains that comments which contain racist language, incitement to violence, uncivil behavior towards other users are plainly unacceptable. Other types of comments where there is excessive use of capital letters, spelling and grammar errors, or irrelevant responses to the story reflect poorly on the newspaper industry. "When we block comments of this nature, it's because of issues of repetition, taste or legal risk, not political bias," says Baum.

Yet the value of good comments should not be underestimated. Readers who challenge the story in a manner that creates intelligent discussion is an important trend for online news. Debate around anonymity exists, as some users who contribute useful content prefer to mask their identity to avoid potential repercussions. Unfortunately, these added-value comments suffer from the tedious editing process. "This was unsatisfactory because it delayed the publication of good comments, especially overnight and at weekends when our staffing is lighter," explains Baum.

Baum is experimenting with a new system that hopefully will curb bad comments while rewarding more sophisticated users. Once a person creates an account with Reuters, he is assigned a "new user" status. His comments are initially treated with caution by moderators, who award the user "points" for every satisfactory response published. Once the user gains enough points, his account is promoted so that comments will be immediately published. If a promoted user decides to write distasteful comments, he will lose points and could be demoted back to the "new user" status.

Baum system seems to be a good compromise between furthering user interaction along with maintaining professional integrity. Yet with once newspapers start to control comments, they tread a fine line between managing content and censorship. With the new editing process be successful once implemented?

Sources: Reuters