Questioning the right to comment: where to draw the line on reader feedback

Posted by Helena Deards on February 9, 2009 at 4:22 PM

Newspaper columnists are often controversial creatures who write to provoke a reaction. But what kind of reaction should they expect? Increasingly journalists are in direct contact with the public and their readers, and as a result open themselves up to criticism. Comments pages are becoming a vent for disgruntled readers to express themselves, but often their comments lean far away from the literary and towards the personal.

In the Guardian, James Silver uses the example of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of the Independent, who received 915 (now removed) posts in response to her article entitled "Spare me the tears over the white working class:" undeniably a provocative and somewhat offensive headline. Some of the posts that responded could easily be classed as hate mail and have since been removed by the Independent. Alibhai-Brown said afterwards, "I really don't mind good, argumentative letters ... But people do not have the right to abuse or threaten me."

The debate over comment moderation is one that needs to be had. Different publications have varying policies over which, if any, comments to delete. Should they be allowed to cross over into personal spheres? Or should anything that is not strictly focused on the article in question be erased? The line between censorship and moderation is a difficult one, and in a world where journalists open themselves up to the public more than ever via comments pages and social tools such as Twitter, it's a difficult line to draw.

Take Alibhai-Brown again, for example. Her column was peppered with class and racial distinctions and a constant use of 'us' and 'them' in reference to the 'immigrant' and 'white working class' communities - "the disempowered have used us to vent their natural-born hatred against the powerful" being one such statement. It was undoubtedly going to cause a reaction, and a strong one at that. It would be a very naïve writer who believed that a column on such a topic would not cause a violent and possibly personal reaction amongst readers.

So the dilemma is this; should writers just be expected to take the reactions their articles cause? Or should we modify and censor the opinions of those who read and buy the articles? With the first option, journalists must either take personal attacks on their own websites or must avoid provoking the anger of their readers -the result of the latter option being a very bland press. However with the second we run the risk of discouraging reader participation, which can provide essential feedback and a brush with reality for journalists, and a sense of involvement for readers.

It seems that some sort of balance must be reached. Whilst journalists should not have to take personal vilification for their articles, they must accept a degree of responsibility for the people that they are potentially offending in their writing, and accept that their role today puts them more in touch than ever with their public. In order to stop comment walls turning into hate filled rants, moderation is certainly needed - but keep it moderate.

Source: The Guardian