Gawker argues in a recent post that user comments should not be allowed on newspaper's websites.

"Comments are thought to be an added value to a newspaper's site--providing another reason to read. You come for the article, and stay for the interesting discussion," writes Sheila McClear. "The only problem is, there is no interesting discussion. Almost never. Not even from the mythical supersmart New York Times readers."

McClear argues that "opening a deeply personal article up to the peanut gallery does these writers a great disservice" given the quality of the comments and the tendency for them to turn personal.

She quips, "Thanks for writing; your check is in the mail, and oh--have fun getting senselessly torn apart in the comments. No, there's nothing we can do about it--it's 2.0!"

Rebutting the sometimes quoted: "comments are the modern-day equivalent of the letter to the editor" argument, McClear points out that the time and intention put into a letter is is mammoth when compared to the same time and intention it takes to click "post;" further, she rebukes guidelines or a vetting system, arguing that newspapers have better things to do, and instead advocates for cutting out the comment box altogether.

Source: Poynter