Citizen Paine | Citizen Journalism

Despite flaws, Ventura makes progress with new comment system

Although there are some weaknesses in the Ventura County Star's new system for allowing reader comments on articles, the newspaper deserves credit for moving so quickly to restore the comments feature after turning it off last week.

The new set-up forces visitors to go through the paper's online registration system in order to post on a story, requiring use of an email address. If inappropriate comments are posted, the site can warn the person via email and then can block the user both through the registration and through IP addresses. They're also using a profanity filter. And users are encouraged to report inappropriate posts with a feedback email.

Assistant Managing Editor John Moore says, "By forcing people to use registered names (which should be their real names), we invoke the "Mama's listening" rule: Don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to hear."

Allowing reader comments on articles will help the Star solidify its connection with visitors. And I'm glad to see the Star reinstate the comments function even though this system isn't perfect.

The problems:

• Online registration doesn't force people to use their real names or for using shared logins via services like Bugmenot.com. Was that really "Seymour But" and "Neil Diamond" commenting on "Assembly dumps 147 bills for this year"? My problem isn't with the anonymous comments but with the Star giving the impression that it has taken a significant step to thwart anonymity. Be upfront: Encourage people to use their real names, but acknowledge that you can't stop people from using pseudonym.
• The method for reporting abuse -- sending an email to the web site -- is cumbersome. Readers should have a simpler, one-click option. The Star's method means that few abuses will be reported, so either the paper will have to accept the presence of some inappropriate posts or they'll have to monitor closely.
• Profanity filter? I'm sure people will find creative ways to curse it if they're determined.
• I wonder whether IP blocking will result in over-blocking, freezing out people who have done nothing wrong.
• Finally, posts are not shown on the article page but are linked and displayed in a separate window. I suppose that's a safeguard of sorts, ensuring that inappropriate posts won't immediately be displayed to everyone who reads an article but it also means legit posts are buried also.

Despite my criticisms, I'm impressed with the Star's ability to move quickly and all three of the articles I spot-checked today had comments. So, they're doing something right.

Anonymous sources, anonymity on the Internet, and survey coverage

Posts such as "Survey: Want to discredit your reporting? Use anonymous sources..." are good reminders that journalists should do a reality check before they rely on anonymous sources, asking themselves whether it's necessary and whether they've done all they could to get the information from people willing be named. On the other hand, regardless of what the gatekeepers do, sources who want anonymity can use web sites to directly reach an audience.

I'm not saying that journalists should lower their standards just because this possibility exists. I am saying they should be aware that because they don't control information as they used to, it behooves them to work harder than ever at getting the story on the record from multiple named sources. Doing so will enable them to write more authoritative stories than those that are sourced anonymously, giving the readers a place to turn when they run across loosely verified information.

I've got one gripe with the post referenced above, which appears on Morph: The Media Center Blog. While author Lisa Stone's main point about credibility and use of anonymous sources is on target, she overstates the results of the survey on which she bases her comments. I see this kind of thing a lot, not just by the media but by politicians and others trying to use surveys to support a point of view.

Example: Stone's lead says, "A new survey indicates the best way for a news organization to discredit a story with American news readers may be to rely on anonymous sources." Since the survey didn't ask people about other things that could discredit a story, it's a stretch to say that relying on anonymous sources is "the best way" (even with the "may" qualifier later in the sentence). Perhaps having a lot of factual errors or spelling errors does more to discredit a story. The survey didn't make such comparisons.

Also, the third graf says that "a majority of respondents agreed that news stories that rely on unnamed sources should not be published." That statement also is pushing it a bit because while 53 percent took that position, the survey had a sampling error of 3.5%.

These are minor points -- if anyone wants to say I'm nitpicking, I couldn't disagree -- and overall the survey data supported Stone's position on anonymous sources. But little things like this also affect credibility with readers, which was what Stone's post was all about.