THIS ARTICLE IS AVAILABLE IN PDF

Next ... Editors add 'referee' to the job description

Also, see Kurt Greenbaum's column
How to make story comments better

Saundra Keyes is a journalism professor at the Reynolds School of Journalism, University of Nevada, Reno. Reach her at skeyes@unr.edu.

Anonymous comments drive traffic to newspaper Web sites and generate news tips, but with embarrassing flame wars and damaged credibility, is the price too high to pay?

EDITORS ARE STRUGGLING TO RECONCILE long-cherished definitions of credibility with increasing use of anonymous comments on newsroom Web sites, a recent ASNE survey shows.

Though recognizing that the comments generate essential online traffic, many editors lament the level of discourse that often results when posters aren't required to use their names.

Online postings at the Lake County (Calif.) Record-Bee, for example, include content that "we would never, ever allow in our print product," said Managing Editor Rick Kennedy, who also serves as Web editor.

Shielded by screen names, users can "say anything they want to and self-publish on our Web site," Kennedy said. "The offended person sees it hours later, and inevitably I get the call, 'What the hell did you put that on your Web site for?' Well, we didn't put it on. But people don't understand that."

Four other survey participants compared posters on their sites to sitcom characters Archie Bunker and Cliff Clavin, wrote that anonymity encourages "cowards and idiots who would be ashamed to voice their opinion publicly," and described "spending an inordinate amount of time being a referee for junior-high level arguments."

Despite such criticisms, news sites increasingly solicit online comments. Almost 88 percent of newsrooms responding to ASNE's survey invite readers to comment on stories, and 57 percent maintain topic-based forums. Though a majority require registration before posting (see chart on P. 12), most allow screen names and few attempt to verify user identities.

Conflicting views of reader forums emerged when editors were asked to rate a series of statements about them on a 1-10 scale, ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement.

Editors expressed the least agreement, an average 4.28, with the statement that online discussions "enhance our news organization's credibility" and the greatest agreement, an average 7.59, with the idea that online discussions "would be more credible if posters' names were used and verified."

Yet the second- and third-highest average scores, 6.83 and 6.44, went respectively to the statements that online discussions "encourage voices that haven't been heard through letters to the editor" and "build reader/user loyalty."

In newsrooms fighting to build viable online financial models, those moderately positive assessments appear to trump the credibility concerns.

News organizations "can choose between the high road of registered users and low use, or we can choose many users and the sewer," said Michael Nelson, editor of the Lincoln (Neb.) Journal Star.

Joe Centers, managing editor of the Norwalk (Ohio) Reflector, described online interactivity as "our lifeline" in a struggle for survival. "You can sit on your high horse" of credibility, Centers said, "but somebody's going to shoot that horse."

Editors frequently paused and sighed when asked in telephone interviews why they don't simply require the use of names with postings. But several said they believe users recognize anonymity as a defining attribute of online culture, and others were quick to offer positives that help them live with their reservations.

Sandra S. Oshiro, digital media director for content at The Honolulu Advertiser, said complaints make it clear that anonymous postings hurt credibility. "But we also believe in free speech and that robust discussion on community issues elevates our ability to make sound decisions," Oshiro said. "So other kinds of values come into play."

For Kathleen Williams, executive editor of the Hattiesburg (Miss.) American, "greater participation, and immediate participation, by people in the community" help offset negative credibility issues.

25.6% Review story comments before posting

Though disturbed by the anonymity of sometimes-vicious comments, Williams and others said requiring posters to use their names would drive users from newsroom Web sites to more freewheeling discussion boards. Several editors reported significant drops in traffic after implementing registration, even though registered posters were still allowed to use screen names.

"I don't think people will reject you because you don't (require registration using names)," said Nelson. "I think they're more likely to reject you when you do."

That may be because users fear registration will add their names to marketing lists or because they are simply unsure how their information will be used, he said.

It may also be because users don't share journalists' aversion to anonymity, suggests a broader survey of online credibility issues published in 2008. In a random sample of the general public interviewed for the Associated Press Managing Editors and the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri, 45 percent said anonymous comments were a good idea. Only 24 percent of editors surveyed expressed that view.

60.5% Have banned specific users from forums within the past year

However, of 267 newspapers that responded to the ASNE survey, only one, the Columbia Missourian, required posters to use their names. The Missourian's online policy statement explains this as consistent with the newspaper's anonymous source policy.

The Sacramento Bee considered such a requirement as a way to increase accountability and "cut down on some of the more inflammatory comments," said Ken Chavez, assistant managing editor for interactive media. The idea was abandoned with the arrival of a new top editor. While some staff members still express concern about anonymous comments, Chavez said the postings generate considerable Web traffic.

The Orlando Sentinel loosened its one-time requirement that users register by name because it "was limiting our growth in page views and unique visitors," said Editor Charlotte Hall. That was true even though real names were not required with postings.

"I don't know if it was the right decision or not," Hall said. But she added, "We have more comments now."

Web statistics at the Tulsa World "show that people love a news organization that is listening to them and publishing their thoughts," said Web Editor Jason Collington, the ASNE survey's most enthusiastic advocate of user-posted comments.

In December 2008, he said, the World was averaging 8 million page views per month, up from 6 million the previous year, "and we're in little Tulsa, Okla."

Many reporters at the World quickly recognized user postings' potential for generating news tips, Collington said, and it is common for beat writers to join online conversations.

The World is unusual in that respect, at least as compared to newsrooms participating in the ASNE survey. The majority of those responding disagreed with the statement that comments on discussion boards "are often posted by our staff, who actively participate in the discussion and respond to issues raised by readers/users."

In follow-up interviews, editors cited various reasons for that response: lack of time; the inanity of many online discussions; the fear that responding would suggest that journalists insist on having the last word; and in at least one case, the preferences of online users.

Chavez said that when The Sacramento Bee experimented with columnists' engaging in online discussions, "readers kind of said, 'Get out of here. This is our area.'"

At the World, however, "stories now are the conversation-starters," Collington said. And for him, that provides a new definition of credibility.

"You dismiss the credibility argument when you start having conversations with people," Collington said. "When you have reporters responding to a comment, it makes something that seemed dead to people seem alive."*

Next ... Editors add 'referee' to the job description

Also, see Kurt Greenbaum's column
How to make story comments better

Survey says... General-topic Forums Of the 267 newsrooms responding to the more than 1,000 e-mailed ASNE survey invitations, 152, or 56.9 percent maintain online forums on general topics such as traffic, politics or parenting. Another 35, or 13.1 percent, once maintained such forums but no longer do so. Number of newsrooms maintaining forums that ... Require registration for forum participants 126 (82.9%) Verify registered-user identities 10 (6.6%) Require use of real names for forum postings 1 (0.7%) Review forum comments before publication 19 (12.5%) Always review comments after posting* 83 (54.6%) Edit content of forum postings 22 (14.5%) Have shut down a general forum topic within the last year 68 (44.7%) Have banned specific users from forums within the last year 92 (60.5%) Story Comments Among 267 newsrooms responding to the ASNE survey, 234, or 87.6 percent, invite online comment regarding specific stories. Another nine, or 3.37 percent, once invited such comments but no longer do so. Number of newsrooms inviting story comments that ... Require registration of comment posters 170   (72.6%) Verify registered-user identities  14   (6.0%) Require use of real names for posted comments 1   (0.4%) Review comments before they are posted  60   (25.6%) Always review comments after posting*  127   (54.3%) Edit comments 36   (15.4%) Have shut down comments on a specific story within the last year  91   (38.9%) Have banned specific users from posting comments within the last year  108   (46.2%) *Newsrooms reported various methods of reviewing already-posted comments, including review by staff, review by outside moderator and thumbs-up or thumbs-down user ratings.

THIS ARTICLE IS AVAILABLE IN PDF