Worth talking about: Do you remove comments from a thread if the commenter asks you to?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mary Hartney on August 25, 2009 at 3:51pm

My feeling is, when it's out there, it's out there -- and should stay out there in nearly all cases. (Meaning, my default POV is to keep comments published unless they truly deserve to be taken down: curse words, threats of violence, spam, etc.) In this case, "disappearing" a comment that has become a news element of its own is a bad idea. It's unfortunate that the wife posted something she later regretted, but that's not the Post's problem. I agree with Hal that the Post can't prove the comments/allegations are false.

As to the reporting and whether he was really laid off, and/or whether a correction is in order, that's a separate issue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan Sholin on August 25, 2009 at 4:03pm

Libel-wise, does trying to figure out if it's really the guy's wife and daughter posting the comments expose the organization to a suit? Seems like it would be difficult to prove "actual malice" in that case, but it still could be seen as a good reason to just leave the comments up and not try to verify the author.

Or it's a good case for a solid identity system built into your commenting tools.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Morisy on August 27, 2009 at 12:19pm

Or it's a good case for a solid identity system built into your commenting tools.

Which the WashPost tried once or twice before. That they're at the center of this brouhaha underlines how complicated it is, when I think they've been at the forefront at least in thinking about the problem, if not finding a workable solution.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Balcerak on August 25, 2009 at 3:58pm

I go by the same standard. We had a reader/city employee e-mail recently and say a comment by her name and e-mail address was not in fact made by her. I figured if she was telling the truth, we were obligated to delete the comment and even if she wasn't, it was hers to delete. (Turns out one of her coworkers, a judge, is now under investigation for posting the comment.)

I think another interesting question to mull is, what do you do with replies if you end up spiking the original comment? Obviously the first reply is going to appear out of context, but what about subsequent replies in the nest that may have evolved into a larger conversation?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Erik Gable on August 25, 2009 at 4:01pm

In most situations, I think I'd go with removing a comment if the author requested it -- simply on the grounds that people are human and make mistakes, and there's no need to be so inflexible that we consider every single thing posted to our Web sites to be an inviolable part of history.

Granted, it's a difficult issue. I can see the same request being made by people who write letters to the editor, or people who are quoted in stories and then regret what they said. But I think one key difference is that many people really aren't used to thinking all that hard before they click "submit." Not as hard as they think before deciding what to say to a reporter asking questions on the record; not as hard as they think before sending a formal letter to the editor from their e-mail client.

Plenty of platforms actually allow people to delete their own comments. Not crazy about this in a lot of situations, since it'd be easy for someone to troll in a comment, incite people into flaming, and then make the OTHER people out to be the ones who aren't playing nice, but I think it illustrates that these things don't HAVE to be permanent and immutable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Morisy on August 25, 2009 at 4:14pm

From the article:

Cole said he was stunned by the comments. Before agreeing to cooperate for the story, he said, reporter Annie Gowen had told him The Post monitors abusive comments. He had been reassured after reading The Post's rules that forbid inappropriate comments.

I see this as the biggest problem: Reporters promising things they shouldn't, and the WP being unclear about what it's commenting policy should be policing.

From my first weeks as a journalist, I remember getting it drilled in my heaa: Promise Nothing. Not a positive spin, not that you will sue their quotations, not that the article will even come out, even if it's already gone to press. Too much, like this, could happen.

So the best way to deal with it is manage expectations: Washington Post only has so much control locally on its site, and 0 control off of it, so it shouldn't ever lead a source to believe otherwise.

As to deleting comments post-posting, I think that all depends on the community. I now run an IT forum that does Q&As, and I happily delete anything that is not business IT related. All the time we get legit, well meaning questions from personal users that just get zapped, no jury no trial. But ultimately, we do this for the community, and the WashPost needs to think about its own community/readership. Forget the individual commenter, and definitely forget the source: What makes the most sense for the community?

A newspaper would never delete (I hope) an archived letter to the editor, because it creates a memory hole that hurts the paper's credibility and reader trust in it as definitive. If readers have the same expectations in the comments, then that trust should be rewarded. If the community expectation is more like a forum, where users have more control, can edit their posts, etc., then that's fine but should be made clear.

Right now, the WashPost policies seem to actually steer towards the latter:

You will promptly remove any content that you have posted should you discover that it violates these rules or that it is otherwise inappropriate. You will indemnify Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC and its parent and affiliates, and its and their directors, officers, managers, employees, shareholders, agents, and licensors, from and against losses, expenses, damages, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting from any claim brought by any third party relating to content you have posted.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angela Connor on September 9, 2009 at 4:46pm

If a comment violates guidelines or puts someone at risk with personal information, then I say remove it. I have honored and turned down requests to remove comments. We are not responsible for every person who feels remorse after posting in a public area. For those I have removed, I make sure they know that we do not have to do that. Double check your guidelines and add some language indicating that fact. Lean towards holding people accountable. I don't even make my team of moderators deal with those requests because they are moderating a huge amount of comments in real time. You have to send an email through our contact us form to even ask, unless of course the person calls first.
I say don't make it a habit.

Angela

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zeeshan Rahat Kureshi on October 24, 2009 at 2:11am

If a comment has language that I deem inappropriate to appear at my blog, I do not publish it in the first place. The front page clearly specifies that abusive language would not be published. If a visitor asks me to remove comment after it has been published, I would certainly do so as long as I can verify that he is the original commenter. Afterall it was he who wrote those words. If he doesn't want them to be part of the thread anymore, be it (as long as removing the comment does not destroy the whole conversation in the thread).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spencer Soper on October 27, 2009 at 7:11am

What a mess. I miss the good-ole-days of letters to the editor. Weed out the knuckleheads, verify identities, maybe even do a little fact-checking. I know, I know, too old-school. But as to the woman's request to erase her comments, I'd say sorry, especially since her motives can be called into question. Does she feel sorry, or does she feel the public comment compromises her position in a divorce proceeding, or does she just think it makes her look bad? I don't think we should be in the habit of white-washing instances of poor judgment. Maybe this will help her learn some self-restraint and take a few deep breaths before hitting submit next time. Haven't we all learned that lesson with e-mail eons ago? And if she said some things she regrets, she could post something to that extent, like, "I posted a comment earlier that I regret, blah, blah, blah." Most people have made their own blunders and would sympathize, especially since she did so in the heat of a divorce. Then she could write a book about the ordeal and land on Oprah's couch.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah Green on October 30, 2009 at 1:04pm

I would freeze the comments section when the allegation of mis-reporting had been made. At the end of the day this seems like a case of a reporter not being able to verify his/her facts. As Andrew Alexander points out there were one or two "red flags" which sugguested that unfortunately Clinton Cole may not be being honest with the reporter about the reasons he was fired. This just demonstrates that thanks to the internet we now have a real time responsive audience who will correct us and challenge us.

I do think comments should be moderated to prevent really abusive language e.g racist language in discussions about the BNP being part of question time.

• ▶ Reply