Blog comment shutdown

No more comments, peons

Look, if the Washington Post is able to shut down comments, why not me. I get tired of the intelligent commentary and thoughtful responses. This is about ME, ME, ME.

See, you even have My DD joining in. We're just sick of your commenting, all of it.

http://mydd.com/story/2006/1/19/193317/963

Matt Stoller: MyDD Will No Longer Have Comments

Jerome, Chris, Jonathon, and Scott just appointed me ombudsman of MyDD. As such, I will now represent the readers, so that you have a voice and that commentary isn't as one-sided as it has been to date. I have heard complaints, for instance, that there are personal attacks of a nature that is personal posted on the web-blog, and that is bothersome. And uncivil-like. I have heard that the people who post them, known as 'citizens', often come on to web-logs like this one, or web-sites like that of the Washington Post, and point out 'errors' and 'factual inaccuracies'.

This type of uncivil discourse is not appropriate for this web site, or any other web site. Transparency and reasoned debate are crucial parts of the Web culture, and it's a disappointment to us that we have not been able to maintain a civil conversation, especially about issues that people feel strongly (and differently) about. In other words, I have decided to close comments. Greatly awesome fabulous web sites like this one thrive on criticism, and we can handle it. But not, you know, on Thursdays.

We're not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it. Any thoughtful feedback on that (or any other issue) is welcome, and you can send it to executive.editor@washingtonpost.com myass@idontgiveafuck.com.

UPDATE: Dammit, how do I close comments?!? Curse you, internet!

See, we follow the lead of the WaPo.

Seriously, here's what I sent off

Comments Turned Off

As of 4:15pm ET today, we have shut off comments on this blog indefinitely.

At its inception, the purpose of this blog was to open a dialogue about this site, the events of the day, the journalism of The Washington Post Company and other related issues. Among the things that we knew would be part of that discussion would be the news and opinion coming from the pages of The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com. We knew a lot of that discussion would be critical in nature. And we were fine with that. Great journalism companies need feedback from readers to stay sharp.

But there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we've decided not to allow comments for the time being. It's a shame that it's come to this. Transparency and reasoned debate are crucial parts of the Web culture, and it's a disappointment to us that we have not been able to maintain a civil conversation, especially about issues that people feel strongly (and differently) about.

We're not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it. Any thoughtful feedback on that (or any other issue) is welcome, and you can send it to executive.editor@washingtonpost.com.

Thanks,
Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

Mr. Brady

Your answer simply lacks credibility.

Why?

Because in the last 30 days, John Harris made a jackass of himself by attacking one of your own columnists, Dan Froomkin, and was roundly humiliated online for seeming to kowtow to the White House

Then, your "ombudsman" Deborah Howell, not only incorrectly claimed that Democrats had taken money from indicted lobbyist Jack Abramhoff, when several news sources, including the AP, said otherwise, she refused to admit her error. When Geneva Overholtzer was ombudsman, she brought a great deal of credibility to both the Post and to the idea nationally. Howell is fast becoming a joke.

Now, if profanity and "hate speech" were a problem, you could have deleted those comments and set up filters to prevent future postings of such words. The people who post to your site agree to abide by your rules.

Do you really think pulling the comments will lessen the furor over this? Instead, every major blog will now post this story and use it as an example of your inability to handle issues on the internet.

We are no longer passive consumers of news. We can and will hold your staff accountable for their reporting and commentary. If Ms. Howell repeats an erroneous statement of fact and refuses to correct it, it will no longer go uncommented upon. The fact that the comments were so vigorous was due to Ms. Howell's obstinancy on the issue. If she is unable to explain the positions of the paper and answer criticism, which Ms. Overholzer did, then perhaps she needs a new position at the Washington Post.

Because critical comments on your newspaper and it's reporting will go on whether on or off your site.

Sincerely,

Stephen Gilliard

posted by Steve @ 8:24:00 PM