In Cleveland, Comments Rock The Boat
Virtually every news Web site invites reader comments, but few embrace the garrulous members of their audiences the way Cleveland.com does. The online home of The Plain Dealer and Sun News actually treats its best commenters not only as news consumers but also as news makers.
“I think you miss out on the full extent of the [online] medium if you block out what readers have to say,” Cleveland.com editor in chief Denise Polverine said. “Some news organizations feel their voice is the final voice on a subject, and that’s not the case at Cleveland.com.”
Interactivity is one reason why Cleveland.com sits atop the city’s digital media pile. It is, by a wide margin, the most popular online news source in the market, according to The Media Audit, leading a tightly clustered pack of television network affiliates and a contingent of smaller outlets.
“Enjoy your spot in the sun,” eyeispoed wrote after ANobelPhd became a featured user July 15.
Not everyone was so congratulatory: “Problem I have is the exploiting of homeless people,” gayseaker wrote, referencing ANobelPhd’s profile picture of a stubble-faced, yellow-toothed man. “He is trying to be funny by using the picture of a homeless guy. Only it’s cruel. Shame that the PD not only allows it but brings light to it.”
“Problem I have is YOU making a flat assertion that I somehow am exploiting a homeless person,” ANobelPhd retorted on the comment board. “I sincerely request that you provide evidence/proof that this smiling photograph of a man is indeed homeless. I do not take this subject in any way humorous, and I strongly suggest that it is a shame that you, brought this topic to light, and therefore bringing your own cruelness to light.”
For media watchers, this seemingly petty -- and grammatically poor -- exchange brings to light a different issue: regulating the writings of opinionated posters emboldened by anonymity.
Cleveland.com was thrust to the forefront of the industry’s commenting conversation last year, when a Cuyahoga County judge sued The Plain Dealer for revealing the screen name lawmiss was attached to her e-mail address. The paper reported the connection because lawmiss consistently posted comments on stories about cases -- including a high-profile murder trial -- heard by Common Pleas Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold.
Saffold claimed the writer of the posts was her daughter, Sydney Saffold, with whom she shared the e-mail address. She accused Cleveland.com of violating its own privacy policy and sought $50 million from The Plain Dealer and affiliated companies.
Judge Saffold later settled out of court with the paper’s Internet partner and dropped her suit against The Plain Dealer, but media critics nationwide chided Cleveland.com for allowing anonymous comments, a practice shared by many other news sites.
Today, Cleveland.com continues to let readers express their thoughts without identifying themselves but does employ comment monitors, who remove offensive posts. On stories likely to generate hateful comments, such as ones about inner-city crime, Polverine said, the site disables comments altogether.
“We want to be responsible,” Polverine said. “We don’t allow people to just post willy-nilly, anything goes. We want people to express thoughts and ideas. We’ve even gotten news tips from comments.”
Bracken and the Ohio.com staff have determined the benefits of anonymous commenting outweigh the risks.
“Some of the biggest stories have come from anonymous tipsters,” Bracken reminded, “so we don’t want to discourage people from sharing information.”
Eliciting reader feedback is challenging enough without requiring posters to use their real names. At CrainsCleveland.com, the Web site of the weekly newspaper Crain’s Cleveland Business, many stories don’t generate any comments at all.
“It’s kind of a mystery to us,” Editor Mark Dodosh said. “There are few instances where people will comment. It’s not like ESPN.com. I think people just aren’t as likely to comment on a story about one company buying another. Unless you’re one of the people getting laid off, you’re not as impassioned as if your team just made a trade, and you think it’s a boneheaded move.”
While CrainsCleveland.com may not be a model for soliciting reader feedback, it is an example for soliciting reader payment. The site stands as one of the few which never gave away its full complement of content for free. So, unlike the many online news outlets attempting to introduce paywalls, Crain’s is not struggling to convince readers to pay for what they formerly got gratis.
“Our print subscribers have paid for the content,” Dodosh reasoned, “so we figure they should have first dibs on it. If we gave it all away free online, there’d be no incentive to buy the paper.”
Comments (0) - Post a comment