Blog comments bite press in the butt

Times columnist David Aaronovitch is being troubled by a - or possibly the - Benjamin, a notorious blogging phenomenon.

The trouble with Benjamin is the quality of his postings; he has a web reputation for contributions so benign and pointless that they border on soporific. This particular sub-species of blogger can mostly be found on centre-left political sites but Benji's particular talents have already proved lampoonable enough to inspire at least three spoof sites.

Mr Aaronovitch is a little more blunt about Benjamin's talents: "He has the mentality of a moderately clever, but destructive, nine-year old."

Abuse, violent disagreement and even being proved wrong all make for acceptable comments, writes Mr Aaronovitch. What is not acceptable, however, is 'sucking the air out of the room', whereupon he went on to invite readers to submit their own stories of Benjaminism.

"Benji treats other people's blogs like his own personal graffiti wall. He's more than earned his virtual ASBO," said Brownie.

"Benji can sometimes be a pain in the arse, but in comparison with the tub-thumping trolls who infest many blogs, Benji is mostly harmless," posted Francis Sedgemore.

And ominously close to Benjamin's geographical home, 'In Hong Kong' said: "The only blogs worth reading offer free debate. It's sort of an alternative to an editor - a democratic discussion.

"You just haven't got blogging - you seem to think it's all about you, you, you. I suggest you give up blogging and stick to being a proper journalist."

Mr Aaronovitch then devoted another post to the exchange of emails he had with Benjamin and blocked comments.

The blog is one of 25 on Times Online which uses ye olde method of moderating comments before making them live - in this case moderated by Mr Aaronovitch himself. But Mr Aaronovitch inevitably took some ribbing himself for mocking poor Benjamin personally and then not giving him a right-of-reply - simply not regarded as web cricket and frowned upon in the blogosphere.

Said Andy M: "A blogspace like this one shouldn't be a private party - you have a public position, and you should allow the groundlings their right to heckle. So open up your comments to the trolls - you only have to wait for the sun to come up, and they turn to stone anyway.

"I bet you didn't think when you went into journalism that you'd end up basically standing on a box in the marketplace, did you? How very like the past the future is!"

Washington Post's backlash

WashingtonPost.com's executive editor appeared more than a little bruised in his recent assessment of their own comments saga.

On the receiving end of some extremely abusive commentary, executive editor Jim Brady concluded that the web has fostered an echo chamber of "ideological hermits who only talk to folks who believe exactly what they do".

Accused of being part of a right-wing conspiracy, compared to various body parts and labelled 'wanker of the day' on one blog, he says that anonymity is part of the 'web rage' phenomenon: "It seems to flick off the inhibition switch that stops people from saying certain things in person. During the Deborah Howell flap, many of the emails I received that called me gutless, a coward or both were unsigned."

The trouble started when Deborah Howell made a mistake in her column on 15 January writing about the ongoing scandal surrounding US political lobbyist Jack Abramoff. She wrote that Mr Abramoff had donated money to Democrat and Republican campaigns when he had actually only given personal funds to Republicans.

Thousands of comments were posted to the site's post.blog in the following days but many of them, according to Mr Brady, were: "obscene, vituperative" and "about a hundred of them had to be removed for violating the site's standards, which don't allow profanity or personal attacks".

Ms Howell published a clarification to the story, which prompted 400 comments in five hours and generated more unsuitable comments - more than the site could delete. In response, Mr Brady chose to shut down comments completely and triggered an even bigger backlash among bloggers convinced the decision was part of a pro-Republican conspiracy.

He acknowledges that blogs have a crucial role in the national conversation and outlined how the Post had opened its site to readers through live discussion, blogs and hyperlinked bylines.

"But we won't allow our comments area to become a place where people can use whatever vulgar language they want, personally attack Post staffers or bully other contributors to our pages or discussions," he wrote.

"What's distressing about my recent experience is that a small number of highly partisan, energetic bloggers poisoned the debate instead of contributing to it."

Guardian plans to make life hard for trolls

Guardian Unlimited's assistant editor Neil McIntosh wrote recently that to tackle the troll problem, Guardian Unlimited will ask commenters to register their email address and name before posting to the new 'Comment is free' project. It is also considering showing the geographical location of commenters.

This echos observations made by Dan Gillmor when he revealed the lessons of his stalled Bayosphere project; that the more information a reader gives, the better quality their comments are.

He also pointed to the Yahoo!/AOL proposal to charge a small amount for email delivery to deter mass spammers.

"We're not going to start charging people to let them have their say. But, just as charging makes it harder to spam, we can think up ways to make life harder for the foul-mouthed or racist commenters who start those virtual brawls, while keeping things simple for the majority."

Privilege of anonymity has to be earned

Online news veteran Vin Crosbie recently wrote about the "rich history of pseudonymity in American opinion journalism", but challenged the trend for publishing anonymous and unmoderated comments online.

He said publishers are being "reckless" by not supervising or moderating comments thoroughly.

"I fear that our industry has fallen under the spell of a techno-utopian fallacy that says we can foster a renaissance in journalism, civic involvement and comity simply by implementing new-media technologies."

Publishers need policies to guide how the reader uses this technology, he said, and should know the identity of a reader and their reasons for asking to be anonymous before agreeing to protect their identity.

"If they truly are willing to stand behind their words, then they must be willing to withstand identification by the publisher who has legal responsibility for the publication of their words."

Free daily newsletter

If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).