Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Sommerville On News Comments

Times- Standard Editor, Rich Sommerville, comments this morning on comments being made to online news stories. In the space normally reserved for editorials, they had a number of comments made in regards the most recent police shooting that were posted online.

Unfortunately, that section wasn't made available online so, if you wanted to see the comments and can't access the Comments link at the individual story in question, you're out of luck.

30 Comments:

At 10:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, I posted the comments here for anyone who has trouble with the TS site. There were 113 comments at the time. For a more up to date version, check the TS site
Standoff ends in shooting

 
At 11:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So do all of these user comments expire after 2 weeks just like the news articles?

Regarding the statistic about an average blog having a readership of 1, that's because of spam blogs. The real figure is probably much lower because automated spam blogs far outnumber the ones being created by real people for other real people to read.

 
At 11:31 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Thanks, Rose.

11:26 wrote,"do all of these user comments expire after 2 weeks just like the news articles?".

The news articles don't expire after 2 weeks anymore. I believe they're up for six months now.

and, "Regarding the statistic about an average blog having a readership of 1, that's because of spam blogs.".

That, and there's probably thousands, if not millions, of blogs that relate to subjects nobody cares about, except the blogger that started them.

 
At 12:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that the times standard hit a new low with this unrestricted "blog". They are supposed to be a damn newspaper and if they wouldn't post libelous and anonymous letters in their paper, they have no business sanctioning it on their website.

Frankly, I am disgusted!

 
At 1:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry Fred, but the idea that real human-written blogs have an average of 1 reader is hogwash. At the very least, bloggers have a few friends who read the blog. Truly unread blogs, those with 0 readership, disappear because the blogger gets tired of talking to no one... or the blogger continues because he is mentally unstable and doesn't care. I doubt a majority of bloggers are mentally unstable. Now, anonymous blog commenters, that's a whole different matter.

 
At 1:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So for example, bravo's blog continues because he is unstable? I knew it!

 
At 2:11 PM, Blogger Fred said...

1:39 wrote, "Truly unread blogs, those with 0 readership, disappear because the blogger gets tired of talking to no one...".

Oh, I don't know about that. They still end up cluttering up cyberspace. I find blogs that haven't been updated in forever... all the time.

Of course, I'm not sure they differentiate between active blogs vs. those that have been left to wither on the vine when they compiled their statistics.

I would think that would make any statistics quoted in doubt. That said, we need to keep in mind their talking about averages. I would think that would be a vague things to deal with, since they're averages of millions of blogs and no criteria is given as to what they consider a blog.

 
At 2:12 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Ooops. It should have been "they're", not "their".

 
At 3:31 PM, Blogger Carol Ann said...

The thread going on right now on Buhne Tribune leaves me feeling queasy after reading it. Very queasy.

 
At 5:54 PM, Blogger Heraldo said...

If the average blog has only one reader then many Humboldt County blogs are well above average.

 
At 8:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is that Carol Ann? SOURCE:

Comments:
Police beat
TS 12/12/06 (page 3)


Just because it looks like your sleazebag friends look even sleazier?

 
At 7:25 AM, Blogger Carol Ann said...

That was not a nice thing to say to me. You don't even know me or my friends, 8:49.

 
At 8:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 8:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 9:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It perhaps was not nice nor gracious - but it was accurate.

 
At 10:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:31 what on Buhne made you feel 'queasy'?

 
At 11:12 AM, Blogger Carol Ann said...

"Anonymous said...
It perhaps was not nice nor gracious - but it was accurate.

9:24 AM "

Inaccurate. You don't know me. My friends wouldn't post anonymously.

"Anonymous said...
3:31 what on Buhne made you feel 'queasy'?

10:52 AM"

The string on Bowman - sickening comments, impersonating a police officer just to start

 
At 4:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually what Carol was "queasy" about on the buhne list, as she explained on her dear hubby's blog when he posted the following:
Over the Top, but is it Slander or Libel?
"UNCONFIRMED REPORT: ******** was arrested by Humboldt County Sheriff's deputies this morning on suspicion of burglary. It is unknown at this writing whether the suspect is the same ******** who found himself at the center of a payola scandal -- later discredited -- involving campaign contributions"

Carol, now you are talking about the police impersonators when you darn well know you and hubby were upset at D.Bowman getting caught again, you were focusing on Buhne scooping, calling them rumors, when in fact it was sourced in the first or second comment in the thread.

 
At 5:31 PM, Blogger Greg said...

We don't know D. Bowman. Sorry. Go imagine something else.

 
At 5:43 PM, Blogger Carol Ann said...

"Carol, now you are talking about the police impersonators when you darn well know you and hubby were upset at D.Bowman getting caught again, you were focusing on Buhne scooping, calling them rumors, when in fact it was sourced in the first or second comment in the thread.

4:15 PM"

What a presumptious lie! It was the thread that was disgusting, not the topic. I have never met D. Bowman. GO back and read the thread. I don't even know who Buhne is? DO you?

 
At 5:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Carol and Greg, a good friend told me how hard you work and what well meaning people you two really are. I went back over what you wrote and now I want to apologize. You were right. There was no reason to believe you know Bowman. In general I agree that the thread was nasty. Buhne probably invites, too.

4:15

 
At 5:56 PM, Blogger Carol Ann said...

Thanks!

Thank you Buhne, whoever you are, for removing those imposter posts. That really was what made me feel queasy yesterday.

 
At 9:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is not about Carol and Greg who I believe are "true believers" but whom I know and also believe have gotten it so wrong and rant so much that they have done much more harm than good.

This is about the T-S running comments that are unrestrained, anonymous and unchecked. The whole thing is bad. It is worse than bad. They are the press and not a blog and should hang their heads (all of them) in shame. This is appauling.

 
At 9:56 AM, Blogger Carol Ann said...

apalling or aPAULing? - cute. I think I know who you are. Come on, Let it go now ...

 
At 10:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have no clue who I am, but if you want respond, at least respond on point.

The times standard is a newspaper and is held to high ethical standards. This is why they don't print every letter the receive, especially when the letter is libelous or slanderous, is anonymous or presents facts that are inaccurate. If they did this in print, they wouldn't be worth the powder to blow them to hell.

The problem with them allowing these out of control comments on their site and letting them degenerate regarding some of these articles (ie police shootings) is that it looks like they are sanctioning those comments. This is what is appauling. This is not free speech as free speech has been traditionally understood vis a vis the "press".

Additionally, private individuals do have limits on what they can say and putting these types of comments on a press comment section does NOT protect that speech if it harms someone else. Now with the recent court ruling regarding websites being protected like Yahoo and Google - this doesn't apply to individual sites that have the ability to delete and control speech that violates others rights. Even the T-S is held to the "New York Times" standard regarding these statements and if they can't meet that standard, they should not allow those posts.

Hows that for you Carol Ann...got anything of substance to say?

 
At 1:14 PM, Blogger Carol Ann said...

We both mispelled appalling ... you may be right -- I guess I don't know who you are. Later -

 
At 11:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

so, 1032, you can see, as usual, Carol has nothing to say in response, as per her and Greg's usual tactics...when they are blown out of the water with logical discourse they either do NOT respond or just respond with a short response which has NO SUBSTANCE or NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND...
P (and no carol, those last few messages were not me...)BTW, I'd love to have a cup of joe with you and greg sometime...
Maybe we could tag along with Virginia and David Cobb ;)

 
At 4:00 PM, Blogger Greg said...

The office number's in the phone book. I try to be more logical over on Greg's List - the idea was to get away from anonymous posts and now we are talking about having coffee. That's probably good.

 
At 4:17 PM, Blogger Greg said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 4:19 PM, Blogger Carol Ann said...

P- Stop treating me like I am a defendent! I did say "Later-"

I agree with Rich Sommerville's editorial. I admit I was a bit shocked that he printed some of the comments in the paper, but also see educating non-bloggers about what kind of comments are going on in the blogs. I am shocked to the point of feeling queasy and speechless (see above) when I read some of the comments in the blogs like the string I referred to above and that Greg posted on Greg's List. (Did you read my comment there where I referred to the 'string?') I thanked the anonymous Buhne here and on his blog for removing the most offensive to what appeared to me to be someone impersonating a police officer. As you can see on this string I have been attacked for being honest with my feelings and then words that I didn't say are stuffed down my throat by writers called anonymous. Geesh! Coffee? I need a drink...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home