Popular Science Ends Comments
I received notice yesterday that Popular Science is ending their practice of allowing comments to their online stories. I was surprised that National Public Radio included a segment on the subject yesterday with the PopSci spokesman pretty much saying the same thing as their online explanation.
I can understand anyone not wanting to deal with some of the nasty comments that we often see online. I'm not so sure I go along with PopSci's reasoning. They seem to be concerned about University of Wisconsin research that suggested nasty comments to an article can actually change reader opinions of that article. I find that a bit hard to swallow:
Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself.
In the civil group, those who
initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified
with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after
reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up
with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with
the technology.
Simply including an ad hominem
attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think
the downside of the reported technology was greater than they'd
previously thought.
They also make it clear that science is science and seem to think their reporting on science shouldn't be questioned. That's where I have a problem:
"A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science."
In other words, they consider the science they present as absolute and don't want anyone effectively convincing others otherwise. I find that troubling. I don't like nasty comments either, but I'd like to think I could find a less drastic way to remove them and a better reason for doing so.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:02 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Here's another recent article on comments. The FPPC is getting involved in paid comments. I don't know if we will ever know who is being paid to comment, but I sure would like to know. Here is a quote
“The purpose overall is to let the public know that they can go compare what the campaign is paying for to what is showing up online,” FPPC attorney Heather Rowan said at the commission’s meeting Thursday.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/09/23/5759254/the-buzz-fppc-approves-new-rules.html#storylink=cpy
So this relates only to Campaign committees. But I am interested in the broader question related to your post. How do we know there isn't a concerted effort to say write comments about stories on Global Warming to give one example. I'm actually sure there probably is. It wouldn't cost alot to pay a few bloggers to spam the most popular blog sites, and I think it is pretty well accepted that people are being paid to do this. Another example, Wikipedia. First there was Conservapedia to act as place for the conservative view of the universe, now, again, I think it is pretty well accepted that people are paid to adjust entries in Wikipedia itself. Money should not = speech. If it does then those with the least money are by default not given their fair share of speech.
A year or two ago I was asked by a Times- Standard reporter if I knew of any paid bloggers. I honestly told I was unaware of any, although I'm sure there are some.
I'm not sure how big of a paid effort is made on blogs and news sites. I'm sure there is some but there's also some grass roots efforts made to make comments go one way or the other.
I know I've gotten requests along that line from one cause or another. I was disappointed when going to the site in question, though, to find few commentators rallied to the cause.
Oh, and funny thing about the Popular Science site, I only read a few of their articles. I don't think I commented, or even read the comments on any of them.
I'm on the Popular Mechancis e-mail list and have read and commented on at least a couple stories. I'm pretty sure PopMech does some paid, hack stories. The two I commented on regarded lawn maintenance, specifically fertilizers. It read like something they were paid to write as an advertisement.
Oh, and here's a Reason magazine piece on a clamp down by New York's Attorney General on individuals and companies that get paid to write Yelp reviews:
http://tinyurl.com/po4v67n
The Humbug was paid, too bad they didn't want to continue
Makes me wonder if I would accept payment for blogging?
Sure I would! Except if it involved this blog I wouldn't write anything I didn't agree with and wouldn't write under someone else's "order".
If someone wanted to give me $50 for each post I'd be happy with that so long as no strings attached.
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programmi American audiences. But on July 2, that cam silently to an end with the implementation o new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week o government-funded radio and TV programs f domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initial criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts. This might have a little bit to do with it and the fact that the Pentagon had a press conference about a month ago stating that because of alternative Media they can no longer control the United States news outlets If you think pop science doesn't have any Connections to the federal government think again Or it could just be good old fashioned political correctness heaven forbid anybody hurt anybody else's feelings
THC
Post a Comment
<< Home