In regards to comments following the death of a prominent figure, and the mid-news reassessment of comment rules, at a news organization that's not my own. This post has sat in my drafts forever, and it's time to publish and move on. The question left open is more fun anyway.

1. Can you follow your own rules?

X's site undoubtedly has rules for comment handling. Beyond public guidelines, moderators need internal documents to provide specificity and consistency. X is a top-flight news organization with a significant commenter base, so there have to be rules and documents around.

Why, then, at 3 a.m. during huge news were editors deciding how to handle comments? Did they not know their own rules? Or, seeing real comments on a real story, were their rules suddenly not good enough? How much had the editors previously cared about the rules? How much did they care this time, and how much would they care in the future?

In 3 a.m. stories, there are staffers to be woken, articles to be written, interviews to be made, photos to be galleried, content to be pushed, and conversations to be started. It's no time to debate building blocks.

2. If you want to throw out your rules, can you replace them?

Say X decides at 3 a.m. that a rule doesn't go far enough. What then? The potential leap is to throw out the rule and stop there. But a news audience — your customer base — demands and deserves more. If you toss a rule for being soft, you have to make a harder, better rule in its place. You are responsible for this new rule's consistency, nuance and effects. A harder rule without these considerations is no rule at all.

This question proves especially key in managing site comments after a death, like those on these stories. Yes, speaking ill of the dead is poor form. I try to avoid it. So do you. But how does a news site make a rule of it? How can the site justify concluding debate on a figure's merits — debate it allowed and encouraged the day before? Where does it draw the line on criticism, on this topic or any other? When you already have enforceable rules on vulgarity, hate speech and any attacks between crowd members, what further line realistically exists to a news org?

I've seen this debate and considered a realistic further line dozens of times, and I haven't come up with one. The only further line that exists is barring any negative comments about the dead, like Legacy.com and its field. While those sites do a good service, news has different work.

If you can't come up with a real line either, stop trying to toss your org rules and learn from the necessarily less-than-perfect situation. What you find may help. I've found commenters who speak vicious ill of the dead within site guidelines often fall out of the guidelines elsewhere. They also tend to fewer and less productive community connections.

Patterns emerge. Instead of reactionary notice and inconsistency, deal with the immediate situation as best you can. Bring a greater focus to the larger situation and help build tools to address it more efficiently.

3. What are the new responsibilities of the ombudsman?

Increasingly, a newsroom has problems an ombudsman cannot solve…

[An ombud for X briefly detailed the 3 a.m. reassessment for readers.]

I haven't been able to answer this question fully. I think the answer in part lies with the changing nature of criticism. A critic now needs to see and grapple with the issues involved but also to project a vision. It's all hands now. You're looking forward, or you aren't looking anywhere.

trackback / comment rss feed