The Hawk Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Randy Miller column [The Hawk Eye, Burlington, Iowa]

Nov. 28--I'm one of a few people in the newsroom who regularly approves or disapproves the online comments on news stories on our website, www.thehawkeye.com.

Invariably, if there are more than a half dozen or so when I check in, I wind up wincing and taking a should-I-or-should-I-not approach. Managing Editor Dale Alison and I discuss the comments and our approach to them occasionally. I tend to be a bit more liberal in approving them, I think, in the belief that their only purpose is to promote a free flow of comment and criticism.

Editor Steve Delaney wrote a column on this subject nearly a year ago when he explained a change in our comments practice. At that time, he decided to no longer allow comments on crime and court stories, because civility was not evident in any of the comments on those stories.

I would concur. Before that change, the most comments I grudgingly disapproved were on those types of stories. Most of the nasty things people wrote under the protection of anonymity were disgusting, mean and hurtful, not to mention libelous.

Delaney indicated in his column that other changes likely will take place as the cyber world evolves. So far, he hasn't made any of those changes, such as requiring people to go to our Facebook page and sign in before they can comment, thereby providing at least a link to a name in the event of trouble.

A number of news sites have done that, and they have found it quickly cleans up the comments. But I've seen others where nothing is censored, and profanity and insults are the order of the day.

It's difficult to pinpoint trends, but I've been gatekeeping long enough to surmise a few things, such as:

-- We have maybe a dozen to 15 people who regularly weigh in on just about any topic in the paper. They appear to be online readers, rather than hold-it-in-your-hands readers, and they'll comment on several stories of the day all at once. It's like they just have to add their two cents worth to complete their day.

-- The occasional posters usually are the worst spellers and the nastiest in their remarks, often with a clear axe to grind. Thus, many of their comments never see the light of day.

-- Threads almost always go astray, with people commenting on other people's blurbs after only two or three are posted to a story. That certainly wasn't the intent of the forum, but apparently it's human nature to rattle each other's cages, especially anonymously.

-- It's nice to see positive comments, because negative ones outnumber positive ones about 5 to 1. It's fun to watch, though, as negative comments by grammar-, punctuation- and spelling-challenged trolls are quickly corrected by those who practice English Teacher Patrol on the web.

-- Speaking of trolls, they're a phenomenon in the online community who regularly chat on blogs, news sites and discussion forums. Wikipedia says the word troll is an Internet slang noun for "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages." I've noticed an uptick in recent months of people taking us to task for even allowing trolls to comment. But, of course, we do, at least for now.

-- Most of the comments are on local topics, which is good, but a few people comment on wire stories and obituaries. Online readers should know that the lists on our home page of most commented on, most e-mailed, etc. are only there for seven days, then the lists start all over again, and the comments don't stay attached to the story when it moves into the archive. (So local pols can take heart and a deep breath. If you're getting hammered on a stance or remark, it will all be over with in a week.)

The most discouraging aspect, of course, is approving those that take us to task, rightly or wrongly, for something we wrote or had nothing to do with. It's really no fun to approve a comment that begins, "If the Hack Eye had any credibility at all..."

But, of course, we regularly approve such comments, without any retort, just like the letters that take us to task even when the letter writer is flat wrong in their assertions and assumptions.

My wife, Jene, and I got to giggling recently when we got on the topic and made up a typical online comment thread. It went something like this:

The story we had reported was about a golden retriever puppy that had awakened its owner and saved the man from dying in a house fire. A good, happy-ending story.

Now the comments:

freeloader: Nice story. Too bad the guy didn't die in the fire, though. He's a jerkoid and owes a friend of mine $120.

animal lover: Just like The Hack Eye to write a story about a large-breed dog. Why doesn't this rag ever show any love to the small breeds, like my chihauhua? He's so sweet. They save lives too sometimes.

fred croaker: I heard it took the fire department eight minutes to get there, and the house was only six blocks from the station. No wonder it's a total loss. Bet the guy didn't have insurance either, so we'll all get to pay to take care of him and his dumb dog. He's probably a liberal.

Re: freeloader: Hey, troll. There's no such word as jerkoid, you dumb---. Yes, that's three dashes. You figure it out.

homer simpson: So if I can comment on this story, why can't I comment on the crime stories anymore? Stupid Hack Eye censoring people online. Where can I get a golden retriever puppy? Don't get me started on puppy mills.

Ah, the times they are a changin'. Keep those comm ents coming.

___

(c)2011 The Hawk Eye (Burlington, Iowa)

Visit The Hawk Eye (Burlington, Iowa) at www.thehawkeye.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services