Thank You, Douglas Bailey

Should we care at all about the comments people, usually anonymously, write at the bottom of news stories? Their content opens a lid onto part of the population that is despicable: Whiny, sarcastic, uninformed and cruel about everything. It scares me to think that I might actually think like this in my middle and/or old age, when life becomes harder, smaller and too familiar. Then again, even in the most inflammatory stories at sites like the Globe's, only about 600 people post a comment, which is only a sliver of the population.

Last week, along came an op-ed piece in the Globe by Douglas Bailey, the president of a public relations company, that makes a wonderfully compelling argument. He writes, "I realize these forums have their advocates. Publishers apparently believe forums help drive people to their website and provide opportunity for interactive exchanges of ideas, comments, corrections, and expansion of debate and topics. Instead, these forums are insidiously contributing to the devaluation of journalism, blurring the truth, confusing the issues, and diminishing serious discourse beyond even talk radio’s worst examples."

The column is worth reading in full, but he goes on to make the point that newspapers actually devalue their brand by allowing anonymous sniping, rumor and falsehoods because all those things are exact opposites of what make newspapers valuable. He also sympathizes with reporters, saying that their writing is degraded by comments.

Of course, Media Nation, an excellent Web site with reporting and opinion on the greater Boston media scene that advocates for the next generation of journalism, including comments, didn't take kindly to the column, though generally for a reason beyond the column's central argument. It has an anonymous comments section that runs smoothly. Dan Kennedy, who produces everything on the site, would probably argue that's because he polices comments more strictly than papers do with theirs. Really, though, his comments are more civil because his is a niche publication with an educated readership that is genuinely interested in the future of (Boston) media and thinking critically about it. He's an apple, my paper (or any paper) is an orange.

I realize the business side of 21st-century media is defining itself by user-generated content, interactivity and all of the postmodern ramifications that come with dismantling a uniform structure that presents everything within its pages as a body of truth. But I've also yet to meet a reporter for a general-interest publication who's found comments assist his work. The concept of read-and-response has yet to be shaped in a productive way. Reporters live in the world every day -- it's inherent to the job. Why do papers need anonymous comments to pretend they're breathing with the masses more than they already are? Much of the Internet's content is empty calories, but comment boards are worse: They're denigrating calories.