Am I the only one who has trouble with the way Civil Beat is handling comments?
Comment/discussion on articles was supposed to be a big draw, all of us with different viewpoints staying civil, not protected by anonymity, etc.
But let me get this straight. Today’s lead headline is a story about the governor’s rejection of an offer from HSTA to go to mediation and binding arbitration.
At the end of the story are links to related articles, then: “DISCUSSION: Share your thoughts on the governor’s response.”
But the link isn’t to comments on this story or the governor’s response, but rather to a general discussion of “teacher compensation,” where almost all comments are from June and July. I’m guessing this is an attempt to force us to the “big picture” issues, but I don’t think it works.
It seems to me that the whole idea of vigorous discussion moderated by “reporter-hosts” has failed, in part because it is too fragmented (some comments on facebook, some in “discussions”), on the one hand, but also mushed together (comments are various specific stories mixed together under broad discussion headings).
Maybe I’m missing something, as a relatively new CB subscriber and reader. And maybe it doesn’t matter anyway. But it was one of the major selling points when CB was launched.
I would be interested in how other CB readers handle this aspect of the site.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have totally disagreed with this handling of discussion by CB . IS there a discussion? I can’t tell. Thanks for your comments. Hopefully CB will correct their error.
I have heard about CB’s confusing behavior. But I am not about to pay for right to be confounded.
I agree with you Ian.
After trying it out, I’m disappointed. I won’t subscribe unless or until they improve.
Whether it’s an attempt to force a “big picture” discussion I don’t know. But it certainly helps to mask the lack of comments on any particular story. Civil Beat hasn’t caught on yet. I’m rooting for it, but reading it now is a chore. It want it to be a delight.
I should add that I love that Civil Beat has created a Washington bureau. That’s a big step in promising direction.
Ian, I think you raise a valid point. When we began, we believed that on-running conversations about issues would be more valuable to people than comments at the end of an article. The approach also had the effect of minimizing the emotional responses that can make comment sections of news sites so toxic.
In some cases, when covering stories that weren’t part of ongoing coverage (ongoing coverage merits topic pages), the comments are at the bottom of articles. In others, readers are encouraged to go to the ongoing discussions. We understand that this may be confusing.
We’re evaluating how this is working and looking for feedback from our readers. So we appreciate you writing about it and sharing your concerns.
One thing I’m proud of is that we’ve been able to maintain the thoughtful — and civil — tone of our discussions since adopting Facebook commenting, which has made it possible for many more people to participate.
– John Temple, Editor and General Manager
Civil Beat
Interesting that John Temple feels that forcing people to go to its Facebook improves the Civil Beat site’s general coverage.
I have never been to any FB page and probably will never do so because of invasion of privacy issues – not because I don’t want to use my real name but because FB sells the contact information to advertisers.
What Temple just doesn’t seem to grasp is that in reality there are very few people who are commenting and the use of Facebook is not helping his cause. I don’t have a clue where he is getting his last statement, “which has made it possible for many more people to participate”….like how??
Looks like John has forgotten about his own glass house while he’s throwing his stones at the other media in town. CB will drop the facebook idea sooner than later is my prediction…..just like they did with the crazy idea to charge $19.95 a month for air.
So, uh, how many people are reading CB anyway?
Do tell, John.
Agree totally with you Ian. I tried to go to the discussion section to comment that the story’s headline that the Gov. rejected “mediation” was incorrect. But, given the problems you pointed out, there was no way to put in that comment.
I agree with the complaints above about Facebook.
Another problem is the articles themselves. I wish editor John Temple had explained to his staff on day one that no one should pay for articles that are not interesting. Why is it so difficult to write about the burning issues of the day in a manner that doesn’t recall school compositions? I remember a recent video interview with Brian Schatz. If I were to describe it in a word, I’d say it was “chummy.” Is this the indispensable content that is supposed to attract subscribers?
I have to defend CB’s video interviews. Cliff Slater’s in July ’10 was pure gold in that it highlighted his intellectually dishonest campaign against the Honolulu rail project and gave me endless blogging opportunities–e.g., http://bit.ly/aGPpEp
CB’s use of photos is ridiculous. They’re usually static, boring, and are often snatched off the internet from mainland open sources that have absolutely nothing to do with Hawaii or the story they’re paired with. And not even a caption to tell us what or who we’re looking at, or why. It makes the whole product look that much tackier and unplanned, like ‘under construction’ tape around a display case inside the store. In this day and age, can it really be that hard to produce or include competent visuals?
CB started with a python-based website that was just bad news. Then the paywall struggle. And the idea that civil comments are something unusual that people might pay for (there’s nothing uncivil about the comments here, for example).
It’s too easy to list up the problems (including some rather naive articles) and not notice that they are trying to break new ground in on-line journalism in Hawaii (though there are examples elsewhere) and that we are the beneficiaries. They also seem to have the luxury of time and money to work out how they will do this. That’s a rare and valuable asset.
I also think the Facebook idea is off-base, considering all the comment systems available to choose from. But interesting that they are trying it, and I could be wrong about it.
They have an opportunity to make a real difference. They can improve the quality of their articles as they go. Warren Iwasa is right on, IMHO, but the lack of quality is not a permanent thing. It can be worked on.
CB can also put its website problems behind it. It’s not that difficult to put together a multi-user WordPress 3 website with editing capabilities. The technology is not the central issue (unless they have designs on bringing back a paywall one day). It’s the writing first, the writing second, and the writing third.
And maybe some comics.
Ok, it’s also the presentation. the video interviews seem to be part of modern web journalism. One must keep up. But again, they can adjust over time. Their video interviews are already better than the short TV clips that are our only alternative.
I adore the Civil Beat for their reporting and journalistic integrity. They don’t settle for reprinting City press releases and appear to work for their readers instead of the City and State government.
They ask tough questions, and if the local politician attempts to deflect or change the subject, they ask the question again. Then they report the response. I think this is 90% of being a great local paper.
I am frustrated with the commenting feature also and have given up trying to comment. I use my Facebook account to keep up with friends and keep any mention of politics strictly out of it.
I thought the discus commenting feature was one of the best things about the Star-Advertiser, but honestly – I would rather read a solid newspaper without commenting than a bad newspaper with easy and friendly commenting features.
Long Live the Civil Beat!