3 ms·

That is no different from the comments on most local papers now. I'm amazed that a company that wants to be taken as a professional source for journalism allow

• vog 16y ago
  > It just looks terrible to their image Comments are from "ordinary people", so why would anyone measure the quality of an article by the quality of the comments? Does an article become less true or less readable just because it is followed by some bad comments? In contrast, not publishing comments would lead to the impression of being unable to take criticism. By publishing even the dumbest comments, they show that they are able to handle criticism, and that they don't suppress anyone's opinion. > and adds nothing to the story Comments serve a completely different purpose. While the article reflects the facts, the comments reflect the sentiment of the people. That's what they add to the story. In some rare cases comments even add some interesting facts.
  • hugh3 16y ago
    Comments serve a completely different purpose. While the article reflects the facts, the comments reflect the sentiment of the people. That's what they add to the story Except they don't reflect the sentiment of "the people", only the small subset with the time and inclination to comment. This usually winds up being folks with some kind of extreme opinion or other kind of bonnet-dwelling bee.
  • lhnz 16y ago
    > Does an article become less true or less readable just because it is followed by some bad comments? I see what you're saying, but remember than many people judge a news organisation by the calibre of its viewers and readers.