4 ms·

This (good article) from The Guardian, who in their ludicrously-titled "Comment is Free" section and others ban discussions on any articles and opinion pieces t

This (good article) from The Guardian, who in their ludicrously-titled "Comment is Free" section and others ban discussions on any articles and opinion pieces they fear dissent on. In keeping with that - I note there is no comment section on this piece...

jbullock35 6y ago
> I note there is no comment section on this piece... The absence of a comment section may be consistent with one of the author's pieces of advice: "have the disagreement away from an audience."
implements 6y ago
The Guardian used to have a fantastic set of talkboards which they closed almost ten years ago to the day: “We didn't have any other viable option on Friday other than shutting the boards down without warning. None of us think that is good community management, and the reason we have been in this thread is because we regret that we had to do it this way.” I guess the name of the game is “comments supporting our journalism and from which we can extract value from without incurring liability or bad publicity”.
JimDabell 6y ago
> their ludicrously-titled "Comment is Free" section and others ban discussions It’s a reference to a landmark essay by a previous editor, CP Scott, and it’s more about sticking to the truth than publishing other people’s opinions: > A newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainability/cp-scott-centenary-essay https://www.theguardian.com/sustainability/cp-scott-centenar...
switch007 6y ago
Titbit: the section name comes from the quote "Comment is free, but facts are sacred" by C. P. Scott, past editor of the Manchester Guardian. > In a 1921 essay marking the Manchester Guardian's centenary (at which time he had served nearly fifty years as editor), Scott put down his opinions on the role of the newspaper. He argued that the "primary office" of a newspaper is accurate news reporting, saying "comment is free, but facts are sacred". Even editorial comment has its responsibilities: "It is well to be frank; it is even better to be fair".
RobertKerans 6y ago
As stated by siblings, there's a specific reason it's called that. But they used to all have open comments sections. They didn't start shutting down replies for articles because of civil disagreements. Generally they're shuttered based on the expectation, in turn based on experience, that people will be absolutely fucking horrible in the comments. That's not always the case (comments may just be pointless), but most of the time it is -- eg, what's the point of allowing comments on, say, a Nick Cohen piece when a large % of those will just be vicious personal attacks on the writer? Shuttering is a blunt instrument, but why go through the hassle?
uniqueid 6y ago
they fear dissent There are other explanations than that 'they fear dissent'. There's what you say, and there's how you say it. It reflects poorly on a serious publication if their comments section is full of insults and slurs, regardless of whether the comments support leftwing or rightwing causes.
- mynameishere 6y ago
  It reflects even more poorly on a serious publication when the top comment points out all the errors and bias in the main article. They understandably don't like that.
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    They understandably don't like that. They're fine with it. If you run a newspaper, the humiliating thing is to have a competitor point out your errors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper)

jbullock35 6y ago

> I note there is no comment section on this piece... The absence of a comment section may be consistent with one of the author's pieces of advice: "have the disagreement away from an audience."

implements 6y ago

The Guardian used to have a fantastic set of talkboards which they closed almost ten years ago to the day: “We didn't have any other viable option on Friday other than shutting the boards down without warning. None of us think that is good community management, and the reason we have been in this thread is because we regret that we had to do it this way.” I guess the name of the game is “comments supporting our journalism and from which we can extract value from without incurring liability or bad publicity”.

JimDabell 6y ago

> their ludicrously-titled "Comment is Free" section and others ban discussions It’s a reference to a landmark essay by a previous editor, CP Scott, and it’s more about sticking to the truth than publishing other people’s opinions: > A newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainability/cp-scott-centenary-essay https://www.theguardian.com/sustainability/cp-scott-centenar...

switch007 6y ago

Titbit: the section name comes from the quote "Comment is free, but facts are sacred" by C. P. Scott, past editor of the Manchester Guardian. > In a 1921 essay marking the Manchester Guardian's centenary (at which time he had served nearly fifty years as editor), Scott put down his opinions on the role of the newspaper. He argued that the "primary office" of a newspaper is accurate news reporting, saying "comment is free, but facts are sacred". Even editorial comment has its responsibilities: "It is well to be frank; it is even better to be fair".

RobertKerans 6y ago

As stated by siblings, there's a specific reason it's called that. But they used to all have open comments sections. They didn't start shutting down replies for articles because of civil disagreements. Generally they're shuttered based on the expectation, in turn based on experience, that people will be absolutely fucking horrible in the comments. That's not always the case (comments may just be pointless), but most of the time it is -- eg, what's the point of allowing comments on, say, a Nick Cohen piece when a large % of those will just be vicious personal attacks on the writer? Shuttering is a blunt instrument, but why go through the hassle?

uniqueid 6y ago

they fear dissent There are other explanations than that 'they fear dissent'. There's what you say, and there's how you say it. It reflects poorly on a serious publication if their comments section is full of insults and slurs, regardless of whether the comments support leftwing or rightwing causes.

mynameishere 6y ago
It reflects even more poorly on a serious publication when the top comment points out all the errors and bias in the main article. They understandably don't like that.
- uniqueid 6y ago
  They understandably don't like that. They're fine with it. If you run a newspaper, the humiliating thing is to have a competitor point out your errors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper)