> My thinking was just that the efficacy of nasty comments is probably higher when you have readers who don't trust a publication, the writers, or editors. I d

> My thinking was just that the efficacy of nasty comments is probably higher when you have readers who don't trust a publication, the writers, or editors. I disagree. Oh, I'm sure if you dislike the source, you are more apt to dismiss them. What I disagree with is the nature of these comments and who they are coming from. Nasty comments are most likely coming from people who disagree with the premise presented in the article, not who is writing the article. There is also the study that shows that other comments will induce you into taking one side or another. Any comment you make can easily be just as volatile. Point is, the epidemic has nothing to do with the source, but rather, the message. I do not have enough faith that all those nasty comments are from people who've done proper research into what reporters and newspapers strive to do. In the end, it's easier to blame someone else for your failings at civility.