Blue Mass. Group without comments would be unthinkable. What makes this site interesting (at least to me) is the animated, passionate, and sometimes startlingly well-informed discussions that the posts engender. I’ve learned far more from the comments than I have from writing my own posts, and I have no doubt that that will continue.
The same cannot be said, however, for the comments sections at the Globe’s site. Almost any article about local politics — today’s example is another depressing article about “friends” of Dianne Wilkerson who gave her “personal gifts” of $10,000 — results in a totally predictable cavalcade of angry commentary along these lines:
another cabinet member for barack obama…wilkerson is perfect…or perhaps he wants to save her for a future supreme court position?
But perhaps more depressing is the reaction to today’s front-page story about a high school student in Springfield who is a star both in the classroom (she’s top in her class) and on the basketball court, having broken the state record for high school scoring and averaging 41.3 points a game. Now, is this hard news? No, not exactly. But this is the Sunday paper, and the story does touch on interesting issues relating to the challenges faced by observant Muslim girls growing up in America. (The student, Bilqis Abdul-Qaadir, keeps her head, arms, and legs covered while playing.) It’s also nice to see western Mass. getting some love from the Globe.
No love from the comment section, though. Here are a few samples.
This article is on top of the fold? On Sunday?
C’mon Globe, the girl may have admirable qualities, but from a business perspective, how many readers do you think are gonna read even 1/4 of this article – another feel-good, hard-life minority story. I’ll pass.…
I agree with the comments that this is a sports story, let’s stop the “victim” bias, brain washing, and propaganda publishing. Maybe if you did you and your parent organization might have a finacial future.
…
I agree with rick. this story belongs in the sports section. As far as allowing her to where that rediculous backward attire, well that is discriminatory to the others who must wear standard uniforms.
Osama bin hidin (and king of muslim cowards) did not ruin this country. greed did.
…
Of all the things that could & should be on the front page…we get this ?
Thats it I am all done reading the Globe. Just cant stomach the leftist anti american, anti conservative, hate america first agenda.
Just cant do it.
…
If she were a white kid would this story have made it to the front page? Doubt it. People like me are just sick of the hypocrisy. I’m happy for the kid, but I’m not sure if the front page is where this story belongs. How about the front page of the sports section.
And my personal favorite:
and what’s her take on Jews ?
Good grief. After reading this, a couple of sensible commenters reacted:
This is a wonderful story. As a Pittsburgher, I read the Globe online each morning, and while I truly enjoy this paper, I am constantly amazed at the comments often following them. I never see this xenophobia, prejudice, and narrow-mindedness following stories from the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I suppose I had a very different opinion of Boston, the home of so much culture and education. Is there no filter for racists and xenophobes?
…
As a former Bostonian, and I’m glad I am, the reaction to you bigots to this story just proves what I tell my friends. Boston is no liberal city, but a city of closed minded, hateful people.
…
I wish the Globe would stop allowing comments on articles. I’m consistently disapointed and embarrased by the posts.
This is a great story and totally appropriate for the Sunday paper which usually has a non traditional (fire, economy, disaster, corruption etc.) cover when possible.
I hope that the Globe will consider ending these comment sections. Its no longer a forum for intellectual debate but just a place for lonely and angry people to vent their frustrations. I hope that Bilqis and her family do not have to read this foolishness and continue to celebrate her great achievement.
It’s hard to disagree with the final point. Unlike the comments at the NY Times, which are often quite interesting, the comments section at the Globe seems to have been taken over by a (hopefully) small cadre of folks who have nothing better to do than wail about “Cadillac Deval” and “Taxachusetts,” and complain about how unfair it is that a black kid gets a front-page story written about her.
What’s the solution? Should the Globe stop allowing comments on its stories? Should it moderate them more actively? Should it continue allowing more or less unfettered “free speech,” even though that approach seems not to be leading to a particularly edifying discussion? Is there another way?
Make the decision.
<
p>Yeah yeah, newspapers have to change. I agree. The way they change is not to become blogs, but rather to incorporate multimedia in their articles. Loads of images which would bog down the print edition. Cool flash or animations which allow the user to change parameters (think: election coverage, or even “make your own stimulus package”). Links to more sources — Globe articles, gov’t websites, whatever.
<
p>Provide value to online content — don’t rely on a bunch of jackasses to provide it for you. We jackasses with value to add and the willingness to actually add it have already gone to other places… or we simply write Letters to the Editor the old fashioned way.
I think nytimes.com has led the way on multimedia incorporation. They’re awfully good at devising spiffy tools to let you access content you otherwise never would have been able to track down. (I loved the tool that let you read every inaugural address back to George Washington.)
Aren’t the New York Times comments moderated?
<
p>BMG has some conservative commenters who are acerbic but bring content, i.e., there is some signal in the noise. I’ve come to appreciate their input tremendously.
<
p>We even have a conservative who brings content and is not acerbic. I think that makes us quite lucky, frankly. However, IMHO, too many of our conservative commenters are not here to engage in dialog.
<
p>That seems unsurprising. There’d be only two reasons I would post on a red site.
Either I was really, really pissed off and wanted those blasted reactionaries to feel my righteous angeror I wanted to write really, really well-researched well-written posts that might take on the difficult task of convincing my conservative friends to change their views 180 degrees.
I submit that the second motivation is rare and the first is all too common.
My partner is active on the globe Confidential Chat board. They were recently inundated by folks out to disrupt the board. Juvenile stuff — mocking people’s names, posting bad jokes, attacking suggestions. The Globe did nothing until a group of the regulars threatened to start their own moderated board.
<
p>You get similar stuff over in the music section. People respond to every music review by talking about how Aerosmith is the only band that matters…
That’s the beauty of a free society. What some of you folks may or may not have ascertained by now is that whether you are from the right or the left or even a centrist, when you listen to the same affirming pap patting you on the back and telling you that you are a genius of intellect, insightful, compassionate, generous, whatever—-you start to believe it. You must have someone knocking you off your perch periodically and advising you that : “hey stupid—-you ain’t got no clothes on.”
When I had meetings with the people that worked for me, I asked them for comments on what I was doing right, then I asked them for criticism. You can’t be thin skinned and you can’t be vindictive. No one is beyond criticism and no one is irrrplaceable—like that fast.
<
p>If people want to make crude, stupid remarks–knock yourself out—they have just as much right to their thoughts as you have to your scintillating and soaring intellect. When we start judging who has more of a right to express themselves viz a vis—another–then we might just as well fold our tents and go home. Restricting arguement leads to catastrophic failure.
<
p>BTW—– there is a reason that the NYT and the Globe are imploding and will likely fail by next autumn. They lost 50% of their readership and advertisers because rather than reporting news–they decided to make the news.
It’s about not providing a forum for people whose sole purpose is to disrupt. I can understand why you’d be opposed to such measures.
<
p>In your case, I’d settle for two coherent sentences in a row.
G read daily Kos or Cos or whatver that rag is. I realize it’s a monbat site—ergo I don’t even bother reading the nonsense. Like I said—-you gotta be a moron or a masochist to force yourself to read something you find offensive. Don’t like it–keep on voting for Obama—the 1st amendment is on thin ice A/O November.
and there won’t be a problem as long as the moderators are doing their jobs. And by “we”, I mean the non-jackasses group.
đŸ™‚
And low and behold — he has a blog
Just what is it that you and your BMG’ers have against people speaking their minds?? You seem unable to tolerate challenges to your lefty, touchie-feelie sensibilities. Let’s see how many 3’s I get for merely asking the question. I do, however, David, give you credit for allowing people like me to express themselves on your blog, and I would hope that the Globe continues to do so.
Also, I saw no concern about the hate speech directed towards Sarah Palin (even slander) and the Bush Administration found on this blog and on the Globe comments. There is just as much nonsense on the left as on the right.
That’s why we started this blog — to suppress speech.
<
p>I mean, come on Edgar. How can you have this
<
p>
<
p>and this
<
p>
<
p>in the same comment?? Does not compute.
“does not compute” and not say it to themselves in a robot voice.
with people spewing mindless hatred that turns the rest of us off. That shouldn’t be tolerated on the left or the right. And David just totally pointed out the inconsistency in Edgar’s rant.
At BMG— the 1st Amendment was not applicable as BMG had a “progressive” agenda and the “progressive” agenda would be fostered. Aforementioned is OK I guess because in fact it is their site. The largest problem with Massachusetts politics is that there is no opposition. The house is on fire, but since everyone is in agreement that it isn’t, then—not to worry. I would really hope to hell that if someone saw me walking off a cliff, they would grab me, in spite of my protestations.
“The largest problem with Massachusetts politics is that there is no opposition. The house is on fire, but since everyone is in agreement that it isn’t, then—not to worry”
<
p>And here I was thinking that the worst recession of the last eighty years, caused by Republican mismanagement and Democratic acquiescence at the national level, was the problem. No, the problem is that you can pretty much count the number of Massachusetts Republicans who’ve earned the support of the people on your fingers and toes.
<
p>We’ve already walked off the cliff, and it’s getting hard to climb back up while your ideological cousins try to sabotage the equipment.
… and it also doesn’t obligate BMG to publish anyone, including dopey conservatives who can’t keep this straight.
<
p>I would hope that someone who saw me asserting mixed and strained-to-breaking metaphors as if they even made sense would just laugh at me. So, in the interest of reciprocation, I’m laughing at you tumbling down the cliff on fire. You may think it’s funny uh-oh, but it’s definitely funny ha-ha to me, and that’s comedy!
It’s signal to noise ratio.
<
p>How much of the user generated content provokes thought, provides information, or otherwise has value. How much of it adds absolutely nothing, spreads FUD, is misinformation, or otherwise hinders productive thoughts?
<
p>At Globe, the signal:noise ratio is terrible and, in the case of the article David referenced, ugly. How does that help the Globe?
I can tolerate some noise, but I don’t think hate speech should be allowed because it creates a toxic atmosphere for discussion. When venomous comments are allowed, it hurts the credibility of the publication and turns readers off.
my own standards on my blog. (Besides moderating personal attacks and hate speech, which are NEVER allowed.) My standard is this: It’s my blog. If there is someone or some group of someones who are making it so I dread going to read/write on my own blog, that person gets a talking to and a warning, and if they don’t stop, banned and deleted.
<
p>It seems to work for me. I figure, if I’m getting near to the point of not writing, that sort of negates the reason I started the blog, so therefore, that person ought to go. But it pretty much fits the “signal to noise” definition to a tee.
<
p>I think we have developed a nice community of edgy but purposeful and intelligent commenters on my blog, so I’m quite proud of it. Even if we do have quite a lot of Republican talking-point types there, they are local, they are regulars, and even if occasionally things get heated, the discussion at least goes somewhere. Even if it’s just me being able to refine and hone my own arguments.
Yes, BMG absolutely allows all points of view to be heard, so I find the concern about the hate (and make no mistake — it is hate) on the Globe a little befuddling.
<
p>There were many hatemongers posting here during the marriage debate who masqueraded as those concerned for “democracy” and “the people”. They were allowed not only to continue on and on pretending their real concern was actually preserving the people’s right to vote rather than banning legal recognition of GLBT couples’ relationships, but their views were eventually endorsed by the site’s founder. If, by some chance, Massachusetts had not been able to muster 151 state legislators with a true conscience, we might be looking at a very different picture here, similar to what happened in California.
You’re not going to win allies if it looks like you’re merely using the “The other side is anti-gay-rights, so everything they say is hate(tm)” shtick — you’ll lose the high ground in a hurry.
<
p>I’m for marriage equality. But, I’m also for discourse. Don’t poison the well by proclaiming that the other side’s non-hateful arguments are “masquerad[ing]”.
<
p>And let’s be clear: the BMG editors were for equality, and they were for following the state constitution. Don’t act as if those two things can’t be reconciled.
I cannot believe you are reopening that can of worms. As the “founder” who I presume you are talking about, let me just say once again, for the record: I took the position I did (“the legislature should vote, and vote ‘no'”) for two reasons, which happened to coincide: (1) I thought it was the legally correct, constitutionally required position; and (2) I thought it was the best way to put the nail in the coffin of the wretched anti-marriage amendment. I’m happy to have been vindicated on both counts. The “Vote on Marriage” crowd has now gone almost completely silent — and you can bet that, had the legislature buried the amendment without a vote (your preferred outcome, I take it), the exact opposite would have happened: the “let the people vote” crowd would have been more energized than ever before, and the signature-gatherers would have been out in full force once again, ready to put the issue before the legislature once again.
<
p>Like it or not, the question whether the legislature was constitutionally required to vote on the amendment was an important one, and reasonable people disagreed on it. Most of them were not “haters.” Equating that kind of debate with the nonsense I quoted from the Globe’s comments is, well, nonsense.
You don’t know what would have happened had the lege killed it. Your version of what would have happened is purely your version. I highly doubt we’d see any mass movement to repeal marriage equality again either way, because there never was much of one to begin with. Hell, not only did the bigots have to pay people to get the question to the ballot, they lied and cheated their way on, committing fraud to get their signatures in.
<
p>I also question why you never truly cared about the fact that the lege violated the constitution to kill the universal health care amendment. It wasn’t okay for the gays, but was okay for health care… ? I know you’ll say it wasn’t okay for either cases, David, but consider you only got involved in one of them. Even at the time this was all going down, David, you kept bringing up marriage equality and how the lege had to vote on it over and over again… yet made barely a whisper about the amendment that was equally likely to be killed without the necessary vote: health care.
<
p>This should all be water under the bridge all these years later, of course, except for the fact that there’s a serious pattern going on and I’m afraid, David, you’re a part of it. This is another example of why some in the liberal blogosphere have to ‘man up’ as the saying goes and be willing to get down and dirty every once in a while. I certainly don’t question the morals of these fine folks, only their commitment to do what’s necessary. I believe the term I called them back in 06 were “process people” – people willing to let the process get in the way of helping people. When the process is broken, David, we have a duty to fix it or take advantage of it – but “process people” are willing to do neither, all the while our foes will do whatever works best for them should liberals not be organized and fully committed.
<
p>There are plenty of issues that get killed that we all want and rarely hear about, because folks in other communities are willing to do whatever it takes to kill them, or pass them, depending on the circumstances. Unfortunately, unless we’re willing to play fire with fire, there’s not a whole ton we can do about others. That’s why all these “process people” must start to realize we need to do what it takes to get things passed, even if we’re going against tradition and occasionally even bending rules and regulations, most especially those which are never enforced. Otherwise, we will almost always lose, while the special interests and bigots will win. The fact that the liberal community has so many people willing to bite their nose to spite their face is killing us and I hope, one day, David, that you “get it” – though that will almost certainly mean something that you consider a government tragedy dramatically effects you, which is something I would never want to see.
Sorry to step in here, but I don’t recall hearing anyone say that the lege should not vote on the health care question, which is probably why no one bothered to disagree and say they should follow the process. If anything, the lege was able to avoid voting on health care question because all the chatter that they shouldn’t vote on the marriage question made it acceptable to blow it off.
Few were standing up for the health care bill, demanding they vote on it because it was constitutionally required. There was a double standard, even on the liberal side.
But many put a lot more effort into vigorously repeating the meme that the marriage amendment absolutely must come for a vote or the sky will fall (OK, I’m using a bit of an ironic exaggeration) when the forces of corruption were more comfortable with killing the idea of putting health care in the constitution and BMG’s resistance to that idea was the lamb to the lion they offered on the marriage debate. Perhaps the new speaker DeLeo will allow a health care amendment to finally come to the floor for an up and down vote. We can only hope.
<
p>And saying that they used not voting on marriage as cover to not vote on the health care amendment is quite a stretch, actually.
I reject your version, because it is not accurate. And that’s all I’m going to say. I’m done with this argument.
This has everything to do with the here and now. I noted that this particular issue would be ‘water under the bridge,’ but it’s a pattern you’ve often repeated on many other issues.
<
p>Too often you’re with important causes… in spirit. Too often that’s not really good enough. I wouldn’t mention this if not for the fact that you have the most powerful liberal blog in all of Massachusetts – one of the most powerful and/or effective state blogs in the country.
<
p>Ultimately, what happens at BMG matters, even if it’s just a little bit. The powers that be pay attention to what goes on here – and let me assure you they’re very thankful this blog doesn’t have slightly more radical leadership. Not only does the process-people syndrome going on between you and Bob create an opportunity cost, but often times it results in BMG actually working against progress, even when you believe the right thing, but let the process get in the way.
<
p>Most other people don’t give a shit about the process and will do anything to get what they want. I would never suggest going that far. It would just be nice to have more liberals willing to dramatically part from ancient traditions, or bypass some rarely-used, arcane rule that everyone else ignores, except for a contingent of purists in the ideological left.
<
p>Maybe it’s a double edged sword – if you weren’t such a legal wonk BMG may never have become what it has – but everything can, and should, evolve. It can occasionally be okay to bend rules to succeed – in fact, sometimes it may be the only way to get there. I appreciate your legal expertise – it’s a great asset around here and makes for many interesting blogs – but occasionally we’ve got to bypass parts of the perfect process for doing what’s right. Sometimes the end justifies the means.
Let the record show Ryan’s position.
Not all the time, but when it comes to bending regulations that everyone else is bending, you damn well better believe it, at least for the important things.
<
p>I wouldn’t go half as far as the right wing or corporate interests have gone (outright lying, denying individual rights, etc.), but occasionally we do have to be ‘tougher’ and willing to bend lines, if not fully cross them, to ensure that the good guys win, so to speak. Otherwise, lives are ruined or made much, much worse, just so we can be satisfied that we dotted our i’s and crossed our t’s, settling for satisfaction in obeying the precise process whilst losing the war. I’ll tell you what, that doesn’t give me much satisfaction.
<
p>People care about health care and jobs, they don’t give a damn how we get it for them. They don’t care about filibusters, burying bad bills in study or employing universally ignored ancient government processes and rules, even if they really aren’t kosher. People only care when their own personal liberties are denied, or when they can’t find a job or when their health insurance caps drug coverage when they have a chronic illness, forcing them to go without treatment.
<
p>The forces working against these things do so using any means necessary – the fact that we haven’t explains why you can be fired for being gay or denied insurance based on preexisting conditions in most states, or have credit cards with a 28% interest rate. I don’t think we have to become bad people to achieve good results – I’d settle for less naivety.
don’t forget the trains
as i see it, our fair access to the law is being hindered by two things:
1. bigots who will bend, break, ignore and otherwise stomp the law as they see fit, and
2. letter-of-the-law folks who insist we live with the illegal status quo imposed upon us until it can be changed using the sanctioned means already bypassed by the haters.
<
p>i fully understand the scariness of bending the law. but we already live in a vigilante society. if the law enforcement mechanism doesn’t work, it is self-defense to use other means to achieve parity. the spirit of the law should never be murdered by the letter of the law.
If the law enforcement mechanism doesn’t work, you create a more effective enforcement mechanism. Spirits of laws are very vague things, and I don’t trust rules that can’t be explained on paper.
<
p>There are/were some who argued we should set a good example and ban torture outright, but that leaders should be able to “bend” the rule about what torture is in “extreme” circumstances. I put both of these in quotes because they’re both clearly very nebulous concepts.
<
p>Better, in my mind, to develop a system where a legal process is clearly defined, and that be both the letter and the spirit. If circumstances arise that reveal a weakness, you alter the law to fit the new situation.
<
p>You don’t resort to vigilantism.
there is nothing wrong with the law – the u.s. constitution seems quite sound to me. the problems is enforcing it. but when legislators, law enforcement and many in the judicial system and even presidents (including obama) collude to selectively ignore it, what is left for the rest of us to do? just how do you propose we change the system in a meaningful time frame when the people in power and the majority of those who elect them refuse? it is a classic case of the minority being subject to the will of the majority. and in this case, the courts (the last refuge of the minority) are too often in the same mindset as the majority when it comes to equal protection of the laws for lgbt people.
Lest we forget that MLK went to jail. You are absolutely right to consider that the creation of ‘effective enforcement mechanism[s]’ is the goal. Furthermore, it should be noted that the goal is also to enact more just laws (or repeal unjust ones). It should be noted that mere voting does not always produce these results. Possible responses to resistance on either of these desired results include speaking out, activism, disobedience (or vigilantism depending on your POV or specific context). Developing a system is all well and good and is a desired result, but many times society needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into just action by force of will. The means of this will certainly matters, but it can also be certainly just to use disobedience or disruption toward just ends. History has demonstrated the soundness of this principal.
MLK is a great example here. Dr. King put himself in situation where he knew he would be punished, in order to highlight the unjustness of those laws. This prompted widespread change of laws to a more just system.
<
p>It seemed like some were advocating bending rules because the other side is cheating too. To me, that just perpetuates an attitude of lawlessness, because it just continues to escalate. MLK sought to bring widespread change of the rules, rather than widespread cheating and “exemptions.” If I misunderstood the position of others, I apologize.
… for me to understand exactly what it is that you fear perpetuating, you’d need to explain exactly what the ‘rules’ are as you see them and what ‘cheating’ is. These sound like legitimate fears, but we can’t tell unless we know some specifics, because (it seems to me that) the ‘justness’ of an act of ‘vigilantism/disobedience’ depends very much on the surrounding context. For my POV, I’m not aware of any context surrounding any of Laural’s prescriptions that break any rules or seem unjust.
this is what Laurel looks like in real life:
<
p>
<
p>Be afraid. Be very afraid. Vigilantes are about! Here I thought Laurel wanted equal protection under the law – thank goodness we had MassCamel around to let us all know she’s really a vigilante who wants to bring her enemies to their knees…
Though I would hardly call MLK a “vigilante”, what he (and others working among the civil rights movement in the South and elsewhere) did was technically illegal. Sometimes, I believe people like David need to be reminded of things like that.
drive 5 miles above the speed limit?
<
p>
<
p>Some things are universally ignored for a reason; they just don’t really work as currently constituted, but aren’t going to be repealed. That goes for anything from driving a few miles above the speed limit to killing a Massachusetts constitutional amendment by denying it a vote. You pick and choose which letters of the law to violate every day, while clinging to that spirit. So, please, let’s skip the self righteous moral preachiness. Some people just aren’t willing to do what they do every day when it comes to protecting the rights of others from persecution.
Oversimplification and cherry-picking one line should be the tool of choice of the right, not that of progressives.
And I hope that our side can be vindicated in 2010 in California as well. However, I still think you’re opening a can of worms yourself by getting involved in the debate about moderating comments at the Globe. That’s just my opinion and I think I’ll stand by it, considering the motives of some who claimed to be disguising their true intentions with their “let the people vote” rhetoric. But I appreciate the work you did in helping to defeat the amendment, natch.
Are we a democracy—or are we a republic? What it all boils down to–is who’s ox is being gored. You can’t have it both ways. The voters of Massachusetts spoke re capital punishment and taxes and the legislative leaders sneered at the great unwashed and said—stick it up your kiester.
This likely explains why Calif. now has referendi(ums).
that’s why the Californian government is paying people in IOUs.
I’m not a fan of direct democracy. We need legislators who have resources to research these issues which the rest of us simply don’t have and most of us wouldn’t bother.
On another thread Edgarthearmenian writes:
I started reflecting on why we get this comment so often from the right. For example, I rarely disagree with LightIris but I don’t think I’ve ever found his/her comments to be banal or predictable.
<
p>I think this is all a matter of perspective.
<
p>Conservatives want a debate on what divides liberals from conservatives. (Should a stimulus consist of spending in addition to tax cuts? How should we fix social security? Should the state reduce the income tax rate?) We liberals sometimes want to discuss that stuff, too.
<
p>But liberals also want to do other things. We want to understand the world around us better and we’re happy to hear liberal perspectives that we haven’t thought of. We also want to win certain political battles. So we’re happy to assume we know what policy is right and go on to discuss how to achieve it politically. And yes, like any group of people sharing something, we like having fun with our shared perspective by making fun of conservatism—or even conservatives, by being snarky.
<
p>When we’re not playing a game that conservatives can join, it looks like group think to them. It seems perfectly legitimate for those of us who think $800 billion is too little stimulus to start various discussions that start from that premise rather than to be constantly answering conservative critiques of it.
That was a very interesting thought. Thanks!
I’ve been thinking about this lately. A lot. I’m the editor of a Hispanic newspaper here and of course follow the Globe’s coverage of all things that have to do with immigrants with a special interest. But then the comments section completely baffles me, and I thought it was just me. I honestly can’t believe the amount of racism, narrowness, simplistic arguments, etc., that you see there. Are they the true Globe readers? Are the more intellectual, sophisticated readers still getting the paper delivered or are they just not online-comments savvy? Don’t get me wrong, it’s not even the fact that they are pro o anti immigrant, the comments are just plainly stupid, driving to ZERO intellectual debate at all.
I was actually toying with the idea of writing an editorial about this on my paper, and after reading this post I am for sure. I guess I was glad to see that I wasn’t the only one noticing something going on there. Makes you wonder why, of the top 10 newspaper websites in the country, Boston.com was the only one that saw its online readership decline during 2008. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28873508/).
-Marcela G.
I’d be interested in your thoughts as a newspaper editor on what newspapers need to do to (a) stay relevant; (b) maintain or increase readership; and (c) avoid becoming crapfests like the Globe’s comment sections.
yo David:
<
p>Too long for the front page. Bury some of those quotes “below the fold”, wouldja? You’re hogging too much front page real estate.
Feature-length front-page posts are par for the course. đŸ˜‰
i expect a full-color spread, with weather forecast! đŸ˜€
Interesting post. I often read the news site of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and have noticed something similar. There, not only can you leave a comment but you can also recommend others, and visitors can have the comments ranked by recommendations.
<
p>What has happened is neverending whining on all issues, usually from a perspective that doesn’t match Canadian public opinion — antipathy for the ruling Conservative Party, anti-Americanism, bigotry against French Canadians, anti-labor foot-stamping, etc. Overall, it shows a level of keening hatred that doesn’t match the reality of Canada.
<
p>I think you have combination in both cases of very casual, uninformed news gatherers retreating behind anonymity, and seeking to scapegoat their own personal failings. Sites such as this one, on left or right, aren’t always welcoming to people with a transitory interest in politics. However, general news sites offer somebody shopping for a lawnmower a chance to safely outline their Manichean worldview in the process.
This is a very specialized site. It assumes a lot of its readers (who is Sam Yoon, what is his job, what are his chances, why is is it a big deal he’s running, etc. — just in one post). Somebody only passably interested or familiar with politics may not feel comfortable here. I used to surf at Fire Joe Morgan, where they would talk about VORP, EqA, and all manner of baseball statistics. Not very welcoming to a non-stathead such as myself.
It would be interesting to see a moderation model based on Slashdot, which has always worked pretty well. There, you’re occasionally given “Moderator” privileges. You can then rank comments however you want. People use the rankings from the multiple moderators to view the discussion at the level they want (as in “don’t show me anything below insightful”) and it reduces the noise considerably.
<
p>One cool thing: If you post in a thread, you’re not allowed to be a Moderator for that thread. You post or you judge, but not both.
<
p>As an added bonus, people can volunteer their services to review some of the moderator’s decisions, and agree or disagree with them. I think that meta-moderation helps determine if/when/how often you’re asked to moderate again.
<
p>It’s a good model, but requires some effort from the site’s members. It makes the discussions useful, rather than noise, however.
means the press is free to print whatever it wants if it own the press. The Globe owns those pages. Readers have no Constitutional right to post on the Globe’s pages. It seems to me that the Globe can screen comments. Idiots who want to post offensive stuff about some poor high school girl can start their own blogs. THAT is Freedom of Speech.
There’s a similar phenomenon going on on “MassLive,” the online home of the Springfield Republican. There are two different kinds of online comments. MassLive has a forum section separated out by town/city. Many of the threads therein run from ridiculous to offensive but, much as here, as you learn about the posters, you can glean some interesting insight and information. The comments attached to news stories, however, are useless. All I can deduce is that the post-news story comments are more knee-jerk reactions, more likely to come from anger and bile.
<
p>Does the New York Times have different policies than the Globe, or the Republican? I often feel that, here on BMG, we police ourselves; there’s a sense of community responsibility. Reading MassLive, I have to struggle each day with the desire to react to some really vicious comments versus not adding fuel to the fire. Is it possible, or even worth the trouble, to try to change the tone of such threads?
Pat, I think it is possible to change the tone of a thread by trying to start the process.
<
p>Remember the story last week on Masslive about the 2-year old who escaped from her house at 4am? The first few comments were predictable, typical “that mother should be shot” stuff.
<
p>I was the first poster who said “hey, wait a minute, this kid escaped while her parents were asleep, how can you accuse them of not keeping their eyes on their kids.” And you know what? A lot of other people shared their own personal stories about kids getting out of the house, some even in the middle of the night. And others chastised the knee-jerk posters for being too narrowminded.
<
p>I think that not calling out the hatred just emboldens the people spewing it. It also gives people who may not yet have hatred solidified another perspective. Sometimes it feels like a losing battle, but sometimes, like with the 2-year old, the change can be immediate.
I don’t disagree with you and I’ve had similar experiences, but I’ve certainly had the opposite reaction where I’ve been completely vilified. I’d like to think that you’re right; that’s it’s always worth it to inject some reason.
is for keeping the comments open and moderating them thoroughly to quickly remove ones that violate a clearly defined moderation policy.
<
p>I like the fact that comments are allowed on all articles on Boston.com and I’m bewildered why that’s not the case on NYTimes.com .
Why in the world does this comment, clearly part of the discussion, merit deletion?
<
p>A little intolerant, no?
At one point he was complaining about a couple of conservative sites that had “censored” him.
Thanks for pointing this out, KBusch! I also cannot understand why “they” would want my comment deleted.
I don’t actually want it deleted, silly. It takes like eight 0’s for that to happen (I should know). I was just making a joke about comments being deleted, as you had suggested the Globe should delete comments that it doesn’t like. It sucks to have comments deleted because the moderator doesn’t like the message, especially if they aren’t insulting anyone or full of bad language.
I’m sorry that’s a straw man. No one here, just no one, is arguing that comments moderators don’t “like” should be deleted. In fact, moderators don’t argue that.
<
p>Moderators generally try to follow a policy of deleting only those comments that are abusive or that constitute bigotry or that harm discussion.
I must have dyslexia or something. Maybe I didn’t have my glasses on, and I thought it said “doesn’t like”, when, now, with my glasses, I can clearly see that it said “follow a policy of deleting only those comments are abusive or that constitute bigotry of that harm discussion”. It’s hard to believe I couldn’t see that before, it’s so many more letters and everything.
You just understood it wrong. Policy does not equal personal preference.
as objective enforcement of policy. And that’s OK. It’s just a little deluded to contend that moderators can follow a clearly defined policy evenly, and not be biased against posts they don’t like. They aren’t robots.
This argument is insane: it is an argument against policy in general — even against laws.
<
p>You’re saying: Since nothing humans do can have machine-like perfection, we can never have policies and we can never strive to be objective.
Just that it should be acknowledged that deletion rules are always enforced subjectively, like BMG acknowledges. Its not only their prerogative to be subjective, it’s impossible not to be subjective. So since that is the case with comments, the point I was making with my obviously uncalled-for zero on barbq’s comment calling for removing posts quickly that violate a clearly defined policy, is that it’s a little sanctimonious and naive to pretend that it works that way, and, well, let’s see how you like it when someone says your comment should be deleted.
<
p>I agree that filth, threats and slander should be removed from Globe comments, but when people merely express their views, even if the moderator deems it racist or homophobic or xenophobic, it should be allowed to stay.
Yes, moderators are human and therefore can’t be perfectly objective. So, when a moderator’s action is in dispute, hopefully the commenter will seek clarification on that action from the moderator(s) or editorial staff. And if that doesn’t yield satisfactory results, the issue can be discussed in a different forum.
<
p>I think the BMG policy of using group ratings to do moderation is interesting. I wonder how well it works and whether it would work well on other blogs with different audiences.
<
p>I agree with you about what should not be tolerated in Globe comments, but I don’t think any form of bigotry should be allowed. I wouldn’t want to read any comments that discriminated against me or my family and I am pretty sure most people feel similarly.
Hey, you really crack me up when you twist my words into something I never meant and then jokingly mark my comment for deletion. That’s totally disrespectful, you should be ashamed of yourself.
I sometimes dip into the comments of news stories online and always find the same cesspool. (David’s examples are pretty tame, btw.) There maybe the potential for some kind of civic commons here, but not without some mechanisms to thwart the intellectual version of Gresham’s Law.
<
p>Are there any places where this works? I don’t know of any, but if there are, can the Globe learn from them?
See my post on Slashdot (http://slashdot.org) above.
http://www.metafilter.com/
Courtesy of Penny Arcade:
I think the same point could have been made in a less crass way. Think of the children reading this! I also disagree that anonymity turns normal people into jerks. The problem isn’t anonymity, it’s poor moderation.
and I found sco’s post distasteful.
and I found it just fine.
People flame and defame because they’ve got personality issues. They may not embrace traits of self-control and civility and they may feel powerless, angry and want to strike out. Sure, you can be more outspoken when you’re anonymous but neither anonymity or poor moderation “make” anyone act crassly or viciously.
I didn’t say that poor moderation makes anyone act the way they do, I just said it was the problem, meaning that it allows and reinforces such anti-social behavior to continue.
you’re not anywhere near as anonymous on a blog. Even if you are “anonymous,” you still have a handle – and many are much less anonymous than that, because of the community aspect. Newspapers don’t create great communities or community tools. They often don’t even force handles.
<
p>I know probably 1/4 to a 1/2 of the prominent posters on BMG personally, having met them at least once at some point – from Amberpaw to Lynne to the editors to Joe. I doubt I’m unique in that point.Blogs encourage offline meetups and happenstances, or at least have threaded discussion so you can engage with people at a personal level. Yet, how often do we know or even form e-lationships with people on boston.com or wickedlocal? I’d guess just about never.
…of civic engagement and social capital. Good points. Is there actually a way to engage in private two-way discussion via threaded discussion as you seem to imply, Ryepower12?
We are right now. You asked me an answer, I hit the reply and answered your question directly. In a newspaper online reply form, I couldn’t do that.
But I’d like to give you a 7 for being right on point and for busting out Penny Arcade.
<
p>Ergo, five for you.
“arbiters of the sensible”? Anyway, I wonder if allowing unfiltered comments increases or decreases site traffic and thus (presumably) advertising revenue? Reactionaries and racists are allowed to have their say on Boston.com. So are radicals and those who distrust the Globe out of a “progressive” instinct. What’s the harm? I think there’s more potential for harm in censorship than in unfettered free speech.
If the goal is to maximize advertising revenue, then maybe allowing unfettered comments including nastiness is the right strategy. Whether that’s an effective strategy is up for debate, and I’m inclined to think it would back-fire and actually turn many people off.
<
p>If the goal is to offer a platform for civilized discussion whereby competing viewpoints are respected, but venom is not, then filters are necessary. I tend to think this would result in higher traffic and higher ad revenues.
<
p>The point is to keep the discussion civil and not to censor different viewpoints.
As I note above, there are people on the Globe boards whose sole intent is to disrupt. I have no issue with filtering their comments.
I’ve been a member of a fair number of liberal groups that put up with a disruptive member for years and years. If the goal is to put up with everyone who comes in the door, I suppose, that’s fine.
<
p>But there’s an implicit choice, there. One pays for such accommodation in ineffectiveness, lost members, and bad decisions.
<
p>So, too, here.
<
p>Blue Mass Group is only as good as the writing. If it’s vibrant, sharply written, informed, witty, and insightful, it’s great. If it has to consist of answering the same Republican talking point 50 times, it’s tiresome.
<
p>The rules of the road go some part of the way toward defining what contributes to good dialog. Part of the strength of the community here is what this community excludes.
<
p>When it was still up, Billmon’s Whiskey Bar was excellent — and not only because Billmon was an excellent writer. Before he closed them, the comments were spectacular. They were closely moderated and they made for rewarding reading from beginning to end.
There have been quite a few, shall we say, “narrow-minded”, views allowed here, especially during the debate about whether or not to send the petition-sponsored constitutional amendment banning marriage equality to a full up-or-down vote to the full legislature. Granted, it worked out, but there was little moderation of the obvious viewpoints behind the “concern” for the “people”. Look at what happened in California and tell me if it’s OK to have allowed the right-wing meme to advocate such a risk to go unchecked here and then suddenly decide that we now want the Boston Globe to operate differently. We need some consistency either way.
<
p>And no, I don’t buy the it’s a newspaper vs. a blog argument, just because we now find out that “a small cadre of folks” are offending other groups and individuals. Gay people were offended by what was happening here, and many left and have yet to come back, and many probably never will. What’s good for the goose…
Why is “the right-wing meme” not protected as free speech? Are you advocating only left-wing meme?
<
p>Why are progressives only tolerant of their own viewpoint? Conservative public opinion is demeaned as toxic and not to be allowed.
<
p>The hypocrisy is that progressives are the one who wish to the moderating, choosing only certain approved “obvious viewpoints” to be aired.
kinda throws a wrench in your logic, doesn’t it?
to pretend he’s being victimized. How can a conservative get down with the edgy misunderstood outsider thing if you keep throwing reality in his face?
just the virulent strain of progressive attitude about what I thought sounded like moderating the Globe blog to remove “hateful” or “bigoted,” speech. I’d agree to it but only if I can be the moderator.
<
p>Otherwise, ALL speech must be permitted on the blog if it is public which I think the Globe’s is. Alternatively, drop the blog altogether. But as long as there’s a blog, it should be unrestricted except for maybe profanity, threats to harm, etc.
<
p>This is analogous to academic campus speech restrictions. Farrakan is OK, but can’t let Ann Coulter talk.
Below “they” makes an interesting point. The Globe site asks you to “leave a comment”. There are no threads. It does not foster discussion. This blog does. You reply. You don’t just write, “Kilroy was here” and go.
<
p>Once you realize you want a discussion, then ask what kind of discussion you want to have. Just as each plant has its species of aphid, each kind of discussion has its own disrupter.
Was Marriage’s post implying that certain opinion might not be “allowed”, i.e., “right-wing meme”? This seems to imply there’s something dirty about difference of opinion when it objects to progressive dogma.
<
p>The whole CA Prop 8 issue comes to mind. And “health care is a right.” There are plenty of folks who disagree with both. They should be heard. Not suppressed. This is not a virtue of progressive academia, a lot of print media, or NPR.
<
p>The fact that BMG allows speech from all sides is EXACTLY why the Globe needs to do the same or it will simply wither away as a one-sided megaphone for liberal opinion. BMG is now the Globe’s competition.
I never implied that, but I found it telling that David seemed to be influenced by the right-wingers on the marriage issue, but only gave token treatment for the health care amendment being killed. There was another blog post on a totally different site (naturally) back in early 2007 or so that documented David harping on the (marriage) issue again and again and again <— hyperlinks to every instance the word was used.
<
p>I’m actually, in a way, standing up for the right-wingers posting on the Globe if such is the case here (at BMG). Whatever happens, I just feel it should be consistent across the board, is all.
That’s just absurd. Did the “right-wingers” want the legislature to reject the marriage amendment? Because, lest you forget, that’s what I wanted. I got to my position (“vote, and vote ‘no'”) based on my own analysis of what the Constitution and democratic theory generally required and (as I stated above) what was the most effective way to kill the amendment (and, yeah, I was right about that). I didn’t need any help from the “right-wingers,” thank you very much.
<
p>As for the health care amendment, you can call my position “token” if you want – sticks and stones, and all that. But the fact is, as you well know, that everyone’s attention was focused far more on marriage than on health care, so marriage naturally got the bulk of the discussion. That was true here, and it was true at every other blog, news outlet, and water cooler in the state (except maybe for sites devoted specifically to health care). I was entirely consistent in my calls that both amendments should be voted on.
I’m glad it worked out… in Massachusetts, anyway… for marriage, anyway. As for where everyone’s attention was focused vis a vis marriage vs. the health care amendment, everyone including yours. It seems that although you may not have been influenced by the right wingers on your strategy to handle the amendment (I’ll take your word for it, and I certainly wasn’t implying that you wanted the legislature to send an opportunity for the tyranny of the majority to reign if it did get a full vote among both chambers of the legislature), you were influenced by “everyone”, which is what I’m getting at with the “token” comment. You should have pushed harder with repeated attempts to get people to listen to get the health care amendment the same full vote you felt that the marriage amendment deserved. Consistency is often favored in positions such as these. And by consistent, I mean the same amount of energy devoted as the position. There was an excellent post on another blog that articulated this just right, but it’s rather dated now, and so difficult to find in a Google search. I’ve tried very, very, very hard to find the specific one I’m thinking of, and turned up nada. But to put it in my own words, you shouldn’t necessarily do what “everyone” is doing. You should do what is right, regardless of what is popular at the time.
They invite such on-line comments because many, maybe most, of its readers believe pieces like that are better placed OFF the front page. Save it for “Religion,” “Sports,” or a feature section.
<
p>That’s not even mentioning the breath-taking bias usually exhibited by the Globe’s reporters.
<
p>Even setting aside that chronic bias, fuzzy feature articles like this sharply diminish the news value of the Globe, a very bad business strategy in an era when newsprint readers everywhere can get facts easier and more quickly on line.
<
p>In the Globe’s case, more reliably, too.
<
p>This is an increasingly insular and caviler attitude which is reflected by the Globe’s declining readership and, more to the point, plummeting ad revenue (and at the NYT, too.) It has only a couple of years left before it is rendered valueless.
<
p>Moderating caustic on-line comments, or eliminating them, is the least of the Globe’s worries.
The Boston Globe did a similar piece when Rebecca Lobo broke the same record back in 1991. I can’t tell what page it was printed on, but it was published on March 1, 1991. Here is how the article started:
<
p>
<
p>That doesn’t speak to whether it belongs in the news section, but it isn’t special treatment due to her race, religion, or family background.
Comments in the religion section. How could that possibly go wrong?
Speaking as one who has to resist screaming at something every time I read posts like the Globe’s, I don’t think there’s an inherent solution aside from an open posting policy. For the Globe to ban any comments (aside from those using explicit profanity, threats, etc) would just solidify it’s status as a “anti-American” paper in the eyes of such people.
<
p>None of which should prevent those who support common decency from taking a verbal 2×4 to those who don’t.
allow for “open posting policy” in their letters? Why would it be anymore “anti American” to place similar restrictions and demands on their comment section? Newspapers aren’t the government – they don’t have to (and shouldn’t) give complete freedom of speech to everyone. They have the ability and, indeed, the responsibility to, for example, not allow racist or bigoted speech to appear in their letters or comment sections.
…but in an indirect way, I think. You’re right the Globe has the right to print and not-print whatever they want, including comments. If they had a policy of only allowing comments about bunnies, I’d think that was rather silly, but equally legal.
<
p>I have mixed feelings about their “responsibility.” I certainly don’t enjoy reading foul comments and wish the Globe would issue a “You’re Disgusting” label to them (actually, I would enjoy reading that). Corporate responsibility is a strange animal though.
<
p>My broader point was one of perception. The Globe’s overarching purpose is to provide the news to residents in the most effective way possible, with some editorial. Banning or editing posts would inhibit this, as it would lead some to decide the Globe was actually a weak, decadent, un-American propaganda machine.
I think comments on a newspaper’s stories serve a different purpose than the discussions we have at blogs. The link here says “Discuss“, after all, and on Boston.com it says “Post a Comment” (note the singular). And they get displayed most-recent-first, and aren’t threaded to encourage discussion. They’re more just a way of sampling the public opinion, which is why people want to register their public opinion on them rather than make an argument about something.
<
p>And one of the main things people want to tell the Globe editors is that they always seem to have an agenda and its really annoying to always have to think “OK, what’s the Globe’s progandistic message this time?” Every week there’s a glowing profile of a random home owner or business owner that includes the picture of their partner or their religious dress or former drug use or something. Like, why did this article get titled “Covered In Glory”, if not to make some intended social point about something the editors at the Globe think their readers need attitude-shaping about? Those other papers that seem to have less xenophobic and paranoid comment sections probably aren’t as agenda-driven as the Globe is. So the frustration after seeing another above the fold story that reeks of propaganda is sure to bring out people talking about Hamas or Homosexuals or whatever. If they were a real paper instead of a cadre of subversives trying to advance their eugenic transhumanist Harvard manifest destiny agenda, the comments would be more positive and less deranged sounding to most (brainwashed) people.
to the editor. They should be interesting, thoughtful and, most importantly of all, vetted.
They’re so obsessed with “balance” that any letter expressing a minority opinion gets printed. It doesn’t seem to occur to the editors to compare the letters to the RNC Web site, or last night’s Rush rant, or the latest Jay Severin show, or …
I’ve had letters published; they do phone calls and everything!
<
p>I won’t say that there’s a tendency for ‘balance’ in their letters, which frequently means publishing slightly batty rightwingnuttery, but it’s nothing compared to what gets written in the comments.
<
p>Obviously, it’s not a perfect process, but it’s far better than the process* they have for online comment submission.
<
p>*This assumes you can call their practically nonexistent submission system a “process” to begin with.
They should be periodically screened for threats, racial/ethnic/sexual epithets, and profanity, but otherwise left alone.
you think everything’s fine and we should remain in the status quo. Laughable.
diaries that get front-paged. I agree with RyePower12 on the issue of how LTTEs should be handled by newspaper editors, but as far as the comments on the Globe vis a vis BMG, as I’ve been getting at, there needs to be some consistency, so I don’t necessarily agree with him on that point. I think Farnkoff’s approach should be reserved towards comments on the Globe (and BMG) alone. Allowing a comment to remain on your website is not necessarily an endorsement of the point of view expressed in it by the moderators/editors, obviously.
Just wanted to weigh in that I read the article this morning. It was one of the few articles that I did read. So the lame comments were just plain wrong as well as stupid.
I wonder if the people who comment on the Globe are from the area or just posting to cause problems. I was amazed at the nasty comments the article about me got. Since none of the commenters have to post any information about themselves they are free to be as nasty as they want to be.
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
who have been adversely affected by the economy, the gradual concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, and the negligence and corruption of politicians at all levels of government. They are also, perhaps, people who have suffered inordinate “punishments” for their own errors and sins, and who have become bitter and hateful as a result.
Would deleting these people’s comments make life better for the rest of us? Would it make them change their outlook, abandon their bigotry, “see the light”? Or would it just alienate them even further, confirming, as it were, the existence of a “liberal conspiracy” of educated hypocrites living high on the hog and preaching to the lower orders?
all-out viciousness, threats, profanity, i.e. the worst stuff. The writer of each flaming or nasty comment may represent a cohort of thousands who think the same way. As KBusch said above,
Like KBusch, I’ve also
As long as the vibrant, sharply written, informed, witty, and insightful writers stay involved here, they will marginalize the clunkers. But leave the clunkers in.
There’s a cartoon with the above caption showing a man glued too long and too late to his computer unable to respond to his sleepy wife’s entreaties to go to bed.
<
p>The problem with the clunkers is that they are difficult to ignore. In many cases, the clunkers are written as provocatively as possible. A little voice in my head often says, “What if someone sees no one responded to that conservative dig on a Democratic site? Why, they might think it’s true! KBusch, you have to answer it! You have to! Get out your snark gun. Now.”
<
p>Sometimes I say to the little voice, “Little voice, please shut up.”
<
p>But not everyone can ignore the little voice. [Reference: private communication with others on this site.] I know I don’t always.
<
p>Recently, I suggested that the civil service desperately needs reform, but that that would be difficult. That’s a subtle discussion. If it gets besieged with the conservative hot anecdotes of the week, it will never happen and our better contributors will not touch it.
<
p>It’s easier to argue about Sarah Palin.
Here’s the one you’re looking for, from Massachusetts’ own xkcd:
can have nasty side effects on communities. Wickedlocal is the better example. It can be such a toxic force that nothing really ever gets done in those communities – or innocents become the targets of harassment. It can make local politicians so risk adverse that they don’t try to be or do anything.
<
p>If newspaper comments were treated like letters – what, exactly, would be the harm? The only thing it would effectively do to comment sections different from now is make sure that people aren’t trying to be hurtful just to be hurtful, or harass others, or attack people versus ideas. It’s not very far removed from a complete freedom of speech; it only serves to keep people’s eyes on the prize and focus on the issues at hand, rather than trying to tear down arguments through tearing those down the people who make them. I’m all for freedom of speech, but when it comes to a newspaper comment section, ultimately the papers have to be held just as accountable for what’s said there as they would be in their print – including letters to the editor. They would be wise to adopt similar standards.
<
p>
<
p>They may not help you, but they sure as hell may have helped Bilqis. You’ve seemingly forgot that when it comes to newspaper articles, there’s a third party involved: the people who the stories are about. Though people should be accountable for what they do in life, they shouldn’t be subjected to personal attacks based on who they are.
I get the print version of the Globe but read the Metrowest news on-line (Paper is too Framingham centered for me to actually subscibe as I do not live in Framingham). When I see an article on my town I have a morbid curiosity to read the comments. The type of venom spewed is unbelievable. These posters are for the most part bomb throwers. They complain about all aspects of government but never attend a school committee meeting or a town meeting, yet the schools waste their tax money, the administrators are useless and school committee members are stupid.
<
p>I usually don’t read the Globe on line, but David if your example is “normal” they have bomb throwers at the Globe’s comment pages as well. Both newspapers should just get rid of it.
<
p>At least people who send letters to the editor sign them!
The irony of a post about comments garnering over 100 comments? LOL
<
p>This is soooo…meta…
It would break the Internets.
<
p>I want someone to write a post entitled “Why we need a Fourth Editor…Call for Nominations” just to see how ugly and long-winded it would get.
…which one would it be?
<
p>Two great flame wars in one thread!
Especially funny is the notion of “budget constraints.”