On Thursday, Lee Ann Colacioppo, editor of The Denver Post and a member of its editorial board, announced the comments section on its website will close effective July 1. Sadly, this space for readers’ comments below story posts was not the productive space for engagement Colacioppo had hoped it would be.
Colacioppo and her team witnessed “our commenting section becoming an uncivil place that drives readers away and opens those trying to engage in thoughtful conversation to hateful, personal attacks.”
We’re sorry to see it’s come to this.
Of course, the idea behind any comments section is to contribute to the posted story in some way. Clarify a point, lift up an idea, share some wit in a very human situation. Identify where the story went off the rails. Elevate the conversation.
Again, contribute.
“Share” is our default verb on media platforms. Seems odd, sometimes. Dictionary.com’s definition of share “to use, participate in, enjoy, receive, jointly” often doesn’t match what’s actually happening with comments. In the Post’s and on any platform, including our own.
We get it. Comments are a lot to moderate and manage. Even with our terms of use, https://www.durangoherald.com/terms-of-use/, inappropriate comments are posted, especially on The Durango Herald and The Journal’s Facebook pages. Some readers inevitably see them before they’re yanked. Making sure comments are clean, civil and devoid of personal attacks can be a large task.
One particularly cruel comment was recently posted before readers alerted us. It was no editor’s fault. Trust is handed to commenters. Again, that shared experience. And comments post instantly. The damage was controlled, but the words still painful for the people targeted. We so appreciate those who brought this comment to our attention.
In the Opinion section, we’re on the outside looking in. We’re a separate department from the Herald and Journal’s newsrooms. In Opinion, we don’t have a commenting feature – we’d rather readers write letters. Also, we just don’t have enough humans to properly keep an eye on comments.
We realize our editorials, guest columns and letters would receive more “hits” from readers if we allowed comments. For now, though, our policy feels right and worth sticking with.
We have to hand it to the Post. The paper held on and tried a variety of approaches to discourage wayward, ugly words that hurt more than helped. Beyond encouraging the Post’s reporters and editors to engage with commenters, the paper added “layers of controls around our moderation with professional full-time moderators,” according to Colacioppo.
Please, let these last three words sink in for a moment. “Professional” and “full-time” and “moderators,” as in plural, multiple people. Even with this embarrassment of riches, the paper still couldn’t wrangle comments into what it envisioned for its product and its readers.
Colacioppo and her team weighed the value of the comments section. In the end, most were no longer worth the space created for them.
She did encourage readers to email reporters directly through their bylines. She included a link to a full directory of the Post’s staff members and best ways contact them directly.
The end of comments is a loss because it’s the end of a channel for debate.
It makes sense that the Post saw to do away with comments. Trust was broken. And, once earned, that trust is too just precious to lose.
