For the Record

Dean Wright on Ethics, Innovation and Values

Toward a more thoughtful conversation on stories

Sep 27, 2010 12:19 EDT

Visitors to this space may recall that I wrote this summer about the issues Reuters and other news organizations face in dealing with reader comments on stories.

I’ve become increasingly concerned about the quality of discourse in comments on news stories on and on other major news sites.  On some stories,  the “conversation”  has been little more than  partisans slinging invective at each other under  the cloak of anonymity.

I believe our time-challenged, professional readers want to see a more rewarding conversation—and my colleagues who lead are introducing a new process for comments that I believe will help bring that about.

The new process, which gives special status to readers whose comments have passed muster in the past, won’t address the anonymity issue, but I do think it is an important step toward a more civil and thoughtful conversation.

Let me introduce Richard Baum, Reuters Global Editor for Consumer Media, to tell you about the new process:


Like many major news publishers, we’ve agonized over how to balance our enthusiasm for reader comments on stories with our belief that few people would benefit from a free-for-all. Most of our readers respect our request for comments that “advance the story,” by submitting relevant anecdotes, links and data or by challenging our reporting when they think we’ve fallen short of our editorial standards. It’s rewarding, sometimes even exhilarating, to see the way our audience builds on our coverage.

Where we struggle is with comments that we believe contribute nothing useful to the conversation. I’m not talking about obscenities and spam — we have software that aims to block the publication of those — but something more subjective. Most of our readers are business professionals who value their time highly. We believe they want comments that are as rewarding to read as they are to write. The challenge is how we deliver that experience in a way that doesn’t delay the publication of good comments nor use up resources that might be better deployed on other parts of the site.

I’ll explain how we’re tackling that shortly. But first, here are some examples of the type of comments that fall foul of our moderators:
– racism and other hate language that isn’t caught by our software filters
– obscene words with letters substituted to get around the software filters
– semi-literate spelling; we’re not looking for perfection, but people shouldn’t have to struggle to determine the meaning
– uncivil behavior towards other commentators; debate is welcome, schoolyard taunts are not
– incitement to violence
– comments that have nothing to do with the story
– comments that have been pasted across multiple stories
– comments that are unusually long, unless they’re very well written
– excessive use of capital letters

Some of the guidelines for our moderators are hard to define precisely. Mocking of public people can be fair sport, for example, but a moderator that has just approved 30 comments calling someone an idiot can rightly decide that there’s little incremental value in publishing the 31st. When we block comments of this nature, it’s because of issues of repetition, taste or legal risk, not political bias.

Until recently, our moderation process involved editors going through a basket of all incoming comments, publishing the ones that met our standards and blocking the others. (It’s a binary decision: we don’t have the resources to edit comments.)

This was unsatisfactory because it delayed the publication of good comments, especially overnight and at weekends when our staffing is lighter.

Our new process grants a kind of VIP status on people who have had comments approved previously. When you register to comment on, our moderation software tags you as a new user. Your comments go through the same moderation process as before, but every time we approve a comment, you score a point.

Once you’ve reached a certain number of points, you become a recognized user. Congratulations: your comments will be published instantly from now on. Our editors will still review your comments after they’ve been published and will remove them if they don’t meet our standards. When that happens, you’ll lose points. Lose enough points and you’ll revert to new user status.

The highest scoring commentators will be classified as expert users, earning additional privileges that we’ll implement in future. You can see approval statistics for each reader on public profile pages like this, accessed by clicking on the name next to a comment.

It’s not a perfect system, but we believe it’s a foundation for facilitating a civil and rewarding discussion that’s open to the widest range of people. Let me know what you think.


Now I know why I’m rarely published. I may not be ignorant, illiterate or rude..just average or boring. At least it’s not because of your elitist attitudes.

Posted by pHenry | Report as abusive

You missed one issue – trolls. It would be good to add a ‘rule’ that censored obvious trolls: rnet)

Seems like the article as already attracted one, but by saying that I’m worried I may trigger the “uncivil behavior” rule.

Posted by nicfulton | Report as abusive

I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis as to what is fit to print vrs. what is not. It is not a matter of censorship or being elitist; it is a matter of whether the submission is civil and/or has any value. I fail to comprehend why there are so many writers who use the opportunity to be uncivil and or aggressive.

Posted by FastBill | Report as abusive

Yes, the higher the quality, the better.
The key thing is not to ignore the contrarian viewpoint: today’s poor eccentric is tomorrow’s guru writing his memoirs.
I do leave a url with most of my posts, but they are meant to add value; and my site isn’t monetised.
To share is the best web model – IF it is adding to the sum of insights.

Posted by nbywardslog | Report as abusive

I hope I won’t get ‘nuked’ for this comment, but I’d like to see an improvement on the quality of the stories themselves, if possible.
You say -”Most of our readers are business professionals who value their time highly.” This is descriptive of me, and I sometime I get annoyed reading a story on Reuters that’s not real news (I.E. both new and with minimal importance to anyone…).
In other words, I don’t like being taken for granted as an audience, and I don’t appreciate journalists wasting my time with their (sometime uninformed) opinions rather than real facts.
Reuters is better than most sites I know, but there’s still plenty of room for you to improve, and you need to let your readers help you get better through their comments – as much as possible.

Posted by yr2009 | Report as abusive

[...] Reuters had one of its journalists Dean Wright, posted a blog, “Toward a more thoughtful conversation on stories,” about how Reuters is now developing a new system of combing through its comments sections [...]


Up to now, I have liked commenting. A little creepy to see how you compile user’s comments creating a profile of their opinions. It might have the effect of chilling speech. I like the basic rules about civility but would encourage you to keep censorship to a minimum and to get rid of the user profiles. Privacy and protections matter.

I would also encourage Reuters to not just give us soundbites and to cite the specific study or data relied on in articles. When something looks odd to me, I like to check the source (i.e. – see the specific study cited). If I cannot find the study online because the cite is too vague, I have to doubt the author’s credibility, especially if the data looked skewed at first sight.

Posted by KimoLee | Report as abusive

“I’ve become increasingly concerned about the quality of discourse in comments on news stories on and on other major news sites. On some stories, the “conversation” has been little more than partisans slinging invective at each other under the cloak of anonymity.

I believe our time-challenged, professional readers want to see a more rewarding conversation”

Reuters, you’ve already lost the high ground on this issue by allowing opinion pieces like “America’s Canadian road trip starts today” to appear on your website. The article is little more than a partisan slinging invective under the cloak of journalism. 10/09/23/americas-canadian-road-trip-sta rts-today/

Posted by gmmw | Report as abusive

Post Your Comment

House Rules:
  • We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the story directly or with relevant tangential information
  • We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous.
For the Record BLOG