Brady 's bunch; Round table talk at the post

Jim Brady will gather some folks for a Round Table discussion at the Post tomorrow with:
Jeff Jarvis, Buzz Machine
Jane Hamsher, firedoglake
Jay Rosen, PressThink
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit
Jim Brady, washingtonpost.com

I pre-sent my two cents worth in advance - a quick summation of the earlier posts and some of my comments on other blogs from over the past day or so. The submission form had server problems, so I don't know if it made it through:

Ive been thinking about your current situation, as we've had good success w/ handling reader comments on every news article. It does make a better newsroom.

Jim, you've stated that the posters didnt abide by the rules - yet I can't see any rules, or links to rules, on your site. Are there rules governing posting behavior and if so where?

From experience, you cannot make effective use w/reader comments without moderation (or at least continuous monitoring). Its crucial on a lot of levels. Setting up an unattended forum and stepping back is NOT reader engagement. You can either be a passive facilitator or take an active hand in closing the media gap.

You'll also need to establish clear authority for your dept over reporters w/an interactive net presence.If its an issue grown on the web, at that moment they must report to you.

Just my 2 cents from the field. Best of luck, and we'll be watching :-)

The only other thing I can suggest are more specifics re basic online community management ideas: get a verifiable full name and email adress; do not allow anonymous posting (this cuts down the 'road rage' factor); good filtering system; perhaps a waiting period between sign up and allowing a post; a link to rules at every submit comment form; and keep abreast of internet libel law cases moving through the courts.

I think WP has their heart in the right place for reader participation, and I do wish him, sincerely: "Good Luck, Jim."

Further thoughts on WPNI comment shutdown

The journalism blogoshpere is still on this story, with one of the better ongoing discussions occuring at PressThink.

What they need to do now:

1) To answer charges that the comments were deleted based on viewpoint and not language, they need to make all the deleted comments available by request or behind some kind of secure firewall. Alternatively, go back and hand-edit the foul language out of all the posts (A previous poster had also thought this way before I posted on the PressThink blog). This is the fastest way WPNI can restore its trust and transparency to the online readership.

2) Set up a moderating system for blogs. Comments must be pre approved, and a light presence established. A well trained moderator would have stopped this in the bud and chanelled the discussion more effectively but still on topic.

3)Give moderators or someone at post.com the resources and authority to bring affected participants into the mix. In this case, a moderator observing the build up could have contacted Howell and have her respond. Any blogger on post.com must agree to respond immediately if so contacted. If I'm reading the timeline right, this built from Sunday to Thursday, which is far too long on the net.

Its a problem as newsrooms work with their online components, as chains of authority havent been thought out. But at the moment this started, post.com should have been her effective boss and required a timely response, fact checking, etc from Howell.

4) Visibly post clear rules of engagement for commentors. Enforce them.

Others will come to mind as I think more on this.

the Post's unpatrolled playground

Its interesting to see other, more established media firms trying their hand at opening the news process to the public, and how well they succeed - or not.

An egregious lapse in judgment was the LA Times disastrous attempt last June , which led to an onslaught of porn pix and obscene language, since they didn't pre-screen the photos or submissions.

Other papers, however, have been far more successful. In particular, washingtonpost.com has done some outstanding work with blogs, and their trademark live chats with reporters were one of the first initiatives anywhere to break down the wall between trad media and the public. They also were among the first to give that public a sounding space via their general message boards.

In the interest of disclosure, I did get a chance to see their office and operation in November, and I came away quite impressed.

But washingtonpost.com (also known hereafter as WPNI, for the online operations collective of Washington Post Newsweek Interactive) got hit yesterday as nasty reader comments barraged their ombudsman's blog post on Abramoff. Executive editor Jim Brady and staffers scrambled to clean the carnage, as they also do not pre-approve their comments.

Overwhelmed, they finally had to announce a shut-down of comments altogether for this particluar blog. Brady faced the music by discussing the event in an online chat the next morning (Friday, Jan 20).

The chat transcript with Brady is an interesting read: the public's frustration at being suddenly censored versus WPNI's faith in unfettered dialogue. Having worked with our online readership via comments to a great extent (its the cornerstone of our readership engagement), some observations come to mind:

A parenting or playground analogy is useful here. Kids need defined limits, and online community management is no different. By not firmly establishing or posting clear rules and guidelines (at least not that I can see visibly on their site - and if you have to hunt for it, then its not clear enough. We have a link to rules right by the submit form), by not maintaining a light presence to remind the readers of the parameters, WPNI in effect encourages - or at least leaves open the risk of - bad behavior. Classic kid stuff.

The playground of public dialogue was left unpatrolled at recess, and recess rules weren't well explained or reinforced to begin with.

A reason too often cited for a 'hands off' approach to reader comments is a legal one. Many papers I talk to on this issue are advised by their legal team that if you're not monitoring at all, you're less liable or responsible. I call this the 'ignorance is bliss' school of legal thought, and it has its basis in a 1995 case (Stratton Oakmont, 1995 WL323710). The ruling in Stratton held an interactive service provider (Prodigy) liable because it generally reviewed posted content and made this policy known. But Congress realized the inherent disincentive: if efforts to actively monitor and review obscene material actually made you more liable for its appearance, you might as well not bother at all. So Congress enacted Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act to help correct the Stratton ruling.

Thsi isn't meant to be a big post on internet libel law; suffice to say CDA 230(c) was used in a landmark case (2003's Batzel vs Cremers), oft-touted as positive for interactive providers but still leaves some risk of liability if someone advances the theories in Judge Gould's dissent on an appeal or subsequent case.

More recent cases and legal activity are mixed in outcome. Important current (and seemingly contradictory) developments I blogged on here. More cases are on the docket for 2006 - and more papers are venturing in this direction - so it will pay to keep a very close watch.

I fully support Brady's stance of keeping things civil, as he explains in the transcript. We try to do the same. So it's not a legal issue of letting the current deluge of obscenities through, per se. My point is pre-approval, and if the decision to not pre-screen is based on antiquated legal advice from WPNI attorneys, I'd say get after the legal team to do more current homework. You cannot predicate the rapid and momentous current changes in public information and media on 11-year-old Internet case law.

However, they do moderate their message boards and live chats - so why not reader comments on their blogs? A minor critique I have of WPNI is that the live chats and message boards feel separated from the rest of the news presentation, and I'd like to see a little deeper integration across these interactive features. I wonder if this lack of blog comment moderation is a part of this isolation.

There's also a host of other open-media reasons to be more engaged by actively moderating reader input, as I've posted elsewhere throughout this blog.

I'm sure WPNI will ride this out and come up with good solutions that work for them. Jim's gathering some bloggers and journalists for an online discussion about all this, according to the chat transcript. If I can help, I'm happy to be available.