Ten days ago, the New York Times posted Tara Parker-Pope’s column, “No Answers for Men With Prostate Cancer.” It discussed the federal agency report that concluded that nobody can tell men with prostate cancer what type of treatment is most likely to save their lives – or that any treatment is better than doing nothing.
Many news organizations, when they post such columns online, now offer readers the chance to comment online. As of this morning, 141 people have sent in comments in 10 days. They are all visible following the story posted online. Ms. Parker-Pope has responded to a few of the comments online, but other user comments raise assertions, make claims, ask questions – all unanswered or unchallenged.
That’s disturbing for a number of reasons, the biggest one that it lends the credence of the New York Times‘ website to some spurious information posted on their site in an unchallenged manner.
I would suggest that if the Times is going to moderate some of the discussion, then it should moderate all of the discussion. And I realize what a tough task that would be, with 141 messages in 10 days.
But this should not just be a marketing move – that offering a sense of “online community” is good for business. Journalism principles should enter into this as well. But right now it looks like the New York Times has invited a conversation, got one, and now doesn’t know what to do with it.
And this trend is only going to deepen. Witness CNN’s I-Report feature that invites citizen journalism: “What’s happening where you are? Is news happening in front of your eyes? Pull out your camera and I-Report it for CNN.”
Democratization of news? Or abdication of journalistic oversight responsibility? Read the 141 messages (probably more by the time you get there) on the Times article above and make a judgment about whether the “community” discussion was worthwhile or not.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
bonzo
February 15, 2008 at 9:34 pmThis is always a tough one.
As an aside, 141 comments to handle in ten days doesn’t seem to me to be an inordinate amount of work for the NYT to handle?
There are letters to the editor in the Daily almost every day that have factual errors in them. Does the Daily have a responsibility to correct them or make comments?
Best wishes,
Mr. B.
The Publisher
February 16, 2008 at 8:37 amOne of the ideals of journalism is that it always involves some form of editing – some form of editorial oversight. That’s one of the problems with the two media practices I identify.
There’s a difference, in my mind, between letters to the editor on a page that’s clearly labeled “Opinion” or “Editorials” or “Letters to the Editor” — and cacophony posted at the end of a vetted news story or column.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like