Comments done right, and wrong
Last week in this space I wrote about reader comment capabilities on the Eagle's and other publications' Web sites and how they add to the conversation between people and the media. No sooner had the column left my desk with the week's pages than I was proved completely right. And wrong.
Last Tuesday, not long after our paper went to press, a series of tornadoes ravaged Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky, killing more than 50 people and laying waste to hundreds of homes and other buildings. Having grown up in Memphis, Tenn. and northern Arkansas, I paid particular attention to the events.
Happily, no one I know was injured or even directly affected by the storm, though plenty of friends of friends are students at the mostly destroyed Union University in Jackson, Tenn. As I watched the online media for coverage, especially the Memphis newspaper — the Commercial Appeal — I saw lots of up to the minute journalism. But what was more striking was what was going on beneath the stories in the comment threads.
People were giving updates on their neighborhoods or responding to other commenters' queries about a part of town not covered by the reporter in the story above. In response to this information, there was an outpouring of gratitude and thanks by those who couldn't reach their loved ones because of storm-related trouble with the phone systems.
It was a quicksilver community, sprouting up out of the ether in response to the event and disappearing with the influx of the next day's news. It was 21st century journalism at it's best and it was a perfect example of how newspapers should function in the new media landscape. The Commercial Appeal was an information hub that everyone could contribute to, a community made possible through the newspaper.
Of course, the good news couldn't continue, and on Thursday the Montana Kaimin — the University of Montana's student newspaper — published an editorial written by the editor that contained an apology to their readership for not covering Ron Paul in the run-up to the Montana caucus. The paper stated that they regretted their decision not to write stories about Paul because they felt he was an "oddball" candidate who wasn't a major player in the election. Paul came in second in the state's caucus last week, garnering 25 percent of the vote.
In response to this apology, the comment board was filled with hundreds of hate-filled diatribes against the paper, the editor and the national media. Commenters, most using only their first names, called the paper's editor treasonous, moronic and much worse in sometimes profanity-laced responses.
The backlash was incredible for its volume and intensity, with those commenters who responded with appreciation for the apology or acknowledgment that the paper is run by students still learning their way in the profession quickly shouted down and torn apart by others for their tolerance.
It was commenting at its best and worst. Welcome to the new media.
—Alex Strickland