New Rules in the Digital Public Square

08/01/2016 - 14h50

North American researchers conducted an experiment to try to measure the effect of the tone of the comments to articles on readers of newspapers and magazines. Readers were presented with an article about nanotechnology, a subject that the majority of people know little about and have few preconceived ideas, reported the magazine "Science", in an edition from 2013.

Half of the research group read the article, which was accompanied by comments that were polite, informative, civilized and constructive. The other half read the same article, but accompanied by impolite, non-informative, rude and offensive comments, with antagonistic points of view.

The readers of the second version quickly developed a preference and joined one side or the other in the discussion. They agreed passionately with arguments that they had read. This behavior affected the way in which they understood the original text which had been intentionally written to be comprehensive, balanced and trustworthy.

The conclusion reached was that the disagreeable comments polarized the readers leading them to misinterpret the original article.

This reaction changes in cases where the original text deals with polemic themes like, for example, climate change, where readers already have preconceived ideas and positions. The relative civility or incivility of the comments doesn't have an effect.

Folha and most news sites adopt measures to moderate the comments that they publish. There are computer programs that look for key-words in comments and block them. In some cases, the digital screening is accompanied by analysis from editors to filter comments.

It's not an easy task. Folha receives on average more than 10 thousand comments per week. In recent days, in the commentary section for the Politics section, there have been those suggesting the death of one political leader and insulting the relatives of another one.

Another commenter tricked Folha's application, adding graphical characters and images to his message that prevented the program from recognizing text that was insulting a certain public personality.

One reader alerted the Ombudsman to another that was signing himself as "Dom Falafel Atsizan", which is, "nazi" written backwards. Folha blocked him from its pages.

Folha is changing its policy regarding comments on the newspaper's site. It will no longer accept anonymous comments, but will require complete identification and will restrict the commentary section to newspaper subscribers.

Leonardo Cruz, deputy managing editor for Folha's digital edition, explains that the decision was made in order to raise the level of debate in the section.

"Today, even with extensive use of automatic filters and a moderating team, a certain fraction of our readers are able to defeat the process and publish accusations, persecutions, and threatening, racist or discriminatory messages."

The newspaper has been urgently needing to find a more effective procedure to manage its comments policy. I agree with the end to anonymous messages and the requirement for identification of commenters. The restriction of comments to subscribers only, however, seems to me to be a mistake.

The Letters to the Editor section, published on page A3 in the print edition, requires only a complete name and the home city of the reader for the message to be published. Why then, on the site, where it is necessary to fill out a much more complete form, even including a CPF, is a non-subscribing reader prevented from commenting on articles?

I questioned the editorial board about the reason for such a restrictive policy, which excludes even subscribers to the UOL portal who have free access to the digital version of the newspaper.

The explanation given was that "Folha decided to provide this benefit to its most loyal readers, those that financially support the organization in providing quality journalism".

I don't think it makes any difference to the subscriber to have exclusivity in the comments section. To the contrary, it is more logical to assume that someone expressing their opinion wants it to be shared by the greatest number of people.

Giving voice to varied profiles and amplifying the range of civilized comments beyond those of subscribers enriches the pages of Folha. And at the end of the day, this kind of openness could attract new subscribers.

"The New York Times" publishes a ranking of the ten best comments of the week, taking into consideration criteria like popularity, number of recommendations received and the importance of the original article commented on.

It's a good approach. Submitting reader comments to editorial rules drawn up by the journalistic staff provides a mechanism for highlighting and valuing the best ones, while at the same time, leaving in the electronic trash can those comments that temporarily create an uncomfortable tele-catch moment.

Any reader who wishes to comment on this article freely can do so on Sunday (the 31st). The new rules will only enter in vigor starting on Monday, the 1st of August.

Translated by LLOYD HARDER

Read the article in the original language