On why I think comments are for suckers...

A Final Review

 *This incremental essay can be read starting with this post, but may work better beginning with: E-News, A Radical Reading Space?

        I set out to prove that the incredibly interactive, global, and collaborative nature of online newspapers has the capacity to radicalize culture.  I wanted to look specifically at the way the comment feature provides a unique and powerful space for the reader to become the writer in a power neutral environment, effectively effacing the hierarchical binary of author/reader or journalist/civilian. Using the criteria established in an earlier post, I have reached an entirely different conclusion.

Ultimately, the comment section in online newspapers comes down to the idea that with the advent of email, the letter to the editor exploded, and newspapers simply did not have the man power to handle, screen and respond to this influx of “talk back”. Rather than have overflowing inboxes and readers that feel ignored, the online newspaper allows people to vent, express themselves, and rant in a somewhat controlled environment. Therefore, the comment section has come to serve the paper as a pressure valve. Just as leaders have for centuries allowed their people controlled spaces of anarchy (think of Carnival, or the desecration of political piñatas in town centers) to placate the masses and hopefully prevent revolt, the online comment section of newspapers allow people to absolutely lose control and spew anything that might come to mind. Even if the comment is ultimately removed because of offensive content (and where the line is drawn between offensive and not is mind boggling), the author still gets to see their comment published. It does not sit on a basement floor or go through the shredder, it enjoys a short but active and often viral online life. The immediacy of posting a comment does therefore remediate the letter to the editor, yet without remediating the hierarchy of power.

     The New York Times comment section is an excellent example of what I am talking about. It is one of the most censored online spaces I have come across, and therefore does not effectively remediate the traditional writing space provided to readers by the paper. The constraints of moderation and the limited amount of articles that are open to comments make the writing space as infused with power dynamics as the letter to the editor was and is. After more thoroughly engaging with the comment feature of this online newspaper, I have to retract my assertion that it is a writing space at all. While I appreciate the Times’ effort to establish a tasteful and non-threatening reading space, the space they have created for comments is too limited and controlled to be considered an actual writing space. I would call it an interactive feature of the website, or even more nefariously, a simulation of a collaborative writing space whose intent is to placate the reading public. The “moderator” of these comments can be likened to the anonymous editor sifting through letters, and the words appearing on the screen are just as much a carefully chosen part of the total product. If the comments were a true remediation of the letter to the editor, then this feature would not only imitate the original, but would allow for improvements upon the form. Instead, the “writing” has been relegated to a separate screen, hidden below the article and overwhelmed by advertisements, giving the distinct impression that no one really cares. Based on the prevalence of questions such as “what was this author thinking?”, “this article is not accurate because I have a different opinion” and “this writer is pretty good, but he really should have done xyz”, I believe the comment section exists so that unsatisfied consumers of the online news product can be directed to an appropriate space of controlled reaction. Rather than provide a radical new space of writing, the comment feature euphemizes power structures dominating the free press which position the reader as consumer.