First Dog socks now in stock at the Crikey Emporium!
A cautionary tale…
Bolt’s blog: why the apologies will continue
|
No matter what you think about the man’s work, there’s no denying that Andrew Bolt writes an extraordinarily successful blog that boasts “more than one million hits a month” and “as many as 13,000 comments in a week”. There is no doubt that it’s one of the biggest — if not the biggest — blog in the country in terms of readership and participation. The effort that must be required to manually moderate every single reader comment is mindboggling, and it sounds like Bolt does a decent share of it himself (“more than 10 hours of every choked week”). Genuinely, I dips me lid. However, as Bolt discovered this week, if a single comment is approved that causes immeasurable hurt to one person (especially if that person is a prominent journalist and opponent of the blogger), there will probably be trouble. Here is Bolt on Tuesday:
There’s really only two possible explanations for how the comment “snuck through” if Bolt himself didn’t approve it: the site’s moderators willingly approved a homophobic and abusive email, or the moderators didn’t read it properly. One Bolt reader claims that another comment pointing out the inappropriate nature of the now-deleted comment was submitted and not approved, indicating (if true) that the moderators were at least aware of the homophobic abuse. No matter which way you look at the incident, it appears to be a failure of moderation due to inconsistent and poorly defined guidelines and practices. Adding to the comment moderation headache was a segment on this week’s episode of the ABC’s Hungry Beast, which highlighted examples of intolerant and hateful comments at Andrew Bolt’s blog — the sort that any reader will agree are a reasonably regular feature. Bolt’s defence against both of the issues has essentially been this: moderation at his blog will now be more severe, and it’s really unfair to hold him responsible for what his commenters say. While I agree with Bolt that publication of a comment at a blog does not necessarily indicate endorsement by the blogger, I’m a little surprised that a senior journalist and blogging veteran (a few years in the blogosphere makes you a veteran) is shocked by the realisation that bloggers tend to be associated with the comment threads they spawn. Surely he can’t be that naïve. Bolt’s critics have long pointed out the kind of rubbish that is regularly published in his comment threads and Bolt has long failed to do anything about it, so the sudden hand-wringing and soul-searching comes across as a bit disingenuous, as does the attempt to blame only “students”, “leftists trying to cause michief” and “nutters”. Consistent with the fact that bloggers are somewhat associated with their commenters, the way they manage those commenters is crucial. If only a couple of lone comments among thousands contain hate or intolerance, they can probably be safely ignored as their outlier status speaks for itself, but if strong themes of these attitudes develop across multiple long comment threads, a blogger’s silence can be deafening. (Again for the record, I’m not suggesting that Bolt’s silence indicates endorsement.) In these circumstances a prudent blogger must either respond specifically to comments, opposing any unsavoury sentiments, or use moderation to filter out the stuff they’d rather not have published on the same page as their own words. Bolt claims that his reasonably lax approach to moderation has been in order to “[give] voice to many people who have long felt shut out of public debates” and “allow as free a discussion as possible”. Unfortunately for Bolt, his habit of denying voice and free discussion to those who hold views opposite to his own only feeds into a possible perception of his implied endorsement of the views that are published. The person who abused David Marr in homophobic terms might feel shut out of public debate but Bolt disagreed strongly with those views and (retrospectively) denied that person a voice. Fair enough, too. So if Bolt disagrees strongly with the hate-filled and intolerant views held by the kind of commenters highlighted by Hungry Beast, why have those views been published and gone unchallenged? Once Andrew Bolt has settled on a model for the kind of tone he wants to foster at his blog, News Ltd needs to decide how serious it is about this whole blogging caper. Running a blog means so much more than writing posts, opening up a comments facility, and standing back; the business end of a blog is below the author’s content in the comment threads, and this “wretched week” of Bolt’s is a perfect example of what happens when a blog’s administrators take their eyes off the ball. If News Ltd believes that every comment on one of the country’s busiest blogs needs to be manually reviewed (and it should) then it must allocate the resources necessary to make sure the job is done properly. As long as News Ltd moderators allocated to the task don’t have the time to properly assess each comment, and/or don’t have an understanding of relevant legal issues, there will be lots more apologies issued. And as long as there are no strict guidelines about what the blogger and parent organisation deem to be acceptable reader commentary, we will continue to see more of the same at Andrew Bolt’s blog. |
|
|
15 Comments
Would it kill them to implement a ‘report’ button that put offensive comments forward for review?
Also, I think it’s reasonable for Bolt to complain that the offensive comments come from “students”, “leftists trying to cause michief” and “nutters”, as those groups represent his entire readership.
Great piece, Scott. the only other thing to say that a blog without comments - which is what Bolt appears to be proposing as a solution today - is hardly a blog at all.
The report button is not a bad idea. I’ve seen it used on a forum I visit. It doesn’t create a flood of reports to the admins if the button on a comment is used more than once as only the first click generates a report. Later clicks get a message saying the comment has already been reported.
Great article Scott.
“(Again for the record, I’m not suggesting that Bolt’s silence indicates endorsement.) “
But one could be forgiven for thinking that since he’s not scared to comment directly to posts that counter his views, ie posts from a ‘leftist’ viewpoint, or if one wants to take a pop at someone Bolt likes and respects (eg, John Pasquarale (spelling???)).
Like you say, the silence is deafening!
Well, well, who’d have thought? Andrew Bolt with some homophobic insults on his blog! I have nothing but contempt for Bolt, and anyone with time to waste on his blog site are desperate to be heard? (*edit) I watched with glee one program of Q & A when he patronisingly assured the young woman, (who’s embraced the Islamic faith, and wearing a hijab) that his intention was not to cause racist attitudes or to ‘upset’ her or anyone, and she laughed and said, “yes you were”? It was perfect! I laughed gave her a standing ovation in my lounge room! The look on his face was worth a photo!
Jason: “…a blog without comments… is hardly a blog at all.”
No, it’s a column!
http://mediamcmullah.blogspot.com/search/label/Andrew%20Bolt
Excellent work, Scott.
Jason’s point about a blog without comments is a good one, although I’d note that the News Ltd blogs are missing another feature of blogs - trackbacks or pingbacks. Although their blog posts list a trackback count next to the comment count, trackbacks aren’t recorded.
I wonder whether enabling trackbacks may be a compromise solution for sites that don’t want comments but want to let readers interact with the site’s content. Anyone who wants to be part of the ‘conversation’ can write at their own blog (off the publisher’s web site) and have it show up as a link on the target of the commentary.
A good article Scott.
One of my must-read daily blogs has no comment facility, instead the host posts reader emails and his responses. It obviously doesn’t put people off because his blog traffic has grown in the 2 years I’ve been reading (there’s a site meter), and he wins blog awards and stuff.
I don’t think it’s the one you mean, confessions (I haven’t seen a site meter, certainly), but The Interpreter blog from the Lowy Institute does much the same. I think that works well for a niche or ‘expert’ blog - not sure whether it would be so good for someone trying to reach the masses on all political issues.
Bolt (Edit - can’t say that). The man brings it upon himself, and then he cries to be the victim. If Bolt throws the dice, he must play the game.
As the offending comments are no longer available, it is hard to comment on the appropriateness of their removal. I assume the use of “homophobic” in this context refers to expressions of hate for Marr on the basis of his sexuality.
In general, comments which are homophobic, misogynic, misandric (and others) should be removed from publications based firstly, on the existing legal limitations to free speech and secondly, their importance to the communication as a whole.
“A woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.” - Dr. Samuel Johnson
Scott Bridges’ article seems to suggest that this comment should be deleted from a post (or the whole post deleted) because it is insulting to women. I am confident that many people would consider it (incorrectly) to be evidence of misogyny. The comment could be very important to Dr. Samuel Johnson’s communication in that it reveals an attitude that may influence his argument.
If the comment is removed, the argument, still based on such predjudice, could sound more reasonable and the reader would be less informed about the writer. If the editor considered that the comment revealed nothing of relevance about the author or the argument, then it should be deleted (as should any such superflous sentence).
For a person with such a venemous tongue as David Marr to complain about a blog, I assume the comments must have breached the laws against free speech rather than merely those of good writing. (I do not consider “good taste” as relevant as it is surely the essence of political correctness).
From a wide reading of other comments on other blogs as well as letters to the editor, it seems a very widespread practice for bloggers and editors to “filter out the stuff they’d rather not have published on the same page as their own words”. Frequently, this demonstrates a failure to recognise or respect a well expressed, but contrary view. It also reinforces the sense of alienation felt by many who feel that influential mastheads, channels and sites are really only interested in attacking the usual suspects, whether from the left or the right.
I think that Andrew Bolt’s site performs a very valuable service in allowing a very wide range of both note and pitch, where so many sites merely have a comment containing variants of “me too !”.
BOLT plays the racist fiddle, and his adoring bloggers dance to his tune. Bolt posts a picture of Marr on his blog,he knew the reaction that would produce. Then he cries,he is a victim, not in my book, Mr. Bolt.
Andrew Bolt’s blog blooms on race, Islam, illegal immigration and fear, and some of Pauline Hanson’s race policies, and his wingnuts love every minute of it. Regards, Richard Ryan.
I’ve been a moderator of a high-traffic mailing list in the past, the way it worked was that everyone was moderated when they joined, however after a number of posts that were regarded as ‘ok’ they would be transferred to auto-mod - unless there were objectionable words in the mail. So if it was a regular that posted the mail, and they were clever about use of words, they could get an objectionable mail through. Once. Then they’d goto being banned or perma-mod.