“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 !”.

a blog without comments - which is what Bolt appears to be proposing as a solution today - is hardly a blog at all.

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.

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.

No, it’s a column!

“(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!

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.