Sometimes...

The new's shouldn't be what people think of the news, as that is just gossip to me.

Isn't this what all news organizations do? Gossip about what's happening? With the occasional completely invented story?

Yes, comment sections are often abused, as Senan points out. While it is arguable whether there is a place for trolls and how to deal with them in individual cases, censorship of this kind is far less ambiguous.

I don't think too highly of trolls or generally spiteful messages but I'd rather see those than ones that have been replaced by an automated text informing me that something wicked used to be in their place.

I can drop the YouTube analogy, Adder, if you want, and nothing will have changed. On TOTJO, to name a wholly different example, everybody publishes their content in a more or less equal format (which is btw not true of the BBC, which is sure closer to the YT analogy, thank you very much). Let's ignore for the moment the fact that a forum admin has the power to change any post at any time, lock threads, delete threads, ban individuals from threads, sections of the board or the entire board. Also ignoring sermons and front page material, our conversations generally follow the same format. We are equals in the sense that we are having a conversation and not an overarching article or video by one of us with mere comments from the rest of us below. Now, is this place harmed by any one or any finite set of users who contribute content contrary to its doctrine? Do you think less of any one user because of the behaviour of another one?

In fact, I can go a step further still. Some of us remember names from people who were less than pleasant to many of us and through one way or another we rid ourselves of them. Being myself in favour of some of those removals I almost wish to hear people cry "hypocrite!" at me for it...
So would you really feel more comfortable if instead or ontop of the removals also their messages were edited or deleted? And what if you had been away or if you are a newcomer and you hear of a recent trouble maker but all the evidence at your hands are deleted or censored messages? What would you think of a place like that? The following analogy may not be applicable, but it may help to illustrate: Can you imagine a fair court without a defender?

As stated before, it is how you treat your customer what determines your image, not how the audience treats you or itself.
Also, to censor people in this way in the name of upholding an ethical standard of any sort, really, to me sounds much like fornicating in the name of virginity. It's nonsense.

Gisteron, you're raising a very good point here. Rather than hiding the content under a censorship box, the BBC would be better served by responding directly to the offending comments with an explanation or justification for taking issue with it. I would grant them the right to remove patently offensive material (pornography or excessive profanity), but beyond that, they really should consider addressing the comments in the public forum for all to see. Then we can decide as readers if it is the BBC or the person commenting that is in the wrong.

Senan wrote: Gisteron, you're raising a very good point here. Rather than hiding the content under a censorship box, the BBC would be better served by responding directly to the offending comments with an explanation or justification for taking issue with it. I would grant them the right to remove patently offensive material (pornography or excessive profanity), but beyond that, they really should consider addressing the comments in the public forum for all to see. Then we can decide as readers if it is the BBC or the person commenting that is in the wrong.

Do you seriously think the BBC has the time, money, inclination to hire someone to respond full time to BS forum comments like 'american sniper was robbed! Its just another example of the librul media hatin' on true murricans!'

Quicker just to delete that kind of garbage

They do apparently have the time, money and inclination to actually read through the comments and delete the ones they don't like, so obviously that cannot be the issue. Here is a solution even quicker than what they do:

Why not leave it there? Will anybody seriously hold it against BBC that somebody somewhere was wrong on the internet? Why is it their responsibility to protect us from it and if they go through the effort of actually hiding what was said, how do we know they only delete that kind of comments? And why am I even arguing this? There is no argument in favour of deleting or editing comments after they have been posted and no excuse for doing so. Before the internet this would have looked like somebody distributed a pamphlet and then the local authorities came by to collect it from both the streets and from every home it was brought to through an occupant who happened to pick up a copy and then burning the pamphlets in broad daylight in the town square. Just how much more Orwellian can it possibly get and why would anyone, let alone Jedi, approve of this?
I hear you say but BBC isn't an authority. Well, BBC, you are apparently enough of an authority to be defended when you do something like this.

While we're at it, here is a still quicker way to manage this: Nothing forces you to allow comments in the first place. Not every paper posts letters to the editor and not every TV show takes viewer calls and those that don't aren't generally worse or less respectable than the ones that do. But if you are going to allow people to voice their opinion but then you are going to take your time to tamper with those opinions in any way, that is frankly indecent, petty, creepy, disrespectful and undeserving of not just our understanding and support but indeed even undeserving of the most spiteful and ignorant comments you may be going out of your way to hide from the rest of us. [/rant]

It alters the user experience, which points to the brand, which relates to the product, which keeps them operating.... and if people decide to use the service outside of the terms of service then they are abusing the service which will either lead to termination of the service for everyone, or termination of the service to the individuals abusing it.... so generally techniques are used to signal to the abuser that they are doing the wrong thing, editing out particular content, deletion before finally at last resort trying to stop that person accessing the service if they prove they cannot use the service according to the terms of its provision.

Each entity would define its approach to content based on the service it delivers, and I agree with Des, someone like the BBC has no time to explain its terms of service to each and every person who might violate them just so the entity can demonstrate that they are indeed following them properly.

They could choose to engage with people who do so, but then they'd be operating a different service... which is the fundamental point, the difference, I made by comparing the OP's BBC and your YT example. So the TOTJO is an interesting example because it's nature is different again from either of those, and we might engage a bit more with people who breach the terms because we try to help people deal with struggles and emotions etc. But if users experience that the terms are not being followed by the site operators at any of those sites, or any site, then they can vote with their feet and leave - hopefully complaining in the process so the entity can reflect on its errors and modify its operations. It's more likely that the users do not know the terms of service or do not agree with them and instead feel shafted when they suffer the consequences IMO..... but not always. I wish I could say care of the membership is right up there and synonymous with care of the organization for most successful entities management, but I can say I think it should be.

Desolous wrote: Do you seriously think the BBC has the time, money, inclination to hire someone to respond full time to BS forum comments like 'american sniper was robbed! Its just another example of the librul media hatin' on true murricans!'

Yes, I do. I work for CBS, one of the largest media companies in the world. We have full time employees in this company that do nothing but monitor the Facebook and Twitter feeds of our television and radio stations and on-air personalities in order to respond to users with PR approved answers. We have other full time employees who monitor the comment sections of every CBS owned website. All of them are tasked with protecting the reputation of our company while also addressing the complaints and concerns of those who consume our content. Don't get me wrong though, CBS does censor and delete comments in accordance with our Terms of Use. Generally we try to leave them up and allow our on-air personalities to respond to them instead, but when something is patently offensive, it will be removed.

The BBC is equally international in scale and equally equipped to address these issues. I can't speak to this specific example though, because I don't know if they did attempt a dialogue with the users violating their Terms of Use .

And yes, Adder, they do have Terms of Use and a Privacy Policy that they are legally required to have. They certainly have time to explain these terms to those who violate them. All they have to do is post the link, but I think they should choose to engage with these people. That's what a dialogue is.

Senan wrote: And yes, Adder, they do have Terms of Use and a Privacy Policy that they are legally required to have. They certainly have time to explain these terms to those who violate them. All they have to do is post the link, but I think they should choose to engage with these people. That's what a dialogue is.

I know, some do post a link in the automated deletion comment, such as 'post deleted for breach of ToS' with a link. It would certainly give people more jobs, if that is what they wanted to do, but social media these days is more like antisocial media, so it might make more trouble then they'd hope. Do you consider that level of user engagement journalism though? It's pretty hard to stop anonymous posting even with registration, but if they had a pay to access model then I think it would be realistically possible.

Gisteron wrote: Nothing forces you to allow comments in the first place.

The time and effort argument is completely void. The cheapest and quickest way to deal with it is not having to deal with it. Going out of your way to be shitty to your audience is not a better solution than some other; it is rather literally the worst solution to a problem they already went through the effort of creating.

Gisteron wrote:

Gisteron wrote: Nothing forces you to allow comments in the first place.

The time and effort argument is completely void. The cheapest and quickest way to deal with it is not having to deal with it. Going out of your way to be shitty to your audience is not a better solution than some other; it is rather literally the worst solution to a problem they already went through the effort of creating.

One way communication is certainly a way to avoid the 'problem', but it may not be the best one. Like it or not, journalism is no longer just about delivering the news. It has become a two way conversation with your audience, as I believe it should be. Media companies did not create this conversation. It is a side effect of increased access to the internet, and more recently social media. To ignore your audience or worse prevent your audience from participating in this conversation at all is no longer acceptable. There are too many other sources that will allow this conversation to occur, and your audience will leave you.

One consequence of this conversation is that every idiot out there will believe their opinion is important and they now have a platform from which they can broadcast their stupidity. I like to call it the "Kanye West Effect" :laugh: . However, this conversation also allows for the audience to hold journalists and media as a whole accountable for the content they distribute. The case of Brian Williams lying is just one example. The false identification of a suspect by CNN in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon Bombing is another. When you allow your audience to reply to or comment on your reporting, you are creating a transparency allows people to call you out on your B.S. This is a good thing, even if you have to wade through the crappy comments to find it. Censoring these comments for any reason other than patently offensive or profane content should be avoided at all costs, and this channel of communication should always remain open.