A regional daily editor has hit out at the “ugly, intolerant” views expressed on his own newspaper’s website.
Kevin Ward, of the South Wales Argus, admitted his paper, and the media in general, is often guilty of wrongly using the internet as “a barometer of public opinion”.
Writing in his Editor’s Chair blog, Kevin slammed comments by readers encouraging a suicidal man to jump from a bridge and applauding a local MP’s suggestion that water cannon be used to deal with migrants in Calais.
He also cited an example whereby comments were closed on an article about a taxi driver being banned from driving following a court case, after a series of racist posts about Asian people appeared.
Wrote Kevin: “When did Britain become such an ugly, intolerant nation? It’s a question I often ask myself when I read online comments posted by users of newspaper websites (including the Argus), or diatribes on social media.”
He added: “In all these instances there were also comments from what seemed to me to be voices of reason; people who attempted to see both sides of a story; people who suggested there might be a middle ground or an alternative view.
“By and large, they tended to get shouted down or, in the worst cases, dismissed with abusive language.
“Is this really now what we are as a nation? A place where bigots rule because they happen to have the loudest voices?”
Kevin went on to say that he did not believe this was the case and hoped there was a reality “far removed from those who work themselves into a lather on their keyboards”.
He added: “The internet, although it can often seem like it, is not a barometer of the nation’s views. The media often use it as such because it’s an easy hit. We at the Argus are probably as guilty as any in that regard and therefore I acknowledge the hypocrisy.”
Kevin continued that Britain had a “proud history of tolerance” and offering sanctuary to people fleeing persecution.
He concluded: “Most of all I believe we are a nation of free speech. And that means allowing people to voice their views, no matter how repugnant we might find them, while also recognising that those who shout loudest are almost always those with no solutions to offer.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
“Britain has a proud history of tolerance”.
Is that why we have been involved in more wars than any other country, Kev?
I never see that sentiment echoed in the regional press.
Reading about all the First World War commemorations, one would think .that we actually won the Great War.
One hundred years after the event, when .all the participants are gone, it is surely time for journalists to starting examining what really happened between 1914-1918, and reflecting the other side in their columns.
Report this comment
What Mr Ward is doing here is known as virtue signalling.
Report this comment
I wouldn’t be remotely surprised if comments threads at the end of stories disappear in a few years. They have always been abused, usually by the same very small group of people, and only on the rarest occasions are they worth reading. And then there are all the attendant problems over moderation. Comments threads date back to the days before Twitter, and since Twitter performs that function now, I can’t see any point in continuing with them.
Report this comment
Erm… he said… on a comments thread.
Report this comment
The irony of talking about story comments in a story comment (and as anon), but I’ve always wondered, are they really needed? The assumption has always been that in built commenting systems are an integral part of news websites, why? apart from adding to the number of page impressions they are usually more trouble in moderation, than they are worth.
Need a reaction to something? why not get it from your social media pages.
and if you do bother, if they add value why not try a real name policy? or get people to add their credit card details and charge them 1p a comment
or try something like a third party discussion facility?
that would soon thin the troll herd.
Report this comment
“one would think .that we actually won the Great War.”
Erm…..all the history books I read say we did.
Report this comment
So much for free speech then ‘Dave’
It’s only editors and news groups who are afraid of allowing people a platform to respond to their stories that get worried about comments, surely feedback of any kind is a useful thing?
If you set yourself up as a credible source of news and views you need to be able to swallow the bitter pill of an opinion or view different to your own, it’s years of complacency, lack of competition and a holier than thou attitude by many newspaper publishers that has resulted in comments and threads being so well used as a vehicle to challenge a view
It also gives another pov as opposed to the propaganda pieces and PR puffs some editors are happy to pump out as news these days
Within the business itself ,If companies had a more open and confidential platform to discuss internal matters and policies then many of the so called’ trolls’ would not need recourse to comment on sites such as this, certainly in Suffolk and Norfolk no such facility is available so the ones making the decisions are supported by the back covering yes men they surround themselves with and a site such as HTFP provides a useful and often entertaining platform on which to do so.
If times are that bad where you are Dave, let me know and I’ll put 10p for this comment in the post to you .
Report this comment
Tried to speak to a young journalist about some factual inaccuracies on a story the other week. Her response “It’s getting a lot of clicks so we won’t change it.”
The newer generation of journalists is terrifying.
Report this comment
The South Wales Argus commentators are a particularly nasty breed – just look at any story. *shudders*. The previous editor actually banned comments for more than a year. Nobody complained, head office didn’t even know, and the site was none the worse for it.
Report this comment
Let’s be honest, the kind of people Kevin’s referring to used to be known as the “green ink brigade” back in the old days.
Then it was a case of simply scrunching up their letters and chucking ’em in the bin.
Nowadays, social media has given these keyboard warriors a platform to launch missives at whoever they like…
Report this comment
Meh.
What do you expect?
It’s the internet.
It’s full of hate, bile and rage.
But it also has its downside.
Report this comment
Kidologist – as far as anyone can ‘win’ a war, we did win the Great War, alongside the French, Belgians, Americans and Italians. My grand-dad was gassed on the Somme, having followed the first tanks used in battle over the top. He died at a stupidly early age from the effects of methane poisoning. I’d hate to think he went through all that for nothing.
Report this comment
Nibber – there’s free speech, then there’s the kind of abusive rubbish spooned out by morons who wouldn’t dare spout their bile to your face. ‘Surely feedback of any kind is a useful thing?’ I don’t think so.
Report this comment
Tony Sher
…Yes, like the Americans won all the battles in Vietnam?
The point I was making is that the regional media do not challenge common perceptions enough.
In many cases their pronouncements are too bland for the Internet age with the likes of You Tube and conspiracy theories etc
Don’t be so bloody boring. You can still be the Voice of Reason while getting under the skin and without becoming a racist bigot.
Report this comment
The contrast between how nice British people are face-to-face and how bigoted so many of them are online is nothing new. And this phenomenon isn’t confined to Britain. Something about the Internet and the chance to comment anonymously makes normally quiet, harmless individuals start behaving like morons.
Report this comment
When I worked for a TM title, these people would ring up the newsdesk ten times a day and be ignored. The internet gives them somewhere to air their views, sadly.
Report this comment
@Nibber all I’m saying is that from a business point of view you are allocating resources for moderators and it takes time to deal with legal complaints, trolls spammers etc.
Are newspapers really properly equipped to do this amongst everything else they do? or is it best left to the social networks?
What is the gain for a business? I think a lot of platforms just lazily lump on commenting sections without thinking of alternatives or whether it is worth bothering at all. I personally enjoy reading and adding comments (obviously!) but, I can see if you were looking from a business perspective why you wouldn’t run them.
Report this comment
Bile, rage and ranting are nothing new. These are the same idiots who used to (and probably still do) ring local radio stations’ phone-ins. They weren’t a good barometer of public opinion then and they aren’t now. They’re just nutters.
Report this comment
The Brighton Argus has about twenty/thirty people who just slag the paper and people in off on a daily basis, does the Editor do anything about it, no, they provide 50% of the daily hits, so of course not.
Report this comment
Nibber, I’m not sure you fully understand the concept of free speech. It the only exists if you are willing to be held accountable for what you say which is why we have laws around defamation.
If you are posting extreme off-topic opinions to an online message board under a fake name then you should expect, under existing case law (Karim vs Newsquest), to have your comments removed or be banned.
If, as Dave suggests, users are required to register their real identity with a website before they are allowed to make a post (which could be confirmed by a one-off 1p credit card transaction), newspaper editors might be more comfortable with hosting seemingly outrageous comments under the Defamation Act 2003.
Due to the somewhat intensive record-keeping required to comply with this Act, most newspapers just abide by existing case law instead.
I have managed several comment boards in the past and Dave’s suggestion of getting reaction on social media is a good one, but not without its own issues.
It makes sense to encourage conversation on an appropriate platform and with Facebook there is a greater emphasis on ‘real names’ under its own single-profile policy.
This is, obviously, not foolproof and fake accounts are easy to create, but if regular offenders are reported without fail, the process of creating a new account every time you want to say something outrageous becomes more tiresome than actually posting a more moderate opinion via a real account. In my experience, this reduces ‘trolling’ dramatically.
The main issue for newspapers is that the users don’t create ‘actions’ on the website which reduces clicks and, therefore, advertising potential. In my opinion, creating a bigger buzz often means more traffic to the story but it’s a mixed bag.
The final issue is that, as far as I’m aware, a libel from a Facebook post on a newspaper website has not yet been tested in case law. Would Facebook or the newspaper be considered as the publisher? Facebook would argue its own moderation policy and the newspaper would argue it as being out of its control.
Whatever the outcome, more and more people are being prosecuted over so-called ‘free speech’ on social media platforms, blogs and websites, and rightly so. Some might call it an attack on personal liberties but why should the authors of these publications be free from the constraints under which our entire press industry operates?
Report this comment
Brits have always been intolerant. Lots of little racists and nasties out there. Social media has given the weirdos a platform for their warped views, that’s all.
Report this comment
Free speech is free speech. Bottom line.
Report this comment
Dave, London: You cannot have “factual inaccuracies”. They are either fact or they are not.
Report this comment
In my experience abs where I when its the editors or I’ve if they’re many assistants who scan the comments as moderators
I think that to remove the facility would add weight to the view that comments aren’t welcomed and alternate views aren’t worthy of consideration.
They do as nibber says,provide a platform for an alternate point of view that may not exist elsewhere and in amongst the many ‘ avant garde’ views which we can all spot and ignore,quite often valid points are raised
Report this comment
‘ abs where I when’??
That should of course be
And where I work
Report this comment
Echo and the Bunnymen…your granddad didn’t start the war, but died fighting for freedom. A noble cause.
But the rulers in Britain who took us to war weren’t fighting for freedom. They were fighting to preserve British imperialism. 1918 saw a military victory, but a disastrous political conclusion for our rulers…the beginning of the break up of the British Empire.
This viewpoint is rarely, if ever, voiced in the British media.
If the regional media is to have any credibility in the Internet age it needs to focus on the truth and not soft soap its readership with platitudes.
Report this comment
Sub Standard, no, it’s not!
Report this comment
The worst examples are in our own industry – vile, personal comments left by bitter, jealous keyboard warriors that are regularly on HTFP.
Report this comment
Kidologist – fair point and one I wouldn’t (necessarily) argue with. But here are two more to consider. One: I don’t recall us ever having any imperial pretensions in Belgium, in whose cause we went to war in 1914-18. And two: when the next lot kicked off, Hitler offered Great Britain the opportunity to keep our Imperial possessions if we stayed out of Europe. The rest, as they say, is history…
Report this comment