When do readers' comments cross the line?
The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division moderates readers' comments on editorials, Op-Ed articles and blog posts to filter out anything that's not germane or that's inappropriate. The former is an easy standard to apply; the latter can be devilishly hard. Today we received several boundary-pushing responses to Gregory Rodriguez's column explaining why the federal census should count illegal immigrants (and not just because the Constitution compels it to). One by "BlackSaint" stood out for its withering description of illegal aliens. BlackSaint blamed illegals for a host of ills, including taking out subprime loans, lowering the standard of living, and affecting the country's balance of payments by using so much oil and other imports. Then he wrote:
In a very few years it will be impossible to see where Mexico ends and Calif. begins as both will be an third world cesspool!
Failure to secure our borders and reward the Invading horde for their invasion and their relatives in an never ending chain with American Citizenship is nothing less than committing National Suicide & will assure our future is an over populated Spanish speaking third world Nation that is an Cesspool of Corruption, Crime, Poverty and Misery modeled on Mexico!
This is nasty stuff. Yet those of us on staff who regularly moderate comments published it for a couple of reasons. First, we considered BlackSaint's views to be typical of the faction that's most strongly in favor of deporting illegal immigrants. That's not to say they're mainstream or representative of a significant number of people; it's just that we often see similar ideas expressed when we run a piece related to immigration policy. Second, we think it's better to let readers respond with their own comments when they're offended than to have us block anything that might offend someone.
Our site also lets people report comments they think should be taken down, which one reader did not long after BlackSaint's submission was published, calling it, "Another racist screed." After some internal debate, we decided to take the comment down because it violated The Times' policy against “abusive, hateful or objectionable language, threats, violence or inflammatory attacks.”
How would you have handled this one? Should The Times have blocked BlackSaint's remarks from the get-go? Should it have ignored the objection and left his comment up? Would it be better to publish everything and let readers sort it all out? Or should we go the other direction and set a higher threshold for what gets published? What's the right standard?
-- Jon Healey
@Sakonna -- Your response begged the question I posed. The issue isn't the substance of Blacksaint's comments. Please read all the comments to Gregory's column -- http://bit.ly/8yDTos -- and you'll see the same sentiments expressed over and over. No one would accuse somebodystolemynamefatboy, monet6, judgetanner, DelawareBob, mamaorca or hrvatski of expressing themselves in a politically correct manner. The issue is whether the way he expressed these views crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed.
Oh and by the way, good luck finding any evidence that California has "millions of MS-13 Gang bangers, Drug dealers, Rapist and other assorted Criminals and uneducated, Prolific breeding, third world rejects from Mexico." There probably are millions of illegals here -- it's hard to find an exact number, but the Public Policy Institute estimated there were 2.8 million in 2006, about 2 million from Mexico. Is every one a criminal, uneducated and prolific breeding?
You seem to be arguing that "dissent" must be published regardless of the way it's expressed. That means no limits on anything, 'cause just about everybody's dissenting to *something* -- the original piece, a comment on it, etc. So, profanity's OK? Hate speech? No lines at all, right?
Posted by: Jon Healey | November 28, 2009 at 01:03 PM
Question: If Blacksaint put it in politically correct terminology, would his article then be acceptable? I raise this question because there resources I can site directly from LA Times articles and other sources (CDC, Military Intelligence, Homeland Security, US Census report) that support Blacksaint 's claim or assertions. If you are expecting college level interaction, you are kidding yourself.
If you not allow dissent, regardless of the form it takes in print, and if those individuals who do not seek to understand the root of the source of not PC articles, then they and The LA Times have cross the line.
Respect the opinions regardless of the view point.
Posted by: Sakonna | November 28, 2009 at 04:36 AM
@Eric -- Umm, no, if we made the stuff that we blocked available to the public, we would be providing a platform for the very sort of thing that we're trying not to provide a platform for.
But let me try to answer your question another way. Here are some stats from TypePad that show how we've moderated this blog, which follows the same rules as the comments on editorials and op-eds. I'm using these stats because they go back farther and are easier to assemble than the ones for the rest of the site, but they should be representative. Anyway, we've received 14,266 comments since we launched the blog in April 2006. Of that, 118 have been spam, leaving 14,148. Of those, we've published 95% -- all but 788. That means we block about four of the 80 or so we get per week. The vast majority of those either include a word you can't say on the radio (or print in a newspaper) or are a verbatim repeat (i.e., someone filing the same comment multiple times). That means only a few -- maybe a couple per month -- get blocked because they cross the boundaries into abusive speech. And believe me, most of those cases aren't close calls. Nor are they ideologically consistent -- they come from both sides of the political divide.
Posted by: Jon Healey | November 09, 2009 at 05:52 PM
Once you begin "moderating" you have a responsibility to not attempt to influence reader opinion. With that in mind, how can any amount of moderation not result in some sort of bias? The truth is that unless you provide a link to the moderated content so it can be perused by the curious observer to satisfy the need to be certain there is no hanky panky going on. Moderate but be prepared to prove legitimacy if requested.
Posted by: Eric | November 09, 2009 at 03:21 PM
The Times has a policy against “abusive, hateful or objectionable language, threats, violence or inflammatory attacks.” Duh.
Posted by: BackfatBarbie | November 09, 2009 at 02:10 AM
Anyone who runs a blog runs into these very questions themselves. The bigger the blog, the larger this issue looms. I personally know several people who run high-profile blogs in their sphere of influence, mostly Korea-related blogs. One of the most popular basically takes a laissez-faire approach, allowing just about anybody to say just about anything, and only reining commenters in or — in rare cases — banning them outright after they have started making personal attacks.
Other forums moderate or liberally take things down that are off-topic or inflammatory, but there's always the risk that even the most broad-minded comments sheriff is simply blocking out views he/she doesn't agree with.
But there is something to be said for civil discourse that is fact-based, a dying art whose death is not excused just because people feel emotional about the issues of the day.
Does BlackSaint really believe that Mara Salvatrucha's numbers are "millions"? Does BlackSaint really believe that California is "mostly Spanish-speaking"? Does he have any factual numbers to back up any of the claims he/she made?
As someone who runs a blog with only moderate readership, maybe I have the luxury to tell someone like BlackSaint that I'm not going to allow that comment, and that he/she is welcome to put it up again if it can be brought back down from the emotion- and vitriol-ridden stratosphere.
I think that does everyone a favor. For starters, it maintains civility. If comments sections are the realm of acrimony and caustic back-and-forth among true believers in their cause, the less fringey among us just bow out, and a valuable forum for trading in ideas is lost.
It does a favor for BlackSaint and people like him/her as well. BlackSaint is a ranter, blurting out a polarizing narrative that is not challenged by anyone except his/her polar opposites: many who mildly disagree will simply choose not to engage with someone so filled with prejudice, anger, and rancor. By making BlackSaint go back to the drawing board, it makes him/her challenge his/her beliefs, in the direction of strengthening the things on which he/she is right and learning to do so in a way that other people will actually care to listen to.
As it is now, he/she's just a raging bigot, and does more to undermine his/her cause just by speaking the way he/she does.
And if BlackSaint can be made to do a rewrite, then that is a favor to those who might disagree with BlackSaint's ideas. Not because he/she's punished for writing a defamatory screed about Hispanics, but because the rewrite — presumably a more palatable rewrite — will allow his/her ideas to actually be examined. Is BlackSaint right about illegals bankrupting California? Is BlackSaint right about illegals being more likely to commit rape or other violent crime? Maybe, maybe not, but the way BlackSaint has written that screed makes the claims seem, essentially, little more than invalid bigotry.
So yeah, I see a case for moderating in a way that encourages rewrites. But that's easier said than done in a forum as big as latimes.com. But you guys have already taken a huge step by presenting your process and asking for input. Kudos for that.
Posted by: kushibo | November 07, 2009 at 01:09 PM
Jon Healey asks: "For example, how can schools ID which kids are illegal? My district demands proof of residency and birth date, not proof of citizenship." -- Prior to 1982, when a handful of liberal Supreme Court judges decided to find a "constitutional right" for illegal alien children to a tax-payer funded American education in our Constitution, illegal alien children were barred from our public schools. I presume there was some sort of effective enforcement mechanism before 1982, so no, it's not an impossibility.
The Supreme Court decision, Plyler vs. Doe, forced a huge financial burden on American taxpayers, without our consent, and acted as a huge magnet for illegal immigration. No coincidence that the first time we heard about an illegal immigration amnesty (1986) was only a few years after Plyler vs. Doe attracted millions of illegal immigrants into our country.
Plyler vs. Doe was in effect, taxation without representation.
Posted by: MaryJ | November 05, 2009 at 08:41 AM
"The newspaper industry is withering because readers and advertisers are finding no shortage of substitutes, mainly but not exclusively online." -- Actually it's just the big "quality" broadsheets that are withering; smaller local publications that actually reflect their readers' viewpoints and provide a balance of opinions are doing fine. The big guys are failing because they all enforce a lock-step, ultra-predictable, totalitarian "progressivism" that brooks no disagreement. Everything you guys publish on illegal immigration is exactly the same as what is published in WaPo, NYT, and the Boston Globe -- all failing publications. That's why I compared Roderiguez's article to a boilerplate press release written by Edelmann.
If you want to survive you're going to have to stop the propaganda and return to printing real news -- not simply disguised press releases from the liberal-left organizations you adore --- and balanced opinion. Personally, I really don't understand the LA Times' editorial position as an English publication in a Spanish-speaking town. The (few) English speakers who read you are not on board with the illegal immigration agenda; the Spanish speakers who ARE on board with your agenda are all reading the Spanish publications. You're talking to yourselves.
Posted by: MaryJ | November 05, 2009 at 07:22 AM
The LA Times typically omits the real news anyway so why should anyone think that you wouldn't censure a letter. You must have been overwhelmed with letters counter the article otherwise why would you ask?
Posted by: vanjones123 | November 04, 2009 at 07:42 PM
@Andrew Nelson -- Here's what I said about that very issue yesterday:
@Sam -- "Opinion Manufacturing Division" was coined a few years back by former boss Michael Kinsley, and I continue to use it both as a nod to him and as way of making fun of what we do here. Although some readers think of it as a kind of newspeak, to me it just suggests that we're clock-punchers on an assembly line, churning out opinions without actually having any. Readers may now insert their caustic ripostes here.
And Andrew, it's not about "creating an opinion in the reading public," as you put it. That's the readers' job. All we can do is make our best argument -- with some facts thrown in just to keep folks like you off-balance.
Posted by: Jon Healey | November 04, 2009 at 04:29 PM
@JSA26 -- FWIW, this editorial board has long advocated shifting the balance in immigration law in favor of entrepreneurs, graduates of U.S. schools and other skilled entrants. Just an interesting side point -- for the first time in years, the H1B visas (temporary visas for skilled workers who fill specific job openings) weren't snapped up in their entirety on the first day they were issued. In fact, I think that the quota has yet to be exhausted, more than six months after they became available. That's a function of the recession, obviously, but most of the immigration analyses I've read say there's a similar trend among unskilled (and illegal) workers, too. There are fewer jobs all around, so there are fewer border crosses of all stripes.
Posted by: Jon Healey | November 04, 2009 at 04:11 PM
@Riposter -- You make me nostalgic for the days when the LA Times had anything close to a monopoly on public commentary, but then, those predate me. I don't argue with your perception of our op-ed pages, other than to say that the purpose of an op-ed page is to *stimulate* debate on important issues, not provide an open mic for it. But you can't be serious about us effectively disenfranchising anybody. There are countless of places to broadcast one's views, to speak and to be heard. The newspaper industry is withering because readers and advertisers are finding no shortage of substitutes, mainly but not exclusively online. It has never been easier for people to petition their government, or to organize themselves into effective lobbying forces. The Internet isn't exactly the Great Leveler -- money still talks in Sacramento and Washington -- but it certainly reduces the imbalance.
Besides, who in the media has more influence over how people view the immigration issue -- newspaper opinion pages, or cable news commentators? I wish you luck, but I don't think you'll have much success persuading Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs to be even-handed. Then again, they're on your side, so maybe you don't mind. :-)
Oh and by the way -- I may be a bad person, but I have no say over what runs on the op-ed page. I am merely an editorial writer and blogger. Go to the Times' staff directory -- http://www.latimes.com/services/newspaper/mediacenter/la-mediacenter-editorialstaff,0,1090476.story#edit -- to find the names of the bad people in the op-ed branch.
Posted by: Jon Healey | November 04, 2009 at 04:04 PM
@My2cents, @MaryJ -- You have correctly detected bias, but not the kind you had in mind. The two of us here who do most of the moderating are inclined to publish just about everything, even comments that are as dimwitted or distasteful as brucekuznicki's, and rely on readers to tell us what crosses *their* lines. The comment field is their space, after all. And that's what the "ReportComment" button is for. Remember, the BlackSaint comment was published, too, and we didn't take it down until after it was reported. At that point, I circulated the comment among the people who run the op-ed section and asked them to make the call.
In the case of brucekuznicki, no one hit the "ReportComment" button. You folks raised the issue here, though, so I went back to the op-ed editors and asked their thoughts. They agreed with you that the comment violated our policy, and so down it came. Forgive the delay -- that's my bad, I had to crank out something on deadline.
As you've both noted, these judgment calls betray the personal sensibilities of whoever's doing the moderating. I've urged the Times to move to an automated system that relies on readers to set the boundaries -- one that banishes comments only when several readers mark them to be objectionable. I'm hoping that the discussion here, and comments by thoughtful folks like yourselves, will hasten that day. Some folks at the Times -- and more than a few readers -- would prefer that we go in the other direction. They'd like us to filter out more things that are nasty, in poor taste or filled with factual errors. There's something to be said for making that investment and trying to elevate the discussions. Even if we could afford the people it would require, though, I think you'd lose a couple important functions of the comment boards: to provide a window into readers' minds, and to let people respond to speech they don't like with more speech.
A few minutes ago a reader submitted a response to Brucekuznicki's comment. That's the way these disputes should be handled, IMHO. But the thread is gone so the response no longer makes any sense.
Posted by: Jon Healey | November 04, 2009 at 03:42 PM
@Heather -- I would love to see those tools on TypePad, which is the platform we use for the LA Times blogs. We use a different platform for editorials, op-eds and news articles, and the comment system there is still evolving. It includes a function enabling people to report objectionable comments, with multiple reports leading to automatic expulsion. But there's no workable system yet for sorting comments by popularity.
Posted by: Jon Healey | November 04, 2009 at 02:48 PM
@Tara -- The crime stats probably are findable (with the exception of ID theft, which typically goes unsolved), but the social costs are *really* hard to measure. For example, how can schools ID which kids are illegal? My district demands proof of residency and birth date, not proof of citizenship.
Posted by: Jon Healey | November 04, 2009 at 02:46 PM
In terms of partisanship and bias, the LA Times is just as bad as Fox News. I wouldn't even consider much of what is written in this paper as news, as it is pretty much just a mouthpiece for the Democrat Party. How is what that person posted in the blog worse then your paper including Op-Eds written by Hamas members? Double standards?
Posted by: wIILdAMA | November 04, 2009 at 12:03 PM
A better question would have been when does opinion-editing cross the line into deliberate suppression of what are widely held contrary viewpoints, undermining an honest and open debate on illegal immigration that the people in a democratic society deserve? On that count the LA Times has long since left the line behind.
What most people would find as inappropriate is the LA Times' continuing failure to allow writers who might fairly represent the vast number of people who don't agree with your illegal immigration agenda to place arguments before the readers of the paper so that they might compare such arguments against near-monopoly of disingenuous illegal immigration opinion that the paper publishes.
It should hardly be surprising that comments in a newspaper that effectively disenfranchises much of the citizenry from their ability to affect the direction of their government might get nasty. Why don't you explain to us why we shouldn't have the right to read challenges what you and your comrades in the " Opinion Manufacturing Division" write about illegal immigration in the court of public opinion? And access to that court of public opinions doesn't mean what we can write in comments after editorials, op-eds and blog postings. Tyrannical governments have suppressed dissenting opinion because they cannot successfully defend against it with opposing arguments. And that motivation likely fits those who work at the LA Times. This has nothing to do about the rightness or wrongness of the paper's position. It's not about bad arguments but bad people, including yourself, who refuse to allow a contest of ideas that could and likely would end in opposition to your agenda.
Posted by: riposter | November 04, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Mr. Healey,
First of all thank you for your participation in this discussion. If I may, I'd like to sugesst a discussion on choosing which articles to allow discussion.
I fully agree with the stance that discussion should be civil. A much more appropriate response to removing that comment would be for the author to rewrite it to be less offensive.
However in his defense: You said "It's his/her characterization of illegal immigrants -- who include, just by way of example, UCLA grad students and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who overstay their visas -- as "millions of MS-13 Gang bangers, Drug dealers, Rapist and other assorted Criminals and uneducated, Prolific breeding, third world rejects from Mexico."
If we remove third world rejects from the sentence (which is untrue) and Prolific breeding (which is offensive) it seems he is factually depicting the illegal immigrant population that the Times refuses to acknowledge.
My problem with illegal immigration is not the numbers, the national origin, race or religion of them. It is the fact that we have no selection process. I would much rather see millions of UCLA grad students and Silicon Valley engineers, than more day laborers, dishwashers or human and drug smugglers.
Gallup has a piece on their website dated 11/2 that says "If they could, about 700 million adults worldwide -- more than the entire adult population of North America and South America combined -- would like to move to another country permanently. The United States tops the list of most desired destination countries."
I would welcome the best and the brightest into our country.
Joe
Posted by: JSA26 | November 04, 2009 at 07:48 AM
Where's my response to Mr. Healey? Not publishing it because it's too revealing of your editorial policies?
Posted by: MaryJ | November 04, 2009 at 07:00 AM
By the way... could you explain the exact process of developing an opinion you want the public to have? Is the title "The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division" tongue in cheek? Or is it that Orwellian and I'm looking at Big Brother? What, exactly, is the process by which you create an opinion, in the reading public? I thought you would want to present facts and let the public form it's own opinion?
Posted by: andrew nelson | November 04, 2009 at 05:04 AM
factcheck.org is a good place to start. BlackSaint makes many allegations concerning crimes committed by "illegal aliens" I'm sure there's data on the various categories: rape, murder, identity theft, for e.g. also, the nearly as true figures as possible as to the national social cost associated with illegal immigrants and their families: health insurance, cash assistance, subsidized housing, daycare for working parents, education, to name a few. what are these numbers? also, number incarcerated and cost. From what I can gather from BlackSaint's posts is that he feels personally threatened by the reconquista, or invasion, depending on which side of the fence you're on. the last time i checked wages for citizens with limited education have been driven down 7% as a direct result of cheap labor. affordable housing is hard to come by. the pie is getting smaller in all the state budgets and the population with needs is getting larger. this is instilling fear and resentment against the 'horde', particularly when it shows up with lawyers to sue hospitals, or organizers to block roads and wave mexican flags. try and put yourself in BlackSaint's shoes...actually you may soon be there, since it seems that many middle and upper middle mexicans are bailing and slipping into the u.s. Dentists, lawyers, accountants, drug dealers, even journalists. could they be sitting at your desk one day?
Posted by: Tara | November 03, 2009 at 11:35 PM
I think this is part of a bigger issue, which is the democratization of political and social dialogue created by technology such as the Web and Twitter. Whereas previously publication of one's opinion required investment of time and financial resources, now one can immediately spew one's perspective on the virtual pages of respected publications like the Times at no cost.
While this technology has supported truly grassroots organizing, from protests in Oakland to Iran, it has also exponentially increased the amount of ignorant drivel readers wade through to find the few thoughtful, informed comments.
One suggestion would be to allow readers to "opt out" of comments from particular posters -- essentially turning comments from them to the equivalent of "ignore" in a chat. This would simplify any effort to engage in intelligent dialogue. This could of course be used by the narrow-minded to exclude any opposing viewpoints, but the extant mental filters of these readers are probably doing that anyway.
Feedback could be provided to users about the percentage of readers who are opting out of their posts, which might influence them to develop more thoughtful and fact-referenced comments.
Posted by: Heather | November 03, 2009 at 10:37 PM
You have always reviewed comments, and disallowed those deemed "abusive, hateful..." as pointed out above. LAT has good reason for this policy, and it should never be changed.
However, I question why the following comment, which was posted on the very same thread, remains.We realize it's a tough job. But, this comment is blatantly off-topic, and definitely falls into the "abusive, hateful, threats, violence, inflammatory attacks" disqualification category.
It is very important that Comment Reviewers remain impartial and diligent in their duties. Any sign of bias will create distrust among your readers.
"I want to deport the racists on this thread, and throughout this country. I don't get why we need so many of our current American citizens. I bet if we rounded up twenty or thirty million fat conservative white people, went to the U.N., and said we were sick of them embarrassing us and were deporting them we'd find the world telling us, "Hell, we'll take your Guantanamo prisoners-- but keep your fat, uneducated republicans." So what to do with these rollie pollies... we could make them go on a national diet. Thirty million fat racist republicans forced to go six months on 2,000 calories a day would be still leave us with the same thirty million, but they would at least smell less offensively than they do now. Seriously, though, I would rather invite thirty or forty million good Latino people here and give them the citizenship of the same number of conservative fatties. Seriously, they're more American in the spirit of the word than our fat racist conservatives. And the funny thing is, without our protection, they are so weak and ignorant that their lame asses would come jiggling their blubbery butts back to the border crying to us to protect them and give them welfare payments-- and I'd say fine, but we'd put them to work cleaning the homes of our new Latino citizens. Stick their fat white cheeks and jowls into the toilet-- then tie them to a tree and have them dance."
brucekuznicki (11/03/2009, 4:56 AM )
Posted by: My2cents | November 03, 2009 at 06:46 PM
Jon Healey, thank you for your reply to my post. Unfortunately you did not seem to understand the point of my post. I didn't say that Black Saint posted angry and hostile comments to the LA Times staff.
My point was that your biased, puff-piece pampering of illegal aliens just increases everyone's anger towards the illegals -- on the same principle as "teacher's pets" are always the target of anger in the schoolyard.
Here is a good example of your moderating bias. It is a comment from the original thread:
"I want to deport the racists on this thread, and throughout this country. I don't get why we need so many of our current American citizens. I bet if we rounded up twenty or thirty million fat conservative white people, went to the U.N., and said we were sick of them embarrassing us and were deporting them we'd find the world telling us, "Hell, we'll take your Guantanamo prisoners-- but keep your fat, uneducated republicans." So what to do with these rollie pollies... we could make them go on a national diet. Thirty million fat racist republicans forced to go six months on 2,000 calories a day would be still leave us with the same thirty million, but they would at least smell less offensively than they do now. Seriously, though, I would rather invite thirty or forty million good Latino people here and give them the citizenship of the same number of conservative fatties. Seriously, they're more American in the spirit of the word than our fat racist conservatives. And the funny thing is, without our protection, they are so weak and ignorant that their lame asses would come jiggling their blubbery butts back to the border crying to us to protect them and give them welfare payments-- and I'd say fine, but we'd put them to work cleaning the homes of our new Latino citizens. Stick their fat white cheeks and jowls into the toilet-- then tie them to a tree and have them dance."
brucekuznicki (11/03/2009, 4:56 AM )
Note the last sentence which is explicitly racist and possibly violent. I would like you to explain in an honest, clear and concise fashion (i.e. no Orwellian Doublespeak inspired by the Alinsky handbook) why this post was allowed to remain, but Black Saint's post was removed. Is this post less "nasty" than Black Saint's? It is abusive, it is nasty, and it is explictly racist toward a specific ethinc group whereas Black Saint's was not.
Was it allowed to stand because it agrees with your editoria viewpoint on illegal aliens? Was it allowed to stand because your editorial policy doesn't mind abusive racial attacks on white people?
I would appreciate an answer, if you could possibly manage one that doesn't include double standards, back-pedalling and spin.
Posted by: MaryJ | November 03, 2009 at 06:19 PM
@Jamie -- Actually, our hope is that readers will fact-check each others' comments. The comment field is largely their turf -- we try to keep the discussion free of spam, profanity, off-topic remarks, threats, defamations and hate speech, but the rest is up to you all.
As the remarks here show, many people are already convinced that we block too much speech on the comment boards (although I suspect that most were reacting to this particular comment by BlackSaint, rather than looking at the dozens that were published on Gregory Rodriguez's op-ed). Clearly, there's a trade-off between letting people with divergent views have their say and preventing commenters from spreading half-truths (or worse). But again, in the vast majority of cases we let people have their say.
Posted by: Jon Healey | November 03, 2009 at 05:11 PM