Today, Awkward Mixture is taking a
break from the more serious, historical articles you've come to expect from this site.
On a more humorous note, were going on
a field trip to the comment section of various news websites.
Maybe you've never visited the comments
on political articles. If you have you'll know they are black pit of
despair that you can't help but read even if you've never contributed anything
to the “conversation”. If you've got the willpower, and you've
manged to avoid it, you're better off.
They say a picture is worth a thousand
words, so I've provided a snapshot of the general conversation from
each website. In their own words! (With names and identifying
images removed).
Most of the comments you'll see are
from articles about a speech by Hillary Clinton deriding Donald Trump's
foreign policy. A few of the sites didn't allow comments on that particular topic, in which case they the comments were taken from a similarly decisive
political article.
To be fair, we'll do this in alphabetical order.
To begin, the BBC. As the only site
that eschews punditry, editorials, and click-bait, the BBC also does
not allow comments in the political section. Since the comment section often degrades the quality of
the article and inflames the readership the BBC seems wise, if
undemocratic (because what's more democratic then yelling all your
opinions at your neighbor) to close the arena.
FiveThirtyEight, run by statistician
Nate Silver, is focused on the numbers and bolts of politics.
Interestingly, to use their comment section one must log into
Facebook. They do not have their own platform for user names and
passwords. Politically, 538 appears neutral, less editorial or
judgmental than other sites. It's more about the percentages before, and the results
after any contest. Still, the comment section skews Democratic, with more
support for centrist policies and Hillary Clinton. Yet, 538 draws
Sanders supporters as well, and the two factions argue. Most of the
posters debate reasonably, without name calling. They keep it fairly
polite, but some of the comments on the Live Blog during the more
contentious primaries between Sanders and Clinton were not only
disrespectful, but disgusting personal insults leveled, not at the
candidate, but at their supporters.
If 538 only has crude insults during
primary nights, there is a place one can go to experience it
everyday, Fox News. If you want to see people using CAPS constantly,
vicious names of elected officials, and childish insults of
fellow commenters, don't go anywhere else. Not only is Fox packed with the worst behavior of mainstream news, it is packed with more
comments than any other site. In the time it takes to write this
sentence another thousand wrathful comments have been posted on each
article about President Obama and Hillary Clinton. It's not really the
commenter's fault. It seems as if the articles are written to induce
a paroxysm of rage in the readership. Aside from a constant stream
of insult, the posts commonly include biblical verses, a minority of poor deluded Democrat trying
to convince (or insult) everyone of their mistake (note: never try to
argue on comment threads), and a bevy of conspiracy theories. Enter
at your own risk.
If you're feeling an International flavor visit the comment section of the Guardian. Based in the UK, it mixes liberal
editorials with liberal-leaning news. In contrast to 538 it features
a stronger following for Bernie Sanders, with commentators often
venturing in the massive global conspiracy theory territory. Almost
every article about Hillary or Bernie draws forth a horde of
Sanders supporters claiming that the article is unfairly biased
toward Clinton. If one is looking for well written diatribes against
the secret global elite attempting to manage the international
economy for their own benefit this is the place to visit. Also to be
found at the Guardian are the elusive Russian
trolls. These commenters, supposedly paid by the Kremlin to
spread disinformation, swarm around each article that questions
Russia's international actions (Ironically, their existence seemed
unbelievable until I saw them crash each story about Russia).
If one were searching for a site featuring click-bait titles with a liberal bias, look no further than Slate.
It would be hard to categorize their articles as news: it's punditry and
editorials in support of the Democratic worldview. The commenters
are generally Hillary Clinton supporters with a few Sanders fans.
Yet, in spite of all this, it seems to draw a sizable minority of
intellectual and movement conservatives. They get along pretty well.
And instead of being angry, conspiratorial, or argumentative, Slate
commentators seem be more interested in demonstrating their quirky
sense of humor with jokes. Maybe the very lack of traditional
reporting creates an invitation to irony and wit, which conventional
news can't.
As the flagship of newspapers in the
United States, the Times (New York Times – yeah I wanted it to be
last) invites the very sort of commenters one expects. As a left
leaning source, though with a sizable number of center-right editorials, the articles are supported by liberal commenters. Of
all the sources, the NYT has the best written responses. Its
readers know how to communicate successfully and respectfully on the
internet. The commenters' lack of insults towards each other and the
authors are undoubtedly because the NYT comments are moderated better
than any other, and they are categorized into All,
Readers' Picks, and NYT Picks. Aside from this, there are two other
factors that may contribute. The first is that, unlike the other
sites, the NYT requires a paid subscription to read more than ten
articles a month. The commentators have paid the privilege to be
there, and the cost will keep out trolls. Secondly, the comment
section seems less focused on the readers responding to each other,
and more on expressing their thoughts on the article. This reduces
inter-reader conflict which is a major source of insults where it
exists.
Though this breaks the rule of
alphabetical order (again), consider Breitbart.com. This isn't a
site I visit with any regularity, but I decided this article needed
one more conservative leaning source. I'll let the commentators
speak for themselves.
After all, do you agree with the interpretation?
Or am I only seeing what I expect to
see from each site? Let me know in the comments.
....
Unrelated note: During my
web-searching for this article, I found this graphic
(I love graphics – doesn't everyone!) Anyways, my thought was,
liberals clearly trust the media more than conservatives. I mean,
how else could The Wall Street Journal satisfy all five categories?
I don't read it too often because of their paywall, but what I have
seen doesn't lend itself to a liberal sensibility at all.
Comments
Post a Comment