Comment’s free, but not always easy

It was interesting to read that the Leicester Mercury has decided to stop pre-moderating comments submitted to its website.

Update: Following the comment received below I can confirm that the moderation previously carried out at Leicester was post publication.

HoldTheFrontPage reported how Leicester Mercury editor Keith Perch explained the new policy to readers in a post on his blog.

“We hope that forcing people to register will encourage them to join in constructive conversation rather than the abusive slanging matches which so often seem to dominate the ‘discussion’.”

It’s a comment which surprised me for two reasons.

Firstly, I had previously believed that the only sizeable newspaper to still indulge in pre-moderation is (previous employer) the Manchester Evening News, and secondly, the view that abusive slanging matches dominate, is something at odds with my experience of newspaper website moderation.

I can only guess at what led Leicester down the route of pre-moderating for so many years, could it be for similar reasons, and fears, that the MEN’s senior management appear to have persisted with pre-moderation i.e. a belief that the comment is a publication (rather than a conversation) and a desire to control representation? (As an aside it will be interesting to see what view new owners Trinity Mirror make of this stance.)

Or maybe the Leicester readers were particularly fighty…..I wouldn’t know, but in my experience the good comments (i.e. constructive, on topic and informed) have always outweighed the bad.
So it was reassuring to see the Washington Post’s Andrew Alexandra’s thoughts on the topic;

“For every noxious comment, many more are astute and stimulating. Anonymity provides necessary protection for serious commenters whose jobs or personal circumstances preclude identifying themselves. And even belligerent anonymous comments often reflect genuine passion that should be heard.”

Alexandra goes on to outline a new system being introduced at WP which allows everyone their say, but groups some of the more inflammatory individuals together as an optional extra which readers can choose to be subjected to if they wish. Saying;

“I like the approach because it doesn’t limit speech. Anonymous loudmouths can still shout. But “trusted commenters” will be easier to hear.”

Yes, comment maybe free……… but doesn’t have to be a free-for-all.