It will be interesting to see what changes are to come for the story comments and if it will make a real difference. I am personally starting to think that real discourse is on its way to becoming obsolete in our society. That and/or so many people seem to have real hatred and anger for their fellow countrymen. I has been extremely disheartening to me to see how real this hatred is by reading these comments on a daily basis, no matter what type of story is featured. It makes me fearful for the future of our society, E Pluribus Unum indeed.

I will be glad to see changes made as well. I can’t believe the venom that is spewed on some of these stories. Makes me think that like a waiting period for a gun, some people need to have a waiting period before being allowed to own a computer. I think some people have nothing better to do than to criticize EVERY THING as if they are so perfect, and also must have very low self esteem. And, there are probably kids getting on and making some of the comments too. Please do something. I enjoy reading the site, but some of this negativity and hatred needs to stop. Thanks for doing the survey.

Only the following should be allowed to comment:

ALL Americans that a Pro-War at any and at all times for any reason whatsoever (the mindset of permanent hate).

Those that support Bush unquestionly.

Those that support Obama unquestionly.

Those that support Clinton unquestionly.

Those that support Reagan unquestionly.

Those that support Israel unquestionly.

But not necessarily in that order.

I am so glad something is being done. The hurtful, negative and personal attacks that are posted by a few people on almost all of the stories detract from the quality of the paper.

I read articles in “the paper” (including the website) because I expect some level of authority and fact-checking. I don’t believe that news articles are a proper place for these comments; the juxtaposition of everything from simple uninformed opinion to raging hate next to the article weakens the news and brings the authority of the story down by several notches. Blogs (as opposed to articles) should be open for comments by properly-registered and -accountable individuals. Otherwise, the article can link to an area of the forums set aside for that particular story; off the page and away from the properly-cited article. If there is a forum set aside for discussion, then the story itself should not be polluted by said opinions. Of course, the article should allow the user to submit a correction or statement of fact directly to the P-D for consideration of revision.

I read articles in “the paper” (including the website) because I expect some level of authority and fact-checking.
>> Who gave them this authority over us?

I don’t believe that news articles are a proper place for these comments; the juxtaposition of everything from simple uninformed opinion to raging hate next to the article weakens the news and brings the authority of the story down by several notches.
>> You mean the articles themselves are not uniformed opinion or raging hate? Again, who gave them this “authority”?

Blogs (as opposed to articles) should be open for comments by properly-registered and -accountable individuals.
>> You’re going to be in charge of who is “accountable”?

Otherwise, the article can link to an area of the forums set aside for that particular story; off the page and away from the properly-cited article.
>> You mean where it can’t influence anyone the way the article is meant to?

If there is a forum set aside for discussion, then the story itself should not be polluted by said opinions.
>> I’m commenting on some pollution right now.

Of course, the article should allow the user to submit a correction or statement of fact directly to the P-D for consideration of revision.
>> “As long as those corrections are submitted and approved by Adolf Chad.”

I think it would be a gross overreaction to completely do away with reader comments, vile posts notwithstanding. I believe that this is, to an extent, a free speech issue. People who would have them dropped are free to not view them. Apparently, posts are able to be viewed for a period of time before passing editorial muster, as I’ve seen some which have subsequently been deleted. Perhaps this review that occurs should be done before they appear in “print”. This would affect the real time feeling, and perhaps deter some posters who lately have had private conversations back and forth about all manner of thing.

I don’t know what climbed up your pants, responder. I’ll try to respond in the case that you were being truly inquisitive and not just trying to bring the discussion down to your level.

The authority that StLToday and other newspapers have stems from research, verification, and editorial process. You may think that the P-D falls well short of a high standard, and that’s fine. But there is a reason that newspapers are considered cite-able, secondary sources of information by the APA, MLS, and other intermediary bodies, and opinions proffered by anonymous readers are not.

If a *news* article is truly meant to sway someone, then it is not a news article. I stated very clearly that in that case, I feel that blogs and opinions should be open for debate. But for news articles, that is not the case and many newspapers are struggling with how to handle it. As such, my opinion is simply that the process of informing the reader of facts is soured when it is immediately followed by opinions of readers in the same visual space as the story. Even tertiary sources such as Wikipedia realize there is value in moving opinion and discussion off the main article, which represents the distillation of facts to their NPOV principle.

I do not propose being in charge of anything, despite your multiple claims to the contrary and supposed connection of me to Adolf Hitler. Accountability comes with the process of registration and attaching one’s real name to opinions, in much the same way as letters to the editor have been done for many decades.

It really come down to what side of the fence you are on a issue or story that determined what you think about what was posted.I must confessed that I step out of bounds at times on certain issue,not to provoke anger or fear,but to open eyes to what I belived in.Of course open slader and insults must be controled,but also the personal “trains of thoughts” must be preserved.

I’d like to see some sort of commentary or forum where everyone could participate and there would be a moderator to keep things in order. At the end, an impartial person like a judge would say who won based on the arguments presented for each side. The judge would not be able to personally benefit one way or the other to eliminate a possible bias (something like my father is Mayor Slay and that’s who would be best for Mayor). For instance, no personal attacks are allowed or else the person who first attacks is eliminated from the forum. All items must be on topic and not about some other topic or else the person should be eliminated from the forum.

Free speech is fine, but harrassment should not be tolerated, which is what personal attacks are.

What I’ve seen in commentaries are that those who propose “radical” items are personally attacked rather than anyone actually countering with a logical counter argument.