Comments on: Washington Post: Pros & Cons of Closing a Blog\’s Comments http://www.contentious.com/2006/01/20/washington-post-pros-cons-of-closing-a-blogs-comments/ Amy Gahran's news and musings on how we communicate in the online age. Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:38:23 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: chy http://www.contentious.com/2006/01/20/washington-post-pros-cons-of-closing-a-blogs-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-63452 chy Wed, 08 Mar 2006 03:03:23 +0000 #comment-63452 say the comments were 99% profanity-free. There were many comments critical of Howell because she insisted on standing behind a premise that was factually false. say the comments were 99% profanity-free. There were many comments critical of Howell because she insisted on standing behind a premise that was factually false.

]]> By: Corinne http://www.contentious.com/2006/01/20/washington-post-pros-cons-of-closing-a-blogs-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-53915 Corinne Sun, 22 Jan 2006 01:20:59 +0000 #comment-53915 The ombud's name is Deborah Howell. I've been following this closely and Jim Brady is hiding behind an excuse. I would say the comments were 99% profanity-free. There were many comments critical of Howell because she insisted on standing behind a premise that was factually false. Howell wrote in a column published Sunday that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties." That is incorrect. Readers became progressively agitated because Howell refused to concede she was wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the fact that the Post insisted it wanted dialogue but refused to engage the readers in one. I have been very disappointed by Howell's performance as ombudsman. I wrote her a couple of months ago about a front-page story that contained several inaccuracies and did not receive the courtesy of a reply. This seemed to foreshadow her new policy, which she announced earlier this week: "From now on, I don't reply." The ombud’s name is Deborah Howell. I’ve been following this closely and Jim Brady is hiding behind an excuse. I would say the comments were 99% profanity-free. There were many comments critical of Howell because she insisted on standing behind a premise that was factually false. Howell wrote in a column published Sunday that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff “had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties.” That is incorrect. Readers became progressively agitated because Howell refused to concede she was wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the fact that the Post insisted it wanted dialogue but refused to engage the readers in one.

I have been very disappointed by Howell’s performance as ombudsman. I wrote her a couple of months ago about a front-page story that contained several inaccuracies and did not receive the courtesy of a reply. This seemed to foreshadow her new policy, which she announced earlier this week: “From now on, I don’t reply.”

]]> By: Krishan Patel http://www.contentious.com/2006/01/20/washington-post-pros-cons-of-closing-a-blogs-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-53614 Krishan Patel Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:56:06 +0000 #comment-53614 Hi, This is not to be offensive or anything, but there is an assumption in what you write that because the post is high profile, that they are _good_! From my experience they are not the same thing! It is not just the post, but a lot of mainstream have a tendancy not to always consider what is best for their readers, as they are also driven by a another set of customers: their advertisers. But, to be far, blogging in areas of politics is always difficult, due to the incredible amount of hate and flame. It is almost depressing... Hi,

This is not to be offensive or anything, but there is an assumption in what you write that because the post is high profile, that they are _good_! From my experience they are not the same thing!

It is not just the post, but a lot of mainstream have a tendancy not to always consider what is best for their readers, as they are also driven by a another set of customers: their advertisers.

But, to be far, blogging in areas of politics is always difficult, due to the incredible amount of hate and flame. It is almost depressing…

]]> By: Tom Anderson http://www.contentious.com/2006/01/20/washington-post-pros-cons-of-closing-a-blogs-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-53613 Tom Anderson Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:27:56 +0000 #comment-53613 Editor and Publisher has quite a few letters from readers of the Washington Post blog at issue (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001882365) arguing that profanity was rare in the censored comments, and that the Post seemed more concerned about some aggressively critical comments about the Post's ombudsman. E&P also has a link to the comment thread that was pulled from the Post's site, which makes for interesting reading. Editor and Publisher has quite a few letters from readers of the Washington Post blog at issue (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001882365) arguing that profanity was rare in the censored comments, and that the Post seemed more concerned about some aggressively critical comments about the Post’s ombudsman. E&P also has a link to the comment thread that was pulled from the Post’s site, which makes for interesting reading.

]]>