Journalistic platforms have undergone a profound change. They are no longer the carrier of words from professional journalists alone. They have become a site for readers to respond, comment, dissent and have a dialogue. The informational flow has moved from a linear one-to-many format to a layered many-to-many polyphony in digital platforms where numerous voices and views, responses and politics, bouquets and brickbats, are shared. This has created a new public sphere that is much wider than the one imagined by German philosopher Jürgen Habermas.
When radio and television were the new mediums, Habermas wrote: “Under the pressure of the ‘Don’t talk back!’ the conduct of the public assumes a different form. In comparison with printed communications, the programmes sent by the new media curtail the reactions of their recipients in a peculiar way. They draw the eyes and ears of the public under their spell but at the same time, by taking away its distance, place it under ‘tutelage,’ which is to say they deprive it of the opportunity to say something and to disagree.”
The emergence of digital platforms, with their interactive tools and comment sections, has given a space to talk back and has made our public sphere more democratic than ever.
This is not a fully unproblematic blessing. Technological innovations do not have in-built mechanisms to ensure a civil discourse. They have to be inculcated in the users of the technology. Much has been written about how the Internet’s empowering potential is hampered by trolls. There are reams and reams of scholarly advice about digital etiquette and responsible web behaviour.
But, none seems to really work when it comes to emotive issues. Some commenters, despite the best efforts of the moderators, slip in offensive, abusive comments that undermine the potential for dialogue. This really hurts the readers of this newspaper. For instance, Mr. L. Venkatnarayanan recently wrote: “Of late, there has been an observable change in the way comments by the general public have been (un)moderated on articles published on The Hindu ’s website. A quick glance through a few Op-ed articles that have a political tone is sufficient to unearth a minefield of offensive reader comments and baseless assertions totally unrelated to the published article.”
He cited a number of comments that were plain hate speech and raised some pertinent questions: “How could such a comment find its way through the moderators at The Hindu ? I remember reading an earlier article from your desk explaining the parameters the newspaper employs to moderate reader participation, which was what prompted me to write to you now. These comments should have been rejected straight away. What constructive purpose is served by allowing these comments for general readership and allowing a voting mechanism on top of it? … It is saddening and heart-rending to see this happening on The Hindu ’s website. Why have things changed? Has The Hindu too caved in? Or are the editors totally unaware of what is happening? What is your opinion on this?”
Spike in commenting I took up the issue with the Internet Editor. He agreed that some comments managed to slip in despite the filtering mechanisms and the moderation process. This was an error, a human failing, rather than by design. This was purely due to a spike in commenting over the last few months. He said that following my earlier column, “Yes to criticism, no to vitriol” (November 25, 2013), and the readers’ suggestions to make comments section healthier and livelier, some additional levels of protocols were instituted.
Some of the measures taken are: There are automatic filters to eliminate obscenities and a technological first line of defence has been put in place. A comprehensive list of abusive and offensive words has been identified for spotting trolls. A systematic categorisation of regular commenters has been undertaken to prepare blacklisting and whitelisting of commenters. A senior staff member has been assigned to give the final clearance for the comments before they go up.
It is worth recollecting what the Internet team told me earlier when this issue was discussed with them. They maintained that the anonymity of cyberspace seemed to bring forth the worst in people. Despite the seduction of technological fixes, according to them, there was no alternative to reading and then publishing each of the more than 2,000 comments they received on an average every day. The Internet Editor requests the readers to use the flag icon that comes with every comment if they find any thing objectionable or offensive. This is an additional line of defence against insensitive comments where the readers can contribute as gatekeepers.
The idea behind the comment sections is to expand our level of engagement on crucial issues. The architecture of the web platform permits dialogues between the writer and the reader and among the readers themselves. The principal motivation here is not to look at readers as passive consumers of information but as active citizens whose agency is respected and valued and acted upon. This is a collective effort, and it cannot be permitted to be undermined by hyperactive trolls that do not respect plurality and differences.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
