From the Editor's Desk

A few regulars at the virtual Editor’s Desk got talking about comments Friday on an old post, so I’m hitting refresh on that conversation with a new blog post and answering a few questions they brought up.

At February’s panel discussion in Poulsbo I shared a few ideas for online comment moderation that our fellow Scripps newspapers were planning on experimenting with. I said it was likely the Sun could take direction from those tests to change how our comments are moderated. Colleen Smidt asked for an update, saying that “just letting it go” is having consequences.

Those consequences are a fear of mine, of course, and in her comment Colleen painted a pretty discouraging picture. Believe me, I take it to heart when I hear readers steer clear of our journalism because of what goes on in the discussion beneath.

Contrary to Colleen’s statement, we have not been “letting it go” lately. In fact, a few of the editors and some reporters have been more aggressive than usual over the past few months in removing comments, banning users, and turning the comments off stories after a certain period of time — we’ve just done so quietly. We also posted a page with our guidelines, and made those more prominent on each story online. I preferred to do that to a big announcement about the strategy; not to sneak up on the commentors, but as an attempt to quietly correct or cull out some of the worst of our comment boards. We still contact commentors individually, so it’s not like we’re doing this in the dark. I generally believe in incremental change rather than abrupt shifts of strategy to achieve a goal, I suppose. I also believe that verifying everyone’s name, in today’s day and age, is a hopeless quest, and I believe that anonymity through a pseudonym is not only acceptable, it’s an important thing to offer, despite some of the headaches. So major shifts that involved either of those options weren’t part of the discussion.

Have our recent actions worked? Colleen’s statements make me think we haven’t moved the needle much, though even she admits she’s been reading comment threads less frequently. (Go ahead and correct me below, Colleen, if I’ve misrepresented your statement.) I know I’ve received thanks for removing one abusive commentor, and my anecdotal observation has been that certain topics are seeing less of the worst statements — the protracted conversations do still exist, but we’re trying to relegate those to the letters to the editor, which we rarely monitor closely. Opinion pieces like letters get a different treatment, because they are a forum for opinions.

Those heated threads for certain issues may always exist, and for now I’ve decided to err on the side of allowing that on our site rather than dictate what stories people can and cannot comment on, or try to shut things down altogether.

Exercising control over where comments appear was the tactic taken by my fellow editor and friend Joe Howry, at the Ventura County Star. I’ve shared his recent column (which had over 700 comments when I counted last week) with a few people, but essentially Joe got sick and tired of comments. Really sick and tired, if you read his acerbic column that calls his online community a “cesspool.” Joe doesn’t pull his punches. His decision — because a technical solution was not happening anytime soon — was to limit the stories readers could comment on, and then aggressively moderate those threads. He tells me he’s enjoyed the change so far.

Other ideas I’ve seen recently in the industry: leaving certain stories off-limits for comments (we have a modified version of this, with child sex offense cases, and I like parts of this idea); outsourcing comment moderation, like the Boston Globe has done (I don’t really like giving away that control, as much of a burden as it may be); verifying every single user who signs up with a phone call (this is pretty tricky tech-wise and staffing-wise, and may not really help much); or just turning them off entirely (that is, burying your head in the sand).

There may still be a technological solution, but we’re not inventing it here. We’re sticking with some simple principles we’ve believed all along that can apply no matter what software you’re using — participating in the forums ourselves to answer questions or explain policy, asking users to help by flagging inappropriate comments, making our guidelines clear and enforcing our stated guidelines as often as possible. We don’t get everything, some critics accuse. To me it’s like one person refereeing a fast-paced basketball game — some people get away with a foul because the ref doesn’t see everything, but that doesn’t mean the foul he saw you commit is any less of a foul.

It’s ongoing, it’s evolving, it’s a difficult question to get agreement on, and we’ll never make everyone happy — even in our own newsrooms. So let’s keep discussing it.

Now, I’ll offer a few answers to questions you guys raised on the other blog post.

Robin asked… I’d suggest creating a separate anonymous forum not directly linked to articles. There people could talk about anything they wanted. Staff could select user moderators and these moderators could direct the flow of conversation. Folks who enjoy trolling and flaming could have a board for that. Folks who want to discuss community issues in a civil forum could have that too.

I respond… Howry’s paper offers something like what Robin suggests. You know what happens? The trolls are kind to each other in that open forum, chatting respectfully about the weather or whatever’s on their mind. Then they find a story, and start trolling again. Separating trolling from a civil forum isn’t always so cut and dried, and trying to say “you guys play over here, the adults are talking over here” seems a little condescending and doomed to fail. We also tried open forums a few years ago, before we had comments enabled on the stories. They were a dud.

Sharon O’Hara asked… Do the blog posts fit in with and represent the position of the Kitsap Sun to inform and stay in business?

I respond… Allowing readers to comment isn’t part of the historical mission of professional journalism in Kitsap County, but allowing online feedback certainly has become part of the paper’s role. People go on and on with hypothetical “good” and “bad” examples of comments in this argument, so I know the danger in me doing what I’m about to do. One struck me recently, on this story, as a reminder of the value of anonymity. A homeless woman, who probably feels stigmatized because of her current place in life, had a forum to share her experience. It was a short comment, the lengthy thread itself had plenty of removed posts among the range of opinions on a high-profile issue, but hearing her voice informed me, at least in a small way that wasn’t part of the same old argument over the welfare state or concern for humanity. She had a voice. We try to facilitate the voice of the powerless when we report on issues like homelessness, and this was one other way we were able to do so. I think that’s in line with what we’ve always tried to provide, even with the baggage attached.

Colleen asked… Is the current environment of the comment forum driving down paid reader subscriptions? Is the current environment of the comment forum making it difficult to maintain or increase paid advertisers revenue levels? Will improving the environment of the forum with increased moderation even be possible with current staff numbers and or budget restrictions?

I respond… I doubt the comment threads have anything to do with print readership habits. Our print/online readers do overlap, but it’d be my guess that someone was fed up with the comment threads would be more likely to just stick to the print. I read the Seattle Times in print, for example, and as a result I have no idea what goes on in its online forums. Nor am I concerned. Print readership was eroding long, long before we started hosting comments, so I wouldn’t draw that conclusion from this new phenomenon. As far as the advertising question, the one fallacy I hear sometimes is that we like controversial comments because they boost page views. The fact is that isn’t the case. Even the stories with a large number of comments (letters to the editor) pale in comparison to our most read online stories (breaking news and obituaries) — and neither of those has a big problem with nasty comments back and forth. Advertisers want to be well-read, and our site experiences growth in that department nearly every month — because of our journalism and improvements in display or linking, not because of comments. And on the last question, I hinted at it above, but yes, I do believe it’s possible. We’re busy as ever in the newsroom, but we’ve evolved over the years to accommodate different tasks as they fit our primary task of reporting and editing. If it helps a staff member get engaged with the audience, they’ll spend more time in the comment threads, and thus the comment thread will improve. We don’t have a rule that reporters must participate in the comments, but it is encouraged. Maybe I’m hopelessly optimistic (actually I’m not, some mornings the comments put me in a sour mood), but I still think those comments can offer something worthwhile to the readers who chose to use them.

Ok, last thing, just for a read that’s interesting as journalism and anonymous comments continue this dance. The Everett Herald’s website was being used anonymously by a vested interest, and they called him on it. (Also interesting because the city of Bremerton uses red light cameras from an Arizona outfit, but not the same company as Everett.) I think this reinforces one of my tenants when I think about our forums and any online commentary: pay attention, but take it all with a grain of salt, and the truth eventually comes out.

—David

Share on Facebook

Today on kitsapsun.com you’ll find a story with updated information on the Jan. 23 shootout at the Port Orchard Walmart and some description of what investigators saw on the survelliance video that captured the incident that left two Kitsap County sheriff’s deputies injured, and a 30-year-old man and 13-year-old girl dead. Later we plan to update that story with an interview with the woman who made the initial 911 call, and possibly details from the investigation.

Later today you may see that video elsewhere online, and it may also be shown on tonight’s television news out of Seattle.

You will not see that video on our website. Not because we missed obtaining that crucial part of the story — we’ve had it most of today and even edited the video into a package that could be posted online. Rather, after a discussion among editors and reporters, the decision was made not to put it online under our name.

These decisions are taken very seriously here, if you remember the column I wrote last year after we spent time in court obtaining the dash-cam video that showed the incidents leading to a fatal shooting by a police officer in Silverdale. That’s why I share them with you when it comes up. Reporting on death is tough on it’s own; having a video that shows a person’s demise, whatever the circumstances, prods opinions and ethical questions that take some time to work through.

Among the factors we weigh are the graphic violence shown, the news value of the images, the context of the story and responsibility we assume to be a watchdog on law enforcement, and, perhaps most difficult, putting ourselves in the shoes of survivors of the deceased or other victims.

Law enforcement’s actions from Jan. 23 are not in question. We reported late last week that ballistics testing shows the 30-year-old suspect in the incident shot and killed the 13-year-old girl before turning the gun on himself, and the video, from a vantage point at least a few hundred feet away, does not contradict that finding. The video is not overly graphic or violent, but it shows a sheriff’s deputy writhing in pain after a gunshot wound, and the death of two others. Whatever the circumstances, both are human beings with lives and families, and the loss they feel is not something we will ignore.

We made the decision not to publish the video prior to learning it had been published online by others. We made the decision with the knowledge that it may be shown on television news. The competitiveness in every journalist exists in us, and we don’t enjoy the fact that our readers will get a piece of a local news story from another source.

But this video is one piece that, if you feel you need to see it, you must find elsewhere.

—David Nelson

Share on Facebook

I left town the night of the forum on online comments hosted by the West Sound Technology Association on Feb. 15, and since returning over the weekend I haven’t had a chance to put my thoughts together on the blog. Maybe I’ll get to it this week.

If not, Charles Keating of WSTA has done me one better. He’s got the video up. There’s a few soft spots in the sound, but the picture is solid.

Here’s the link: http://vimeo.com/20231916

Share on Facebook

Tonight Tuesday in Poulsbo I’ll participate in a panel discussion hosted by the West Sound Technology Association that some of you may find interesting.

The topic is anonymous speech and civil discourse, or as we call it in the newsroom: “the comments.”

Though not a part of our printed newspaper, I’m sure many of you read or participate in the comment threads that follow nearly every story on kitsapsun.com. I hear mixed reactions from readers about our practice of accepting that public feedback on the website, and from time to time even wrestle with my own view of the rapid and free-form response to the media now allowed by technology.

One thing I feel confident in saying is that anonymous online comments aren’t going away — but that they also will evolve. And that’s where we, as a newspaper and the host of the most popular comments site in the county, play a role.

So tonight Tuesday I’ll sit with Charlie Bermant, a former reporter in Kitsap County now at the Peninsula Daily News, Tracy Record of the West Seattle Blog, Jeff Rhodes, editor of the Port Orchard Independent, and First Amendment attorney Bruce H. Johnson. We’ll discuss some of the issues, including: Are comments made anonymously or under a pseudonym mutually exclusive with responsible discourse? What tools are available — or being experimented with — to ensure productive community conversation? To what extent should we be concerned with vitriol or inaccuracy in online forums?

Those are the questions that go through this newsroom, and among editors across the country. I wrote a few months ago that I think this will be a big issue for media, in particular community newspapers, not only because of the positive and negative effects commenting has on a website’s reputation, but also in assigning the amount of time staff members invest in interacting with the online community. Like any new technological tool (remember, commenting has only been widespread for the past three or four years), it’s going to take some time to figure out the best use.

The forum begins at 5:30 p.m. at the Poulsbo City Hall Library, 200 NE Moe Street. A $10 fee is asked of non-WSTA members who attend. For more information, call 206-984-3509.

Share on Facebook

Wednesday morning at the Friends of Scouting breakfast the CEO of one of the state’s most successful businesses spoke to the crowd about his company’s values. At the top of the list Ivar’s restaurants adhere to: “Revere history.”

Ivar’s CEO Bob Donegan told about his company by first talking about the founder, Ivar Haglund. He painted a picture of a creative, eccentric restaurateur who treasured — and understood deeply — his company’s place in the community. The company pays heed to that now, and is better for it.
I’ve always seen our newspaper’s role as a curator of history for the community, so the value of reverence for history isn’t lost on me. Donegan’s message was especially timely because there’s a woman in Bremerton Sun lore who deserves the same nod, and we happen to have an occasion to do so.

You all know her name: Adele Ferguson. Now you may learn a little more about her story.

As you’ll see from an advertisement on page 9A of today’s edition, we’ve published a biography and oral history of the Sun’s groundbreaking political reporter and longtime columnist, titled “The Inimitable Adele Ferguson,” done in partnership with the Washington State Heritage Center.

I could go on for a while about Adele’s history here, but you’ll find that in the book. I could pitch how to buy it, but you’ll find that in the ad. (Copies will also go to local branches of Kitsap Regional Library.)

What I will tell you is some back story, and how we became involved with a project to salute a name as recognizable as any, save perhaps Julius Gius, in this newspaper’s history.

Two years ago Adele was one of three inductees into the state’s new Legacy Project, a program organized by the Heritage Center to recognize Washington’s pioneers in a variety of fields. Our reporter Steve Gardner covered the story at the time.

A year later, Bremerton resident Lillian Walker, a civil rights pioneer and co-founder of local chapters of the NAACP and YWCA, was added to the Legacy Project. In October, thanks to fundraising by the YWCA, a biography, drawn from interviews by John Hughes of the Heritage Center, was published. Again, Gardner wrote the story.

While covering a book signing for Walker, Gardner got to talking with Hughes. Remembering the enjoyable experience of interviewing Adele in 2009, he asked whether a biography was planned for her. Hughes handed him a business card, which Steve passed along to me.

Within weeks we had an agreement for the Sun to sponsor the publication. We offered some photos of a young Adele from our archives, Hughes polished the interviews he had done in 2009 into a manuscript, the Heritage Center tracked down more photos and designed a book and cover, and a publication date was set.

So today, we can share one of the most significant stories in our company’s history, right from Adele’s mouth. Her only regret, she told me Thursday night, was that all the funny stories didn’t get into the interview.

Something tells me she shares more in common with Donegan, who thumbed his nose at permits for barges or salmon windsocks, than I may have realized.

Fortunately, we do share a characteristic in common with the company Haglund founded (which is just three years younger than the Sun, by the way). Adele Ferguson’s storied career and role in this state’s journalism is a piece of history that’s worth remembering.

Share on Facebook

You won’t see cops and courts reporter Josh Farley’s byline the early part of this week, and we’re pretty proud of the reason why.

Josh flew to New York City Sunday, and for the past two days has taken part in the 6th annual Harry Frank Guggenheim Symposium on Crime in America at John Jay College of Criminal Law. The symposium is for journalists, legislators, policymakers and scholars to discuss issues surrounding criminal justice. Josh is one of just 26 newspaper, magazine and television reporters who were invited through a fellowship offered by the school’s Center on Media, Crime and Justice, most of whom come from larger news outlets than the Kitsap Sun.

If you pay attention to Josh’s work you won’t be surprised at his recognition, of course. He’s the main reporter for our Code 911 section and covers criminal cases, and also delves into broader stories about criminal justice, public safety and legal issues on a regular basis.

Part of what earned Josh the fellowship was the story idea that he and local news editor Kim Rubenstein submitted as part of his application. Fellows were asked to explain an ongoing reporting project or a planned investigation that would match with one of the conference’s topics.

The story pitched — which Josh is required to follow through on, so you’ll see it soon enough — surrounds the courts and social media. We published a story in October during the jury selection for Daniel Mustard’s trial, when potential jurors were asked if they had posted in the story comments on kitsapsun.com following our reporting on the murder of Ruby Andrews.You all know what comments following most criminal stories can be like, and the question attorneys were asking was whether participation in those comment threads could influence a potential juror’s thinking.

That question, a first in this county’s court system and likely something pretty rare nationwide, prompted Josh to begin thinking about how social media is forcing change in the criminal justice system. He and Kim have brainstormed more ideas to get at the issue, and hopefully something he can get feedback on this week from experts around the country.

Look for the story soon, and we’ll look forward to hearing about our reporter’s trip to the big city later this week.

—David

Share on Facebook

We’re being taken to task on our Facebook page today by a group of readers who think this morning’s editorial cartoon was too harsh on the home team.

Cartoonist Frank Shiers depicted the Seahawks as an injured bird flying through the air, with the New Orleans Saints, the ‘Hawks playoff opponent for Saturday, portrayed as a shotgun with the wounded bird in its sight. Here’s a look if you missed it:

Apparently, the millionaire Seahawks, they of one of the lowest rated offenses and defenses in NFL playoff history, need to be protected from such harsh observation.

It should go without saying that a cartoon on the opinion page is simply one journalist’s view, which is why the angry mob got after him by name. But pointing out the flaws in a professional football is something every booster out there fully participates in (harshest criticism for those we care about, after all), and is different than actively rooting against the home team (which is why I laughed at the cartoon and wanted it on that page).  I know I criticized the local guys while watching the Seahawks stumble toward the finish line, or when UW went 0-12 under Willingham, or when the M’s lost 100, or… actually, I should stop my examples there.

We don’t pass judgment on a sports team’s flaws or successes because we’re boosters, but as journalists. You should expect that from us, and calling a team out gives credibility to us lauding success when it’s earned. However, we’re in a new era and that’s why I wanted to quickly respond to the accusation that poking fun at a professional sports team is “downright offensive.”

The era I’m taking about is one where Fox Sports Northwest, who broadcasts local sports, changes its name to “Root Sports.” I get it, they want to appeal to passionate fans in this “we’re all behind our boys” way, and there is some precendent in the sports department of playing homer that wouldn’t fly in say, covering city hall. But, as Jim Moore points out far better than I can, changing your name to “Root” picks away at the notion of independent journalism just a bit, and I’d argue, sets up the attitude where a local newspaper cartoonist gets pilloried for having a sense of humor about the obvious.

All that said; “Go Seahawks.” They’ll have no trouble finding a prominent spot on our pages should they pull off the upset of the year. Maybe even Frank will give them some love.

—David

Share on Facebook

The Seattle police shooting incident I mentioned in a recent column is back in the news today.

If you haven’t seen it yet, the Seattle Times, Seattle PI and KIRO 7 chose to post a dash camera video taken during the fatal shooting of carver John T. Williams. I’d imagine other Seattle news agencies will follow suit, and you’ll see it on all the evening broadcasts tonight. The actual shooting takes place outside the camera’s frame, unlike in our case surrounding the shooting of Matthew Netter, but the audio of the four gun shots and Officer Ian Birk’s verbal response is very clear.

Also unlike the Netter video, which the Kitsap County Prosecutor could view when determining whether or not the Silverdale shooting was justified, you don’t see Birk or his reaction at all following the shooting. His voice is audible as more law enforcement arrives though.

There is an editor’s note on the Times’ story, explaining what is shown in case readers want a warning about violent content. I don’t see anything similar on the KIRO or PI sites, or any further explanation from Times editors on the decision making. When all media jumps in the newsworthiness is fairly evident — though that’s not to say you can’t still stand on principle. But there was no public records fight like we had to deal with, which was a unique part of our case and behind my explanation to you all.

—David

Share on Facebook

I have a feeling the next few months will bring a number of experiments with online comments at newspaper sites. I’m basing that on what seems like increasing talk on journalism websites and blogs, and probably more conversations in our newsroom and with other Scripps newspaper editors lately, as I mentioned in my last post.

If so, I think it’s a good thing. There’s a better place we can get in terms of hosting comments, we just can’t all agree on what that place looks like.

Here’s today’s offering, from the Janesville Gazette in Wisconsin. The editor there has prohibited comments on stories that involve crime, courts, accidents, race or sex. The stories, Editor Scott Angus writes, are ones that typically “deteriorate into insults, innuendo or otherwise offensive remarks.”

I’d argue we see insults between users more often in the Sun’s online political “debate” than in comments on court reporting, but every community is different. We have a rule of thumb here at the Sun to not allow comments on stories involving child sex offenders, seeing little value an a high risk of harm or hate to emerge, but we’ve drawn the line there. I doubt we’d follow what Angus has done. Closing a few doors while leaving others open doesn’t seem to clearly state your philosophy on online/anonymous discussion, and seems more influenced by staff time and resources than belief/disbelief in the value of comments under a pseudonym or anonymous identity (which Angus does believe in, he writes). I’ll be listening to see if the journo world hears from Janesville again as the comments conundrum continues.

Speaking of which…

I’ve agreed to take part in a forum sponsored by the West Sound Technology Association on February 17 at the Poulsbo Library, where a few others and I will tackle this question: Are Anonymous Speech and Civil Discourse Mutually Exclusive?

That title is a mouthful, but it’s a good question. Register at the WSTA site if you’d like to attend.

Share on Facebook

From police shootings to the gun club lawsuit to elections, it’s been good eating the past few months for kitsapsun.com’s online comment community.

At its best, an increased volume of comments following our stories means we’re more engaged with the community and hear viewpoints that may be otherwise stifled. At its worst, we magnify fringe viewpoints or offer a platform to individuals who enjoy anonymous bickering, name-calling, tasteless humor and wallowing in general nastiness.

As I’ve explained in several email exchanges and a few phone calls over the past month, our staff pays attention to those forums daily. So we have a pretty good idea of the pros (story tips, feedback) and cons (ever babysit a group of three-year-olds?), and I hope readers understand the time it takes on our end to stay involved in those comment threads*. Some of you will disagree (and you’ll use the comments below to let me know, I’m sure), but we’re still optimistic that the open exchange between readers and with our staff through kitsapsun.com can be valuable.

But I’m really, really, really not writing to open the argument over whether or not we should allow comments. Really. I have two points to explain where the Sun is at now, and some hint of where we’re headed:

1. When we overhauled the site’s look to the current presentation, one template that changed was the comments field. Our six-point set of guidelines no longer appeared on each story, and that has left some confused over what we allow, or why some comments are removed. We’ve revised that into a more complete document, including our own understanding and background on comments, as well as a FAQ. You can see it here: www.kitsapsun.com/comments. We’re going to post it more often in comment threads to remind readers of our stance and expectations, which hopefully minimizes the “Why was my comment removed?” email. We get that a lot.

2. We’re not just posting that document and leaving the issue to rest. Our stance on comments has evolved even in the past two years, and I consider that policy a living document. So, in partnership with our sister newspapers in Scripps, we’re investigating other ways of handling comments. A few years ago we launched an effort here, if you remember that well discussed story, but we just didn’t have the horses to get a major overhaul done. Now, cooperating as a group, teams are researching what works for other sites**, talking to other companies about the functionality outside software could offer***, and trying to discuss some principles (“Is anonymous ok?” being chief among them) that may guide how we interact with readers****. We don’t want to make a rash decision (like the editor in Portland, Maine who completely shut down comments, then reversed course two days later). But we do want to move ahead and make those forums a better representation of our readership (which, in Portland’s defense, is exactly what was done).

I’ll keep you posted. Of course, I’m looking forward to your comments.

—David

*Many in town call them “blogs.” I hear it every other day. Our nomenclature is “comments,” because “blogs” are, well, what you are now reading. Or this fine work by our staff and a few in the community. I’ve given up that argument, but I had to say it.

**For example, here’s an interesting read on what’s happening at the Las Vegas Sun, where our team will visit in November.
***Like Disqus, a SF start-up that offers technology to everyone from blogs to newspaper websites.
****Some of whom were profiled in this really interesting Boston Globe story on anonymous commentors. Not that we have any like this.

Share on Facebook