Not just Atlantic – every news site.
In my opinion, many Liberals know the truth, but they do not want it to be known by those who are not suppose to know it.
Are those people big readers of the comments section of The Atlantic?
“We’ve finally managed to gain tyranny over the common man. But God save us all if he ever starts reading the comment sections of The Atlantic…”
Yeah. Like the War on Christmas. Or what to call terrorists.
It’s not a news site per se - it’s a site for religious news and commentary - but Patheos draws commenters of all ideological stripes. I’ve had some discussions with evangelicals and religious conservatives on that site that have grown vigorous and at times heated, but have stayed within the bounds of civility. So it can be done.
Of course, it may an issue of self-selection; sites like Patheos, the New York Times, and the Atlantic I would assume draws people who can defend their arguments with better rhetoric than “ur a fag!”
Be on your guard. There are older–and fouler–creatures in the deep places of the earth.
If you voted “political correctness” you’re wrong. It’s not a matter of opinion.
The abusive nature of comments sections frequently reaches the point of the publisher having to make decisions related to actual liability. It can and does get that bad.
:guffaw:
Exactly. If there was ever a better illustration of political correctness than the right-wing insistence that Obama, Hillary, etc. need to use Certain Words to describe terrorists from organizations like ISIS and al-Qaeda, or else they’re soft on terrorism or something, I’m not sure what it could be.
Hell, even in conservative sites the comments section tend to after a half page derail into personal flamewars and posts having jack to do with the article at hand, absent active moderation. Jesus wept when he saw the comments pages.
Political correctness? No. Preventing an eventual lawsuit, yes.
I dont know if you would say this is liberal bias but their is a common complaint out that when say a bunch of black teens mob some store or something the press just calls them “teens” or “youths” and even try and cover up the fact they were all black. So a headline would say " a mob of youths ransacked a store" instead of saying “a mob of black youths ransacked a store”.
Of course the comments section goes nuts with all the racists.
Now would the problem go away if the press would admit some mob was all black?
Sometimes I’ve even seen it when they cover up the faces of the mob.
So should the press show things as they really are which isnt always the perfect example of diversity or should they try and hide certain unpleasant aspects?
Tough call.
Do they ever describe a mob as “white teens?”
White teens are “revelers”.
Or armed activists.
Horatio Hellpop:
Your Kenyan Muslim girlfriend is waiting for you right now – click here!
There are an enormous amount number of comment sections that overflow with hatred, idiocy, racism, bigotry, nastiness, vulgarity, pettiness, narcissism, spam, and other garbage. This is the norm. It’s true whether the website has a liberal or conservative leaning or any other. It’s true whether the commenters are liberal, conservative, or Star Wars fans. All are equally bad.
There are a very few comment sections are polite, civil, mature, and intelligent. A very few. Generally specialty blogs devoted to a narrow topic with a relatively small audience.
You forgot to add the URL. :{
I think the only real question here is why there are so many unmoderated comment functions on news sites in the first place.
Moderating the comments is not a profit generating activity.
Obviously not directly but it may up page views to have a comments section which may up ad revenue. So you have to decide if a good (ie moderated) comments section is better than none or trollfest one. Because it is a hassle, I was listening to a radio program about the growth of outsource moderator companies. So instead of having staff do it they hire some guys who moderate multiple websites’ comment sections.