Why we disabled comments
For much of the evening Tuesday, "Two more students arrested for cocaine" was the most commented story on dailytarheel.com. It fell in the most commented rankings as we moderated and removed comments, and eventually we disabled commenting on the story altogether.
In a comment today, Xaniel asked why we disabled comments: "Did you remove the ability to leave comments on your headline story 'Two More Arrested for Cocaine' because of the criticism directed toward the DTH?"
In general, commenting is enabled on almost every story, editorial and letter to the editor posted on dailytarheel.com. We moderate comments after they are posted, only removing those that violate our Community Guidelines. But we also reserve the right to disable comments on stories. We do this when we believe, based on the topic of the article, that respectful discussion won't be honored.
For that reason, we've been disabling comments this year on all stories related to Courtland Smith, the subsequent investigation into the Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity, and, beginning last week, stories related to the current and former students involved in the police department's cocaine bust. But on "Two more students arrested for cocaine," we screwed up, and we didn't follow our own plans to disable the comments. Rather than disable retroactively, thus eliminating the comments people made that met our Community Guidelines, we decided to disable future commenting. We felt this was an appropriate compromise - and if you look, many of the comments remaining on the story are critical of how we handled the story.
Moderating comments is a tricky job, and we often debate whether to leave or remove comments. Usually, there's a pretty hazy gray line between those that are OK, and those that aren't. If you think we're not doing a good job, be sure to let us know what we could do better.
- Newsroom's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend







Sara, We cannot see the
Sara,
We cannot see the remaining comments on the article... the story shows as '0 comments' for those of us without moderating abilities.
Something that needs to happen better is that if comments are being shut off completely, a reason needs to be given. Otherwise, there's a fairly strong impression that the articles are being blocked because of their questions against the DTH or its staff. As it stands, the comments that were posted and now gone (or the conversations that cannot being) don't clearly violate the guidelines in any way I can see.
I'm also going to throw out something about the integrity of the online archives (also in your code of ethics and polices you've linked). Hiding, or removing already approved, comments seems to run counter to this to me, as a direct manipulation of the online archive.
So, really, what I think we need is transparency. If you're blocking discussion on the 5 suspended from swimming due to underage drinking because you want to avoid the 8 DTH staff being charged with underage drinking, at least be honest and up front about it.
If this really is the newspaper of the University, and you're providing a space to foster discussion on these issues, forbidding it with no explanation is inappropriate.
Edit: Since I posted this comment, the old comments have reappeared.