But such screening slows the debate we want readers to have in the space beneath our stories. We are in the business of exchanging ideas, and it never feels good to suppress them.
Traditional newspaper readers, however, view editors as filters — those men and women who separate the wheat from the chaff. They want work that has been edited, screened and otherwise readied for publication. With online opinions so freely available, and the range in quality so vast, I see the argument for selectivity.
But many online readers expect instant gratification. They are not always looking for carefully crafted letters to the editor or fact checking. They want to see their thoughts appear on the screen soon after they type them. They want to be part of the conversation before it gives way to another topic.
They view their newspaper websites as town halls.
Because our editors must log in, review and then publish comments, the conversations started by our stories often stall. Responses are often separated by hours.
We have good intentions. In short, we prevent instant publication of thoughtful, insightful and reasoned comments because we're trying to prevent the nut jobs, racists and mean-spirited words from getting through. Maybe that's the tail wagging the dog.
So what to do about it?
I've looked at the rest of the herd. The Los Angeles Times (our parent company), the Orange County Register and OC Weekly are among the papers in this market that allow unscreened comments.
I don't mind going our own way if we're doing the right thing. I can always make a high-road argument.
But in honesty I am unsure how true that is anymore. Maybe there's more value in those tennis-like conversational volleys you see online.
