By Ann Cooper
Every Sunday The New York Times Magazine publishes a selection of thoughts from readers on articles that ran the previous week. Most are full of praise, and last Sunday’s offerings were no exception: Nine readers found the Times May 2 profile of Brittney Griner a “powerful,” “moving,” “magnificently told” portrait of a “truly heroic” woman of “courage” and “strength.”
One writer expressed disgust, though — not at Griner or the author of the profile, but “at the hostility and meanness expressed in the online comments.” I’d read the article a week earlier, but never clicked on the little “comment” image at the bottom to see what people were writing online. Now I did, and immediately a long box appeared, revealing 1,003 posts made before comments were closed (the Times says it typically closes a story’s comments section after 24 hours, so its moderators can keep up with comments on more recently posted material).
After reading maybe a hundred (200?) entries, too bleary-eyed to continue, it was easy for me to identify the sources of the reader’s disgust. Though the majority of the commenters I read were sympathetic to Griner, quite a few said she deserved to be arrested and punished after Russian officials found traces of cannabis oil in vape cartridges in her baggage. Their argument was: she broke Russian law, she should have known better, “she isn’t a hero” for having survived months in the harsh Russian prison system. There were complaints that to win her freedom, the U.S. released Russian arms dealer Victor Bout; Bout is a “serious threat to humanity,” wrote one, while another writer wondered how much it had cost U.S. taxpayers to negotiate Griner’s release and fly her back home.
At least some of the letters published in the print magazine had also been posted as online comments. But the contrast between the handful of nothing-but-praise letters chosen for print, and the far more varied messages in the deluge of online comments, was pretty striking.
Times comment columns are moderated; policies are spelled out here, and include a ban on name-calling, profanity, and SHOUTING. “While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderation decisions are subjective, and carefully made by our Community team,” according to the Times statement.
That doesn’t make the Times comments an accurate barometer of public opinion, any more than those nine letters in print were an accurate portrayal of all readers’ views on Griner; the comments only reveal the opinions of those who chose to write. But the online posts definitely offered a fuller picture of the range of views about Griner and her case, (though I wonder how many readers plowed through the daunting 1,003 posts).
I can hear a question forming now: how does the Rag moderate its comments? Stay tuned in the coming weeks for that – and for some history of how news media embraced online comments, scrambled to moderate them, and now (in some cases) are abandoning their comments sections.
As for Rag comments this week, we first want to thank readers for their patience with the tech glitches that made it hard to access the site (and, of course, to post comments) for a day or so.
Whether you are a fan of the comments or not, this week’s postings showed how they can reveal more than the story itself. Did you know, for example, that you can become certified as a Citizen Pruner to help maintain New York City trees (click here to learn how)? That was revealed by a commenter on the story Doug Garr sent us about balloon snagging on Amsterdam Avenue.
Barbara E. Morgan
11 hours ago
I am a long time volunteer in NYC Parks (Broadway Malls and Riverside) and a certified Citizen Pruner (Trees NY). Plastic and balloons in trees is a chronic problem, and I see it everywhere, including Riverside Park. There used to be an item called a “Bag Snagger” which was specifically developed to get plastic bags, etc., out of trees. It was extendable. I tried to get one, but they had already stopped making them. We really do need a tool like this available to people to be able to get the trash out of the trees; better for the view, better for the trees, better in general.
And if our Monday Bulletin’s background explanation left you still curious about that unusual black-squirrel-with-brown-tail, another commenter offered a helpful lesson in genetics to explain the anomaly.
Josh
1 day ago
The black squirrels we see are actually melanistic gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis). Same species, but they have a recessive trait that causes the pigmentation difference. Being a recessive trait means that a black squirrel mating with another black squirrel will result in offspring that are also black. But a gray squirrel mating with a black squirrel would result in offspring that have, at best, a 50/50 chance of being black. This is based on the gene that controls the black pigment. The gray squirrel has a lot of variation in its tail color, even when it is just gray. You can often see grays with white or reddish, or brown pigmentation in the tail, along with the gray. Basically the same thing here with the melanistic gray squirrel. They can also have white, brown or gray tails. Different genes control different colorations in different parts of the body.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here.
I love reading the NY Times comments, often more than the actual stories. My unscientific opinion is that they sometimes slow roll more controversial comments. Though I don’t know what their algorithm is because the majority of my comments appear instantaneously. Perhaps there are words that trigger them to be reviewed more closely.
I am a moderate Democrat and agree with the bulk of what is in the Times. But I find it interesting when sometimes the Times veers too far to the left and most comments call them out for this. Because if the Times is too far to the left of its generally left-leaning readership, then it is far, far to the left of America. For example, for a while their education reporting was extremist and they repeatedly got called out for it (and I think ended up with a new reporter covering the beat – not sure if that was cause and effect).
I am looking forward to WSR’s follow-up on its moderation policies. I greatly admire and appreciate everything you do but sometimes find it to be without logic.
Rag has it’s bias just like the other media. Comments that don’t align with that are deleted. It’s that simple. People who talk about democracy really don’t want to hear opinions they don’t agree with. Releasing an arms dealer and spending a fortune to bring a criminal ‘woman’ back from Russia is ridiculous.
That woman who you insulted has four gold medals representing the US in international competition, including two Olympic golds. What have you done for the US?
Since your comment was not deleted, you just disproved your own ungenerous and inaccurate point about the Rag’s bias. And it’s ‘its,’ not “it’s,” as I’m sure your third grade teacher tried to teach you. (Just standing up for grammatical correctness, not political correctness.)
Actually, in the context the poster of which you’re being critical used it, “it’s” is correct and “its” would be incorrect. “It’s” = “it is”. “It’s” is a contraction and “its” is possessive.
Sorry, Steve; a little confusion here. Your facts are correct but your conclusion somehow got twisted. The first sentence of that post referred to the possession of bias by the Rag. So it calls for the possessive ‘its.’ It would not make sense as ‘Rag has it is bias.’
(Okay, enough with the grammar.)
You are correct. I was referring to the third sentence. The one in the first sentence slipped right by me. Oops! You have my sincere apologies.
As you rightfully allude though, nobody likes a grammar nazi. (And I purposely left the “n” in lower case because I don’t dignify that word with capitalization.)
:heart:
Some moderators at the NY Times are into political correctness and will not accept posts that are contrary to their beliefs. They ignore the NYT policy to moderate for civility and pertiness,
i like this article very much. It raises a very important question, I will do additional research on this subject and will bring it to a wider audience
I work in economic sanctions enforcement. Russia’s war in Ukraine has made it difficult, time consuming and often heartbreaking as it requires keeping up with the news coverage of the conflict to track who might be sanctioned next. Trading a heavily sanctioned arms dealer for a vaping basketball player felt like a slap in the face.
Not a “vaping basketball player” but a two-time US Olympian — which is probably more than you’ve ever done for your country.
In my opinion the NYT gets a D for Self-Criticism. I terminated a long-standing subscription a year ago and I don’t miss it. If you like the fact that it confirms your political opinions that’s fine and go ahead and enjoy and respect it. But I don’t think that should be the role of a major news source nor serious journalism itself. The real work is to challenge received opinion. Also–full disclosure: the crosswords puzzles are too hard for me, even Monday’s!
I think WSR should keep its comments capability. However, a few times when I have made comments that sound a bit more conservative they have not been published (I am not affiliated with either party). I have also noticed that sometimes it’s okay to hurl invective from the political left.
I am dubious of the overall impact of comments in any publication, but sometimes write them myself, in large part because it helps me formulate my own thoughts and organize them for real-life discussions with friends and family. I rarely follow up to see how others respond (it’s in the responses that the nastiness usually emerges). Too many people seem to see comments as an opportunity to launch slings and arrows against those with whom they disagree, over-simplifying essentially complex and difficult topics (such as Gaza or homelessness); I think you can encourage people to offer constructive or at least good-faith comments about UWS issues, which should (should) be less polarizing than the macro issues of the day. Keep up the good work. (You might also take a look at New York Magazine’s approach: every issue of the print version reprises some of the comments from the prior issue, and it can be interesting.)
I always sort NY Times comments in order of “Reader Picks.” That, at least, gives me a good sense of how the Times’s readership feels about an issue. What I find interesting is that generally a large majority of commenters will feel the same way about the issue raised: usually in support, but sometimes opposed. Of course, this is a group of commenters who are a subset of NY Times readers who are a subset of the population in general.
I do the same. Earlier commenters tend to bubble to the top as many people do what we do and only look at the most chosen. So I sometimes try to get a comment in quickly so that it is more likely to be seen early rather than buried. This is where I get frustrated when it takes them half a day to approve my comment while countless others are being approved. And I derive a lot of joy when I am one of the top Reader’s Picks.
Yes, I need a life.
I am a devoted reader of The Rag, its comments section, in my opinion, is unrivaled as a source of local entertainment.
It’s dispiriting to read the comments about Brittney Griner. The posters reveal -at best- a simplistic view of political hostage negotiation’s and their denigrating description of a US citizen working in Russia is even less attractive.
Btw, I blame AI for turning my plural into a possessive. Please do not show this to the nice grammar lady who used to be found near the 72 Street IRT or any retired English teacher, librarian or simple grammar minded citizen.
It just proves you’re smarter than AI. But what did it do to “negotiation’s?” 🙂
BTW, I agree with your comment about the Griner comments.
It is good practice to approach any comment section with a critical eye toward the selection bias inherent to comments – only those who take the time to comment, comment. As such, comment sections do not reflect the opinion of READERS but rather of a selection of readers who – for a variety of reasons – are moved to comment on what they read. That said, I still like reading the comment section. Not as a representative of public opinion, but as a glimpse into the opinions of those who (like me) are moved to comment. Sort of like myself, in this comment, commenting about comments. 🙂
That’s Jerry Seinfeld’s turf!
Peter and Steve M: “its” is correct.
Dear WSR, Thank you for citing my comment regarding Bag Snaggers (and the Citizen Pruner program)! The program is a very good overview of tree pruning basics, along with hands-on practice, NYC street tree care, and tree identification. For the amount of information conveyed, the cost is minimal, and it’s useful not only with street trees, but in the Parks and elsewhere. The folks at Trees NY are great, and real advocates for the urban “forest.” I work in Riverside Park in the Firemen’s Island (101-103rd St.) and I’d love to show you the area at some point.
Regarding this article, you may find this useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
I’ve found it instructive to look at how the WSR comments line up with results of local elections, especially Brewer v Di Stasio in 2023, the comments were largely pro Di Stasio yet Brewer won in a landslide with 80% of the vote.
So while the WSR comment section is a lot of fun, let’s not be under any illusions that the comments are representative of the neighborhood.