By West Side Rag
WSR has always prized readers’ comments. We invite them at the end of each story, with some caveats: be civil, be respectful, be brief, be factual. That guidance is laid out in a short paragraph just before each comment section, and for the past few years it was skillfully interpreted by our comment moderator (and WSR co-owner) Bobby Tannenhauser.
In an interview last summer, Bobby talked about how he had read 22,000 (!!) comments the previous year. He rejected about 40%, he said, because they were off topic, contained insults or other uncivil discourse, went on far too long, were factually in error, or otherwise didn’t meet Bobby’s standard for maintaining a useful dialog in the comments sections.
It was only after Bobby died in April that the rest of the Rag’s staff came to fully appreciate what an enormous job he’d taken on, and how skillfully he’d done it. In conversations since then, we’ve found a successor moderator: Bobby’s daughter, Emily Tannenhauser, who has also taken on her father’s role as the Rag’s business manager.
Emily drafted a very detailed statement on why comments are important, what purpose the Rag hopes they will serve in the community, and what guidelines she intends to follow to maintain a civil, relevant discourse. Here is that statement from Rag comment moderator Emily Tannenhauser.
Statement of Purpose for the Comments Section of the West Side Rag
West Side Rag is a hyper-local news outlet devoted to reflecting the life, culture, and concerns of the Upper West Side. Our comments section is an extension of that mission. It exists to encourage thoughtful participation, strengthen community ties, and invite readers to actively engage with the stories that shape our neighborhood.
We believe that open dialogue is essential to a healthy civic life. By offering space for readers to respond, question, and reflect, we hope to enhance the value of each article and foster a more interactive and connected reading experience. The comments section is not just a forum—it’s a place for neighbors to hear each other, challenge each other respectfully, and deepen their understanding of our shared environment.
A little humor also never hurts.
Our primary goal is to create a safe and respectful space where a broad spectrum of voices can be heard. We welcome diverse viewpoints and encourage readers to engage critically with one another’s ideas, but never at the expense of civility. Disagreement is expected—even encouraged—but it must be expressed with care and consideration. Comments that take cheap shots, escalate conflict, or veer into ideological warfare detract from the constructive spirit we aim to cultivate.
As the moderator, I do not seek to influence, shape, or censor the conversation beyond what is necessary to maintain a civil and focused exchange. My role is to ensure the space remains free of abuse and conducive to meaningful dialogue. I will not allow any content that includes:
- Profanities or vulgar language
- Personal attacks on other commenters or individuals
- Hate speech, racism, antisemitism, bigotry, or any form of discrimination
- Threatening, harassing, or abusive remarks
- Misinformation or deliberately misleading statements
- Libelous or defamatory claims
- Pornographic, indecent, or sexually explicit material
- Inflammatory rhetoric designed to provoke or inflame
- Commercial, political, or personal promotion
Our hope is to create a dialogic sphere—not an echo chamber, and not a battlefield. A place where ideas can be exchanged, not shouted down. We want readers to feel empowered to speak, to listen, and to learn from one another in the process. We fervently wish that more readers would comment.
In order to maintain focus and relevance, comments will be open on each story for six days following publication. Each comment may be 150 words or fewer, which encourages clarity, thoughtfulness, and conciseness.
Thank you for being part of the West Side Rag community. We look forward to hearing from you—and we’re glad you’re here.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
What’s dismissed as “misinformation” is often fact based, and easy to check.
For example: The Russiagate fables told by the likes of the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC, NPR for years.
PRECISELY THE SORT OF REMARK that should fall under the above guidelines.
RIP Mr. Tannenhauser, but the WSR comments showed a TON of hardcore Zionist, Thin Blue Line and virulently classist remarks. Do a better job on that. Many of my neighbors came to know WSR as the place to read good news and then laugh at the bigoted crashouts in the comments
This is precisely the type of comment that consistently drags down the discourse. Ridiculous, hyper-partisan, most often extremely right-wing noise that belongs in a tabloid for uneducated dolts, not a friendly neighborhood publication geared toward a rather sophisticated local crowd.
Let’s be open to a wide range of opinions, but pasting grandpa’s forwarded Fox News-inspired rants really makes it look shabby around here.
Kirk, your partisan slip is showing. Do you not recognize the irony or art thou too “rather sophisticated?”
That’s the issue—using terms like “right wing” as ann insult and calling people “uneducated dolts” while preaching a friendly neighborhood.
This post comes across as insulting and intolerant. The OP seems to think they know better than others and suggests that those they see as less educated shouldn’t have a voice. Likewise, right-wing perspectives are portrayed as unwelcome. Diverse opinions should be encouraged. We shouldn’t practice intolerance but rather welcome all viewpoints.
Then I look forward to your large-hearted embrace of the gloriously free speech of the pantsless wino screaming at passersby on your corner.
Flo:
“The OP seems to think they know better than others and suggests that those they see as less educated shouldn’t have a voice. ”
How does my comment do anything of the sort? I am the OP here, not Kirk.
Ironically, it is actually your post that drags down discourse. Why? Because it is the typical ad hominem attack that does absolutely nothing to address the persons arguments. This is the poster-child response these days complete with cool insults like “grandpa’s forwarded Fox-news”, etc. You add nothing, you say nothing, you only yell out like a child, but we are supposed to believe that the OP, who I disagree with, is the real problem.
Wrong…this is exactly the type of content which has been banned.
This is the type of nonsensical comment that I wish the WSR didn’t publish. In 2020, the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee released a 1,000-page report detailing how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers.
I understand that it’s difficult and no doubt thankless to police every comment, but Ms. Tannenhauser’s own guidelines say WSR will not allow “Misinformation or deliberately misleading statements.”
Weird how Democrats cherry pick the information from Republicans that they deem truthful. I guess if it hurts Trump, then those are the good Republicans. Like John Bolton.
“Cherry-pick” a 1,000-page report from the Senate intelligence committee? The report detailed how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf. The report was bipartisan and the facts are not in dispute.
And this is exactly why comment moderation with subjective categories like “misinformation” always devolves into political censorship …some folks fervently believe things that aren’t true, and never want to see or hear ideas that challenge their beliefs.
Setting aside hot button political issues, a great many Upper West siders don’t believe in or want to hear basic facts about economics, health, crime, history or law. It is terrifically easy to silence people who say unpopular things, in the name of “civility”.
As for Jerry’s perfect illustration of this principle…Yes, the Senate *did* publish the report you’re talking about. But in case you haven’t been listening to news you don’t like, just in the last month it’s been revealed that not only was this report largely false (which has been known for a long time), it was generated for political purposes.
It used to be common knowledge, taught in every high school in the US, that the reason why we don’t allow censorship is that we cannot trust the censors. Everyone in the US used to know this and repeat it. Somewhere along the way this core truth got lost. Misinformation is a giant lie. It’s a euphemism for “you are saying something that I believe is untrue and I have the power to censor you”. Comment sections should be entirely free of censorship, period. Otherwise, it’s a joke.
No, the entire Russia Collusion hoax has been completely debunked. And several of the promoters of said hoax are now facing grand jury trials.
There is no such thing as a “grand jury trial”. A grand jury is convened to determine whether to prosecute and hold a trial.
Except it hasn’t been debunked – that’s false, Erma.
It’s not a fable: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
Wikipedia, really?
Who killed JFK according the Wikipedia or RFK?
What do any of these three comments have to do with the “hyper-local” focus of the WSR as described by Emily, to whom I wish the best of luck in moderating the comments and keeping them targeted? I’ll read the Washington Post’s comments section if I want to hear opinions about Russia-gate.
Welcome, Emily!
Hang in there, many thanks – and good luck.
(And, if it’s not too implicitly abusive or vulgar, I’d like to humbly, generally, express the hope that the recent, dismal, spate of neggy twerp-type observations pass from the comment section like doggie-do promptly collected by a responsible owner – gone and forgotten. It may be too much to hope, but we can envision it.)
What is “neggy twerp-type”?
A comment that seems pointlessly negative and makes you think ill of the commenter. While you would not want to call them names in print, you think this is the type of thing some real twerp might contribute ….
It’s Gale Brewer’s fault.
What is?
Basically the UWS turning into Mark Gorton’s ideal world!
Good luck! May I suggest that you email folks when their comment is posted?
Or, more efficiently, when they are no?
Or better, email when the comment is rejected with a reason why it was rejected.
Why doesn’t Emily just come to your house and explain it all?
40% of 22,000 posts? That’s a tad much to expect.
I am nearly certain I was behind 38% of comments rejected.
Who decides what is misinformation and what is opinion? Commentators are not journalists.
Rejecting opinions under the dubious guise of misinformation is censorship.
That one is easy: the owner of the site decides.
If it quacks like a duck…
So who gets to decide if it quacks like a duck? Let me guess, only people who you agree with.
Exactly. Example: the emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop were planted there by Russia. If you claim those emails were genuinely produced by Hunter, then you are spreading misinformation and must be banned & canceled. Sound familiar?
stop posting misinformation
It’s still easy to fact-check and identify mis-information (although now that we have a president who hates truth and will fire truth-tellers in front of the whole world, this gradually becomes more difficult – https://apnews.com/article/trump-jobs-firing-f00e9bf96d0110519be9bf4f3ec89195). It’s also easy to differentiate between opinion and statements purporting to be indisputable facts. I don’t mean to imply Emily’s job will be “easy” – it will still take time and effort – but using her great common sense, she will know at what point to initiate a fact check.
So this is why more of my comments are coming thru. Very discouraging to bother when 40% of your comments are rejected.
I wonder what the rejection rate for comments are these days?
Yes even those that don’t live here and work here are also neighbors!
Nah
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neighbor
You should have to note it in your user name though. Same thing if you moved away and only post here to complain about what you read in the NYPost.
Perhaps also note if you’ve moved here from the suburbs? And have the benefit of a second home?
What’s with the hate of people that don’t live here? This is exactly why people dislike urbanists and liberals. Basically if you don’t have the privilege of living here, every comment you make gets noted with a metaphorical asterisk. That will not win Democrats any friends in competitive districts like where I live.
Oh, those dang urbanists! Why did they ever end up here, anyhow?
There’s no hate here buddy. But this is a neighborhood news site, when suburban folks swarm with comments (eg about how much they love parking…), it distorts the view of how real UWSers feel.
You don’t live here and that’s fine, just own it and don’t pretend otherwise.
So you think of those from outside the UWS that spend more time in the UWS than their home as not “real UWSers”, but you want them to spend time, energy, money in the neighborhood and to be at your service. You and the rest of the UWS cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Upper West Siders *live here*.
The rest of you are visiting. Which is fine. But don’t think that spending a few hours in a neighborhood a day or every week puts you on the same level of understanding about local conditions, local politics, neighborhood issues, etc.
You live in a(nother) community, right? Pay equal attention to it and let us deal with our own. If you want a reflection of what the UWS’ values are, look at election results and contrast them to the tone and orientation of the WSR comments.
“You live in a(nother) community, right? Pay equal attention to it and let us deal with our own.”
If that is how you feel about people who work and own businesses in this community who cannot or are not able to live on the UWS for some reason, then do not come to communities like my community asking me to vote Democrat to save control of Congress because Democrats can come off as arrogant or to keep the Democratic supermajority in the state senate because NY Democrats are tone deaf and arrogant. Let’s not forget how Manhattan Democrats have no problem pushing congestion pricing, but then will not use the same public transportation that they want me to use and instead drive or charter a private bus to come to my district, a competitive swing congressional district that helped hand the GOP the house majority in 2022 to ask me and my (actual) neighbors for their votes.
Comments about a piece about comments! Its meta Monday!
Where are WSR’s comment guidelines found other than in the OP?
Ah yes, “misinformation”, and “inflammatory”…the eternal basis for silencing political opponents, while trying to invoke sympathy.
Let’s not forget that the Lab Leak Hypothesis and The Laptop were “misinformation”, and as a result, continue to be widely censored by a group of ideologically biased people. Similarly, the Russian Collusion was a “fact” that, now debunked, continues to be believed by the side doing most of the “creation of safe and respectful space”.
Point being: censorship doesn’t work – it creates ideological bubbles of people who never hear ideas they don’t like. How about just not doing it? Your snowflake readers won’t melt if you allow legal, free speech.
The crazy thing is that these snowflake readers were the biggest advocates of free speech in the world, that is before they realized that they could actually control speech by gaining power in the government and aligning with big tech. Then, all of a sudden, these free speech zealots fell in love with censorship.
Frankly, I think it’s best to not have comments.
BINGO
What an excellent, eloquent statement of purpose! So glad Emily is following in her highly esteemed dad’s footsteps—and I applaud the emphasis on civility and conciseness (with some sense of humor!)
Thank you, Emily. When neighborhood and community respectful dialogue are at least as essential as they’ve ever been, this is so encouraging and grounding. A real balm, and a great service to the UWS.
Thank you, Emily!!Brave and patient woman! We appreciate you ♥️
Just curious why comments will only be open for six days after publication? Seems like kind of a small window.
You GO girl!
A lot of the comments below sound like political promotion, which is supposed to be banned, isn’t it?
I absolutely agree with the points regarding the length, personal attacks and vulgar language.
However, I’m concerned about bias. In the past, there were a lot of really bad personal attacks being allowed because they came from the far left. We moderates were often called all sorts of names if we didn’t agree with the far-left political statements of a commentator. Yet, those comments were still approved.
Now, regarding “misinformation”—that is a very tricky subject. What is considered true today by the mainstream media may be considered false tomorrow. We can’t base trust on that. Nor can we trust crime statistics that don’t accurately reflect reality. So, unless a comment contains an insult or snark, let them all through
Agree. I am a left of center moderate – almost always vote Dem, despise Trump. But because I am not far left, I have been called horrible names (particularly MAGA) and had countless posts rejected for no reason. Hopefully the new moderator will be more balanced and thoughtful.
Also, because of the delay in posts going live, there are often a number of very repetitive posts saying the exact same thing. Could you simplify things by eliminating completely redundant posts?
Thank you for your efforts and best of luck!
Thanks for the feedback
The article talks about wanting comments to be “brief.” But while “brevity is the soul of wit,” “verbosity is the soul of explication.” Sometimes it is necessary to NOT be brief in order to properly and accurately respond to an article or comment.
Therefore, I will continue to be verbose when I feel it is necessary or appropriate. If you choose to reject such comments, that is, of course, your prerogative.
🙂
Wondering what was wrong with your late dad’s “rules?”
OK,. Given the comments thus far, let’s get this done and over with:
-The Earth is flat
-Chemtrails are real
-The moon landing was faked
-Science is wrong (about everything)
-EVERTHING is a conspiracy
-Russia did not interfere with the 2016 election
-Drumpf won the 2020 election
-Jan 6 was simply a group of well-behaved tourists
-Paul is Dead
-Einstein failed math
Anything I’m forgetting? 😉
Yes, you are.
First “Drumpf” is derogatory and I’m not a fan of our president. But we must remain civil. .
Second – you are mixing scientific facts and political issues presented as facts.
Speaking only for myself, I’m not a fan of Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin Dada Oumee, Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, or Edward Theodore Gein. But let’s all remain civil and call them by their actual names, shall we?
I think we are.
As usual, you’re mistaking being civil for approving of criminal behavior.
I don’t confuse the two but only hope we don’t polite ourselves to death.
When they come for us (or me, at least), I trust we will offer them the proper deference.
Emily: Your Dad would be so proud of your stepping into his role as moderator. He couldn’t have planned a better succession! Congratulations and best of luck!
Thanks you guys. I will try my best. Love you!
Where on the website are the comment guidelines spelled out?
Scroll up. Perhaps there should be a separate page and conspicuous permalink for them?
Whether you find their specificity satisfying is another question.
I am so appreciative of these guidelines and the way it gives us all practice to speak our minds –with respect and civility, despite passionate differences.
Thank you Emily.
CHERYL,
You mean the guidelines that are basically never followed consistently?
It’s fear-mongering and dis-information when it comes from the side you don’t like. It’s legitimate concern and the open exchange of ideas and theories when it comes from the side you do like.
If you’re a fan of WSR comments then come see The Ruthless Comedy Hour for a live reading! Thursday, September 25, 7:30Pm!!! Same great comedy minds that deliver Rithless advice to your in box
I absolutely agree with the points regarding the length, personal attacks and vulgar language.
However, I’m concerned about bias. In the past, there were a lot of really bad personal attacks being allowed because they came from the far left. We moderates were often called all sorts of names if we didn’t agree with the far-left political statements of a commentator. Yet, those comments were still approved.
Now, regarding “misinformation”—that is a very tricky subject. What is considered true today by the mainstream media may be considered false tomorrow. We can’t base trust on that. Nor can we trust crime statistics that don’t accurately reflect reality. So, unless a comment contains an insult or snark, let them all through
Do you remember an example of this?
Not challenging your claim, just interested.
I noticed that too and was surprised at the personal attacks that were permitted, as opposed to those that were deemed in violation. It was (and still might be) beyond inconsistent and biased. I hope there’s some self-reflection at The Rag.
Urbanists can get away with a lot more than those who disagree with them, then they claim to be the victim and be censored.
“Nor can we trust crime statistics that don’t accurately reflect reality. ”
THAT is misinformation
No it isn’t.
o boy tell me how DANGEROUS new york city is now – everyone is walking down the street wielding a $300 personal computer in their hands without paying attention to their surroundings.
In ’95, you’d have gotten jacked in minutes. Same in ’05.
Times have changed. The city is remarkably safe. Stop being afraid
When the umpire calls the batter out at first base, he (or now, she) is not censoring you’re right to disagree. Disagreeing with the call does not make the batter safe (regardless of whether or not the umpire screwed up).
Blessed are the umpires, and blessed (now) is the appeals process.
If you want to change the rules of the game to: all batters from my team are always safe, you are entitled to make your case, but stop calling it baseball and call it what it is: wrestling.
Some people like Baseball, some people like Wrestling;
Something for everybody!
A better comments section would be weighted. The best comments rise to the top of the stack. The way the NYT, or Slashdot, in it’s former days did. There are various way to to it. Slashdot published their code.
How were they weighted? Was it a matter of readers’ number of thumbs up or did someone on staff decide?
The NYT’s best comments are almost always conventional wisdom reiterated. But the NYT has now effectively paywalled nearly all of its reporting, so I don’t read them any longer.
Welcome Emily!
This post would seem to violate (at least) two of Emily’s guidelines.
General advise: don’t let the subtle differences distract you from the blatant parallels. (Yes, of course I have something in particular in mind.)
It’s a little disheartening that we live in this great city (for better or worse), and that this site is for our community on the Upper West Side, to keep us in the loop, it’s such a great thing that a group of people are putting together local news items for us, and we don’t pay anything for this. And yet, there are truly unhappy, grouch-o people out there that feel the need to add nothing to the conservation, other than their own rage-bait, and often times, in a nasty way that’s completely pointless. Thank you for writing this article, I hope some people temper their random grouchiness into something more constructive and topic-focused in these comments because of this article’s insight.
Did comments start getting a lot more likes in the past week or two? Did something change? Or are my comments just that much more brilliant than usual?
You could save yourselves a lot of trouble by not moderating the comments at all. Let it be the Wild, Wild, Upper West Side. It’s entertaining. It’s engaging. It’s just the internet.
In case anyone hasn’t yet pointed out that whereas Emily’s guidelines state that “[e]ach comment may be 150 words or fewer”, the “Leave a Comment” control still says “100 words” … I just did so. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but I for one would like to see this discrepancy resolved, ideally on the high side.
Thank you for so kindly making us aware of this. It will be resolved.
You’re quite welcome! As mentioned, I hope the correct number is 150.
Two questions:
(1) What are the prospects of Markdown or BBCode support here? I have a hankering for italics, block quotes, & so on.
(2) What’s the secret to editing one’s own comments after posting? Maybe I’ve been looking too hard, but I don’t spot anything on the subject.