Comment nastiness

[Oldguy]

Rude, nasty comments about a news story can actually change the way readers view the story itself. We see that here every day, don't we?

In other words, those of us who participate in online forums or make comments on news outlet stories may be a bigger part of the divisiveness problem than we thought.

Conversely, this phenomena may be well enough known that it's done deliberately by plants.

"...The results were both surprising and disturbing. Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself...

...Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought..."


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/o...?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130303&_r=0


I've noticed something else over the years too. The first responder to a thread almost invariably sets the tone of the whole discussion which follows. If the first one is reasoned and calm, the debate tends to turn out that way. The reverse is often true too.

 

[MeBelle]

I've noticed something else over the years too. The first responder to a thread almost invariably sets the tone of the whole discussion which follows. If the first one is reasoned and calm, the debate tends to turn out that way. The reverse is often true too.

^^^True that^^^
Also the tone set by the OP.

"It’s possible that the social norms in this brave new domain will change once more — with users shunning meanspirited attacks from posters hiding behind pseudonyms and cultivating civil debate instead."

Interesting statement in article.

 

[Oldguy]

"It’s possible that the social norms in this brave new domain will change once more — with users shunning meanspirited attacks from posters hiding behind pseudonyms and cultivating civil debate instead."

Interesting statement in article.

We can only hope. But, I'm not optimistic about that.

 

[healthmyths]

"It’s possible that the social norms in this brave new domain will change once more — with users shunning meanspirited attacks from posters hiding behind pseudonyms and cultivating civil debate instead."

Interesting statement in article.

We can only hope. But, I'm not optimistic about that.

There is also another correlation.
Generally the mean spirited attacks come from posters that when given facts that don't match their opinions, they do as has been wont to do is "shoot the messenger"

"Don't shoot the messenger" was first expressed by Shakespeare in Henry IV, part 2 (1598) and in Antony and Cleopatra (1606-07). Prior to that, a related sentiment was expressed in Antigone by Sophocles as "No one loves the messenger who brings bad news."
An analogy of the phrase can come from the breaching of an invisible code of conduct in war, where a commanding officer was expected to receive and send back emissaries or diplomatic envoys sent by the enemy unharmed. During the early Warring States period of China, the concept of chivalry and virtue prevented the executions of messengers sent by opposing sides.
What is the origin of the phrase don't shoot the messenger

Watch how many "shoot the messenger" comments are forthcoming about this "messenger"!
Why even you "OLDGUY" have done that to me!

 

[Mad Scientist]

Conversely, this phenomena may be well enough known that it's done deliberately by plants.

You mean there are groups and organizations, as well as Governments, that would create sock puppet accounts to comment and spread dis-information online?

Sounds like a "Crazy Conspiracy Theory" to me.

 

[Seawytch]

Rude, nasty comments about a news story can actually change the way readers view the story itself. We see that here every day, don't we?

In other words, those of us who participate in online forums or make comments on news outlet stories may be a bigger part of the divisiveness problem than we thought.

Conversely, this phenomena may be well enough known that it's done deliberately by plants.

"...The results were both surprising and disturbing. Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself...

...Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought..."


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/o...?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130303&_r=0


I've noticed something else over the years too. The first responder to a thread almost invariably sets the tone of the whole discussion which follows. If the first one is reasoned and calm, the debate tends to turn out that way. The reverse is often true too.

I try to avoid the comment section of a news article, especially on sites like Yahoo that don't filter. That is an ugly glimpse into society...

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

I just like cracking jokes. Study history and government as long as I have and you need a release.