|
haaretz.com
Are open comments good for public discourse in Israel? One Haaretz columnist says no. |
Israeli online media were and remain among the pioneers in permitting reader "talkbacks" (public comments). But maybe it wasn't such a good idea.
When we implemented talkbacks on the English-language
Ynetnews.com (which I started two years ago but am no longer affiliated with), we were adapting technology that had proven popular with readers of the original Hebrew-language site
Ynet (the online site of Israel's largest daily paper, Yedioth Ahronoth). At the time, Ynet was receiving more than 10,000 talkbacks a day. Israelis have a lot of opinions, are not shy about sharing them, and quickly embrace new technology.
After we introduced talkbacks to English-language online news from Israel, other media outlets (notably Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post) added talkbacks to their sites.
RELATED RESOURCES
|
Get E-Media Tidbits as an RSS feed:
* Copy this link and add it to your feed reader
Subscribe to receive E-Media Tidbits by e-mail:
* Sent Monday-Friday, 5 p.m. ET |
|
These days, articles on any of these three sites can attract hundreds of comments . From a "stickiness" and business perspective, this is all good: more page views and more visitors.
But now Bradley Burston (a senior editor and a columnist for Haaretz's English site) is questioning the true value of talkbacks at a time when open, civil and reasoned dialogue is difficult to find in various clashes: between Israelis and Palestinians, or between left- and right-wing Israelis, or between religious and secular Jews in the U.S. and Israel.
In his May 17 column, Talkbacks are for cowardly bigots, Burston wrote: "It is time to rethink the talkback. This has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with accepting the principle that human beings of other opinions and other origins are no less human, no less deserving of respect, creatures of the same God.
"Until these principles are more widely observed, the talkback will continue to be what it is: a sounding board for the cowardly bigot, the armchair bully, the self-adoring activist who makes the world a worse place in which to live -- never actually confronting an adversary face to face, never actually even venturing out the door."
Burston says he doesn't mind the personal attacks. He also says we should see the talkbacks he rejects.
Burston has a point: In all of the hundreds of talkbacks we reviewed at Ynetnews, and which I still read today on all the Israeli media sites, I can't say I ever saw someone write, "You know, you're right. Your comments make a lot of sense. I think I am going to have to revise my thinking on this matter."
Instead, I see people digging in their heels, taking the most extreme positions, and defending sometimes indefensible positions on both sides of the so-called security barrier (or fence, or wall).
From a business perspective, from a "viral marketing" perspective, and from a Web 2.0 citizen journalism perspective, talkbacks -- which are still not as widespread in American media as one might think -- make a lot of sense.
However, from a civil discourse perspective (at least so far in Israeli media) I think they have been a dismal failure.
UPDATE MAY 22: Burston's column had 596 talkbacks when I checked Tuesday morning, Israel time, the fourth day after it was posted.
