Let’s give reader comments another chance — and for real, this time

It’s our duty as journalists (and it also makes sound business sense)

Ernst Pfauth
Dec 7, 2016 · 13 min read
Image for post
Image for post
Photo: Hulton Archive / Getty Images

Most people in the news industry hate comments. But that’s only because we invest too little in them. It’s like complaining about your relationship, but never being home for a good heart-to-heart.

And yet audience engagement — just like love, by the way — is so worth the investment. Especially now that Americans’ and Europeans’ trust in media and journalists has sunk to a new low. Talking to each other can help build relationships and therefore trust.

What business leader out there doesn’t want to earn more per user? And what journalist doesn’t want to have the best sources for stories and the greatest possible impact?

Audience engagement is especially important in a time where many people feel a serious disconnect with corporate media, who they feel speak more for business interests than serve the public good.

Audience engagement can give us all that. Think about it:

You could say we live in an era in which it’s more feasible than ever before to have the people’s knowledge and experience come through in journalism. Interaction can now go much further than the traditional Letter to the Editor.

Then why does it still go wrong? Why are we still writing into the void instead of prompting conversations? Why do we continue to see “the people formerly known as the audience” as, well, an audience?

Why are reputed journalism outlets, like National Public Radio, Vice Motherboard, The Verge, Reuters, and Bloomberg shutting down their comments sections?

Why are they handing over their precious readers to advertising giants like Twitter and Facebook for some “interaction”? Those are places, as Margaret Sullivan of The Washington Post writes, “where many journalists congregate to talk shop [Twitter], or which can become an echo chamber of like-minded friends reinforcing one another’s beliefs [Facebook].”

This is what goes wrong on both sides

Over the last eight years, I’ve spoken with hundreds of journalists and readers about this very issue, and worked with many of them towards a solution. Allow me to briefly summarize the sentiments of both parties:

What journalists think about reader participation:

“We’d be willing to give it a try — and involve readers in our research — but our managers would never in a million years give us the time to do it. They’d ask why we only penned four articles this week instead of five. And besides that, it’s always one long anonymous shouting match, with some conspiracy theorist trying to trump the next with brand new “evidence” on Kennedy or 9/11.”

What readers think about reader participation:

“We all dedicate our lives to a particular expertise or skill and we’re willing to share what we know. We want to play a part in informing other readers about our area of expertise. We wouldn’t mind answering some questions, or taking the time to fill in the gaps in your research. As long as you genuinely want to know the real answers. And as long as you don’t then turn around and reach for that same old list of folks who have made a career out of providing ‘expert opinions’ to the sensationalistic media.”

The result

Mutual distrust means the two sides don’t often speak to each other. Most readers skip the comments section, leaving it to the shouters, and journalists see little reason to look at reader comments post-publication.

Or to capture it in an infographic, there’s a lot of potential left untapped in this process:

Image for post
Image for post
This is how Meg Pickard (then Head of Digital at The Guardian) explained things in 2010 to audience engagement strategist Joy Mayer. Unfortunately, it’s still relevant.

9 conditions for engaged readers

Okay, so how can we fix this?

How can we ensure that journalists act as conversation leaders, and readers as contributing experts?

First of all: by interacting with readers not as a side project or obligation, but as an integral part of the work of a modern-day journalist. Talking to your audience isn’t extra work, it is your work.

Otherwise the comments section will remain an anonymous place to vent.

If you think participation is important, you have to convince people reader by reader. And journalist by journalist. Below, I lay out nine conditions for engaged readers, which may help you in your own struggle to boost reader participation.

My list is based on the following sources:

Okay, here we go:

1. Everyone in the organization recognizes that readers possess relevant knowledge and expertise, be it through their job, education, or life experience.

And that it is our responsibility as journalists to involve these reader-sources as much as possible in our reporting. This is key, because then no one will view speaking with readers as “extra work,” but as an essential part of the job.

2. Journalists don’t only ask for contributions from readers *after* publication, but also announce new articles-in-the-making ahead of time.

It’s not wise to limit reader participation to post-publication comments on a story that’s finished. That reduces reader expertise to an afterthought.

Far better to give readers the opportunity to send in tips at the start of a new story or investigative project. As they say at Hearken:

“If there’s no pathway for input from your audience to shape the content decisions your newsroom is making, then it’s not audience engagement.”

That’s why we always announce new projects at De Correspondent, and at the same ask who among our readers can help:

Image for post
Image for post
A call to our readers, by our correspondent Climate and Energy. Click to read the article
Image for post
Image for post
And by our Guest Correspondent Music Industry.

Note: Of course this won’t work for investigative pieces that must remain under wraps until publication. You’ll be able to write more such exposés, however, if you expand your network to include readers.

3. Readers know exactly what journalists expect of them

It helps if journalists clearly state which missing links they are still looking for. Readers with that particular expertise then feel called to contribute.

And the discussion doesn’t get bogged down in a general exchange of interchangeable opinions. The discussion has direction; the community knows what’s being sought after.

You can include a feature in your CMS that allows authors to voice a specific call to readers at the close of every article.

4. Journalists keep and share a public notebook

Between the initial call for a new project and publication of the final piece, engaged journalists let their readers hear from them. Journalists keep and share a public notebook, as it were. For example, they

Look at how Joris Luyendijk of The Guardian shared transcriptions of interviews with bankers on his Banking Blog (which eventually led to this book):

Image for post
Image for post
Go the Banking Blog

Now you might think, “Is the average reader served by this?”

Not the average reader, no. But the reader whose occupation or education relates to this area is well served indeed. This kind of update likely encourages such readers to take a more active part in your project.

That’s why you can put this kind of material on a separate blog. Or as we do at De Correspondent, give readers the opportunity to follow their favorite authors. When you follow an author, you also get their specialist updates in your feed.

For a public notebook to work, it’s essential that not every piece be required to be a hit. Updates serve a purpose beyond pure traffic: They encourage a well-informed public to share what they know.

5. Authors get involved in discussions

This is simple, but oh so important. If the author doesn’t get involved in the discussion, readers might as well be talking to the wall.

And author involvement is the key to a civilized discussion. Angry readers change their tune when they realize a “real person” is listening, and one who’s genuinely interested in their knowledge and experience.

At De Correspondent, we often invite people we’ve interviewed to take part in the discussion.

Honor good questions with a good answer, stick to the facts, thank readers for providing invaluable tips that can take your project a step further, and calmly urge the rabble-rousers to tone it down.

Keeping a discussion civil has nothing to do with censorship. Many readers consider moderated discussion a limitation on free speech, but when you view comments as an integral part of journalism instead of a wailing wall everyone can scrawl on, moderation becomes just another form of editing.

6. Readers respond using their real names

I realize this is a controversial position, but in every journalism project I’ve been a part of, I’ve seen that using real names leads to more constructive discussions. It’s more personal, more professional, and suddenly everyone has a reputation on the line.

Margaret Sullivan, now the media columnist for The Washington Post, recalls that back when she was Editor in Chief of the Buffalo News, removing reader anonymity led to greater civility.

And after all, journalists don’t operate in anonymity, so why should readers?

At De Correspondent, only members can comment. We can check their names against payment information.

If people still want to remain anonymous — whistleblowers, for instance — then they use email (which can be encrypted) to get in touch.

7. Journalists highlight valued contributions

It’s important that readers see their contributions are appreciated and useful. Don’t leave them guessing on this one.

So when you make use of a tip from a reader, give the reader credit in your follow-up piece, at least in a footnote. That encourages other readers to share their knowledge with you.

Or introduce an ‘editor’s picks’ tab in your comments sections, like at The New York Times.

Image for post
Image for post
The New York Times highlights valuable comments

At De Correspondent, authors can highlight contributions that have journalistic value. They then appear at the top of the discussion, and the reader receives an automatically generated thank-you email from the author (which sometimes leads to an interesting email exchange).

8. The technology supports the community

You can come a long way with a team of journalists that understands the value of interacting with readers and does so on a daily basis. But well-conceived technological support and design nudges can also make a big difference.

At De Correspondent, we decided that discussions will only be visible to our members (annual membership fee works out to 5 euros a month). Reader contributions are also not indexed by Google. This is how we’ve created a safe place for interaction.

We also don’t call them reader “comments” but “contributions,” to emphasize that it’s about contributing to the article, to the discussion, to journalism, and not simply about airing a response. And the contribution field contains the placeholder, “Share your knowledge or experience. Or ask a question.” Just another gentle reminder that this is about sharing expertise.

Image for post
Image for post
We call them contributions instead of comments

9. Publications help readers establish authority and grow their reputation

One of the best developments in this respect is Quora’s “Bio”:

Image for post
Image for post
The bio feature on Quora

This type of expertise title has at least four things going for it:

That’s why we’ve shamelessly copied this feature at De Correspondent:

Image for post
Image for post
Members can add a specific bio for every contribution they write.
Image for post
Image for post
And here’s how the bio looks in the contributions

It’s also important that readers can build up a reputation within your publication. To start with, it makes your site more addictive, but it also makes it easy for you to discover interesting experts among your readers.

One of the most elegant examples is the reputation score at Stack Overflow, the question-and-answer forum for programmers:

“The primary way to gain reputation is by posting good questions and useful answers. Votes on these posts cause you to gain (or sometimes lose) reputation.”

The score is listed by every post a user makes. Some developers even put their score on their résumé.

What can an individual journalist do right now?

Many of the nine recommendations have to be implemented at board room level, so there’s a big chance that any change will take years. What can an individual journalist do in the meantime?

(Posted these recommendations also separately here so they’re easier to share within your organization)

Open questions and challenges

Not long ago, we published an article on De Correspondent about certification programs for fair trade products. It just so happens that my fiancée has her own fashion line and runs a clothing factory in Nepal, so she knows a thing or two about fair trade certification. When I asked why she didn’t join in the discussion online, she looked at me as if I had asked her to sort our household garbage by color.

“I am not about to go comment on some website,” she said.

This is an ongoing battle — even in my own family. Online comments have such a bad name it’s going to take years for us to restore their image.

At the same time, we face a bunch of new challenges. At the moment, I’m trying to come up with ways to deal with the following:

Image for post
Image for post
Hearken in action, on The Chicago Tribune’s site.

I’ll continue to cover this issue on Medium and would love to hear about your experiences in the field. I’ll update this piece with new insights.

The Correspondent

The Correspondent is a movement for radically different…

Thanks to Rob Wijnberg, Loeki Westerveld, Maaike, and Sterre Sprengers

Ernst Pfauth

Written by

Cofounder & CEO of The Correspondent. Working to bring our ad-free, reader-funded journalism to the world.

The Correspondent

The Correspondent is a movement for radically different news. Founded in Amsterdam, now bringing our ad-free, member-funded, collaborative journalism to the English language.

Ernst Pfauth

Written by

Cofounder & CEO of The Correspondent. Working to bring our ad-free, reader-funded journalism to the world.

The Correspondent

The Correspondent is a movement for radically different news. Founded in Amsterdam, now bringing our ad-free, member-funded, collaborative journalism to the English language.

Medium is an open platform where 170 million readers come to find insightful and dynamic thinking. Here, expert and undiscovered voices alike dive into the heart of any topic and bring new ideas to the surface. Learn more

Follow the writers, publications, and topics that matter to you, and you’ll see them on your homepage and in your inbox. Explore

If you have a story to tell, knowledge to share, or a perspective to offer — welcome home. It’s easy and free to post your thinking on any topic. Write on Medium

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store