Trawling for intelligent critique in a sea of trolls
The Economist has been encouraging debate since its foundation in 1843. We have also taken a clear editorial stand on divisive issues: initially in favour of free trade, and against the protectionist Corn Laws; more recently in favour of gay marriage and gun control, and opposed to drug prohibition. Naturally, we’ve attracted our critics, but responding to them is part of our history too. Our Letters page used to be titled “Correspondence and Answers to Inquiries”. To this day the section rewards thoughtful, challenging letters with publication.
This heavily curated exchange of views in our newspaper is one thing, but the free-for-all riot on social media and below the line on every online article is something else altogether. Our editors in 1843 could never have imagined receiving endless reader comments: do the comments we attract stick to the spirit of the debate our founders imagined?
Not all letters received or comments posted on social networks are mind-stretching, thoughtful and challenging. Sexist, ignorant comments are a regular feature on stories about gender. Some readers, dismayed to see us criticise a politician they support, volley personal attacks at our writers. I’ve posted stories on social media that elicited responses such as “whoever wrote this should quit their job” and “does The Economist employ monkeys for social media now?”
All readers will disagree with us at some point — we are comfortable with that. But it is saddening when intelligent arguments are drowned out by knee-jerk pundits, such as the one who erroneously called The Economist racist for stating that Chinua Achebe was “one of Africa’s greatest storytellers”. It can be frustrating to scroll through comments and find only thoughtless, negative responses. People have a right — not a duty — to be offended.
Fortunately, some readers who disagree with our interpretation of the facts do actually add something to the debate. A blog post about sexual assault on television attracted a comment from a psychiatrist whose work in victim rehabilitation provided an expert perspective. A review of documentary “Where to Invade Next” found its way to Meghan Smith, one of the interviewees of the feature: she commented to tell us that her views were misrepresented in the documentary, and so our review did not capture the bigger picture. A tweet — “Fascist kitsch is taboo. Communist kitsch is thriving” — occasioned thought-provoking responses about why “Mussolini wine” and “Hitler padlocks” are still deemed acceptable in some parts of the world. In each of these cases, the comments added a fresh angle and enhanced subsequent readers’ experiences of the article. Our community editors are trying to respond more and more to insightful comments, especially on Facebook. Their responses usually spur the debate on, and more tightly wrap readers into the kind of analytical debate our editors favour.
We also like to use social media to collect qualitative feedback on how The Economist’s brand is perceived. Positive responses help us to discover what kinds of online formats work. And negative or constructive feedback provides clear guidance on what Economist readers want from social media, allowing us to adjust our strategy accordingly. Obtuse comments — such as “Why is The Economist writing about film?” — highlight our ongoing need to liberate our paper from the widespread misperception that it only writes about stockmarkets and finance.
The Economist has never shied away from admitting its shortcomings or mistakes — the Letters page every week is bursting with phrases such as “you misrepresent”, “you fail to mention” and “you overlook”. Lucid criticism grounded in evidence is welcome, and given a place at the front of the publication. In contrast, looking at social media can make you feel that articulate voices are rare. Many of my editorial colleagues don’t read below the line because they want to avoid the volleys of abuse.
But the light cast by the readers who respond to The Economist in a meaningful way is brighter than that from those who do not. Those who enjoy the kind of spirited, intelligent conversations which The Economist has cultivated since 1843 are not going to retire any time soon.
Rachel Lloyd is Assistant Editor of the Books and Arts department at The Economist.
