Ten things we do at Zetland to create an online debate that actually feels pleasant to take part in
In many parts of the internet, the comment section is reviled. It’s where the internet may show its most polarizing, most conflict-generating, and most disquieting aspects. Because of this, we at Zetland (and if you have never heard of us: we are a memberbased, no ads and no breaking news digital paper based in Denmark) have set a goal to do the opposite. The comment section shouldn’t be a battle field, but a construction site. How can we come together online when we massively disagree? When we’re in different corners? This is one of the most important questions now for us as society. And it’s one of the utmost important tasks for us as a media outlet. Here’s how we’ve tried to tackle the issue at Zetland.
1. The journalist takes part in the conversation below their articles
Traditionally, once an article is published, the journalist is done with it. We want to explore what happens if the article isn’t the final thought, but an invitation to further conversation. For this to happen, the journalist must be the host, or at least actively present in the conversation started by the article. This also serves to remind everyone who contributes that this is a place where we actually listen to what you write. What you write will be met by a real-life person.
2. The article’s source is invited to participate in the conversation too
Inviting the article’s source into the conversation below the article provides an opportunity for our members to pursue lines of thought, ask questions, and share their reflections, not just with each other, but with a person who can actually answer their inquiries. And it contributes something else as well. It changes the power dynamic on which traditional journalism is founded. When the journalist and their source enter into a direct dialogue with those who read and listen to the journalism, the classic journalist role fundamentally shifts.
3. We manage without a code of conduct by setting good examples ourselves
We expect our members to know how to talk to one another. This is why we haven’t written down a let’s-talk-nice code of conduct, and why we set the bar twice as high for ourselves. We try to be living let’s-talk-nice codes of conduct every day in our contribution sections. We aim to be the people we’d like to meet. We try to turn the other cheek, which … perhaps a little strangely … we call ‘doing a Jesus.’
4. Is your contribution a question or new knowledge?
When members go to write their contributions, they can choose whether to mark it as a question or new knowledge. If you choose knowledge, your contribution gets blue and pink stripes. If you choose question, your contribution gets green and blue stripes. It may sound like a small detail, but it’s a feature that helps to say: On this platform, we ask questions and share knowledge. It’s a feature that helps you stop and consider: What do you really want to achieve with your contribution?
5. The contribution section is for Zetland’s members only
The conversational culture which has emerged, where members ask out of sincere curiosity, bring knowledge to the table, and respectfully disagree, was created by Zetland’s members. They’ve created the community center they want to meet in. Together, we’ve established a specific expectation of one another. Exactly like when you visit other people’s houses and automatically gauge whether this is a place where we take our shoes off in the hall. Or where we piss in the corner. This is also why everyone can see each other’s first and last names. It marks a little virtual gesture to ensure that everyone has always been introduced. You know who you’re talking to. It’s also possible to mark down the basis of your contribution, like whether you’re a doctor, a father of three, or a butterfly enthusiast. Through these features, we shake each other’s hands in greeting before sitting down at the table together.
6. The contributions you see first are not the loudest ones
Our comment section is organized chronologically. This may sound like a trivial detail, but the fact that the most reacted-to contributions aren’t at the top matters. A chronological comment section sends the message that this is an ongoing conversation, with no algorithm in place to reward yelling and strong emotions.
7. We accompany our vulnerable sources
When an article features a vulnerable source, we take particular caution to make sure the writer stands by them in the comment section below the article. We also avoid re-publishing articles with vulnerable sources on social media without informing them first. That’s why we’ll typically let our source know in advance or sometimes even ask permission if we want to re-share an older article. If they say no, we don’t.
8. We call our comment section the contribution section
It may sound like hocus pocus, but the name of what is going to take place matters. In a contribution section, we don’t react. We contribute. This means journalists actually get new ideas for articles, members suggest further reading, and new perspectives emerge. In this way, our members’ input provides invaluable contributions to our journalism. That’s why it’s not ‘just’ a comment section — we borrowed the idea from Dutch De Correspondent, so a big thank you to them!
9. If you step on the line, we raise the flag
If contributions pop up which break the principles of our conversational culture, we quickly and kindly add a comment to point this out. We also mention that one of our foremost tasks as a media outlet is to create a digital conversational space where participants bring new knowledge, new questions, new nuances and perspectives. A place where you can trust that you’ll be well received, and where doubt is always accepted. For this reason, we also employ someone specifically to keep an eye on the contribution section so we can react fast if conversations develop in an unfortunate direction. She reacts by tapping the shoulder of the journalist who wrote the article, or the person in charge of Zetland’s community center.
10. We continue our contribution section on Zoom, where we meet face to face
With the internet overflowing with crude comments, one might think: You’d never talk like that if you were sitting across from another human being. We’ve considered the consequences of this. That’s why we continue the conversations from the contribution sections in digital face-to-face meetings. This gives you the opportunity to meet others who took part in the contribution section, to see their faces, hear their voices, and maybe even look into their living rooms through the little Zoom window. When we meet virtually, we’re not there to hear a presentation by the journalist, but to hand the microphone over to our members.
