Interesting article from the Times, now they need to look to see where most of the vitriol is coming from. I would hazard a guess that a good portion is from the left.

Sometimes I don´t think the folks on the left are very happy.

@#1 “...now they need to look to see where most of the vitriol is coming from. I would hazard a guess that a good portion is from the left….”

Oh, yes!!! I read ‘comments’ from many articles, and the slope from thoughtful opinion to absolute nasty, name-calling trash talk is very steep. And, no matter the subject, the name ‘Bush’ will almost always be used.

#2, They have a mental disorder, how could they be happy?

Depending on whom or what they are reporting or on which they are writing their columns, it stands to reason many who know the subject matter or personality of their column better than they do will have a negative affect to their bias. Most everything written these days is an opinion piece and what makes them think their opinion is the only one which counts. Facts are so distorted at times it does anger a reader.

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.

No surprise there. Look at this site, just to use another example. While posters here on L.Com are more polite than other sites, and profanity is prohibited anyway, there are some people who wouldn´t dream of saying to a person´s face what they type into the "POST REPLY" box.

If you wouldn´t say it to someone in person, don´t type it just because you can remain anonymous. It´s the coward´s way.

While not holding myself up as a paragon of morality and civility, I try to remember that I am responsible for my words and actions. Posters on websites more often than not, don´t hold themselves to that standard and so you read disgusting posts that are also just plain ignorant.

Why certain websites allow such coarse behavior is beyond my understanding.

So many comments at a variety of sites seem to be from large organized groups that pay their bloggers to repeat propaganda since the "talking points" are the same, Bush, wars, etc. I wonder if they get a bonus check for vile name calling.

So thankful everyday that Ms. Lucianne and staff has a firm policy of civility.

I don´t know how often it happens on left-leaning sites, but on the conservative sites (such as National Review Corner, Breitbart.com, and PowerLine Blog), there are seminar Leftists who regularly sully the comment sections with consistent, seemingly-orchestrated, and usually ad hominem messages. You will see the same exact language employed when they attack an issue. It makes you wonder if someone else is, at minimum, nudging them to respond. In this article, the authors explain that a study on comments sections of news articles show that people will change their attitudes for the worse when people post negative (and contrary-to-the-article) messages on comments sections. It then makes sense when you see seminar posters on comments sections. When the NYTimes says "This Story Stinks", they should possess more self-awareness than they are displaying.

Aside from Lucianne.com and other conservative websites, I only read comments at other sites for their entertainment value. Most liberals are too silly, shallow, and emotional to add value to a discussion, but they are occasionally hilarious (without meaning to be, of course).

Sounds like the journalism gods at the NYT can´t believe anyone would hold a contrary opinion to those who speak from on high. Previous posters are right in stating most of the vitrol comes from the left, always distinguished by name calling and abuse instead of any kind of logical and factual rebuttal.

Another factor is the site´s diligence in detecting single sources masquerading under multiple screen names. When multiple posts use identical language it may well be multiple postings by one individual rather than multiple seminar posters. Both are fraudulent attempts to sway opinion by stuffing the comments box, but legitimate sites (like our hostess, Lucianne) take pains to identify and banish the cheaters. It´s worth keeping in mind the integrity of the site when reading the comments.

That said, the authors make an important and valid point about the nasty effect, especially its use by the cheaters to spin the news in favor of their ideology. Wise readers will pay heed to their mischief detectors when browsing the comments.

NYT is :

1-Bemoaning the use of harsh language.

2-Reminding it´s fellow travelers that it is effective.

3-Suggesting that only Pro´s should be allowed to express their opinions.

Then they quote Krugman as a source of wisdom because he no longer allows comments at his site. If I were spewing leftist stupidity like Krugman I would object to free speech too.

I´m glad that this site has moderators. Where I live, we had a very interesting on-going serial murder investigation & I checked into a local discussion forum for updates periodically. II once lived in the area where the murders occurred & it was fascinating to the read the range of comments on the murder investigation & how the killer was finally caught. However, once he went to prison - anyone who happened onto that discussion forum with a late comment or question was met with, "Shut up about it- he´s in jail - get a life already!" & then name-calling. Since the site had no moderators, it wasn´t worth trying to see any follow-up information. I never read it again.

Rush introduced us to the concept of the seminar caller, the forerunner of the seminar poster. Mr. Limbaugh, even when he grates on me, is still the leader of the pack for conservative commentary.
Ramona (the Pest)

I think we´ve all been spoiled by Lucianne´s comment section. Compared to many liberal sites, it is just plain soft and warm and cuddly. Go to DU or DailyKos to see the other side. But take a barf bag.

Notice the Times story was followed by comments by NYT readers. Often those comments carry some rude remarks that favor the NYT point of view. Many times I have tried to comment, without any coarseness, against the view being purported by the NYT, I find it unusual that my comments never get printed. I have been told that is typical of the NYT the Times staff go out of the way to support their view.I think it is great we have an open internet for commenting. As far as those who are vicious, well it is recognized by readers and discounted for being just dumb.

Why shouldn´t the readers have a place to respond? Why are the NYTs and these authors afraid of feedback? Because the left are tyrannical -- that is why.

I´ve had the same experience as #16. The last thing the left wants is any opposing viewpoints. They especially silence me if I ask them a question.

Interesting. As a blog administrator, I am wholeheartedly in favor of comment moderation. Vulgarity and ad hominem attacks earn you an automatic trip to "banned camp". So does blog whoring. Folks who hog threads and use other techniques to hijack a thread are moderated.

As for using fictitious names - I´m in favor. After an early experience on a blog where I used my name and real email that were visible to posters, I received a stalking threat. There are a lot of vicious and twisted people out there.

The New York Times stinks.

(I couldn´t resist!)

Took TWO PhDs to write a one page article about a well known Human Behaviour...sigh.

They didn´t think people would have a mind of their own!

More Silence of the Lambs reporting... debate is dangerous & only propaganda should be published. This is pure Marxist/ Communist manifesto stuff.

I was surfing around & saw a www2. show up... Never saw a www2 before.... Is it a shadow internet, being developed to replace a free www.?