A note I received from a reader, politely asking for clarity on our policy regarding the enabling of comments on stories. My response follows:
What is it with the TC and its gutless subservience? Another Duffy blurb on the League of Disgraced Gentlemen, Gant and Aruda - no comments permitted. A puff piece on the CRD's million dollar mouthpiece BEFORE the subjecto f his pronouncements is even made public, and again, no comments permitted.
Given that you basically have no competition i this market you could at least TRY to be more than booster buddies.
In disgust,
Dear disgusted,
Thanks for your note and interest in the process of how we collect online comments from our readers.
To start, comments are not turned on for a story by default. We publish hundreds of stories online every day and moderating comments for all would be too big a job. So, we choose individually which stories have comments. They are mostly local stories, or provincial or national articles with strong local interest.
Among those stories, we never allow comments for stories where criminal wrongdoing is alleged or if a matter is, or will be, before the courts. Like a lawsuit. We are responsible for the comments made on our website and such comments must abide by Canadian law as pertains to defamation.
Sometimes, we decide a story is just too sensitive — ie, unexpected death or other calamity — and comments from the public would be inappropriate.
Finally, since we have to physically turn comments on for stories, sometimes we simply don’t get to them all. Or, we don’t get to the ones a reader wants. Or we forget.
It is not uncommon for us to take a call or email from a reader requesting that comments be enabled for a particular story and we do so. Or, we’ll provide an explanation for why we won’t.
The comments attached to our online stories are a co-operative effort between us and our readers and we welcome discussion about our decisions to allow or moderate comments.
Regards,
Cale
NB: Comments for this blog post have been turned on.
