Terry Rea makes an interesting, and important, point on a recent Facebook post. The longtime Richmond writer, artist and political/social observer wonders what the impact of newspaper online comment sections will be on the papers themselves, and the readers they serve. His thoughts were triggered by a heated slew of comments in the Richmond Times-Dispatch about the news of SPCA director Robin Starr's dead dog, and the death of Senator Edward Kennedy.
It seems that newspaper publishers aren’t much different than eager beaver bloggers, when it comes to the practice of courting hits to drive up the numbers, or when it comes to using the inane but provocative comments of readers to fatten their content.
Still, why should we want to expose ourselves to the unfiltered thoughts of mean and uncouth people with which we would never associate? Isn't there some self-loathing in that sort of thing?
However, in spite of how much I might think it’s a waste of time to absorb the petty notions of soulless lowbrows, who only make it worse when they try to be funny, I know there are consumers who love to read the same. Are they now the RT-D’s target audience? Has it come to that?
So, now I’m wondering if interaction between periodicals published online and their readers is really taking us to a better place. It seems to be all the rage, because for the time being the consumers are playing along, but is it really the road to ruin?
As newspapers try to operate with smaller staffs, will letting the readers with the most to say provide trashy, bickering content that would never make it to a letter-to-the-editor printed page help or hurt in the long run?
