A recent Automotive News (2021a) comment thread adds to the impression that the publication is not very concerned that it is fueling fact-challenged polarization.
Why wouldn’t “the nation’s pre-eminent newspaper covering the automotive industry” possess a strong commitment to cultivating productive dialogue in its comment threads (Automotive News, 2021b)?
We will come back to that question in a moment, but first let’s assess the wreckage of a thread supposedly discussing infrastructure for electric vehicles.
Infrastructure is boring, so let’s get into a food fight!
Last week an Automotive News (2021) article reported on a proposal that five Republican and Democratic senators agreed to and President Joe Biden endorsed. Although the grand compromise covers a broad range of actions, Automotive News mostly concentrated on the provisions that add EV chargers and electrify thousands of school and transit buses.
There’s plenty of meaty policy here to discuss. Unfortunately, a major portion of the four-dozen comments could be categorized as off-topic, hyper-partisan name calling, and/or interpersonally disrespectful.
Also see ‘It’s a big deal that Ford and GM knew about climate change in 1960s’
For example, one of the longer subthreads debated how good of a job Biden was doing compared to Trump. That was dominated by canned talking points interspersed with disparaging names. ManyMotors (2021) called Republicans and “Dopey Don” all “losers.” Blackjack (2021) posted a video clip designed to show Biden as confused . . . and went on to rail against the “People’s Republic of Kalifornia.”
Even the comment threads of my local daily newspaper aren’t this off topic, generic and juvenile.
California has a power shortage — checkmate, libs!
Another big chunk of the thread was devoted to whether California’s recent call for residents to conserve electricity during the peak usage hours of 6 to 10 p.m. meant that electric vehicles couldn’t be recharged. What was most striking about that discussion was how often people talked past each other — and reached for the cheap “gotchas.”
Yes, the nation will need more power to support the shift to electric-powered vehicles. Biden’s original proposal included support for a variety of energy sources — including nuclear (White House, 2021). Yet one commentator ignored all that to warn of a dystopian future where “the weather report dictates if we can leave our homes” because solar and wind power are not consistent sources (the_strickler, 2021).
Also see ‘Automotive News enables denialism and conspiracies about COVID-19’
The meta problem is that climate change is a huge and complex issue. You cannot do meaningful problem solving when the dialogue fails to rise much above a schoolyard shouting match.
To be fair, some of the comments were thoughtful, civil and on topic. One participant, SoCal (2021), even apologized for overcharged rhetoric. Unfortunately, poor-quality comments can function like a virus — they can quickly overwhelm a thread.
Why would a thoughtful person bother weighing in?
Let’s be real: It can take precious time out of a busy day to craft a thoughtful comment. So why would someone bother to participate if the end result was to get dragged into an unproductive back and forth?
What’s tragic is that Automotive News’ comment threads could be filled with some of the finest minds in and around the automobile industry. Indeed, higher-quality dialogue here could help the industry better respond to fast-changing times.
Also see ‘Automotive News: ‘Go along to get along’ quality fuels groupthink’
Even smaller-scale websites such as Curbside Classic and Ate Up With Motor have comment threads that substantively add to the quality of their articles. Sure, one may have to sift the wheat from the chaff, but I almost always gain valuable insights by reading through the comments of those two websites. That rarely happens when I read Automotive News comments — even though I’m paying a hefty subscription price.
They don’t care because they don’t have to?
So back to the question I asked at the beginning of this story: Why does Automotive News allow its comment threads to be so terrible? I suspect that there could be a number of reasons:
- Not wanting to spend the money for more engaged and skilled moderators.
- Trying to avoid angering readers by restricting their speech and challenging their viewpoints when they are at variance with established facts.
- Wanting to boost page views — and thus ad revenue — by allowing comment threads to work up a buzz so that participants keep checking in.
Of course, these are just guesses. I feel more confident in suggesting that the overarching reason why Automotive News pays too little attention to its comment threads is because the publication lacks sufficient competition. Who do I switch my subscription to if I get fed up?
I don’t have a very good answer to that question right now. But if Automotive News doesn’t up its game, I would not be surprised if, five years from now, there are more plausible alternatives. After all, nature abhors a vacuum.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Automotive News; 2021a. “Biden’s goal of 500,000 EV chargers intact after deal with senators.” Posted June 24.
- ——; 2021b. “About Us.” Accessed June 27.
- Blackjack; 2021. Commentator in “Biden’s goal of 500,000 EV chargers intact after deal with senators.” Posted June 24.
- ManyMotors; 2021. Commentator in “Biden’s goal of 500,000 EV chargers intact after deal with senators.” Posted June 24.
- SoCal; 2021. Commentator in “Biden’s goal of 500,000 EV chargers intact after deal with senators.” Posted June 24.
- the_strickler; 2021. Commentator in “Biden’s goal of 500,000 EV chargers intact after deal with senators.” Posted June 24.
- White House; 2021. “Fact Sheet: American Jobs Plan.” Posted March 31.
Having participated in several message boards, this is an inherent problem with online discussions. It’s a human instinct for most people to moderate what they say when talking directly to another person or group of people. Plus, in face-to-face conversations, a person receives immediate feedback from others, both verbal and non-verbal and can respond appropriately. This is obviously lacking in an online discussion. I know that I’ve posted things and later thought, “Good grief, I would never have said that directly to that person.”
The only way to overcome this is to clearly state the ground rules, and then aggressively moderate the threads (that appears to be approach taken by Curbside Classic). Even then, the moderator has to be even-handed.
As for what is the root of the problem with the comment threads at Automotive News – I’m guessing reason number three, followed by reason number one.
Yup, online discussions can be very hard for us editors to deal with. I really don’t want to constrain conversations but sometimes need to. It’s one of my least-favorite parts of running a website.
I appreciate your point about looking back at a previous comment and wishing you’d written it differently. That said, your comments at Curbside Classic have always struck me as right up there with Ate Up With Motor in adding value rather than noise.