Automotive News takes the cheap way out by discontinuing comments

December 1, 2021 Steve Media Analysis 0
Automotive News shows its bias

In a way I get Automotive News’ decision to stop accepting comments on its website. As we have previously discussed (go here), the quality of the discussions has tended to be depressingly poor. Alas, the trade journal took the easy — and cheap — way out by restricting comments to its social media as of December 1.

Of course, one can still write a letter to the editor. But who does that besides public relations people? In addition, a letters section is not a terribly good venue for cultivating robust dialogue unless editors quickly — like within a few hours — post new letters that respond to existing ones. Whatever else one can say about comment threads, at least they allow readers to have exchanges in real time (or close to it on moderated websites).

As I write this, Automotive News’ Facebook page has relatively few comments (although they seem to be picking up this morning). Will we see the most prolific commentators from the website come on over? Or will many of them steer clear because of Facebook’s stricter guidelines?

Also see ‘Automotive News enables denialism and conspiracies about COVID-19’

An international study on publication comment policies found that a “key motivation” for shifting to Facebook was that its “real name policy is expected to ‘civilise’ the conversation” (Goodman, 2013; p. 48).

This makes sense. I would imagine that a frequent Automotive News’ commentator, “blackjack,” might tone down his or her abrasiveness if writing under a real name. By the same token, “purrpullberra” — an aggressive pro-Telsa commentator — will have to choose whether to out themself or disappear.

So, yes, I can see comments improving once the mask of anonymity is removed. However, Automotive News did not have to switch to Facebook in order to do that. What else might have motivated top management?

Kestner homestead grass cutter

Was shift to Facebook mostly a bottom-line decision?

Another benefit of using Facebook for a publication’s comment section is that it “is free and easy to implement, and that it potentially increases visibility of, and traffic to, the publisher’s site,” noted the above-mentioned study. By leaving a “‘Post to Facebook’ button checked, readers will also be posting stories to their friends’ news feeds when they comment on a site, with a link back” (Goodman, 2013; p. 48).

So there you have it: Switching to Facebook could have been viewed as more cost-effective than the most obvious alternative, which was to keep website-based comments but adding more structure. For example, international best practices have included:

  • Appointing a “community manager” who doesn’t just function as a moderator (re: a glorified censor), but who also helps to guide conversations like an educator.
  • Encouraging reporters and editors to participate in comment threads.
  • Giving added visibility to the most thoughtful reader comments.
  • Starting a “readers club” that provides a more structured way to interact with other readers and publication staff (Goodman, 2013).

Also see ‘Automotive News: ‘Go along to get along’ quality fuels groupthink’

Automotive News could have considerably improved its web-based comments if it had adopted these best practices. Indeed, the resulting dialogue could have far surpassed what we may see from the shift to Facebook. However, the best practices would presumably have cost more money and offered fewer external marketing opportunities than Facebook.

Boosting the bottom line appears to have been more important than cultivating higher-quality dialogue. So who else could plausibly fill the void left by Automotive News?

Socialism steals your freedoms bumper sticker

The Truth About Cars still wants your comments!

In an article about Automotive News’ decision, Tim Healey (2021) emphasized that comments at The Truth About Cars are “going nowhere.” Healey, who is the managing editor of TTAC, added, “You in the B and B are a big part of this site. Please keep things civil — apparently, those who visit AN couldn’t do so.”

For those not aware of Internet traditions, the “B and B” is shorthand for the “best and brightest.” That actually summed up TTAC’s comment threads more than a decade ago. The quality of the dialogue was arguably the best in the American automotive media.

Not anymore. In recent years TTAC’s comment threads have often been dominated by some pretty shrill right-wing voices. And unlike at Automotive News, TTAC commentators have called for violence against those they have disagreed with (go here and here). Readers can get worked up because some TTAC writers have fueled what Tristan Harris calls the “outrage-ification” culture (Johnson, 2019). Instead of cultivating healthy dialogue, they heighten polarization and radicalization by trafficking in conspiracy theories.

Also see ‘The Truth About Cars: Time to sell to Fox News?’

Matt Posky is TTAC’s most prolific conspiracy monger (go here and here for examples). Not so coincidentally, when moderating comments, he believes that it is “not my job to curate the comments and I have no desire to see anyone booted from the website. It would go against my core beliefs.” (Posky, 2021b). By the same token, he has acknowledged that Automotive News had the legal right to get rid of comments, but that “doesn’t make it not gross to someone who supports” the First Amendment (Posky, 2021a).

Translation: Jerry Springer is Posky’s personal hero.

I would think that “outspoken” Automotive News commentators such as blackjack would feel quite comfortable at TTAC. The only downside is that they would perform before a much smaller audience.

Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.

RE:SOURCES

Related Articles

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*