"To some Scott Roeder is like the man that should have taken down Hitler in the midst of the Holocaust."
"THAT IS GREAT BUT IT WOULD SAVE TAXPAYERS MORE MONEY IF [SCOTT ROEDER WERE] DEAD RIGHT AWAY."
"Lying liberals want blood? Go watch a video of actual abortions. This man had the will to do what many would like to, but don't have the will to."
These comments — and 44 others — were posted on the Los Angeles Times' Web site within 36 hours of the publication of an article about Scott Roeder, a conservative extremist who murdered abortion practitioner George Tiller last May. The article was about Roeder receiving a life sentence in prison, sparking controversies about abortion, morality, religion, murder and punishment of criminals. Many readers had opinions of their own to share.
As journalism has adjusted to the Internet as an additional platform on which to broadcast stories, many news Web sites have added sections for users to leave comments. Big−name print newspapers like The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and The New York Times all allow users to comment on articles, as do magazines such as New York Magazine, the Atlantic and Scientific American.
But how much do user comments really effect change?
Professor Michael Goldman, a lecturer in political science with specialties in politics and media, said that the real question of "who you're talking to" matters the most. If an article is about President Barack Obama, for example, the comments will clearly reflect the commenters' biases toward the President.
"People who like him will write good things, and people who don't like them will write snarky things," Goldman said.
Politically speaking, Goldman said these user comments have shown little impact on politics or campaign strategies. "They are neither more likely nor less likely to [persuade someone to] vote for a candidate," he said.
Goldman, a senior consultant for a strategic planning service for politicians and individuals called the Government Insight Group, also believes in a theory of usefulness and gratification of such comments. He explained that because people only absorb the aspects of the comments that are relevant to them, those comments that are not useful are primarily ignored.
"People always take in that information which is either useful or gratifying to them," he said. "It doesn't matter what [somebody's] written [in the comments section]. People only take in those things that touch a chord with them."
The theory that readers only reply to remarks that are relevant to them also suggests that people only write when they have a strong opinions on a particular subject, ultimately rendering many comments overzealous.
Such polar opinions can be seen in CNN.com's March 31 article "More students disciplined following girl's suicide." The article is about Phoebe Prince — a 15−year−old girl who committed suicide after being bullied — and the prosecution of the nine teenagers who bullied her being charged with harassment and abuse. Though the article was posted at the end of March, readers are still commenting nearly a week later, and 3,736 comments had been made as of press time on April 5. Users often reply to other comments either in emphatic agreement or disagreement with the prosecution.
"I hope all of these freaking brats sits in JAIL. NO SYMPATHY," one user said.
"Bullies should be caned in public. Their a***s split open by a bamboo rod," another commented.
One user compared juvenile bullying to political trends. "Why should children act any different? People don't seem to care when Tea Partiers threaten violence against members of Congress or when Republicans yell ‘You lie!' at President of the United States, or call people names like ‘Socialist' or ‘Baby Killer.' This is bullying too," the user said.
"Someone saw something (teacher, students, staff) and didn't do anything about it. Shame on them! Now that a life is lost people are now speaking up? Why did it have to come to this for someone to say something? Truly sad," another said.
Because each comment is so biased, the comments "are definitely not reliable," said Andres Steyerthal, a junior who is minoring in communications and media studies.
"If you're looking for factual information, don't use the comments as a source," Steyerthal said.
However, some believe that online comments are a way to hold reporters accountable. "I think they provide an opportunity for people to critique reporters' work that didn't necessarily exist before, and it's a direct method of interaction between comments and the reporter," senior Kyle Chayka said. "The reporter basically has to follow up to be credible. It's very different from how it's been in the past."
Goldman said that it makes sense that print publications rely more and more on the Internet to spread the word, especially considering the rate that the technology−driven 21st century has evolved within just one decade.
"It's all about political cycles," Goldman said, adding that the different technologies each generation grows up with also play a role.
In 1956, for example, politicians used television to further their campaigns, but the medium didn't have a significant impact until the 1970's, according to Goldman. "Same with computers," he said. "They were used first in 2000; by 2004 [they] had grown, and in 2008 we couldn't live without it."
Many publications clearly value their readers' comments, with some Web sites — such as those of the Los Angeles Times and New York Magazine — ranking their most popular stories by the number of comments they receive. The Washington Post, in its "User Discussion and Submission Guideline," states that these comments are meant to encourage discussion. "It is our hope that you'll take the opportunity to contribute to these interactive forums," the guidelines state.
Steyerthal emphasized the important role of online comments as a venue through which ordinary people can express themselves. "Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion," Steyerthal said.
