Eliminating Readers' Comments

Our electronic media has its advantages along with its disadvantages.  Inviting readers to comment, even with a screener to approve what appears often enriches the original thoughts or moves them in a different direction but it can introduce some ugliness too.  Blog formats such as Medscape and KevinMD where my medical articles appear depend on input from specialized and interested readers who share some of the skills and experiences of the original articles.  They are moderated, at least until the responder is known by the editors not to be a troll, and are invariably polite even when expressing disapproval of what was published.

Major forums like CNN or big daily newspapers will get thousands of comments.  Once a critical number is passed, any being read becomes less likely while trolls getting through becomes nearly a certainty so editing may not be very important.

People may not like doctors as a group or their doctor specifically but medical care does not engender hate.  Political news does, perhaps even depends on some of it, religion can, which may be why the Freemasons devoted to brotherhood among members has banned these topics of discussion from their gatherings.

The Forward, the Jewish daily that now only has an electronic version to which I subscribe, sits at the intersection of Jewish identity, American political divisions, and Israel as a frequent flash point.  Many of their news and opinion pieces reflect top notch reporting and analysis, others seem more amateurish.  Irrespective of the individual writers' talents at expression, the subjects stand on their own.  They used to invite reader comments but recently eliminated this forum, even with mandatory approval of a moderator before appearing.  My input had been somewhat frequent, viewed by me as a perk for my annual subscription fee, though I almost never came back the next day to see if their editor approved what I had submitted.  That's probably because I really didn't care.  The purpose of that input was more for me to digest what I thought I had understood of the article or editorial, its implications, maybe possible future directions.  Influencing any other reader was not part of my personal expectation.  And if they eliminate that feature for everyone, it may be they didn't like the readers' feedback, other readers complained, or they frittered too much valuable editors' salaries reviewing the comments.  I don't feel slighted but do think they may have disinvited some readers who valued their own opportunities to contribute.

That feels very different from a temporary tact by David Harris, CEO of the American Jewish Committee, and fellow two years ahead of me in college.  He expresses his views on Israel and Anti-Semitism in many forums, including Twitter.  What he did, and apparently reversed, was set criteria of who met his importance standards for offering feedback to what he expressed.  Being a Nobody, I didn't, something I resented enough to Unfollow him for a few weeks in lieu of his more junior staff who would retweet the boss' positions.  Some of us value our place in the community of readers and very much resent being selectively declared Nobodies even when we are.

While I liked commenting on some of what The Forward brings to the Jewish arena of ideas, I don't feel deprived by this editorial decision on their part.  They have a Facebook presence which does not require a subscription fee and where trolls are part of the platform.  And I can always submit a more formal Letter to the Editor.