Amazon.com Widgets

Should newspapers censor comments on their websites?

  • Yes, but only to keep things civil and not to beat down discussions or debates of appropriate nature.

    News websites should moderate or censor comments that constitute an act of attack on individuals, misinform, or those of offensive nature. The reason for having a comments section on the news site is to add value to the published article by providing a platform for discussion and debates, which eventually would lead to insights from many different points of view. Many news sites, however, are conducting their moderation the wrong way. In effort to reduce resources spent on understanding and judging each comment, news websites often remove any comments that could potentially spark discussions (even if they are well mannered and non-offensive). That goes against the original intent of bringing in user participation, which often leaves news websites with the shallowest and least valuable comments (E.G. I respect this man so much!). In that case, news websites should remove the comments sections all together since they then become illusions of user participation.

  • To keep it civil.

    Yes, newspapers should censor comments on their websites, because there are always people who have nothing to do but attack other people on media websites. Sometimes, news reports are on very sensitive topics. People can get down right vicious when they are talking about current events topics on media and news outlet websites.

  • Yes They Should

    Did you know news papers use to be released as either democratic or republican? Most cities also had two news papers as a result of this. These papers freely censored what made it into their papers, it wasn't just mere chance. I believe newspapers should also maintain the right to censor comments on their websites, since this falls within their intended purpose, to sell a point of view.

  • Yes, newspapers should censor comments on their websites

    Newspapers should censor comments on their websites that are obviously intended only to incite anger among readers or to maliciously attack companies, leaders, or other people. Some comments are not made because of beliefs or convictions, but just to be making a radical comment. These serve no good purpose and there is no reason to encourage people to continue making crazy comments by publicizing them.

  • We do not want censorship

    If a news medium stops your views and comments. That is tantamount to imperial rule of the electorate public. Not how a democratic society should work. If one person puts their point of view over to an audience. That point of view should be questioned and debated. The problem today with media is that they want control and that is not how democratic process works. Media can feed us fake news all day long and that influences a lot of people.

  • Nuclear Power Rocks

    Debate is healthy in a democracy, Without debate how can anyone’s opinion be questioned or changed? Without debate the only way would be the use of government forces.
    I was censored today May 11 2019 on CBC for the following
    “CONTENT DISABLED” “Reply to @JOHN MCTAGGART:
    Are you kidding the censorship on CBC is. . . . . . . . . . ? ”
    Yesterday I was censured for
    “Sure, Visit your Mom, To bad 100 plus at least in Canada and who knows how many law enforcement personnel in the states will be inconvenienced! ”
    ?

  • Freedom for All

    People should be able to give an opinion, Even if it is offensive. If something is libellous, Then the offended person should take the matter to law. If it is not libellous but just hurts people's feelings, Then tough. For example, I am gay. If someone wants to comment that she or he thinks I am a disgusting pervert, Then that is fine by me. I am quite capable of defending myself, And can answer back that she or he is a nasty bigot. If someone says that I murdered my Granny, I can take them to court because it isn't true, And that is a matter of fact.

    No, Censorship is always about control.

  • Unbelievable, Of Course Not

    Cowardice is the best word I can come up with for the behavior of censorship of comments. Safe spaces only damage the "protected." However, the best argument I have heard for the censorship of comments is that the newspaper owns the domain and is private property. Fine line because anyone can access the private property publicly.

  • Limits of Censorship are Obvious.

    Racism, sexism, hate speech, advocating or condoning violence or ill-will towards anyone should of course be censored. But news orgs should not censor comments willy-nilly or because they are trying to suppress a point of view on political events. What gives them the right to censor willy-nilly? If they do, they have lost all legitimacy and what they produce is not worth watching.

  • No. News is suppose to be factual & truthful backed by proof.

    Facts and truths with proof.
    If people are posting relevant info & comments to the news article that opens talks to useful, insight of others opinions. Freedom of speech is freedom to the newspapers to exist and freedom for its readers to support by reading and responding.

    In my opinion, I can not help but notice the timing of the comments being disabled on a lot of news websites. It looks suspicious of perverse distortion of facts and truths to persuade the public's opinion to the payer of their paychecks.

    Where ever you are reading your news, find out who really owns it.
    Follow the deep money trail to find the origin to find the truth;)

  • Of Course Not

    Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are cornerstone in this country. For the press to censor and suppress opinions is hypocritical, though not surprising, if it goes contrary to their thoughts. Why this is even up for debate is beyond me. It's the Constitution, lets support it, ok?

  • The fact that there is even a debate about whether or not we should have freedom of speech is of great concern.

    The only logical reason that newspapers want to get rid of commenting is because they do not want their articles subjected to criticism. Why might that be? Well, there is a great deal of misleading, factually incorrect propaganda being peddled these days. So it makes perfect sense that they would not want to have such propaganda questioned. After all, propaganda often paves the way for higher agendas - eg war. A well informed public is the last thing these people want. Just ask Orwell...

  • Not at all

    Newspapers are the first to cry when their first amendment rights are threatened or abridged.
    Yet their are some I.e. philly.Com who hasten to restrict even the most nuanced metaphor if it pertains to a subject that's near and dear to the hearts of the social activists such as homosexuality or illegal immigration.

  • Of course they shouldn't.

    This is the thing. Freedom of the press ties directly to the freedom of speech. If the journalist can write his or her free speech on an internet newspaper, then the commentators should be able to as well. It's only the right thing to do. Never censor speech, no matter how idiotic it is.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.