Why do we block content on the Web site?
This e-mail came to us over the weekend.
I understand that your online news section has a disclaimer allowing you to do most anything you want as far as editing, deleting etc. any comments posted…
Starting late last week several of us noticed that a filter was now in place on your system that would no longer accept post[s] that included the name of a nationally know televangelist. In addition, almost any derivative of this public figures name or his ministry was rejected by this filter. In addition almost every post concerning this public figure or the ministry he oversees was deleted, while other messages that are offensive to many were left up… Your paper has made the decision to print both literally and in electronic form stories concerning this public figure and his ministry. In addition you have printed a number of "Letters To The Editor" concerning the same subject. However, your online editor will not allow comments concerning the subject. We would like some help understanding this decision.
And here’s the response from executive editor Ben Holden and senior editor Jeff Hendrickson:
First, all we reserve the right to delete or decline publication of any content, as we see fit. But in this case, the comments about Cascade Hills and Bill Purvis [in response to a story published Dec. 1] were no longer moving the conversation, debate or not, forward. They were simply ongoing anonymous postings. People can continue to respond to our coverage of Cascade Hills. They just need to do it in another format – either as a Letter to the Editor, which requires a name attached, or in Sound Off, which may or may not run, depending upon available space. The anonymous postings online were deterring other people from coming to our site to post or read the posts.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment