Cincinnati "news" (Mason, Perry: how much, home, neighborhood)

[abr7rmj]

Originally Posted by Matthew Hall

Not by me. I still write exactly what I think, but many of the others who used to post just don't or used more veiled terms. The interaction is much less realistic and informative about what cincinnatians really think that it was before.

But again, if people (not you, certainly) could have behaved themselves on that board and not spewed their vicious keyboard garbage, we'd likely still have it the way it was. It's the classic case of a few bad apples ruining it for the whole bunch. Now, in order to rectify the situation, they're forcing people to attach their name to their words. And the fact that a lot fewer people post there now is a ringing endorsement of exactly how the new system is working.

How many times did we see the following:

This message has been deleted by cincinnati.com staff for violation of terms of use ...

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by goyguy

Knowing that the Enquirer is no longer copy edited in Cincinnati was definitely interesting to learn.

That was news to me as well. I need to start reading the Gannett Blog a little more regularly again.

Having the paper printed miles away really sucks, as far as the readers go; the local rag here is printed only 30 miles away, not 100, and its deadline is still 7 p.m. the night before. So much for even the early sports scores. "News" routinely makes it to print three and four days after it happens.

As Molly Ivins said: "I don't mind so much that the newspaper industry is dying; it's watching it commit suicide that really pisses me off."

They don't have to. As for all the rightward bias in material, we at least finally read the last of Frank Weikel.

LOL. And Peter Bronson. I guess all those voluntary buy-outs had one or two positive outcomes.

[wolden]

Originally Posted by abr7rmj

But again, if people (not you, certainly) could have behaved themselves on that board and not spewed their vicious keyboard garbage, we'd likely still have it the way it was. It's the classic case of a few bad apples ruining it for the whole bunch. Now, in order to rectify the situation, they're forcing people to attach their name to their words. And the fact that a lot fewer people post there now is a ringing endorsement of exactly how the new system is working.

How many times did we see the following:

This message has been deleted by cincinnati.com staff for violation of terms of use ...

I agree, I think it is improved. Although its surprising how rude people can be even when not anonymous. Actually not too surprising, a lot of them are simply ignorant jerks
Unlike this highly civil board!

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by CinciFan

I've heard the enquirer is known across the country by journalists to be one of the worst big-city newspapers. It's full of bias and bad reporting.

All local Gannett newspapers are untrustworthy. There are much worse than the Enquirer. The Indianapolis Star is a blatant public relations publication for the interests of the local establishment.

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by abr7rmj

But again, if people (not you, certainly) could have behaved themselves on that board and not spewed their vicious keyboard garbage, we'd likely still have it the way it was. It's the classic case of a few bad apples ruining it for the whole bunch. Now, in order to rectify the situation, they're forcing people to attach their name to their words. And the fact that a lot fewer people post there now is a ringing endorsement of exactly how the new system is working.

How many times did we see the following:

This message has been deleted by cincinnati.com staff for violation of terms of use ...

This can't be more wrong. Remember, Gannett originally used [domain blocked due to spam] for comments, but found those too hard to monitor and control. They then went to their own in-house comment system which reduced comments but again found this to permit too much anonymity.

The new system integrated with Facebook is designed to identify malcontents, to permit authorities to have quick access to those who think or speak incorrectly, and to stifle free and open discussion. In Gannett publications, often more news was contained in the comments than the stories.

Without a vibrant comments section, Gannett publications are uninteresting.

[abr7rmj]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

This can't be more wrong. Remember, Gannett originally used [domain blocked due to spam] for comments, but found those too hard to monitor and control. They then went to their own in-house comment system which reduced comments but again found this to permit too much anonymity.

The new system integrated with Facebook is designed to identify malcontents, to permit authorities to have quick access to those who think or speak incorrectly, and to stifle free and open discussion. In Gannett publications, often more news was contained in the comments than the stories.

Without a vibrant comments section, Gannett publications are uninteresting.

This is ridiculous. And incorrect. There are 8 billion anonymous online discussion forums where you are free to voice whatever opinion on any topic without anyone knowing who you are (including this site). The Enquirer was seeking more civility on its site and it's free to do so, your conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

People are less likely to flame or troll if their name is attached to their words for the world to see.

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

The new system integrated with Facebook is designed to identify malcontents, to permit authorities to have quick access to those who think or speak incorrectly, and to stifle free and open discussion. In Gannett publications, often more news was contained in the comments than the stories.

Your second sentence is absolutely true, at least in the Enquirer's case.

The first sentence ... sort of ... although I'd like to at least halfway give the Enquirer some benefit of the doubt and figure the Facebook policy was meant more to discourage insults, profanity and wacko rants (and time spent moderating and deleting) more than to stifle communication in general.

I have a made-up Facebook page, an alter ego if you will, that I use to enter contests, order freebies and samples, etc. without messing up my personal Facebook page. Works like a charm on the Enquirer's website, too.

[abr7rmj]

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

Your second sentence is absolutely true, at least in the Enquirer's case.

The first sentence ... sort of ... although I'd like to at least halfway give the Enquirer some benefit of the doubt and figure the Facebook policy was meant more to discourage insults, profanity and wacko rants (and time spent moderating and deleting) more than to stifle communication in general.

I have a made-up Facebook page, an alter ego if you will, that I use to enter contests, order freebies and samples, etc. without messing up my personal Facebook page. Works like a charm on the Enquirer's website, too.

Most spur-of-the-moment Internet flamers won't take the time to set up a second Facebook account, which serves to deflate their initial "quick post" reaction.

I've posted a couple of times under the new format using my Facebook account, and haven't had any unwanted issues/problems. You do get notified for each subsquent comment or "Like" you receive in the thread, but that's it.

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by abr7rmj

The Enquirer was seeking more civility on its site and it's free to do so, your conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

Completely wrong. The Enquirer made no decision, at all. Gannett changed the forums across all of its newspapers. Local editors were told to publish letters saying that the decisions were made locally.

[Sarah Perry]

When I told my husband about the Enquirer's plan to downsize from the Barbie Edition (or I guess hubby thinks of it as the Ken Edition) to a tabloid, he fessed up that the real reason he's wanted to keep the print subscription is that the discarded papers are so handy for a lot of household uses. I found him a source for a 25 pound pack of clean newsprint paper--with free shipping--so I guess the literal fishwrap is about to become history in yet another household.