Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 463 posts

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#61

Post by notadoc »

formula1 wrote: post #28

I think the fact this is a government service (or at least funded by gov) makes this choice far more interesting. It effectively sets a standard for services to avoid providing a open forum where the users can speak to one another, service providers and managing parties. Instead they are not bound to provide anything above and beyond their initial services. I dont think it is necessarilly wrong from them to do mass c…

NPR gets about 90% of its funding from members, grants, foundations, etc. If you have ever listened to NPR, you know how frequently they solicit donations during funding drives.

Only about 5% of individual NPR station funding comes from federal resources, and around 10% of CPB funding.

http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/dont_forget_the_facts_abo...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#62

Post by Analemma_ »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #38

Cons: Requiring comments via Facebook means loss of anonymity. Pros: Requiring comments via Facebook means loss of anonymity. I suppose it depends on what your priorities are. If you'd like the insightful input of someone who might be close to the source of the topic at hand, but maintains anonymity for safety or fear of repercussion, then the requirement to use Facebook could be quite damaging. On the other hand, if…

> the Facebook requirement with its real-name policy could go some ways to curtailing that kind of dialogue.

This was the theory was for a while, but empirical evidence has refuted it. People are just are bad or worse when posting under their real names, and it's not just an anecdotal feeling anymore: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160729/23305535110/study...

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#63

Post by omginternets »

michaelbuddy wrote: post #2

Their left leaning narrative can't take facts at this point. The sheer amount of lean really comes out of their choice of what to cover. They know it's easy to just offload comments onto another service. Any news source w/o comments is basically propaganda at this point.

The irony is that your comment is directly below this (equally useless) one:

>I wonder how many comments said something about "Obama" or "left-wing"

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#64

Post by [deleted] »

formula1 wrote: post #28

I think the fact this is a government service (or at least funded by gov) makes this choice far more interesting. It effectively sets a standard for services to avoid providing a open forum where the users can speak to one another, service providers and managing parties. Instead they are not bound to provide anything above and beyond their initial services. I dont think it is necessarilly wrong from them to do mass c…

[deleted]

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#65

Post by minimaxir »

rexaliquid wrote: post #54
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #38

Cons: Requiring comments via Facebook means loss of anonymity. Pros: Requiring comments via Facebook means loss of anonymity. I suppose it depends on what your priorities are. If you'd like the insightful input of someone who might be close to the source of the topic at hand, but maintains anonymity for safety or fear of repercussion, then the requirement to use Facebook could be quite damaging. On the other hand, if…

Facebook isn't the only social option. Twitter replies are an opportunity for anonymous or semi-anonymous commentary. But, also an opportunity for garbage.

Twitter does not allow for conversations in the same page of the article, which is part of the appeal. (And Twitter's recent changes make it hard to track conversations even on the website)

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#66

Post by [deleted] »

formula1 wrote: post #28

I think the fact this is a government service (or at least funded by gov) makes this choice far more interesting. It effectively sets a standard for services to avoid providing a open forum where the users can speak to one another, service providers and managing parties. Instead they are not bound to provide anything above and beyond their initial services. I dont think it is necessarilly wrong from them to do mass c…

[deleted]

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#67

Post by coldtea »

acbabis wrote: post #16

> The conclusion: NPR's commenting system — which gets more expensive the more comments that are posted, and in some months has cost NPR twice what was budgeted — is serving a very, very small slice of its overall audience. If this was the extent of their analysis (the article doesn't say), shame on them. People reading the comments should count too.

Plus, in a meta argument, NPR itself only serves a small slice of the overall US audience -- should it be shut down too?

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#68

Post by dublinben »

formula1 wrote: post #28

I think the fact this is a government service (or at least funded by gov) makes this choice far more interesting. It effectively sets a standard for services to avoid providing a open forum where the users can speak to one another, service providers and managing parties. Instead they are not bound to provide anything above and beyond their initial services. I dont think it is necessarilly wrong from them to do mass c…

Were NPR engaging in "mass censorship" before they introduced online comments in 2008? They are just returning to the status quo of the rest of their 38 year history. You are still free to comment on their stories in alternative venues, exactly as you are doing here.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#69

Post by Karunamon »

formula1 wrote: post #28

I think the fact this is a government service (or at least funded by gov) makes this choice far more interesting. It effectively sets a standard for services to avoid providing a open forum where the users can speak to one another, service providers and managing parties. Instead they are not bound to provide anything above and beyond their initial services. I dont think it is necessarilly wrong from them to do mass c…

Partially funded by gov according to their own stats[1]. 11% from the corporation for public broadcasting, and another 5% from local governments.

And on a side note, the trend away from open forums in the name of "civility" bothers me on a pretty deep level, but I don't see the connection between that and 16% of their funds.

http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#70

Post by omginternets »

vectorpush wrote: post #27
brandonl222 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the truth does have a way of ruining a narrative...

Don't you feel a little disingenuous making a flippant deceleration of what is true without substantiating it?

In all fairness, NPR's reporting is of exceedingly high-quality, by journalistic standards.

I admit that the comment you're replying to is flippant, but NPR does check its facts quite well.

Post reply on HN