What's With the Toronto Star online Comments?

Most of the online corporate-media comments sections I see are at least intermittently putrid, even when they ostensibly have mods. The CBC is often just awful, although maybe less bad than it once was. The Grope and Flail varies -- actually, I have a theory about the Grope that I would need to do some serious numbers on to prove, but I think it has something to do with the time of day -- are the rabid right-wingers on more overnight? I've been part of some discussions there that seem quite reasonable, but man, post a Khadr comment at 6 a.m. and watch Canadian racism explode all around you (plus you'll get many negative votes -- I hate that, even when I know it's meaningless).

The comments sections on the Maclean's blogs are actually intelligent enough that when a freeper or an astroturfer comes along, the regulars catch the phony tone, much the way babblers do here. And that may be the best defence for any forum: build a base of intelligent regulars, and the paid hacks and other trolls will stand out enough to be shunned or cut out.

DaveW wrote:

I post a lot at the Globe, and several posters there have laughed along with me when a FACTUAL post (eg Canada has 33 million people) gets a thumbs-down from some readers, so what chance is there with arguments requiring a bit more judgement?

Canada actually has 34 million people.

A bit too much time on your hands this morning Sineed?

I was wondering about this reading the comments to the latest Rob Ford story.  There seems to be a real disconnect between on-line comments, and letters to the editor.  On line comments, IMHO are easier to do, and can reflect knee jerk reactions.  They are for the most part actually pretty badly written, and reflect bumper sticker thinking.  Letters to the editor, to a larger extent  actually require more forethought, and can reflect more analytical thought.  There's more of a committment in time and thought to a letter to the editor.

oldgoat wrote:

 Letters to the editor, to a larger extent  actually require more forethought, and can reflect more analytical thought.  There's more of a committment in time and thought to a letter to the editor.

They are also much more intensely screened; only a portion of letters get published.

I have been writing them since about 1970; I choose my topics carefully, resisting one-liners or stupid obvious angles, but cannot resist sending them off regularly. I follow the rules: keep it short, add value to the discussion with new angles, no ad hominem or overexcited  outbursts.

At best 50 per cent get published, and I feel that is quite a good proportion.

Krago wrote:

DaveW wrote:

I post a lot at the Globe, and several posters there have laughed along with me when a FACTUAL post (eg Canada has 33 million people) gets a thumbs-down from some readers, so what chance is there with arguments requiring a bit more judgement?

Canada actually has 34 million people.

-- Hey, I was just talking about posts made BEFORE April 2010 ... ha.

As a postscript, I would add the most heavily screened/reviewed posting site at a newspaper is certainly the New York times, where there are some very detailed and long reader discussion threads, often on quite narrow and specialized subjects.