Couched

Date: 2010.03.04 | Category: Journalism, Meta | Tags:

Yes, the Conical Glass has a fresh ‘n fruity new look, and is now powered by WordPress. That’s because Blogger, the platform I had been using, is shutting down FTP support. If you use Blogger and have no idea what that means, don’t worry — according to Blogger Support, “only .5% of active blogs are published via FTP.” Yours probably isn’t one of them. But being old school, mine was. Anyway, I’m still tweaking things around here, so pardon any technical glitches, and unfortunately, the changeover means you can’t leave new comments on old posts. The past 6+ years of entries are all still available, though; just check the Links column in the sidebar to access the archives.

The Washington Post’s StoryLab published an interesting article called “Do comments scare off sources?” The piece was written by a reporter who had avidly pursued an interview with a debt collector for a story he was writing on the collections business. Michael Sutherland, president of American Collections Enterprise, was reluctant to go on the record, because he was worried that he would be portrayed as a villain. “I assured him I was committed to being fair and accurate—and telling the collectors’ side of the story,” wrote the reporter, Christian Davenport. The end result was, says Davenport, “a balanced story that took readers inside a debt collection firm.”

However, despite Davenport’s best efforts, Sutherland wasn’t happy with the result — thanks largely to the “community” of posters at washingtonpost.com, who were only too happy to append vitriolic comments like, “Scam-acne-face-Sutherland and all his little minions, scum….special place in Hell for them.” Such comments were “why I was so hesitant in doing an interview” in the first place, he wrote in an email to the reporter. “Lesson learned. I will never allow for another interview.” Davenport is now concerned that fear of angry comments will have a chilling effect on potential sources.

I can’t say I blame Sutherland, or anyone else who says no to an interview because they don’t have thick enough skin to laugh off the remarks of the peanut gallery. The San Francisco Chronicle has a cute weekly feature in the Sunday paper called “On the Couch,” which tells the story of a couple and how they met. I read it in the printed paper (what a concept!) and have never gone online to look at the comments, but after reading last Sunday’s “On the Couch,” I couldn’t resist. The couple, who own Alameda’s R&B Cellars (great wine, by the way!), were high school acquaintances who reconnected and married when they were in their 40s. They were both in “unhappy marriages,” and they eventually left their respective partners. I suspected that would set the comment board ablaze, and I was right.

“The way you write this out like some wonderful charming love story is just positively disturbing! It is a story of betrayal and selfishness,” writes commenter “believeinlove.” “Sure romantic feelings change,” writes “daisy1,” “but what bothers me most is that both of these people KNEW there were problems in their marriages (from all impressions based on this article) and barely attempted anything to resolve those issues in their committed relationships before jumping ship! There’s nothing to celebrate when divorce happens especially with children involved.” (When the couple married, “their nearly grown sons” served as attendants, and they claimed there was no animosity with their exes.) “A new low in the couples series of articles,” snarled “SFBiz.” Rather than being celebrated, this couple should be shunned. They probably are, except by the Chron.”

I didn’t delve too deep into the “On the Couch” archives, but a quick scan of comments shows that posters are only too happy to share their feelings about the couples’ childrearing habits, looks, etc. (Of course, you can know everything there is to know about two people by reading a 10-inch story.) Who would want to be judged by a bunch of anonymous cranks? Unless you and your partner met while rebuilding levees in New Orleans; you’re good-looking, but not too good-looking (the union of two very attractive people inevitably “ends up in separation,” said one “Couch” commenter); and you have exactly 1.8 kids (no kids=selfish! too many kids=you’re killing the planet!), you should probably stay off the couch.