Announcing Mumbrella’s new comment moderation policy
Mumbrella content director Tim Burrowes explains why we’re raising the threshold for published comments on Mumbrella – but will not be banning anonymous contributors
In the coming days, you may notice that the number of published comments on Mumbrella drops.
Previously, we’ve worked on the basis that unless there’s a reason not to publish a comment, it deserves to see the light of day.
Under our new moderation policy, we’ll only be publishing comments that we believe are worth our audience seeing.
I’ll explain what that means in practice later in this piece.
“As journalists, every time we choose not to publish a comment, it feels a little like an act of censorship. So we default towards publication, unless it breaks one of our community guidelines. As a result, we end up publishing a lot of stuff that doesn’t actually add to the conversation and may make it worse.”
I think treading this line is going to be the hardest part; both for the author/moderating team as well as readers who like to see the interchange of comments that might show different sides to a story.
However I believe the benefit outweighs the risk assuming the team continues to stand for neutral comment acceptance – where a comment adds to the discourse and thought process rather than just a bash down of facts based on anecdotal stories.
Good luck team 🙂
I appreciate that Mumbrella are still prioritising anonymity for all the right reasons and the need for slightly more regulation.
Hopefully this doesnt become like AdNews though, where only the sycophantic, sickly sweet, ‘LinkedIn-esque’ comments are published.
There is certainly a need for negative emotion and dare I say it – vitriol – should the subject warrant it. The industry cant let broader issues such as climate deniers, racist presenters, etc simply go unchecked… can we?
You are our public mouthpiece and we trust your judgement when choosing what to publish moving forward.
100% correct re Linkedin. When people are actually themselves it creates a few environments. Some leap at the chance to self promote and big note themselves. People only comment to give nothing but praise. Or people do not comment at all. When anonymous, we can truly be ourselves and be critical.
The anonymous comments on Mumbrella are the reason it is worth coming back. Its raw and it’s true. It broadens the conversation and adds an edge. Great journalism has an edge to it. Nobody is safe. Think Chris Hitchens vs Jordan Peterson (Peterson is partisan and speaks to his fan base. Hitchens was more than happy to go against his fan base.)
God I miss Hitch:(
#epsteindidntkillhimself
We feel you Tim and applaud your stance. We currently rely on manual moderation but will look to your example as a litmus test for future action on our site.
Thanks for explaining the evolution of your policies here Tim. I think you’ve landed on a positive and workable position. Looking forward to hearing some thoughtful debate from industry leaders and other publishers on this later today…
I agree with Megan a positive step forward and a good backstory to explain the approach Tim. Well done.
Sparrow
100% the right direction, and thoughtful rationale to support it.
The only watch-out would be towards comment that do spark conflict but in a respectful way. Discourse still remains a very useful aspect of communication, but moderating what ‘respectful’ means is fraught with some complexity.
Good luck, and good call.
This comment doesn’t add to anything, I’ll admit, but having seen the slow creep of [Edited under Mumbrella moderation guidelines] and as an occasional commenter from outside the industry (and Australia), I truly hope this works for you. Despite the belief that BTL comments are toxic, most of the time I do pick up things here that I wouldn’t otherwise; it’d be a shame if that went. And I don’t have to go through angry or unrelated comments to get there!
Always love the detail you go into when writing about a decision you’ve made. It makes for the most fascinating reads.
Perhaps you could install micro-interactions on the articles and comments to allow people to vote up or down? This could help by giving people the opportunity to call bullshit on an article without writing a comment as well as allow the community to be involved in what comments are valuable and add to the conversation.
A pity I think. What was a forum for the industry, as well as an opportunity to vent, will inevitably become conservative, possibility self serving, . Issues which have had the opportunity to grow may be stifled, and the folks who can’t deal with anonymity become victors. I’m sure it’s not the case but it seems the sort of thing Scotty from marketing would demand.
Free speech means the right to offend whomever the hell you want whenever the hell you want to. Sadly, Australia’s Constitution gives you no such freedom. Why should Mumbrella? If you want free speech become a US citizen. Many Australians don’t believe in free speech – except, of course, opinions that accord with their own. Yet free speech is meaningless unless it includes the freedom to offend. No ifs or buts. You either support free speech or you don’t. You either support unfettered freedom of speech (including freedom to express hate). Or you don’t support free speech. Why should laws hold you accountable for hurting someone’s feelings? Of course, Australia’s rich and powerful can speak their minds. The rest of us? Shut up.
Free speech isn’t about the right to offend or about people’s feelings. It is about the right to express your views without censorship from those that disagree. The ideal is for discussions to move society forward, by letting ideas compete. Ideas without evidence or undermine others can be torn down. Free speech isn’t about creating a trolls paradise, rich or poor.
spot on
I agree very well said.
The right to free speech gives you the right to say things, it doesn’t give you the right to be heard. It’s not up to Mumbrella to give you a forum. You want free speech? Go to Twitter.
“Free speech means the right to offend whomever the hell you want whenever the hell you want to.”
Rubbish. Free speech means the right to express your opinion without fear of retaliation. Believing you have the right to offend whomever the hell you want whenever the hell you want to is not called free speech, that’s called being a wanker.
What a perversion of human rights you poorly attempt to assert.
Yes, you have the right to free speech. That is indisputable.
But your right to free speech does not usurp other people’s rights to the even more fundamental human rights such as freedom of race, gender, age, sexual preference, religion, no religion etc.
Ever heard of perjury, slander, or libel? Even in the US, free speech is never absolute.
You are free to have as many offensive opinions as you like; Mumbrella is equally free to not publish them. Free speech is not free reach.
Only a Sith deals in Absolutes
This is a good move and I wish more publishers would adopt it. Yes, it creates a “gatekeeper” and leaves you open to accusations of censorship or bias, but you see on the major publishers every day comments that make false claims, spread fake news or are otherwise utterly worthless. Whether you agree or not, publishing a comment that says nothing more than “Scomo is a terrible prime minister”, which I see every day on political stories, is simply pointless. It’s a stark contrast to to the Letters to the Editor, which are often edited and fact-checked with the author. Comments get just as much prominence these days, so should have the same amount of care applied to them.
Tim, thank you for that. As one who always uses an anonymous persona, maybe this is an example of the pot calling the kettle black, but I have noticed that, when there are contentious issues in evidence it has become obvious that there are people googling the subject, finding a reference on Mumbrella and having their say – even when they have nothing to do with the advertising or media industries. While it is impossible too completely eradicate this kind of trolling, if your new policy can reduce the extent of this problem it will go a long way toward making the comments more palatable than they have become. Far better indeed than what is now happening across Facebook where the people who call themselves journalists at major news sites are simply blocking anyone who disagrees with their particular world view resulting in a very one-sided (and boring) representation of what people are thinking.
Very good measured move Mumbrella. As an agency owner we have shunned the trade press and in particular Mumbrella because we felt like you were not controlling the trolls enough. We look forward to engaging with you more often.
A good example of why this is bad policy. Says Chris “ we’ll only support you if you do it our way” it used to be called bullying.
I’ve mixed views on anonymity. On sites like The Conversation, I’m completely against them, even when they are constructive. On these types of sites there is limited or nor economic or professional consequence for posting negative but constructive comments. On Mumbrella the opposite is true. Without anonymity, constructive criticism is likely to have long term negative implications. Business does not like dissent; dissent is punished.
Mumbrella is also a PR vehicle for firms and individuals can post opinion pieces that dismiss the approaches and abilities of others, claim things without evidence are common, or push ideas that benefit them and are a detriment to others. On a site like Mumbrella that is fine, as long as there is a right of reply or the audience can honestly critique.
To help Mumbrella stay on top of things, maybe you could allow a reporting feature, only allow comments within a set time frame, and require a registered email address and real name, even if posting anonymously.
Not sure if this counts as on topic or adding to the topic (or none of the above), but I’m going to chuck it out anyway …
Is there any possibility that recent articles critical of the Prime Minister and News Ltd in the wake of the bushfire crisis and the volley of spicy comments from readers taking aim at selfsame targets attracted some heat from upstairs ?
I’m going to speculate … D’uh Yeah !
That said, I can only hope that it is only the comments from readers that are curtailed as a result, and not the work of the reporters themselves, which seemed entirely valid (if uncomfortable reading for those with partisan links.)
Hi Rutegar,
That wasn’t the case. Sadly, despite the Scotty from Marketing nickname, I doubt anybody from the PM’s office looks at Mumbrella. And as even News Corp’s critics would acknowledge, the organisation has got a very thick skin when it comes to criticism. They haven’t complained.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Thank you for retaining anonymous comments.
Quality over quantity is not a bad approch. This worries me though:
‘Do we want to publish this comment?’
Simply because its the thin end of the wedge of unfair moderation. Sure, your playground, your rules and if we don’t like it we will take our ball and go elsewhwere. One of the ongoing trends in the media is for people to take themselves, far far too seriously and have tickets on themselves no one else has. Maybe its unkind that this is pointed out to them online, but then again, sometimes the emporer needs reminding of his nudity. But before not publishing its good to ask yourself some questions like:
“Am I not publishing this because its embarrassing to me, even though I’ve legitimately stuffed up?”
“Am I not publishing this because I like my guest and am protecting them rather than being fair minded?”
“Am I not publishing this because I simply don’t like the view point it expresses (particularly when its a minority view)? ”
Worth asking because if you get the answer wrong too often you lose touch. Then you lose the audience.
I’m a 66 year old female retiree who was in the media business nearly 30 years ago and have always enjoyed Mumbrella to keep up with the latest. I have made my share of comments on certain topics over the years – tv ads mainly and although there are some who are obviously from the opposition, a lot are commenting from the heart and not the business. So I hope that these are still given the chance to view their opinion if it is constructive and sensible.
Thanks for a very reasonable and thorough explanation Tim. Whether or not individual readers and commentators choose to agree, they can’t argue with the justification. Personally i like the concept that any contribution to published work is subject to editorial approval – but hope that you’ll use that editorial approval to encourage lively debate
How are we going to know whats worth reading then, without the comment counter?
Also I’d like to know if you auto-ban certain IP addresses, as someone who works from a few of them…
Exactly!
It was the only way to navigate to something newsworthy.
It’s time Mumbrella also dropped the ridiculous amount of boring headshot PR appointment stories which starves the main page of breathable content.
I’ve also wondered that as well!
Does someone become such a nuisance that they are auto banned?
I totally agree! Although this decision is well thought-out, clearly and articulately justified, has a noble goal of increasing the level of intelligent debate and commentary within the site, as well as reducing uninformed and baseless vitriol (and those depressingly banal proclamations of love for talk-back radio hosts and TV personalities)…I will THOROUGHLY miss my side serving of spicy, spicy Mumbrella comments while eating honey chicken for lunch.
@Honey Chicken…
I must agree that Mumbrella served without extreme spice on the side is going to be an acquired taste. I too enjoy the sampling the spiciest of comments while I eat my (rubbish) tuna and rice at my desk.
“… TV viewers who arrived after Googling a particular show …”
You seem like just another publisher complaining about Google sending traffic your way. News Corp whines about Google taking snaps of their news even though those links on Google land on the News Corp websites.
So your website is indexed by Google so that Google sends readers to your site, which no doubt helps you sell ads as you can show how many readers you have. But you don’t like the quality of the readers sent by Google it seems, “quality over quantity”, as they are just regular television viewers rather than professionals in the marketing and media business. You should put all your content behind a hard paywall where all that is on public view is the login page, meaning that Google will not index your content and send non-professional readers to your website. Of course it is those very people who ultimately pay your wage – the average consumer who buys the products marketers promote.
In an age where the comments are usually better than the articles they sit under, it’s a risky road to travel down.
Anonymity is important but needless trolling is not. Saying that, we say what happened to Mumbrella Asia when comments became “moderated” – ended up a bit of a joke
Guys, sorry, this is an absolute garbage decision.
The amount of yes men nodding in agreement is testament of what an overly sensitive society we’ve become.
One thing that the U.S gets right is FREE SPEECH.
Australia is so backwards in this regard, and a publisher making the call on what is worth reading or not is censorship, plain and simple.
Sorry Tim, I think you’ve got this one wrong, I applaud your posts and the way you give us a glimpse into your reasoning, but on this occasion, you sir are 100% WRONG.
Enjoy a sanitized Mumbrella everyone.
Is this approach sustainable into the future though? As Mumbrella grows, so will the number of comments you have to moderate. I’m skeptical whether one editor (Hi Vivienne) can keep up with applying consistent journalistic rigour to each and every comment day after day.
I generally defend anonymous commenting but I get that a professional trade rag doesn’t want to turn into 4chan. Semi-anonymous or persistent pseudonym systems can strike a good balance. They can achieve free discussion without becoming an outright trollfest and they seem to work pretty well for this industry. You can check fishbowl for an example of the former and /r/advertising on reddit for the latter to see how those work out with minimal need for moderation.
Sure, you can create a new pseudonym but that can be easily solved with a waiting period before a new pseudonym can comment – say, 72 hours to account for the somewhat slower news cycle of the trade press. Combined with regular cleanup of unused profiles, this makes it easy to ensure regular, invested Mumbrella readers fill the comment section rather than bussed-in sycophants and wandering troll brigades.
Hi Wario,
I will certainly be keeping an eye on whether it is sustainable.
Thanks for the feedback. I’ll keep the company, and the audience, updated with how it’s tracking.
Vivienne – Mumbrella
Righto, I look forward to seeing how the policy works out. There are a handful of lively and thriving marketing/advertising/PR discussion communities out there but like so much of the internet, they’re all American-centric. Australia never really had a space like that as far as I’m aware, despite a great need for one. Whether intentionally or not, I feel like the Mumbrella comment section has de facto become that space and it would be a terrible shame if the spirit of it died. That’s my two cents.
Bravo, Mumbrella.
Anonymous comments provide the opportunity for readers to express themselves without fear of recrimination, and many successful communities globally (e.g Reddit) allow comments without confirmed identity (I wrote an article for Mumbrella about this last year: https://staging.mumbrella.com.au/banning-anonymous-comments-wont-make-the-internet-better-586668)
I am sure I am not the only long-time reader who has noticed the decline of comments here as people have flocked to the site due to various political bandwagons, which undermines the opportunity for decent discussion.
An understanding of nuance is a key attribute for any community manager. No comment policy will ever be able to capture all the ways that a comment can be irrelevent, damaging or non-productive, so it should really be up to the person moderating to decide what to allow, within the organisation’s moderation policy.
If we think about the Mumbrella comments section being the equivalent to a dinner party at a private house, the host has the right to decide who to invite and what the house rules are.
Good luck implementing this new policy, I have hope that it will lead to readers crafting better comments so that they are more likely to have their responses published.
Good effort, although consider how few comments controversial articles on AdNews get. Mostly zero. It looks like no one reads it.
I am a mid level manager in an industry with egos, people who never forget, bridges to burn and job flipping as an only path forward to get incremental wage increases.
With all of this, having an anonymous platform to comment means we can all contribute to things that matter, like chastising Rupert Murdoch or calling out agency groups’ reasons for their near collapse.
And I thank you dearly for this outlet… As myself as well as others… Come here for the stories, but stay for the comments.
There have always been anon comments on the net, and in the 90s it was kind of fun. Stupid fun, really. The amount of fun, stupid stuff from the net in the 90s and early 00s was amazing. Soundboards, tranny or granny quizzes… Nobody took the net (or themselves) so seriously.
And look at the great advertising campaigns that came out of that. Subservient chicken as one example. Just pure silliness.
As internet access has increased and people have moved much more online for their source of news (oooh, and opinion – aka MY OPINION!!!!) things have changed. Not just on advertising blogs. Witness Donald Trump and Brexit. Rise of the right wing. It’s so damn serious now. Flame-wars for people (gasp!) just having a different opinion. Extremists are popping up everywhere and it’s because people can find that weird messed up group they think they identify with and encourage each other.
The only way to get rid of ‘shit-posting’ is to not attract shit people to your site. And when it’s in your best interests to have as many people as possible hitting your site (understandable, circulation figures) – it’s not going to be an elite intellectually informed discussion.
One of Mumbrella’s great strengths is it’s comments. It is one of few Australian forums where people who know something about what they want to talk about feel safe to publish. I can only hope this will continue. So far so good.
This new policy has killed off comments quite nicely!