I'm a newshound, and I read all sorts of articles a day on everything that's going on in politics. I don't know when I first noticed the "comments" that people leave after reading news stories, but I always make sure to take a look at what people are saying just because it's often ridiculous.
So, it was announced last week that Caroline Kennedy would not be chosen to replace Hillary Clinton as junior Senator from New York, and in a MonstersandCritics blog entry someone called "La Maestra" (the female teacher) wrote, "Sounds like another case of male bonding to me...if you are female...stay home, cook the food, mind the kids and stay out of politics!"
Several comments down, a poster named "Sam" answered, "Yeah right La Maestra. Now, Caroline is relegated to staying home and cooking. Don't be silly. Don't blame this one on gender discrimination or sexual stereotyping."
The next interesting comment read, "Blind and stupid is no way to go through politics," an obvious crack at the Governor of New York, who is legally blind.
Then it got bizarre, as a woman named "Jenn" wrote a 987-word rant on the subject that started "Caroline Kennedy for the New York Senate, and maybe President 2016?" A man named Carlos called Kennedy a "[l]ovely lady with excellent breeding but little experience," and so it went on as people swamped around in the muck with each other for awhile debating whether or not Kennedy was rejected as part of a grand conspiracy or because Andrew Cuomo (Attorney General of New York) is more qualified or because she's inexperienced or mediocre.
If you've never had anything of yours published and then commented on on the Internet, you are missing out on one of the weirdest experiences out there. Last week I had my first article published, and it received two comments shortly after being published defending Lisa Madigan from charges that she's a mediocre Attorney General who couldn't find corruption in the state of Illinois if it were sitting on her silver spoon at breakfast.
I mean, that's not that weird, but what college student sits around waiting to defend Lisa Madigan from college newspaper editorials? These people need to get lives. Seriously, what sort of person has the time to type 1,000 words in response to a news story, and for what purpose? In case the author of the article notices it and says, "Oh, they got me"? On the off chance that Caroline Kennedy reads it and decides to send them money? Because they want to prove someone on the Internet wrong? That reminds me of one of my favorite cartoons, which you can see off to the side.
But all this teasing about the lunacy of user comments on the Internet reminds me of what I dislike about "new" media, and why I think the future of newspapers isn't as dark as some make it seem. "New" media, like blogs and websites that allow you to leave your darling comments on stories, are fine and well, but they lack a certain authority that printed words and news have. How can someone take a news article seriously strictly on the Internet if at the end of the piece they see three comments that say "First!" as three idiots feud over who comments first and then the thread degenerates into nonsense?
No, newspapers are real and concrete in ways that websites aren't, and they therefore have much more authority, so they will always be around even as newspapers - like the Tribune and Sun-Times - have trouble. Freud once wrote, "Never underestimate man's need to obey." That's why newspapers are good, and blogs will stop threatening newspapers.
Be the first to comment on this article!