W.S.R.
Ann Cooper
Every Sunday, The New York Times Magazine publishes a selection of readers' opinions on articles published during the previous week, most of which are full of praise, and last Sunday's article was no exception. Nine readers called the Brittney Griner profile in the May 2 issue of The Times “powerful,” “inspirational,” “beautifully told,” and a portrait of a woman of “truly heroic,” “courage” and “strength.”
But one reporter expressed disgust, not at Griner or the profile's writers, but at “the hostility and nastiness displayed in the online comments.” I read the story a week ago, but never clicked on the little “comments” image at the bottom to see what people were writing online. If I did now, a long box would appear, revealing 1,003 posts that had been posted before comments were closed. (Comments on stories typically close after 24 hours, according to the Times, so moderators can catch up on comments on recently posted stories.)
After poring over perhaps 100 (200?) entries, my eyes too bleary to read any further, it was easy to identify the source of readers’ disgust. Most of the comments I read were sympathetic to Griner, but quite a few said she should have been arrested and punished because Russian authorities found traces of cannabis oil in e-cigarette cartridges in her luggage. Their arguments were that she had broken Russian law, should have known better, and that she was “no hero” for surviving for months in Russia’s harsh prison system. There were complaints that to win her freedom, the U.S. released Russian arms dealer Victor Bout, who one person wrote was a “serious threat to humanity,” while another wondered how much it had cost U.S. taxpayers to negotiate Griner’s release and fly her home.
At least some of the letters published in the print edition were also posted as online comments, but the contrast between the few complimentary letters selected for print and the much more diverse messages that flooded the online comments was striking.
The Times' comments section is moderated, and the policy is stated here and includes banning name-calling, foul language, and yelling. “While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and non-offensive, moderation decisions are subjective and made carefully by our community team,” the Times said in a statement.
That's not to say the Times comments are an accurate barometer of public opinion, just as the nine printed letters don't accurately represent all readers' opinions of Griner; they only represent the opinions of those who chose to write them. But the online posts do provide a fuller picture of the range of opinions about Griner and her case (though it's questionable how many readers read the 1,003 posts).
Now the question is: How will Rag moderate the comments? We'll be sharing more about that in the coming weeks, as well as the history of news organizations embracing online comments, scrambling to moderate them, and now (in some cases) abandoning their comment sections.
Regarding this week's Rag Comments, I'd like to start by thanking our readers for their patience while a technical glitch made it difficult for us to access the site (and of course to post comments) for a day or so.
Whether you're a fan of comments or not, a post this week showed us that comments can reveal more than the article itself. For example, did you know that you can get certified as a citizen pruner and help maintain trees in New York City (click here to find out how). This was revealed by someone who commented on an article sent to us by Doug Garr about balloon snagging on Amsterdam Street.
Barbara E. Morgan
11 hours ago
I've been a volunteer in NYC parks (Broadway Mall and Riverside) for many years and am also a certified citizen pruner (Trees NY). Plastic and balloons getting tangled in trees is a chronic problem and can be found everywhere, including Riverside Park. There used to be a “bag snagger” that was specifically designed to remove plastic bags and other items from trees. It was extendable. I tried to buy one but it's no longer in production. We really need a tool like this to remove all that trash from trees. It's good for the landscape, good for the trees, and good for everything.
And if you're still curious about the unusual brown-tailed black squirrel after reading the background explanation from our Monday bulletin, another commenter offered a helpful lesson in genetics that explains the unusual phenomenon.
Josh
1 day ago
The black squirrels we see are actually melanistic gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis). They are the same species, but they have a recessive trait that causes differences in pigmentation. The recessive trait means that when a black squirrel mates with another black squirrel, they will also produce black offspring. But when a gray squirrel mates with a black squirrel, there is at best a 50/50 chance that they will produce offspring that will be black. This is based on the gene that controls the black pigment. Gray squirrels have a lot of variation in tail color, even if they are just gray. Gray squirrels often have white, reddish, or brown pigment in their tails in addition to the gray color. Basically, it's the same with melanistic gray squirrels. The tail can also be white, brown, or gray. Different genes control different colors in different parts of the body.
Subscribe to West Side Rag's free email newsletter here.
