You build comments into your articles, allowing for real-time user feedback. An editor is alerted every time a reader comments on an article and they get notice that a writer has commented quite negatively about one of the vendors (organizations, individuals) in an article. This vendor has been a big supporter of the magazine (advertising, event sponsor, contributor). What do you do?
1.) reject the comment 2.) accept the comment 3.) accept the comment, but advise the vendor that they can rebut 4.) accept the comment and do independent research to analyze the validity of the negative remarks.
Note: this scenario, based on real-life experiences, was developed for the 2007 ASBPE Editorial Conference. Visit www.asbpe.org/about/code.htm to read about the group's Code of Ethics.
Posts: 79 | Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA | Registered: 17 August 2006
My sense is that something in the #3 #4 range is the way to go. Readers should not only feel that they are free to have negative feelings about subjects we cover, but also that we try to provide fair coverage regardless. Thus, if the negative comment is something that is more than a from the hip shot; if it is something that may be factually inaccurate, then the publication should try to get the whole story online in an accurate way.
As long as the posted comment is not profane or defamatory, it should be posted. Then alert the vendor to provide a response. This often is done with letters to the editor.
If you receive and publish a letter to the editor (much the same as a blog comment) that challenges something that has been published, you have two choices - let it run without explanation or offer the writer of the original material (or the vendor mentioned) an opportunity to respond. You don't post it and let someone provide an explanation only if they happen to see the posting. This is both common courtesy and a way to augment the information and create a dialog. The person who suggests not contacting the vendor (or writer) is flat out wrong.
