It seems commenting under articles won’t be possible anymore after a website redesign. There were a lot of cranks down there, but I enjoyed being able to give my opinion and gauge others’.
Threadbanned users:
growleaves
It’s quite staggering how many commentators here are quite prepared to give away their own rights to free speech and mine. Clearly the Irish times shut down the comments section because they did not like readers disagreeing with their editorials. For a long time before this website reconfiguration, comments on controversial topics were routinely not allowed. A newspaper by its very nature is there because an open society allows it, by shutting down the opinions of their readers they have taken a significant step towards their own demise as once again they too will come under the control of government interference that we see now all over the world, from Russia to Nicaragua, from Iran to China. We are now in an era of illiberal liberals who will soon like has happened in USA drive the old-fashioned liberals like myself to the right of where we want to be. The Times has deprived its readers of an important outlet for self-expression, free speech is the very crux of a free and liberal democracy. By depriving us of that outlet they leave themselves open to the conspiracy therorists that now thrive in the USA who now demonise the “main stream media”.
Dur dur dur dur feck the libruls 😁
The IT has had a subscriber-only comment policy for quite a number of years. Before that it was pretty mental (who remembers "Babs" and her numerous reincarnations?). I see that one of the most prolific commenters on the IT (and, indeed the internet) has now joined us 👍️
No explanation, just a vague asssurance that they will eventually do something which they haven’t yet done.
I haven’t speculated on their reasoning.
The great thing about Boards is that it’s open to all but no one is forced to read it.Would that others with more power followed its example. Next time the IT extols virtues like “openness” or “inclusion” or even “freedom”, put a little asterisk there.
I wouldn’t object if they had a “subscriber only” comment policy, though I am seriously questioning my own subscription.
Buy a printing press and start a newspaper. Or buy a web site, even easier.
There's really no reason why you can't host your own content on your own platform.
They've given an explanation. You just don't like it and by your blather about Liberals presume some dark purpose. Can't be a business decision, no. Has to be something more, one that justifies your bias. You obviously don't want to consider something that simple so yeah, this thread becomes a redundant, and ironic, echo chamber of Grr, Liberals Are At it Again.
Subscriber only comments makes sense for a subscriber only website.
What’s the response when I ask if Liberals shut down channels of communication? Close this thread!🤣
Back in May, the IT said
On-site functionality allowing readers to comment on selected articles has been under review and will return in the near future for subscribers.
No explanation, no sign yet of this functionality. At least this thread shows someone noticed (and irritated some censorious posters)
Can we close the thread? Never occured to actually see if the IT even made mention of this change. Sure enough:
"Without explanation"? They'll be coming back for subscribers, which seems like a fair enough response.
Get over it.
This has been pointed out repeatedly ad nauseum across the thread but I see the paranoia persists that it's just cos 'dem liberals don't like free speech etc.
Comments sections are expensive. I guess Ockham's Razor is just a brand of male grooming?
Of course the real reason may be more prosaic.
They could not afford the resources to moderate the comments, nor the likely possible court cases. Defending those court cases would be an expensive nightmare - with no win for the IT whatever the outcome.
Do “Liberals” care about freedom nowadays? Of course, they care about their own freedom (who doesn’t?) and support all sorts of “rights” but the IT has shut down a channel for free expression without explanation.
So much for the old liberal motto I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It
I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It
To be clear, the IT does not claim to be objective and disinterested in its "stance".
It is a newspaper with a point of view, which is pro-politicaly liberal activist, that also includes token non-liberal contributions.
The Irish Times is officially a "liberal activist" newspaper according to its own self-description.
Geraldine Kennedy announced this in an editorial.
They obviously do not see regular and occasional pieces from conservative Catholics as undercutting the official position of the paper, which is liberal activism.
I think I read only one Breda O'Brian piece that I'd mark as reasoned, but otherwise the IT actively platform intolerant players in the way Facebook profited off race and bigotry under the banner of free speech. It was only when the threat of dictatorship became real after the capitol riots that these massive profit driven intolerance facilitators acted.
But anyway the IT is a "liberal activist" newspaper, as Geraldine Kennedy made explicit in an editoral
Yes, that's why they have a weekly column from the Iona "Institute" and regular opinion pieces from bishops.
Una Mullally is not a "little-girl cultural dictator". She has a track record in writing and media (remember here in the Turbine?). Ironically, she's now bucking the trend of most of the IT's narrative on property developer porn and imported SoCoDu trans wars. The IT has lost credibility as a source of balanced news, investigative purpose, and needed opinions on the obvious since Geraldine K's days (and that's saying a lot).
Shutting down the comments section was more to do with silencing voices of dissent against the IT's narrative of recycled Guardian guff and SINDO castoffs (Anne Harris, come on down) who didn't like Dinny. I see Eoghan Harris being rehabilitated today in the IT. Apparently he was responsible for the peace process (just like he was responsible for Mary Robinson).
In the past columnists were usually much older with a distinguished journalism career already behind them. Or maybe they had been a judge and were now retired.
But anyway the IT is a "liberal activist" newspaper, as Geraldine Kennedy made explicit in an editoral, so having Mullally in place must be considered the best way to advance the specific political agenda that the IT advocates for.
Don't be so utterly boring. This is information sharing so if you can't keep up then don't make it so obvious.
There was this fella on RTE radio this morning who said scientific authority is a consensus vehicle so all the cheerleaders for any political or scientific imperative such as climate change modelling means that everyone must face in the same direction just as the priests of old who use to look to the alter instead of the congregation.
Most of the IT journalists, God love them, move in the same circles with diplomas and doctorates to prove it so it is always interesting to read the comments which follow, some which are inane, others argumentative or contrary, others bring insights and genuine perspectives so while the article is necessary, so is the push back or the affirmation. The whole exercise of a comment section is to expand the perspectives presented by the author of the article rather than a propaganda pamphlet for self-aggrandising purposes.
I always felt they used Breda O'Brian and Una Mullaly so much to act as stablisers for a notion of neutrality, but in reality their constant publishing of Michael McDowell is probably closer to the mindset of the south county Dublin landlord set that see the Irish Times as theirs.
The gender wars lurch in the IT after the Aisling Murphy murder alienated me in the same way british tabloids repulse with their racism. At least by the comments section in those initial days I knew i wasn't alone in feeling vilified and i noted they they changed a few headlines to be less gender warfare, but the damage was done.
That's just... bizarre.
Were either of you even alive when the Latin mass was the norm? and what on earth's that got to do with the Irish Times anyway?
Priest and people faced one direction from time immemorial until some academic priests who never had a parish in their entire lives changed everything in the mid to late 60s. The parishioners who wanted their accustomed devotions were simpletons to be scorned. More and more stopped going, rest is history. Perhaps similarly journalist wokists already regard ordinary people as hatethinking plebs. Reply with a polite disagreement with an Irish Independent or Times tweet, and see how your Twitter account remains unsuspended (hint: not long). An upper class leftwinger (like Fintan O'Toole the stout working class hero from Crumlin whose sneer can be almost felt in every article) has by default a contempt for ordinary people and most rural people.
I am sorry that the IT decided to abandon the comment section for although it did provide a platform for personal venting against the author, it also broke up the perspectives of the college educated naivete and the circles they move in. I dropped my subscription on that account for while the familiar authors may feel more comfortable without the comments section, it has the same effect as the clergy facing away from the congregation as in old Church times.
I suspect (based on no evidence whatsoever) that the comments suggested that many of the IT’s readers were a lot less ‘liberal’ than the IT’s view of itself and it didn’t really like that. In particular, Monday morning under Una Mullally’s latest masterpiece was always a bloodbath
At least someone gets it. This looks like a financial decision more than anything to do with censorship. Moderating comments means employing some people to do that. The IT has been struggling for years. Over ten years ago, it was selling over 100K copies a day. Before Covid, it was down to around 50K a day. Government advertising played a big part in keeping a lot of media outlets viable during the lockdowns and Covid. Though digital subscriptions are supposed to replace paper sales, the reality is that getting people to subscribe online is difficult and though the IT has published some puff pieces about its digital subscriptions, there is often no breakdown of these subscriptions by duration (weekly/monthly/annual) and the figures on churn are rarely mentioned. How people access news has changed and people increasingly rely on the smartphone for news. For newspapers, the financial problems with the online publishing model and its 24 hour news cycle rather than the old newspaper model of yesterday's news tomorrow are far deeper than perceived censorship.
Regards...jmcc
You think the comments section on newspaper articles constitutes feedback to the newspaper? Have you ever read a comments section?
"Bruised a few over-sized egos"
I think you're overstating both the value and impact of these sections, while understating just how much hassle running them in the first place can be. Have you worked with interns? If you had, you wouldn't give them the administration of a potential legal quagmire like User Comments 😂 Most companies might want user feedback, but most companies also want to reduce costs and will outsource, or shutter, where it makes sense. Again, Boards has outsourced its Platform Software for that very reason - reduce costs.
Anyway: whose egos? As I said, Twitter is where most topical commentary takes place now - and by design allows for more direct communication with politicians or journalists in the first place than a Comments section tucked away at the bottom of the occasional news article (for better or worse; personally Twitter is a cesspit that allows for bullying and harassment, but that's another topic). In some respects it's Direct Democracy in action.
I don't think the so called "new media environment" has such a rosy future.
Integrity in reporting and commentating will always win out in the end.
Reading anonymous posters "bruising egos" has a very limited shelf life for anyone who really wants to be informed.
People who disagree with you are not necessarily blind to the issue.
I don't think cost was decisive. A couple of interns could have moderated out the nutcases. Most organisations are happy to pay to get their customers' feedback. If cost was the issue, I think they could have defended their decision on that basis, instead of using the revamp of their website as a convenient opportunity without any explanation.
I think it is an admission by the traditional media that they can't handle the new media environment. The aura of authority and wisdom that used to surround the major media is gone. The comments on the IT would have bruised a few over-sized egos.
Funny how so many commentators on this thread don't even see the issue.
It's not easy at all in the commercial tier. Boards costs a lot of money to maintain 20+ years of data - and in the current climate is barely keeping its head above water. Somebody has to administrate these sections: it's all cost at the server level, while keeping a staff on the payroll to maintain a decreasing sequence of barely coherent diatribes doesn't make much business sense; not when Twitter et al has basically become the prime source of Public Opinion. Traditional newspapers are already struggling, financially. Every comment being a potential legal landmine doubtless added more ammunition towards the belief of obsolescence.
It’s so easy to have a comment section which allows your readers to share their views. Why would the IT (and all other major Irish media) close down their comments section?
If they needed advice on moderating the comments, I’m sure Boards could have given them worthwhile guidance.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/587425844b4b7da8da81893f4d488b57.svg)
