Last week, the team at NPR made a noteworthy and provocative decision about how the biggest public radio network will interface with its audience online. As of this past Tuesday, the comment feature on NPR.org has been disabled.
NPR isn’t the first news site to make this move. Their ombudsman, Elizabeth Jensen, noted that other journalistic institutions have gone this route. But the reasoning behind NPR’s decision has resonance for other media outlets and brands grappling with angry, empowered listeners. The other part of the calculus revolved around the determination of how representative these commenters are against the larger public radio audience
NPR’s decision had nothing to do with blockading an audience engagement pathway. In fact, their managing editor for digital news, Scott Montgomery, pointed out that community discussions on social media – especially Facebook and Twitter – have become primary conduits for the exchange of ideas and opinions with consumers.
But the decision to axe the comments runs deeper. As we discussed in a post earlier in the month – “How Big Is Your Audience?” – it is easy to be faked out by the loud, boisterous crowds at events or the incessantly ringing phones during a big contest or hot morning show topic. This is precisely the conundrum faced by the Trump campaign on the one hand, and perhaps many of radio’s personality shows on the other.
The other truth is that a relatively small number of fans overshadow the mood and even the priorities of the mass audience – those doing the lion’s share of the listening, and in public radio’s case, the giving. The loud, shrill, and often angry voices that often dominate the comments can make it difficult for programmers, news directors, marketers, reporters, and talent to determine the true mindset of the listening community. And for NPR.org web users themselves, the online experience takes a hit when news stories are polluted by the back-and-forth Punch & Judy exchanges from amped up consumers.
Commercial radio has long faced this challenge during giveaways where typically a small number of players clog up the phones. Seeing the same faces at station events or in the lobby picking up prizes is a reminder of how a small, active group can overshadow the will of the larger, mass audience.
Call them “Prize Pigs” or in this case, “Comment Pigs,” and you have a better sense for the rationale behind NPR’s decision. It may not be possible for commercial stations to quantify the impact the few active contest players have on moving the ratings needle, but NPR was able to do the math on its commenters to determine who they are and whether they truly represent the larger audience.
Jensen points out that in July, NPR logged nearly 33 million unique users, and almost a half million comments. But these online messages came from fewer than 20,000 people – and that’s just .06 percent of users doing the commenting. As she points out, that’s “a very, very small slice of (the) overall audience.”
Digging deeper, when NPR looked at those who left comments during June and July, a scant 4,300 users posted 145 comments apiece. That amounts to two-thirds of all the comments NPR.org received during this time period from that small group of loud, opinionated people. Yes, it’s fair to call them “Comment Pigs.”
But the bigger issue is that many of the comments – and the commenters themselves – are not truly representative of the NPR audience. More than 80% of NPR commenters turned out to be male, in contrast with the larger base of NPR.org visitors where men make up just over half of this much larger group. This small group of bombastic online users can hijack web stories, making for a negative experience for everyone else.
It also comes down to tone and public radio’s core values that often seem to be in opposition to the flavor of many of these online comments. NPR is known for its calm, studious approach to news, especially during these charged up times when seemingly innocent news stories can set off online firestorms. Oftentimes, these digital missives read more like a scream fest on Fox News or CNN, as opposed to the calmer, more gentile, civil approach that is indigenous to the public radio environment.
NPR says the conversation has moved to social media, noting that 5 million people gather around their Twitter account each month, as opposed to the minority of people commenting on their web pages. They also believe the conversation on social media is quieter and less incendiary. They posit the reason for this might come down to the fact that most people on Facebook, in particular, use their real names, opposed to the anonymous nature of commenters.
Hopefully, they’re right, because a look at any commercial radio station’s Facebook page – especially when a DJ exists or the music changes – can also be downright loud, disrespectful, and mean. And in this crazy political season, the online gloves came off months ago as more Facebook users have lost any inhibitions they had about posting their opinions, as well as judging others.
However NPR’s decision works out, the larger benefit of their “no comments” decision might be the gain of greater focus on the real audience, rather than on a small number of faceless people who would rather use disruption and vitriol to make their points and further their personal agendas.
One of the burdens of having so much data is the difficulty of determining which parts of it truly matter. Every radio station is fighting that battle, especially in an environment where the ratings aren’t measuring the full 360° usage patterns as the audience expands its use of gadgets, streams, apps, platforms, and sites.
For NPR, what initially seemed like a move away from transparency is now a step in a more rational direction. It will improve their journalistic focus, while making for a better online experience for its millions of visitors to NPR.org.
Let the cacophony move to Facebook.
Of course, your comments are welcome below.
Jacobs Media has consistently walked the walk in the digital space, providing insights and guidance through its well-read national Techsurveys.
In 2008, jacapps was launched - a mobile apps company that has designed and built more than 1,300 apps for both the Apple and Android platforms. In 2013, the DASH Conference was created - a mashup of radio and automotive, designed to foster better understanding of the "connected car" and its impact.
Along with providing the creative and intellectual direction for the company, Fred consults many of Jacobs Media's commercial and public radio clients, in addition to media brands looking to thrive in the rapidly changing tech environment.
Fred was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 2018.
- Every Company Is A Tech Company - January 14, 2025
- The Changing Face Of Social Media (OR WTZ?!) - January 13, 2025
- Traveling At The Speed of CES - January 10, 2025
A lot of news sites have grappled with this…An alternative step that I’m kind of surprised NPR didn’t take is Facebook authentication.
A site that I was involved with went to that system and the vitriol and hogging of the site went down significantly.
It requires a Facebook account to comment and it leaves your name and info on the comment to make you in some way responsible for your words without cutting off the comments section all together.
Mike, that system could be effective to screen out anonymous commenters. But reading a bit deeper into the NPR ombudsman’s rationale, the other issue revolves around the high costs of moderating comments. With Facebook and Twitter, the hope is for an open line to exchange views, without the economic burden. Appreciate the comment.
Is there a coloration between “Comment Pigs” and year long PPM Households? Thank you, Fred. Clark, Boston. http://www.broadcastideas.com
Clark, probably so. The evidence suggests PPM households are definitely motivated by the money and compensation. Thanks for chiming in.
It is also true that some of the “comment pigs” on radio station Facebook sites are competitors upset at some positive move a station will make to its programming. We’ve caught them before at it. And as far as the comments to news stories, it is on both sides of the political spectrum. Both sides can be caustic, ugly, posting false and otherwise bogus information and yes, downright mean.
Kevin, thanks for the comment. I didn’t mean to imply the anger and vitriol just comes from Hillary fans. 🙂 Thanks for reading our blog.
That is a bad decision.
Usually I read the comments before I read the article.
My experience is that most of the commentators are respectful and some of them very educated.
The writers of NPR’s article aren’t any goods knowing all knowledge.
Thanks for the opinion, Dennis. The comments tended to run the gamut. I don’t think they are acting like the “comment cops” in this situation, but I’m interested in what others think.
It should be remembered most people do not comment and you would not expect for most sites the people commenting to be representative of the audience. The question is the value the comments add to the story experience. If cutting the comments purely because the people are not representative of the audience then that is a big mistake, if cutting as they are not adding to the story experience or creating a negative experience for those reading articles and looking at comments then it is the right move.
Paolo, according to the NPR ombudsman, it is more about the latter (the negative experience that’s out of sync with the public radio values construct), and less about the demographic match-up. And then there’s the conclusion that social media has become a much more mainstream repository for listener comments. NPR doesn’t do anything on a whim. My bet is that this debate took place for a long time before the “no comments” decision was made. Thanks for your comment.
I think NPR’s digital news editors have finally realized what those of us with long careers in traditional News media learned decades ago…
Public-access Web advocates tout this venue as being the 1st Truly Democratic medium, but Radio & Newspaper ‘old timers’ who have sifted thru Letters To The Editor or been call-screeners know the fallacy of that statement. For professional news journalists the Web has created nothing Novel, beyond adding another distribution tool.
Relative to Democracy issue: while it could well be the best public
governance model available, it does have a dark side.. it provides every opinionated Idiot the opportunity to cast an uninformed vote.
Good comment, Dennis. There’s a lot of give and take on this issue, balancing an open forum with trying to present a civil experience. It’s not easy. Thanks for chiming in.
true dat.
They are funded by We The People for the benefit of We The People. Immediately fire every single person involved with making the decision to mute our voices in this public forum.
Thanks for the opinion, Bill.
Now I am inspired to chime in. First of all, there is a strong firewall between funding and editorial decisions in public media. NPR’s website is a digital distribution platform for their original content and they get to chose what goes there, not a funder. Imagine if every person with an opinion got a chance to get on the air and voice it. It would be a hot mess. Second, its a common misconception that NPR is funded by the feds. If you break down the actual numbers, each person spends about $1.35 a year on public broadcasting and that is spread across more than a thousand public radio and television stations across the country. Public radio is largely funded by individual donors who choose to support their local nonprofit media outlets. Finally, there are many ways that people can make their voiced heard with NPR – through social media and by contacting the network directly. If someone really had an issue with the coverage, its more effective to go to the person who can actually address those concerns than to troll the website.
But you know what they say, opinions are like bellybuttons. We all have them. My two cents.
Abby, thanks for the view from the inside. Many people don’t understand the in’s and out’s of funding, as well as the ways that listeners can get their views heard. The fact that NPR has an ombudsman who lays out the pros, cons, and implications of every move they make is unique to most media outlets. Appreciate the comment and perspective.
But for the many who don’t do FB and the like, they can’t participate and are left behind. Just another hoop to jump through to be able to participate. Sad.
I totally get that point. Thanks for commenting.
I totally get that point. Thanks for commenting.
The reasons provided were cover for the actual problem NPR was facing.
NPR’s biases in reporting were increasingly under attack by sophisticated commenters, in some cases embarrassingly so.
For an example, NPR had a gushing report on a “grassroots” anti-gun movement led by a “housewife”. Within 10 hours a commenter provided the facts: the “housewife” was the president of a PR firm and was in the employ of a well-known wealthy anti-gun proponent.
And so it increasingly went. It even drew attention on Capitol Hill.
Since closing the comments section, NPR has scrubbed the news on its website of anything with NRA, gun control, abortion, Planned Parenthood, and a host of other hot button topics as far back as their archives are available on-line.
And btw since NPR and its DISQUS comment framework did not inquire as to age, race, sex, place of residence, or anything else, there is nothing in the way of data to support the notion that “(m)ore than 80% of NPR commenters turned out to be male”.
Marty, you’re entitled to your opinion but among other things, I easily searched for and found stories on NPR.org about abortion and Planned Parenthood. Thanks for your opinion.
He wasn’t talking about NPR articles about those topics which of course still exist, they were never removed.
What NPR did was they scrubbed the comment sections that used to exist on articles prior to the new no comment policy. Previously you could still at least go to older articles or wind up on those older articles and read the comments from when the comment section existed on those articles.
Eventually NPR figured out that if they really want to eliminate any risk of dissenting opinions, they’ll have to go back & rewrite history &simply remove the entire comment sections on those articles which up until that point, were already existing, were already moderated & civil, were already viewable by anyone who stumbled upon an article pre-comment ban & once all the previous comment sections were gone, they might as well have never existed & those voices will never be heard again – now finally NPR employees can sleep peacefully at night.
NPR needs to realize there is a dissenting opinion to theirs. I would suggest they figure this out. We are all not lock-step into NPRs politics.