Peoria Journal Star columnist Phil Lucinao is having a hard time appreciating the value of reader comments on newspaper Web sites. He cites examples of rude and possibly factually inaccurate comments left at stories posted on PJStar.com:
I realize that newspapers are still trying to figure out how to best handle the transition to the Web. And certainly reader interactivity should play a part.
But newspapers have to remember that they don’t just sell news – they sell legitimacy. If a story runs in the Journal Star, it isn’t just innuendo; it’s the best effort the paper can make at pinpointing the truth.
To me, running loony reader comments sullies that legitimacy. It’s as if a paper is implying, “This is what we see as rational discourse. And we approve.”
I’m not going to call Luciano a Luddite, because he isn’t making an anti-technology rant here, unlike some members of the Journal Star’s editorial board I could name. Luciano is just having a hard time reconciling the new media with the generally accepted rules and standards of the old media. Luciano and I are both of a generation that has grown up expecting the media to be the gatekeeper, the arbiter of what should and should not be part of the public discussion. Indeed, I was taught in Journalism School that this was a role the media was supposed to assume for the good of the public, lest the pubic be exposed to libel, vulgarity, obscenity, etc.
What I found in working for small and medium-sized newspapers (including a stint as an intern at the Journal Star) is that this meant that newspapers are free to exercise their biases without being called on it. Reporters and their editors have their own political beliefs, people they consider friends and people they consider enemies. The people who work for newspapers have preconceived notions about race, religion and ethnic origins, and some of these opinions are not pretty. Every single news organization I’ve worked for had this problem. Every single one. And it effected what was printed. Granted, journalists can be sneaky and do it in a way that no one who wasn’t paying very close attention would ever notice. These rude and inaccurate comments Luciano complains about are just more blatant — and therefore a bit more honest — than the way newspaper workers do it.
So forgive me if I remain skeptical of those who insist that newspapers have to protect their readers. Open comments protect readers from their newspapers, and keep them on their toes. Recent court decisions have leaned towards protecting Websites that allow anyone to comment, so I’m not seeing an real libel threats here. And I have greater faith than Luciano does, apparently, in the intelligence of the Journal Star’s readers. I don’t think anyone who reads a comment seriously thinks it is therefore endorsed by the Journal Star. And I’ve certainly read news articles (and columns and editorials) in which it was apparently not much effort at all was made to pinpoint the truth.
In other words, Mr. Luciano: Thanks for the input.
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
Another thought, the press and the media has had a pretty long time to refine their abilities to publish/broadcast biased stories without having the appearance of bias. People who have been reporters or broadcasters for years learn how to finesse their work (usually) – just like those of us in any other field. Like in sports, younger players generally have a more raw, bold style than say, late career Michael Jordan, who was so smooth and subtle in his play, more so than his NC years, it was like watching ballet for me.
Anyway, 200 years of publishing or 80 years of broadcasting leads to a great deal of learned technique. Indeed, one has to mistrust most sources anymore, especially on the internet. And I would hazard to guess that the younger the reader, the more they are aware of the difference between a mediated source and raw opinion. A newspaper article vs. commentary on a blog. Or, I could be totally wrong. Discuss.