Quick Recap: As explored as part of my Case Study: Comparative Observations of Online Spaces for Cooking, “Despite the apparent lack of it in social media, civility in discourse is a crucial part of democratic deliberation and a critical symbol of “a developed democratic society.”(1) A unique case study on a corner of the internet where almost all comments are constructive and dare I say it, funny, can be found in the comments section of the New York Times (NYT) Cooking website.” Civil discourse can exist and thrive on NYT Cooking because:
- Affordances that are designed in the interactions. Comments are called “notes,” so people feel welcome to share, but the site is useful with a “collegial and fact-based atmosphere than one filled with mere comment and opinion.”(2)
- Commenters acknowledge that their opinions on recipes are loaded with identity, emotion, personal narrative and bias and are willing to present their views as such
Project Proposal:
Jury duty for the news. Select articles are annotated each day on the NYT by a quarterly rotating set of conservative journalists. Readers can read the news where they usually read it, and also encounter “notes” from journalists with opposing perspectives. Journalists with opposing views receive a platform to explain why they believe what they believe, users receive a well-rounded perspective on the news. (This idea is inspired by the American jury duty system and the “America in One Room” deliberative polling project by the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University.)
Currently:
Users who want to encounter opposing opinions must do so voluntarily in addition to their established news consumption habits. This requires an awareness that there is a need to consume opposing views and the discipline to repeatedly do so.
Next steps:
1. Interview conservative journalists:
- Does this seem interesting or worthwhile to you?
- Where do conservative journalists want to annotate the NYT? Is it headline news or opinion pieces?
2. Talk to users:
- Do you seek opposing views? How?
- Describe what type of “notes” would be useful to you
1 reply on “Annotating the Front Page”
I love the idea that there’s a group designated as responders to news as it exists, because there’s certainly responses to news as published by folks all around the ideological spectrum. I don’t know whether conservatives responding to the NYT is as broad a spectrum as you might want – corners of my ideological bubble specialize in complaining how conservative the Times is. Perhaps there are a couple of projects where you invite folks to the right and left of the content to react to different sources? I worry that asking people to respond to everything is a recipe for overload and overreaction – is there a way to ask responders to pick one thing they thought the source they’re following got wrong that day? And maybe a counterbalance of something they feel the publication got right? Stories that one side grudgingly accepts could be a really interesting news feed. Excited to see where you go with this.