I hate reading news articles on-line for one simple reason.

[Pacifist Patriot]

And it has nothing to do with the dreadful editing or biased reporting, though that is an impediment.

I access my email on-line through a site that includes links to news articles on the login page. They generally have a few headlines that grab my attention so I'll click on them from time to time. The articles are fairly innocuous in content, but it's the reader commentary that is so appallingly dreadful.

I hate the reminder that I am surrounded by so many narrow-minded, hate-filled, ignorant bombasts. I like my "real life" cocoon where people who have these opinions at least have the civility to keep their thoughts to themselves. I hate to say it, but I kind of fancy that kind of ignorance. Sometimes I'd rather not know how batshit crazy people can be.

[HopeHoops]

1. There is a simple solution. Do what I do. CLOSE THE FUCKING WINDOW when you reach the end.

I used to read a few of the comments but they are so stupid that it just isn't worth the time. At the end of the article, I close the window and move on.

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. You know, a link to comments would be a great idea.

Maybe I read too quickly or something, but when I get to the end of an article the first couple of comments just unavoidably register with me. They are literally right there with not much of a space gap between the story and the first comment. I wish they were on a separate page.

[HopeHoops]

7. I LIKE that idea!!! I'm going to start sending feedback to news sites with that suggestion.

Cool!

[sharp_stick]

4. It's like a car accident

you know you don't want to see what's across the road but it just pulls your head to the side.

I wish there was a way to shut off comments, I really hate them.

on edit: typos

[HopeHoops]

8. I make it a point to avoid rubber-necking. Would YOU want to be the one in the accident?

It is amazing how often another accident occurs because someone is so focused on the primary accident that they slam into the back of the person in front of them.

[sharp_stick]

10. Perhaps I should try to find a metaphor smilie

I am not trying to advocate rubbernecking at accident sites. Using this phrase is a fairly common mechanism to imply the inability to look away from something unpleasant without being so bluntly direct about it.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. You've heard of Gonzo Journalism.

This is Guano Journalism.

Batshit.

[knowbody0]

5. it's gut wrenching to ponder our surroundings

when I get out of the car after listening to Limpball's audience and am weak in the knee, but I'm compelled to at the very least, make humane contacts with my fellow human "beans".

[awoke_in_2003]

13. I like the idea of humanity...

it just seems to be the humans themselves that I generally cannot tolerate.

[valerief]

6. But are they real people or paid operatives? I like to assume most are the latter. nt

[sharp_stick]

9. I find the same thing

with CNN Headline News. I enjoy the morning coverage, it's quick, to the point and usually refreshingly unbiased. But when they come up with "and you respond on Twitter" followed by a bunch of idiots opining on the outcome of the latest shooting or whatever.

I don't watch the news to see what some asshole with an iPhone has to say about it. Just tell me what happened and shut the hell up. I don't care if I happen to agree with said asshole with an iPhone either, I just don't give a shit what he thinks.

[DenverDad]

11. The commentaries are disturbing.

It seems to be a barometer of how ignorant some people can be. Often, the commentary doesn't relate to the content of the article, as much as it takes a position on the headline. Sometimes I just skip the article and just read the commentary.

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. What set me off was an article about the execution in OK requiring the...

use of a substitute sedative because of supply issues with the normal pharmaceutical cocktail.

You can probably imagine the blood-thirsty commentary.

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

14. it's best to make assumptions about these people

It's pretty safe to say a lot of them are paid to make their comments. What that number is, I don't know. But some posts are by people who are paid to post things.

Another good assumption to make is that some of them are kids. Kids spend a lot of time on the internet. Get bored easily. Kids can be pretty dumb. Yeah?

Another good assumption to make is that they are just losers who otherwise would have no voice in society at all. And the good thing to remember is that posting a comment on a news site is not really having a voice in society. But maybe it makes them feel better?

I like to assume good things about *people* at large. I know there are messed up people. But the way I see it is that, despite the fact that there are plenty of people I disagree with, and we do live in a nation that leans to the right, people are not as bloodthirsty in real life as they are online. The best assumption is that these are just different people.

If people in general actually believe the things that you read people saying online, then those things would be acceptable to say in real life.

But you tend not to hear that stuff in real life. It's just a vocal minority with a lot of time on their hands. Or maybe not. The internet is all anonymous and stuff. So you can either assume that most people are like what you read on the news boards, or you can assume that most people are not like that. Either way it's an assumption not really based on any real kind of scientific study that I'm aware of.

It's important to stay grounded in reality. We live in reality. Not on the internet.

[Pacifist Patriot]

15. Thanks, I needed to be reminded of that.

Cheers!