At Large: Well, this was a change of tune for online comments

At Large: Well, this was a change of tune for online comments

by -

We have a winner. Commenters have declared without reservations, that the Pacheco family’s Reliable Market, on Circuit Avenue in Oak Bluffs is the best Island grocery store. Of course, it’s an informal survey with a limited group of survey respondents, but nevertheless, it’s a unanimous conclusion.

A while ago, in an effort to shape, not the opinions but the behaviors, of the Comment posting crowd, I included two excellent examples of thoughtful, detailed, modulated comments. The idea was to feature them as models of desirable debate among readers interested in subjects treated in news and feature stories published in The Times. They were not meant to be exclusive models. Certainly, Comment posters employ a variety of styles in their posts, some offering more substantial contributions than others. But, here were two well-composed and assertive posts on a timely subject, deserving of celebration as prototypes of one sort of worthwhile argument.

I was hampered because so much of what is commented upon and so much of what commenters have to say is oppressively familiar and uninspiring — definitely useful for modeling. The issues are the same, the views are the same, the tone is predictable too.

Commenters took issue with one of my choices. One of my choices had appropriated language that originated with writers other than himself (or herself). That’s outlawed in the Comment rules, but I didn’t notice the deception when I read and approved the post. As I’ve confessed before, my customary skepticism may have been allayed by the solid arguments offered by two toe-to-toe commenters on diverging sides of a debate. Or maybe I was just delirious that here were two comments that were neither smart alecky nor facetious, both common attributes that, in their coarsest forms, are grounds for deletion.

One yearns, despite so much disappointment, for comment participation that refreshes. And, that is what was occasioned this week by the current edition of Meet Your Merchant. MYM is an advertising vehicle for The Times, but it’s one that we think benefits not only the businesses that are profiled but also the readers who’d enjoy learning a bit about the people with whom they do business. This edition profiled several businesses that have been enduringly successful and have descended through the years from one generation to another. Reliable Market was one of these.

Some samples of Reliable enthusiasm among commenters: “Love Reliable Market!!!!;” “What’s not to love, best grocery store on the island;” “I just love to shop at Reliable.” “The best part about Reliable, is the Pacheco family! They are all very special, wonderful people;” “The Pacheco family are quiet and largely unsung philanthropic Vineyard legends… good to see this article. They have also mentored many young people and taught them basic good life lessons through employment in their store.”

It was a refreshing moment in Comment feature oversight, I have to say. Oh, and the uniform enthusiasm of commenters for news of the Lampost remodeling was heartening too, as was the encouragement for JB Blau and the opening of the Copper Wok.

The Comment genre is not easily defined, nor managed. Indeed, in the online world of general interest newspapers, there is a nagging tug of war between commenters who are contributors, debaters, and self-moderating partisans and the trolls and fools whose participation seems founded on provocation, bluster, and abuse. Sometimes, it’s as if the comment agenda is set by MSNBC or Fox News, with nary an original note struck. None of the practitioners is in exclusive possession of the domain. There are commenters who criticize fairly, others with an engaging sense of humor, some with condolences to offer to the subjects of sad stories or congratulations to the subjects of stories of triumphs. The collection, taken in all its fullness, is only occasionally rewarding. Thanks to the Reliable and the allegiance of its patrons, this week, commenters struck an unexpected, cheery, and very welcome fresh note.


  1. It is a nice reflection that customers who go to Reliable Market have wonderful things to say about the Pacheco’s and that the Pacheco’s are such beautiful, nice, hard-working Islanders. The Pacheco’s are nice and the customers who frequent their store are nice, too. It goes both ways. And it doesn’t matter who you talk to-everyone has great things to say about them and Reliable Market-a true anchor in the Oak Bluffs community. Nice and deserved news.

  2. It should be noted that all comments are a reflection of the one person who allows or disallows them.

  3. I find it curious that you offer this space for public comment, and then invalidate said comments as oppressively familiar, uninspiring contributions by trolls and fools.

    1. I really like your observation. It’s like hosting a party and then whining about how boring and predictable your invited guests are. There are always trolls (party crashers), but I’ve noticed that the most interesting and original news sites provoke the most interesting and original comments. I don’t see the point of the put-down by the editor of HIS invitees who comment in his paper (party). Newspapers get the audience participation they deserve. The editor’s gripes over what he invited, but does not like, are a fine bunch of sour grapes.

      1. Have you read a majority of the comments? They do tend to be negative, predictable, argumentative. I partially agree with both of you; and partially do not. There tends to be quite a bit of Mud-Slinging at these parties – and it is this person’s opinion that policing it doesn’t really help…

        1. Yes, I have. I also read other newspapers and their comments online. The good newspapers have good comment moderators, making for interesting, intelligent and thought-provoking public discussion. They certainly don’t have the years of mudslinging, arbitrary censorship and plagiarism this newspaper allows.

          An example of poor moderation is this week’s article on the Obama summer vacation, which I can’t even find online anymore. Learning nothing from last year’s Obama vacation article, and the garbage that one invited, the Times did it again but decided to censor– and bury– much earlier than last year.

          This newspaper often invites and provokes– on purpose, in my opinion, and then censors without explanation. If Doug Cabral was serious about not wanting garbage comments there would not be any.

          1. Unlike other comment sections, which have a “gatekeeper” to review posts before publication, the Times chooses to review comments after they’re posted, dooming themselves to a reactive, rather than a proactive situation. Until and unless the Times decides to read comments before they’re posted, their comments section will remain a playground for Trolls.

          2. It’s up to Doug Cabral, who for years has written columns about the awful comments, while also telling us he is the sole moderator of them. It’s his party and he does it the way he wants. Maybe he enjoys complaining.

  4. Your editorial staff should be lined up and summarily FIRED for suppressing free speech on the POTUS vacation story. What a bunch of lecherous cowards you people are.