"And I get to share the result with great readers, who demand a lot from our stories but who also give back."

When they are allowed to, Judy. When their comments aren't deleted by Crosscut ideologues.

One of the many nice things about writing for Crosscut is the near certainty of stirring a well written comment from someone who believes seriously that his comments are deleted by Crosscut ideologues.

It ain't a belief, Bob. Its a fact. CC recently posited that "Budget Cuts Would Hit Hard In Communities of Color". In that screed, they quoted a single mom who wondered how she was going to feed her children with these proposed budget cuts. I asked what Daddy was contributing. And the comment was deleted, soon commenting closed. I believe it is right - with our budgets (civic and personal) being what they are - to ask where personal responsibilities fit into our social contracts. I do not believe CC has the right to dictate the terms of our discourse. Yes, there are common rules of etiquette that should be observed (I think if you review my history here, you will find I very rarely (I am tempted to say never, but I avoid the absolute) resort to name calling or other juvenile tactics. I, frequently, present a side to stories that CC neglects. And it is that that has been censored. By ideologues.

(Does my use of the word "ain't" disqualify this as a well-written comment?)

BlueLight, if your question asking "what Daddy was contributing" to the income of the single mom quoted in the article was deleted, hurray for Crosscut editors! You claim that you're censored when you "present a side to stories that CC neglects," but it takes some facts and reasoning to "present a side," and (as the more discursive quality of your paragraph-length explanation above suggests that you already know) a sarcastic insult doesn't make the grade.

Even in that well-written explanation, however, which includes an eloquent, very welcome question about "where personal responsibilities fit into our social contracts," you get the facts wrong. Crosscut didn't write the "Budget Cuts" story you reference; one author did. Writers of diverse views, including you, BlueLight, are invited to contribute stories. As a contributor who attends writers' and editors' meetings, I can assure you that nobody is dictating anything except the requirement that stories be factually accurate, well-reasoned, well-written pieces about topics related to the Northwest. It would be great to read a good piece from you or someone else unpacking the question of where personal responsibilities fit into our social contracts, as it relates to Northwest issues.

But what reader will take the risk and time and trouble to explain a point of view in detail when other readers who risk nothing and take no time or trouble can just jump in and snark? I hope editors here will continue to delete rude remarks that discourage people from sharing diverse views in civil dialogue. Interesting conversations are what I love about Crosscut and what, in my experience, Crosscut is trying to promote and sustain.

I think the "what is Daddy contributing" question to be perfectly legitimate for someone demanding support from those who had no role in their child's conception. Will CC delete comment based on their arbitrary deteminations of what is "rude", what is "acceptable?. I think it is "rude" to expect others to assume the consequences for one's actions, as the lady in the story did. Like it or not, Judy, we will be having these discussions as we try to sort out our budgets and governance. If CC isn't up to the "rudeness" of those discussions, they should stop the pretenses of equity, open-mindedness, honesty and journalism and check out of the civic discourse (or , at least, be clear to their readers what role they are filling).

Another posting from the same story that was individually deleted prior to comments being closed, Judy, involved the Community Action Network.

I provided a link to their webpage. They have three job openings for community organizers. Here is the link, again, for those looking for work: http://washingtoncan.org/wordpress/jobs/

Now, why do you think CC deleted that? Rude?

To be fair, as I remember it, BlueLight's comment consisted of more than one sentence. I can't go back to look now, of course, but I do recall things falling apart rather quickly, which is why, I suppose, comments were closed. I was surprised to see that BlueLight's and a couple of others were among them, though. It seemed as if the entire "thread" relating to race (which those comments I refer to were discussing, and which eventually degenerated) was being shut down, taking the good and the bad comments with it.

Judy, I'm all for interesting conversations. Crosscut has one of the best comment sections I've seen. But the presence of snarky one-liners — unless they overwhelm the thread — doesn't discourage me from sharing my views, and I wonder how much they really discourage others.

Personal rudeness and violations of the terms of service are different from snark, of course.

Sigh! Anyway, I tried. I wish you well, BlueLight. And thanks, Benjamin, for further evidence that Crosscut writers can and do (cordially) disagree!

What, exactly, did you "try", Judy?

And a suggestion, in follow up to Benjamin's post...

Perhaps there is a way to configure the site so that, when comments are deleted from the story comment section, they are retained in the poster's profile. That way, we could - later - review whether they were - in fact - offensive. Having something one wrote disappear - entirely - from the record on which it was posted is very Orwellian.

I love Crosscut.

I'm confused. Comments were apparently removed. Why? Who decides? "Snark"???? What is that? Were there any obscenities that were deleted? When does a dialogue become unhealthy or toxic? When race enters a discussion, who whistles it out of bounds? And why? The beautiful thing about the internet, and Crosscut, is the stream of comments that follows a story. I didn't read the story, but reading the comments, "What did Daddy provide?" seems like a reasonable question. The inferred answer seems to be "well, nothing, actually; what's that got to do with it? And by the way, don't ask questions like that."

One more thing: if Crosscut deletes comments, its criteria most certainly should begin with the censorship of Ms. Lightfoot's suggestion that if you don't like something, write your own story. At its best, this is silly. At its worst, it's a petulant denial of an author's (and a publication's) responsibility.

Oh boy. Let's get back to the subject, shall we?

Judy Lightfoot is not only a terrific writer herself but a sensitive editor of other people's writing. No wonder she was such a popular teacher!

BlueLight, I'm with you man. I was just writing a comment the other day when...oh, wait, Knute, put down the pie roller! Put down the pie roller! Let's be reasonable! I used to eat at Herfy's. I love JP Patches! I think Ballard should be given back to Norway. Don't swing that! (sound of pie roller smacking comment). &^&^!*&!!

As a former journalist I get nervous about the idea of censoring comments. At the same time, one of my biggest frustrations in reading web-based newspapers is the "wild west" quality of so many comment sections. For example, the comment sections in my hometown newspaper, The Olympian, tend to be dominated by a small group of conservative "regulars" who often scare away thoughtful and ideologically diverse discussion. They do so with a debating style akin to a demolition derby.

What's particularly sad is that Olympia, by virtue of being the seat of state government, has an unusually large proportion of politically knowledgeable and involved readers. They have a lot to contribute to the state's policy debate. Alas, by and large they don't have a decent vehicle to do so.

The key problem with The Olympian's dominant commentators isn't their penchant for snark. It's the sweeping condemnations of anyone who disagrees with them, a militant lack of (accurate) factual grounding for their arguments, and a frequent unwillingness to respond to the substance of someone else's point. The overall tone is rather thuggish rather than inquisitive and collegial.

This is a widespread problem that can even be found in more middle-brow publications such as the Chronicle of Higher Education. I was surprised to recently see how an article on global warming research was rife with low-grade "hot talk."

How can a democracy adequately respond to increasingly complex and fast-moving challenges when our methods of discourse have become so dysfunctional?

I’m glad that Crosscut makes a real effort to moderate comments. It’s as much art as science, so you can’t expect editors to always get it right. But it is crucial that they keep trying.

Dr. Lemming: Right on.

DrLemming Wrote:

"How can a democracy adequately respond to increasingly complex and fast-moving challenges when our methods of discourse have become so dysfunctional?"

Post the commentator's real name and address when they comment.

"I’m glad that Crosscut makes a real effort to moderate comments."

I too am pleased when authors and editors enter the fray and "moderate." Only a few do though, probably because of a fear of inviting even more "sweeping condemnations" and "militant lack of grounding." Nevertheless, I do not agree with punishing those who think in that manner. The better course of action is to remove obviously vile comments and shape up the rest of us through extremely faint praise. Denying fish makes porpoises aspire to higher thoughts. It also makes them neurotic, but we are not kept in pens, or at least the pens of those who comment on Crosscut are of our own making.

http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Public-Judgment-Democracy-Lectures/dp/0815602545

http://www.vanderbiltuniversitypress.com/books/399/toward-wiser-public-judgment

As an occasional snark-purveyor, I'm not in the least disturbed by others' snark. I wish there could be a middle ground between Crosscut's standards as outlined above by Judy and the Seattle Times' complete lack of standards. The Times' comment section will make you want to walk off into the woods and never see another human being again. But I can read a partial sentence of a Times comment and avoid the rest; however, I won't know what Crosscut is deleting and that's not treating your readers as adults. I completely trust BlueLight to be wrong on just about everything, but he deserves to be so in print.

Thanks for writing, sarah90. One clarification: I was expressing my own ideas about comments above, not outlining "Crosscut's standards" for comments. I'm just one of half a hundred writers here, who disagree about many things.

As far as I can tell, Crosscut's editors aren't deleting snark, which is snide, sarcastic commentary. The story that had the comments shut down was about the possibility that people of color may be especially hard hit by budget cuts to food assistance and other safety-net programs. The story mentioned a single mother by name, and reported her fear that she won't be able to feed her children. The commentary was more intense than a word like "snark" conveys, and it was derogatory, and it conveyed, to this reader at least, a sense of general contempt for the idea that people of color should get written about at all. Which, if Crosscut allowed to stand, could give the sense that readers of color are not really welcome here.

I'm not saying I think that skin color gives anyone a pass from being held accountable or commented on, as an individual. And I hope we don't have to tiptoe around the topics of racial and cultural difference. But if commenters are going to blast entire groups, they can't expect the editors to back them; it's legitimate for Crosscut to think about how it wants to present itself to all its readers.

"Budget Cuts Would Hit Hard In Communities of Color" struck a cord with me and when I tried to communicate, I found the comments were shut off. I read Crosscut because of the higher intelligence of both the writers and comments from the readers. Two way communication seems to be the trend in modern media. Being shut off, left a very bad taste in my mouth. The "powers that be" of crosscut are free to create and manage their site as they see fit. If all they want from me is a monetary contribution, and continue to delete fair comments from others, I hope others can afford to keep them going. Tread softly.

I can definitely understand deleting personally derogatory and/or racist comments; many sites rightly delete those type of comments (and I wish all did). But does the comment stream need to be completely shut down when that happens? (That's a real question, not a comment.)