[zzalpha]

But equally there might be a problem with what you're writing if you're attracting trolls.

I very much disagree with that.

Let's just take the CBC as an example. It's an excellent news organization that writes top notch journalism. And for any topic even remotely controversial (e.g., anything related to the indigenous population in Canada), they've had to disable the comment section because it's such a godawful cesspool.

[matart]

CBC comments show you how horrible some people can be. It makes me think that we leave discussion to the discussions sites. Reddit, HN, etc. and just let the news tell the news.

[stan_rogers]

I've used the "block element" feature of uBlock Origin to completely remove the comments from CBC.ca. Frankly, the possibility that I may miss the one insightful comment posted every twenty thousand or so (before it's pushed into "show more" territory) doesn't seem like much of a loss.

[jagermo]

but you could get rid of that, couldn't you? Switch to "moderate first if user does not have a high enough reputation" for a while. Idiot commenters want their posts to be seen, they thrive on the chaos. Take that away from them and they will move on.

Yes, you need a few people willing to go through the filth, but you will get a better online presence out of it.

[zzalpha]

Or don't waste your time and kill comments entirely.

Demonstrate the cost/benefit advantage of having to police these garbage piles and maybe I'll buy it. But I don't believe that most people read the Times or CBC or WaPo for the comment section. More likely they read those outlets despite them.

I agree with Vice. Leave the discussion to dedicated services like Reddit, HN, Twitter, Facebook, etc, and focus on core competencies: producing top notch content.

[newswriter99]

Vice is nowhere remotely close to journalistic professionalism. I'd argue they bait trolls.

[sbarre]

Are you thinking of Vice from 15 years ago when it was just a magazine?

Things have changed, you should look at what kind of reporting they are actually doing these days, it might surprise you (in a good way).

[I_HALF_CATS]

Vice has no journalism code of ethics. They have no official fact-checking process. I tried fact-checking Vice and it didn't go so well:

https://notvice.com/fact-checking-vice-a-fiction-2d482100116...

[jagermo]

Vice killed its professionalism for me when they posted the "We are with John McAfee now, suckers" piece without removing the GPS coordinates of the selfies. (https://www.wired.com/2012/12/oops-did-vice-just-give-away-j...)

In my opinion, Vice is nothing more than a clickbait machine that got somehow famous for being "edgy".

[burger_moon]

The article that appeared below the OP article was about an internet feud between Nikki minaj and Meek Mill. So you're right, I am surprised but not in a good way.

[sbarre]

Meh, Vice covers a wide spectrum of topics, all aimed at youth..

Some is heavy, some is not..

Find a mainstream (non-topic-specialized) publication that doesn't do that, and I'll be surprised.

[tormeh]

The Economist?

[astrodust]

These days The Economist and Teen Vogue have more in common than most are prepared to admit.

It's disappointing that the only publications willing to tackle heavy issues are things like Vogue, The Rolling Stone and Vice Magazine. The rest seem content to sit back and take a more academic approach if they take one at all.

USA Today, like CNN, is utterly worthless.

[weberc2]

I still see lots of partisan clickbait articles from Vice. Hopefully my sample isn't representative, but I doubt it's an anomaly.