This is about the email comment fearture that's appended to many news and opinion articles, Today's editorial, The Solyndra ‘Panic’ is used as an example. If I often write comments, as I used to send letters to the editor, and had a dozen of them published over the years, to my great ego gratification. Unlike other newspapers, when they decide to print yours, they call you to let you know, and if there are any editorial corrections they discuss it with you, as if you were a real "writer."
But the printed letters are quite limited by space, while the online comments can run in rare cases to a thousand. The earlier you write it after the article is posted, the more readership, so when I caught this editorial last night, before any comments were posted, I wrote mine, and it was #6 comment posted at 8:39. This means that of the 123 total, those that read it between that time of posting and the next batch early this morning, only had 24 to read. Mine has received as of now 12 recs and I can see how that compares with others to decide whether I should consider this a boost or a blast to my fragile ego. You do this by sorting on "Reader Recommendations" at the head of the listing, and lets see how I stack up? Not bad, about 15th on the list, but remember that includes those who have just posted and will not be read by as many as mine were.
This number of readers and recs isn't really the point of this posting. What is most striking, and why the N.Y. Times retains it's special place in the media, is the nature of the posts, well illustrated in this editorial. It was quite partisan, defending the actions of the administration and impugning low motives to those who condemned this loan guarantee. This was also the position of Krugman, and several other columnists. (Haven't read Brooks and others on this)
Now we can use the sorting feature that I discussed to see not only the comments, but the approvals of the readership. Note the most approved one:
Interesting, no mention in this editorial of the Obama administration's restructuring of Solyndra’s loan last February to favor private investors over taxpayers in case the company were to default. Is that legal?
I think that would be a question this newspaper would demand an answer to.
It is rejecting the thrust of the editorial, as is the second most popular.
But the third one, is an approval and expansion of the editorial. This is what you find on these comment threads, diversity, always well thought our and expressed. I value these comments as much as the article and sometimes they make more sense. There may be other venues that have this quality, but if so, I'm not aware of them.