I'm a regular reader of the Times and a frequently writer of comments. The comments stay up until a pre set number are posted, could be hours or days that an article remains current, but the comments seem to become part of the archives. You just hit the any recent comments on the side and you will see three different lists. All" is in chronological order, the most recent first. Then there is "Readers Picks, which is sorted by the most recommends. and next is "N.Y. Times Picks" which is selected by the editorial staff, maybe the same people who moderate the comments.
This article now running, Europe’s Halting Response to Migrant Crisis Draws Criticism as Toll Mounts, shows the most extreme rejection of the editorial slant of an article which is also reflected in "NYT Picks"
Usually the two Picks, recommends by other commenters and by the Times editors overlap, often with many of the same comments. But not this time.
Here's the top comment by a reader that had 99 recs at the time of this posting:
Why is this framed as an EU problem rather than a problem of the nations hemorhaging people? It is Europe's responsibility to care for all of the world's destitute?
As contrasted first paragraph of the top "N.Y. Times Pick":
If all the countries of the world should take in these refugees in proportion to their own population so as to equitably allocate the burden among each person on earth, then of course the biggest criticism should be pointed at the following: China, India, United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Russia, Japan and Mexico.
Oh, this had 3 recommends
This is important as it reflects the thoughts, not of conservatives, but of N.Y. Times readers which are staunch liberals. This divergence would not be found on any other issue, such as gay rights, death penalty or abortion, for which the Times and its readers are in lock step, with the comments elaborating and refining the article or editorial.
The agreement would also be found in favoring "immigration reform" ignoring the general consensus that any "road to citizenship" would have the long term effect of encouraging more people to take the same route. I have my thoughts on why these two that are similar are so opposite in Media/Public reaction.
This is a meaningful phenomenon for a political website, as candidates must not be overly swayed by the editorials of respected newspapers., It's those in the "Readers Picks" section who get to cast their ballots that will decide elections.