The Capital Times is moderating the comments left at their website for each story. Claiming that, "It's time to raise the bar on Web dialogue", the Capital Times has adopted the New York Times standard for moderating comments.
Why do we feel compelled to moderate? Here's an example:
Recently, comment writers celebrated the brain cancer diagnosis of U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy and wished the disease on others.
Taken as a whole, we want comment sections to provide the kind of experience a person might have talking face to face, certainly with spirit and passion but with at least a degree of respect.
We are less interested in the anonymous, mean-spirited rants we sometimes see.
I'm taking that to mean John Nichols will now have a harder time getting published.
I left a comment under the story asking,
Does this mean the Cap Times will no longer allow crackpot conspiracy theorists to claim 9/11 was an inside job by the government?
We'll see if there's a response, or even if they let the comment stand.
Update! 9:46 AM Well, it didn't take too long for them to pull the comment. It's official. 9/11 conspiracy theorists are not "crackpots" at the Capital Times.