When I first read the August 17, 2016 article “Beyond Comments: Finding Better Ways To Connect With You” article from Scott Montgomery of NPR, I was shocked at first to read the statement of NPR getting rid of its comment sections for stories featured on the website. I thought to myself, “Oh, they are cutting out free speech because they can’t handle internet trolls. The vocal minority ruined it for everyone.” But as I continued reading the reasons for removing the comments from the website, I started to understand why they did it from a logistics standpoint. The article taught me that whenever a site removes a feature, it is not simply because they want to censor users or prevent people from calling out the site itself for how it presents …show more content…
Montgomery states how it is 2016 and social media helps fill the “void” of the removal of the NPR website’s comment section. In the list of other ways Montgomery justifies the removal of NPR’s comments, he states that, NPR’s runs many Facebook and Twitter accounts, plus they “maintain vibrant presences on Snapchat, Instagram and Tumblr” and connect with their readers via the Audience Relations forum, where a team reads and responds to “thousands of listener emails every month”. Lastly, Montgomery states how NPR “is one of the few major news organizations to employ a full-time Ombudsman, an independent mediator who reports on the standards and ethics of NPR's work and who writes a running blog about issues you raise” (Montgomery). I stand by Montgomery’s choice. Not only does Montgomery show that NPR is still open to reader feedback even with the removal of the comments, he also understands that when people talk on the internet about the news, it will be on social media like Facebook and Twitter, not on the actual news site. A lot of sites even let users comment using their social media account, meaning that they do not even have to register on the site to join the conversation. In fact a lot of the fellow press would agree with what NPR is