Reminder about Comment Rules

From Editor Robert Parry: While we welcome a lively discussion about the articles that appear at, we do insist on some standards to prevent the deterioration of the comment section into name-calling and other behavior that discourages a respectful exchange of ideas.

As you know, we have traditionally had an open comment section without a moderator (although there is a Spam blocker which occasionally delays the publication of genuine comments as suspected Spam). But a few readers have abused this openness by leaving racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic or Islamophobic slurs.

Some also have directed personal insults at other commenters or our writers. And some have gone beyond leaving their personal opinions and inserted lengthy articles from other publications, which have the effect of “filibustering” the comment section and may raise concerns about copyright infringements.

So, please, try to follow these modest comment guidelines. If violations are brought to our attention — or if we notice them — we reserve the right to delete these comments. The comments of persistent violators may be earmarked for review before posting or may be blocked permanently.


8 comments for “Reminder about Comment Rules

  1. Ethan Allen
    January 29, 2013 at 17:20

    Although my attempts to post replies to the site have been thwarted for the past few months; as a dedicated reader and occasional commenter, I completely agree with Robert Parry’s above stated concerns and resultant policy for his website. Hopefully, this attempt will not fail.

  2. Tim Campbell
    January 29, 2013 at 16:16

    The reason comment rules are essential is because “we the people” have largely forgotten how to use the basic building block of democracy, i.e., deliberation – the give and take of ongoing talk about key issues. Hence, at least for now, rules, like those used by mediators and professional facilitators, are necessary to ensure civil dialogue and meaningful results. In the near total breakdown of all three branches of government, “we the people” will need to immediately begin to engage in ongoing deliberation everywhere if our nation is to survive. Good background in this regard can be found in Politics for People (1998) by David Matthews and The Socratic Citizen (2000) by Adolf Gundersen.

  3. rosemerry
    January 29, 2013 at 15:14

    I agree with Robert’s suggestions on comments. Please do NOT change to the disqus so-called improved service so many sites use, even The Real News Network, which was very good, but now I cannot even read the comments, let alone write one. Keep it simple, and delete offensive comments. It is your site.

  4. VivekJain
    January 29, 2013 at 12:31

    Why are some writers apparently unable to see beyond the colonial and imperialist paradigm? So regularly do they ignore and omit any analysis of the political economy, so frequently do they maintain the false framing of issues and policy as “Democratic versus Republican”–leaving out class interests and analysis, overlooking the clear bipartisan consensus–that I am often left wondering about the value of perspectives at consortiumnews. There are neocons, Zionists, imperialist warmongers, corporatists, authoritarians, and war profiteers in the Obama administration, though who would know it reading some of the columnists here. We have serious problems to address: you can help your readers best by publishing stories that offer clarity. Take a look at Glenn Greenwald’s writing, or that by James Petras or Michael Parenti, for example.

  5. leftover
    January 29, 2013 at 10:14

    Thanks for the update.
    I can get a little…lengthy…when quoting other articles. I hope if I cross the line you’ll send me an email notice.

    Thanks for your patience.

  6. db
    January 29, 2013 at 06:47


    It’s Mr. Parry’s site. Play nicely.

    As for your “trutherism”; I’d merely suggest that early news reports of news events are jumbled and confused. The same confusion that reported the Benghazi attacks as an outgrowth of the film requires us to agree that the “19 Hijackers List” was rushed into publication without being accurate.

    • db
      January 29, 2013 at 13:25


      I’ve no doubt that “truther” & “trutherism” can be used as an insult. But the definition of what is and is not “trutherism” has not been established & frankly, I doubt it ever will.

      Equally who was a “hijacker” in 2001? The guys on the planes are certainly dead. But what about Kalid Shiek Mohammed who (is?) being tried? No doubt there were other aiders & abettors; are they “hijackers”? No doubt many of them are still alive & some may not even be in custody.

      But I stand by my main point. Initial news reports, of any major event, are confused, jumjbled, and not necessarily accurate.

  7. Shawn
    January 28, 2013 at 22:10

    Thanks for all your efforts, Consortium News! I hardly ever read comments anymore. My local newspaper comments section is so ridiculous that I never read them now. The old center is now to the right. The old right is now … There was a time when my work involved dealing with the public. It got to the point when after work breaks, someone would say something like “Did you hear that the Democrats are going to confiscate every American’s retirement funds?” Later I would check Fox News or Limbaugh’s website, and discover that was a subject of their programming that day. (Of course, no such effort was actually in the works.) The right wing “news” is so far off track that it is no longer worthwhile listening or reading what comes from an open forum in America.

Comments are closed.