When I fir
st moved to New York, the locals, it seemed, were more than ready to offer advice on anything, whether you asked or not: where to shop, where to eat, which subway to take, who to vote for, who to root for, or the best way to get where you wanted to go, even if they had not a clue. It was kind of cute, if at times a little overwhelming and maybe even a little iconic: the opinionated New York local.
These days, we’re all New Yorkers.
What might be a passing impulse to have and render an opinion has been “legitimized” and encouraged by the availability of multiple outlets from which we can make ourselves heard. No longer must we stand on a corner shouting about the End of Times or write endless letters to the editor in hopes of getting the word out there. The level playing field provided by the blogosphere means that we can all weigh in almost anywhere on almost any subject, day or night. The opportunity to reach hundreds, even thousand, any time, day or night, is intoxicating, like crack or Red Bull for the opinionated and even the marginally opinionated. Who can resist commenting?
Attention, everyone: do resist, please…at least some of the time. 
I’m not against opinions and I’m certainly not against comments, especially those that are amusing or instructive, supportive or even contrary and most importantly, considered. Sometimes we all have something to add to the conversation.
But let’s face it, all opinions are not created equal. And not all opinions need to be expressed.
Virginia Heffernan, New York Times television critic and columnist on all thing media, noted in an article last year that commenters often responded to stories with comments that “are hardly models of astuteness.” Scanning the online comments that follow pieces by respected journalist Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post, Heffernan observed the commenters feel free to criticize, make assumptions, or cast aspersions about the author but didn’t “… provide a sustained or inventive analysis.” Instead they posted illogical arguments or poorly researched rebuttals apparently so that they could go on record as having joined the discussion.
Most of us might have qualms about making public statements without having our facts straight but these things appeared not to matter to the commenters, Heffernan concluded. And these noise-makers, she wrote, swamp the occasional “rare, bright voices” who might contribute to a meaningful dialogue.
The tone of so many online comments, inspired perhaps by talk radio and the idea of “freedom to be one’s own person” often veers between petulant and outraged. Commenters, it seems, come looking for a fight and stand ready to argue, even if it’s on, say, Salon’s food page (“You don’t hard boil an egg for fourteen minutes, you dimwit!”). They are simultaneously ready to hand out insults and take offense. They take pride in speaking “the truth” in voices that are often shrill, mean-spirited, or semi-literate. Too many are there to provoke, to hector, to lecture, or to rant. Of course, sometimes even the benign commenters (“I really like what you said.”) don’t seem to know when to let well enough alone, rambling on and derailing any chance of a meaningful discussion.
I’ve had comments on my opinion pieces that were tough but fair, that pointed to holes in my reasoning and flaws in my construct or that disagreed with the substance of my position. I appreciate seeing an issue through “new” eyes; alternate points of view and reasonable opposition are welcome. Of course, I don’t like to be lectured (who does?) and I’m not a fan of public humiliation, whether my own and someone else’s. If there were guidelines for commenters (oh, what a glorious thought!), they might begin with admonitions to stow the snark and bury the urge to bloviate.
Or maybe we’d paraphrase little Thumper’s mother (with apologies and full attribution, of course) and render this advice: If you don’t have anything to say, don’t say anything. 
image: Seattle Weekly blog
1 Woman' s Vu by Nikki Stern 
Wow….I almost missed this and it is one of my favorite issues.
I have to admit that I am a huge advocate for the “no comments” choice. Especially if one desires to maintain some measure of personal autonomy with regard to their blog. Of course those may be better defined perhaps as on-line journals and/or diaries which were, by the way, where the blog can find its basic roots.
But…..trying to stay within the spirit and perceived intentions of your post is challenging since I personally have been debating this subject for several years with my blogging peers – primarily as relates to “personal blogs” such as yours or mine. The more popular, more nationally known bloggers indeed draw hundreds of commenters. Sometimes it hard to decide, assuming you are one who even attempts to read such a hoard of comments on those national blogs, whether I am reading comments for content or entertainment. Not to mention the fact that those blogs are a great place to visit if you are looking for “Idiot of the Month” candidates for your journalism club.
I would have to concur with Heffernan’s conclusions regarding her subject commenters. It’s refreshing actually to know someone who has one of these mainstream blogs is willing enough to speak out about it and tell it like it is. But it is also worth noting that there are a large number of these “national blogs” who have little interest in the comment content but rather simply view the comment section as a measuring device to gauge the blog and/or its writer’s popularity.
With regard to personal blogs and no commenting being allowed – take my word for it, it is an amazingly contentious issue. If anyone ever wanted to do an essay on “entitlement” it would be a great subject to pursue. If you don’t allow comments on your personal blog it won’t be long before you will be hearing words such as contentious, self-righteous, self-centered or even the dreaded, “I won’t ever come back to your blog!”