High Country News surrenders to the Trump Train

Recently, High Country News, a once-great magazine about Western life and culture, ended online commenting on stories.

The magazine says the commentary feed had become too polarizing.

Its take on that, and its solution? Neither surprises me, per the "once-great" in the first sentence. More on that in a bit.

So, after an exchange of Tweets with whomever runs its account, I wrote a letter to the editor.

Here it is:

Dear Editor: 

I respectfully request you restore online commenting ability — with one change.
Only paid subscribers be allowed to comment. 

I believe that much of what could rightfully be seen as increased polarization was driven by an increase in comment from non-subscribers, an increase that may have started, oh, around Nov. 8, 2016, and surely gained speed at about, oh, say, Jan. 20, 2017. 

Cutting off comments entirely is, in my opinion, not only too strong a price to pay, but an act of surrender. 

Sincerely
(Me)

I was then told by Editor-in-Chief Brian Calvert that HCN likes to have letters about current article and that this may not run, because of that. And, then, I see HCN run this letter. It doesn't address a particular story. It addresses the magazine's "tenor" and Calvert's editor's notes, but again, not any particular story. And I immediately tweeted that to HCN's account. And heard back not a word more than a week later.

Well, that's a Catch-22, at a minimum, even if it weren't being applied in a one-sided fashion. Another way of putting it is that it's a change in editorial policy that's being done without caring about subscriber opinion. That said, I was told that HCN has considered what I propose, but considers even that too wasteful of its resources.

To which I say: "Tosh." (That's a polite word, since as part of its attempt to moderate comments in the past, HCN doesn't like even mild alleged name-calling in its comments.) And, if calling a climate change denialist a climate change denialist, or a tea partier a tea partier, is me contributing to increased polarization, no, it's me trying to prevent your surrender.

First, limiting comments to subscribers only would itself be "auto-moderation," if one will.

Point 1A is that such auto-moderation would, in my opinion, address much of the need for actual moderation, as noted.

That said, I will allow for the fact that this is better than the old system. Most the pot-stirrers were non-subscribers and also Trump Train riders. The linked letter to the editor, of course, is from a subscriber, and someone who I don't recall seeing in online comments.

I'll admit to firing back at times with almost as much heat. But not AS much, and with more light.

But, moderated comments, with my simple suggestion on just using subscription as your single moderation tool, would be better. If nothing else, you'd force those more vitriolic Trump Train riders to subscribe!

But, this is no surprise, either.

HCN hasn't drifted, it's deliberately moved, in the 15 years or since I started reading. As in, like national Democrats or others, it's chased Republicans moving the Overton window.

Gone, as contributing writers and editors, are people such as Jeff St. Clair, the current publisher of Counterpunch, Felice Pace, who is an occasional contributor at Counterpunch, and I'm sure elsewhere, and Jim Stiles, publisher of the Canyon Country Zephyr and self-appointed guardian of the flame of Cactus Ed/Alkie Ed Abbey.

I got in a discussion/argument about this with former managing editor Johnny Thompson, as noted in detail in this blog post, with his comments added. And, I stand by the gist of it. As a newspaper editor, I know that magazines, even more, have editorial stances as far as what they accept from freelancers. Sorry, Jonny, and other HCN senior editorial staff, but the trio above, and others, no longer write stuff that meets your needs because you redefined your needs. It's not that they suddenly became craptacular writers. I see the problem as largely being just the opposite of what Mr. Mumaw says.

Side note: Per something Paul Larmer said a year or two ago about why the mag is still in Paonia, I think it sometimes has forgotten Ed Marston's warnings about not romanticizing the rural West. From Counterpunch, here's 10 more Western myths that High County News should challenge further. (Some, like the sage grouse and the ESA, or the oil and gas world, it has; others, about ranching and western ruraldom, it still doesn't so muuch.)

I think HCN has also ignored other advice from Marston, as noted in this profile, like standing your ground and fighting out battles when needed.

I've let my HCN subscription lapse before, for other reasons, some of them related to the commenting issue, some of them related to HCN's tacking rightward. I likely won't renew when my current one runs out.

Otherwise, HCN's had a number of good stories over the years, but per the "editorial stance" angle, it's had clunkers, like a story saying the West needs more of the cowboy myth. Per Paul Larmer defending keeping the mag in Paonia, Colorado, and overlooking that the West is the most urbanized portion of the U.S. that may have been a personal choice.

And, in comments not fired to combat Trump Train riders, but to add general clarity, or even correct an occasional mistake, that can't be done now, except at Twitter or Facebook. And, commenting via social media doesn't have the same flow.

Sadly, and in part due to finances, HCN was pulling punches more than a decade ago. (In this case, New West is right; allowing the edits without a signed legal settlement is stupid. And, why not ask if somebody like Earthjustice, or former staffer Charles Wilkinson, would be your legal mouthpiece?)

==

Update, Nov. 27, 2019: Is HCN's website really as clunky as I've heard more than once from staff? Seems hard to believe. It's non-clunky enough to keep people from either downloading or screengrabbing photos. It's non-clunky enough to have a hard paywall.

Seems like, on killing onsite comments, the website is non-clunky enough it could have made comments moderated. It was already spending staff time on ex post facto moderation, and a moderation system probably would have driven away some commenters. 

Or, per a suggestion of mine, I think the website is non-clunky enough that it could have limited commenting to subscribers.