Alfred Hermida reports on research by Michele Jones, a Phd student at the University of North Carolina, on the impact that comments had on credibility and reader perception of bias in the news:
What she found was that readers who have strong opinions will perceive bias against their side in a news story. This is called the Hostile Media Effect and has been found in numerous studies.
But the picture was more confused when it came to the impact of comments on perceptions of bias. A statistical analysis showed that the comments themselves did not lead readers to see more bias in the story.
However, the participants were also able to add their thoughts at the end of the study and these suggested that the nature of the comments affected how the story was perceived.
So, for example, people might see the original story as balanced, but the tone of the comments made them wonder if the journalist had deliberately chosen pro-life or pro-choice comments.
Have you had any experience of this with comments on your site?
Online Journalism Blog 
That's fascinating; I wish there was a way to gauge the impact of these subtle discourses on the direction of wider debates.
In my experience it's definitely true that the opinionated think we're biased -usually people will post comments we can't publish because they're offensive or libellous and then complain their point of view is unrepresented. But the idea that some of our conspiracy-oriented commenters could sway the views of other readers is worrying – since it's usually the people who wouldn't believe ANYTHING we said who are first to leap in and criticise the reporting.
Very important is how the comments are dealt with and responded to by blogger too. If they appear to be even handed with all, I think it would effect how the story is seen too. ie, if he/she is seen to be even handed and non infammatory with the most extreme comments, then it gives readers extra confidence that the original story was fashioned under a similar philosophy.
A response to your Tweet on this topic: No accusations of bias on comments, but newspaper readers often accuse us of only publishing letters to the editor that support one side, which is usually the opposite side of the accusers. (We don't filter the letters that way; we publish what we get.)
Politics posts/stories cause problems when a faction or party comes to dominate the discussion thread. The original piece may be fair and balanced but when the thrust of the comments favours one side or another this leads to accusations of bias in moderation .At one point in the US presidential race, supporters of Ron Paul were disproportionately represented on comments threads (frequently complaining of bias in reporting the prospects of their candidate). But you can't force supporters of political groupings to comment equally. So what can you do — apply some sort of proportional representation quota to give equal voice? Unworkable. Do outreach to supporters of other groups? Might compromise notions of independence.
John, I would have to say that the general feeling here (Aust ralia)would be overwhelming that it is standard practice for newspapers to select the letters. I don't think you would find a single person who would believe you if you made that claim here, possibly over there too, which is a problem, even if it's totally untrue. I think it spills over to the so called blogs produced by our papers over here as well, as the journalists do not generally interact much in the comments, or if they do it is hours later. Goes back to my previous comment, if the journos were seen to be even handed and engaged with commenters, it would reflect better on their stories.
In my experience with newspaper sites, the most opinionated commentators are only looking for a platform to promote their opinion. They usually have no interest in constructive debate with those of differing opinions, enthuse over other comments that support their views, and accuse even the most evenhanded commentators of bias against them, regardless of the validity of any points raised. I've had success with active (almost real time) moderation, particularly leaving public moderator comments challenging false statements, reminding users about the difference between opinion and fact, calling ad hominem attacks and stopping off-topic drift. When commentators see the moderator keeping all sides of the debate in line, they usually behave in more civil fashion, have much less excuse to cry 'bias' when they're being given a fair hearing. I've also found it helpful to publicly address direct accusations of bias in the comment stream. Unfortunately, this approach is very demanding … particularly if you are accepting comments 24/7
Exactly Jachin. In the absence of a fair and involved moderator, (hopefully the poster themselves) bickering breaks out almost immediately. The highly opinionated commenters will still be there with an involved moderator, but there isn't the feeling that they're ruling the comments. Other commenters don't feel the need to respond so vehemently themselves either. Involvement soon after posting is probably the most important time – If you're going to insist on sleeping sometime.
The secret seems to be to intervene early on to set the tone, and encourage a core of users who maintain it thereafter. Thanks for a great comment btw 😉
Pingback: Pecocet online.