Public dialogue is a vital component of understanding issues, including those that swirl around the national parks. As such, we will continue to allow comments to be placed on National Parks Traveler.
But we hope readers will take seriously the responsibility that comes with that. It was somewhat ironic, and certainly refreshing, that when we raised the prospect last week of banning comments that more than a few voices that we did not recognize piped up. While we realize that there's a vast silent majority out there that prefers to remain in the background and simply read articles and comments, without weighing in, we can't help but believe that the comment section, and the site overall, would be richer for all if more of the silent majority spoke up more regularly.
The quality, and value, of the comment section on the Traveler is entirely up to you, the readership. While we can at times try to redirect the conversation, or delete offensive comments, we cannot reshape and mold comments to be more on point and constructive. Comment drift -- which even occurred on the post about possibly banning comments (cats and dogs and birds and wind turbines, really??) -- is best controlled by those who comment.
If you want to kick the can down the road on anything park related, take it into the Forums. That's what they're there for. But do dive into the comments and lend us your perspective. We don't want this aspect of the Traveler to be an echo chamber. There often are many good points -- from the various political bents -- that rise up above the din.
And if you find the comments offensive, don't read them. But we hope they aren't reason enough to stop reading about all the various issues that arise from the national parks and how you can both support the parks and enjoy them.
Our mission is clear: We work to educate the general public about the National Park System, increase awareness and understanding of issues affecting the national parks and the National Park Service, and build a stronger advocacy for protection and sound stewardship of the parks.
Public comments are an integral part of accomplishing that mission. All we ask is that you provide constructive dialog, refrain from using gratuitous language, and don't feel it's urgent that you provide the last word. Think twice, and even reread your comment, before hitting that "save" button.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Well written Kurt and a part of the job I certainly wouldn't want. I had one other thought. Perhaps a "pop up" reminding those of the code of conduct that would appear before one posts would serve as a needed reminder to stay on topic and keep things civil. I was shaking my head when I revisited the topic and found myself reading about cats. It certainly doesn't give one confidence that things will improve greatly but kudos to you for sticking with it. I do think the comments are an interesting and valuable component of the traveler.
And in the next comment, we might be talking about the Chicago Cubs. If we get there honestly by starting with the national parks (as we did with cats), it should make no difference how we end. Today, I can just see President Obama declaring Wrigley Field a national monument (how's that for relevance?), perhaps linking the Cubs to Yellowstone's bears. Certainly, the Chicago Cubs have been an endangered species since two years before I was born. It would be a worthy national monument, would it not? The point is: (and I do have a point). All of us should be reading the entire thread. I do, and then, yes, look for "linkages" and other metaphors that help us digest what is happening to our national parks. No park exists in a cultural vacuum. Now, where did I put my Budweiser--another proud sponsor of our national parks? Yes, make Wrigley Field a national monument--and let us sell the beer!
Incredible! You decide to keep the comments section after raising the question of eliminating it. A faux threat, You should really work for the NPS.
Not sure what is "incredible". He raised the question and the overwhelming response was to keep the comment section.
Incredible! It didn't take long to see why the question was valid.
Dear "Anonymous" - you do realize that the man you are calling out knows exactly who you are?
He didn't promise to throw out comments. He asked what people thought. He did what most folks suggested. Which, in fact, gave you the ability to post your "outrage".
GOOD MORNING AMERICA, I love the National Parks that the good Lord gave us to enjoy.
I don't know about the Good Lord but Roosevelt, Mather, McFarland, Yard, Wilson, Wirth and even Rockefeller sure put in the time...