The politics of navigating comments – and the truth about the so-called D-notice

Like many publishers, we do not pre-moderate comments and we do not direct debates. We only step in when other users flag comments as inappropriate

In the past, the direct relationship between readers and editors was most obviously manifested in the letters pages of print newspapers. There, readers would respond to stories they had seen; and set out their own opinions. However, those pages were (and are) comprehensively curated – with letters selected by an editor and often tweaked for style or length.

In the digital world, there is still a place for letters’ pages. The Independent is fortunate to have a strong group of regular letter writers and each day we select perhaps half a dozen to publish. Edits may be made to help with flow or sense, but we obviously have more latitude to run letters in full online.

Beyond the traditional letters platform, readers can engage in debate much more immediately on our comment boards, “below the line” on specific articles. Like many publishers, we do not pre-moderate comments and we do not direct debates. We only step in when other users flag comments as inappropriate; at that stage we make a decision about whether the comment should be restored, or indeed deleted. The majority are republished.

Some articles cannot be open for comments – usually because they relate to matters where there are ongoing legal proceedings.

When boards are open, there are various factors which could lead us to delete a comment that other users had brought to our attention. Offensive language and ad hominem attacks on other readers are the most obvious. We certainly would not delete comments because they opposed the Indy’s editorial line; but we would delete any that contained clear inaccuracies.

A recent example was a post which claimed that “D-notices” had been issued in relation to the attempted murder of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. This was apparently evidence of a grand conspiracy by the British government, silencing the media. In fact, that is not how the D-notice (technically now DSMA Notice) system works. There are a set of standing notices – you can see them at dsma.uk – which are broad brush in nature and which rarely change; and the system is voluntary. Reminders about particular notices are sent out from time to time across the media (that did happen around the time of the attack in Salisbury); but it is simply wrong to suggest that the government gagged publishers in relation to coverage of the Skripals’ case – whatever you might read below the line.