paying-attention

I read several different newspapers online when I have time. Two of my favorites are "The Scotsman" (which does come from Scotland) and "The New Mexican" out of Santa Fe.
Yeah, I also read The New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune. All of them are more world-weary and comprehensive than the Scotsman and New Mexican. But that's exactly the point.

I live in New Mexico - although not Santa Fe - so the state and regional issues in that paper are of interest to me. New Mexico has more in common with Scotland than anyone here might guess. Both are comparatively rural areas with histories and ethnicities markedly divergent from their countries' federal power centers. Their populations seem to be seen either romantically or dismissively by the majority in London, New York or Washington, and it seems to make them (us?) feel put upon. At the same time both regions benefit from tourism, so you could say they are able to capitalize on their foreignness.

Both newspapers are fairly small and focused on similar issues -- education, the decline and improvement of society's values, the silly or portentious utterances of local politicians -- and both are compact and easy to navigate. All of that helps me enjoy reading them, but none of it is the reason I am so loyal. The reason I look forward to these two publications, along with "Inside Higher Ed" and (until recently) "Jerusalem Online," is because of the reader comments. Unlike the "letters to the editor" that appear in print editions, online comments are subject to immediate response both from the reporter and - even more - from other readers. The monitoring on these two sites is minimal, just enough to avoid libel and profanity. They are so free-wheeling that recently the New Mexican had to suspend comments temporarily because of reader remarks that went too far too quickly.

The New Mexican has a web editor who occasionally edits a post or breaks in with a clarification. The Scotsman probably has something similar, but the volume of comments from time zones all over the globe must be hard to keep up with. A heavily remarked upon item in Santa Fe might have as many as 50 comments, many from repeat posters. Contrast this with a recent report on the Glasgow city council's attempt to ban sexist language: The last time I checked, there were more than 300 posts on the subject. At the bottom of each comment box is a line reading "Report as unsuitable." I know someone must be doing so because I've seen some of the more offensive arguments disappear from one refresh to the next. One of the more narrow minded regulars claims to be from Texas, USA, and I'm still trying to detect whether he is for real or just using a believeable source location for his comments.

Other good sites for reader comments are InsideHigherEd.com, the New Republic (but I think you have to be a paid subscriber there) and Chicago Tribune television critic Maureen Ryan's blog. JerusalemOnline.com used to have a good "talk-back" feature with people talking about events in Israel and the Islamic middle east, but it has always been visually hard to navigate and lately it has been completely taken over by millennial Christians quoting large blocks of scripture in anticipation of Armageddon.

I'll let Scotsman reader "Ailsa Craig - near Arran" sum it up.
I see "The Scotsman" web-site as being an enjoyable forum for intelligent debate - potentially. But many of the contributors today seem to be hiding behind their pseudonyms and venting their cowardly and pathetic dirty-mindedness. That is totally inappropriate here!