NPR: Our Discussion Guidelines

Our Discussion Guidelines

Here at The NPR News Blog, we're looking forward to some really engaging discussion. All we ask is that you follow some basic guidelines so we can all play nice.

Say it politely or don't say it at all. Over time, we'll talk about a lot of stuff on this blog, and you can discuss whatever topic we cover. What matters to me is the way that you do it. Some topics require blunt talk, and we're not always going to agree with each other. Nonetheless, please try to disagree without being disagreeable. Focus your remarks on positions, not personalities. There will be no name-calling, slander, comments about someone's mother, comparisons to notorious dictators -- you get the idea. If you want to get involved in a mud-slingin' contest, go run for Congress. And under no circumstances should you post anything that could be taken as threatening, harassing, sexist or racist. It will not be posted.

You watch your mouth, you hear. I HATE it when people swear online, but I know that sometimes it may be within context. Sometimes. But no gratuitous swearing or trying to sneak in a fast one. I'm not going to list the naughty words; you know what they are. Think Chris Rock. If you still don't know, go ask your mom and she'll tell you. If you try to use them here, I will not publish your comment. Promise.

Thou shalt not steal. Feel free to link to other content and to quote from other people's work, with attribution, of course. That doesn't mean you can copy and paste wholesale. My own rule is never more than two paragraphs from another article or blog posting. And please, make them relevant to the point you're trying to make.

Don't start talking about dog licenses and end up talking about Cuba. Stay on topic. As I say to my kids, it's all about focus. I was never a big fan of stream of consciousness, except when James Joyce was doing it. And be honest, have you actually read ALL of Ulysses?

There is a point to this posting, right? No manifestos, no magnum opus, OK? My editor and I reserve the right to edit for brevity as well as clarity. And we can be brutal with the delete key when we need to be.

This is not Facebook. I love to learn about new and interesting individuals, but most people will not be happy to have their phone numbers or e-mail addresses published. If you need to share someone's contact information, please submit it through our contact form.

Post no bills here. Feel free to share your ideas and experiences about religion, politics and relevant products or services you've discovered when it's germane to a post. But this is not a place for advertising, promotion, recruiting, campaigning, soliciting or proselytizing. We understand that there can be a fine line between discussing and campaigning; please use your best judgment -- and we will use ours.

Aliens have not landed -- yet. I appreciate the news tips members of the public send along. NPR reserves the right, however, not to publicize allegations, conspiracy theories and other information that we know to be false or unsubstantiated. No cab drivers not showing up for work on Sept. 11 theories, no black helicopters, and I don't care if somebody other than Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy.

Don't use the comment section like that jerk talking too loudly on her cell phone on the bus. This is a public blog, so don't use the discussion for private communications. If you want to contact me privately, please use the blog contact form. To contact other NPR programs or any of our business and technical departments, use the NPR contact form.

If you want to know even more about what is and isn't allowed on NPR.org, please see our very official Terms of Use page.

10:02 AM ET | 05- 3-2007 | permalink

Comments

I am so glad to have this forum back - I really loved the previous NPR news blog.

I am also looking forward to getting to know you - you seem like a nice guy.

However,(I thought I'd put this in - I'm sure I won't be the only one with this comment) I loved the rotating hosts of the first blog. Some hosts were better than others, but it was exciting to meet different NPR people. And everyone had a slightly different focus, so you really felt that you were seeing several parts of "outside the frame."

With only one host, it will feel more like "your" blog and less like the "NPR News" blog - unless there is an editorial board which carefully considers every posting... Hmmmm

Anyway - I truly am looking forward to reading this blog every few hours. I hope it works out - and that you (collectively) will evolve as things work themselves out.

Sent by Joyce OQuinn | 5:22 PM ET | 05-03-2007

Hi Joyce

Would it help if I said I had multiple personalities :)

You're right, this blog is different than Mixed Signals, and since I'm the main writer, it will seem more like 'my blog' than the group blog that was here before. The reason for the change in approach is primarily a logistical one.

All the good folks who blogged for Mixed Signals also had full-time gigs doing great radio. So the decision was made to hire one main blogger - me, in this case - to write the blog. While there will be other people blogging here (and soon I hope) my voice will be the main one you'll read. But I promise to be as eclectic as possible.

Tom R.

Sent by Tom Regan | 7:53 AM ET | 05-04-2007

Like many others who have posted, I question the wisdom of our national drug policy. I would like to hear the candidates say whether they think it's a coincidence that (a) the main beneficiaries of our present, benighted policy are those who reap the huge financial benefits of a black market in "controlled substances," (b) staying in national public office requires a great deal of money for campaigning, and (c) politicians refuse to discuss meaningful reform of our failed policy. That is, what sources of campaign contributions would dry up if substances people obviously want no longer cost far more than the expenses of production and distribution?

Sent by John Covell | 2:39 PM ET | 12-01-2007

Question for Senator Clinton. If you win the presidency that would mean 24 years with a Bush or Clinton as president. Do you think that is healthy for democracy in the United States.

Sent by Lauge farnaes | 11:17 AM ET | 12-02-2007

What will your energy policy be in the face of climate change and end of oil? Where do you stand on nuclear power specifically and how would you rate this option relative to other energy producing & conserving strategies?

Sent by Brenda Loew | 11:17 AM ET | 12-03-2007

Good morning,
Two and a half years ago, the personal bankruptcy laws were changed, it was said, to make individuals more responsible for their financial decisions. It seems possible and even reasonable to have expected that the new and stricker personal bankruptcy laws which reduced the mutual interest between borrower and lender to establish a successful and long-term relationship, would lead to the Wall Streeet commodification of the American dream of homeownership and the consequences which are now undermining the whole economy. Toward the goal of understanding whether financial disasters of our economy just 'happen' or whether they can be traced to past decisions, laws, regulations and policies in industries such as energy, savings and loan and banking, can you please comment on this hypothesis?
Best Regards,
Sandra West

Sent by sandra west | 12:57 PM ET | 12-03-2007

I believe that the most dangerous trend in our society is the increasing power and influence of lobbyists campaign money in Federal, state and even local elections. When we get bills out of congress and state legislatures that clearly benefit corporations and businesses and clearly do not benefit the average citizen, such as the famous Medicare Drug Bill, which might as well have been written by the drug companies for the drug companies, and the Democratic presidential candidates typical positions opposing a single payer health system (excluding Dennis Kucinich) and favoring a system that would continue the present too-expensive private insurance system, and even require citizens to have commercial insurance that would be a huge gift to the insurance companies, it is clear that these legislators are not working for the public good, but only for the money needed to run their next campaign. It is well past time to fully fund all campaigns for public office, and get the corrupting influence of money out of the system. Only then will legislators have the freedom and the will to write legislation that truly benefits the people that they are supposed to serve.

Sent by Steve Larkin | 5:04 PM ET | 12-03-2007

My question is for Obama, Clinton, and Kucinich (in that order) and it is two-fold: All of you are talking about "universal health care" but I want to know two things. One, how is your plan different from what we currently have AND how is it different from what the other two candidates that I am asking propose?

Sent by WeNeedDemocracy | 5:45 PM ET | 12-03-2007

ENVIRONMENT QUESTION FOR CANDIDATES: GLOBAL WARMING
Here in Durham, North Carolina, we only have 52 days of normal water supply left. For us on the "front lines" of the worse drought in state history and the Southeast, and with no substantial rain relief in sight, the issue of "Global Warming" is more than just theory. Scientists have warned for decades that persistent drought is a consequence of "Global Warming". We in Durham and other drought stricken cities of the Southeast are poised to be the first major US cities to literally run out of adequate water supplies in the coming months ahead. We face the grim prospects of social disruption on a mass scale, including everything from mandatory rationing of water to migrations of people and businesses elsewhere unheard of since the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. What can our candidates do now and as a future President to help galvanize public support for long overdue changes needed to address the grave ecological and moral crisis of ???Global Warming??? that threatens the well being of not only us in the South but all Americans?

Sent by Scotty Washington | 12:57 PM ET | 12-04-2007

Is the Los Angeles "Decline To State" (DTS) problem bigger than it seems?

Today I was given a DTS ballot even though on Thursday I talked to the LA County Clerk's office and they confirmed I was registered Democrat (I called them the previous day and had to re-register after being unregistered by them).

I heard someone on NPR throw out the statistic that one out of five people are DTS voters. Maybe the problem is much bigger?

I would also like to know who has been changing my voter record. Is this possible? I would love to find out who unregistered me before the primary even though I am a regular voter and the County Clerk had my correct address on file.

Sent by Joseph Dowdy | 9:59 PM ET | 02-05-2008

Hi Tom,
I came here to see if you have any guidelines on "necroposting" but don't see anything. There are a lot of things posted on here in one day, so I can understand that people will still be commenting on a story that is no longer on the main page. However, I am wondering where the line is. When I look at the the "recent comments" sidebar on the main page, I sometimes see people commenting on stories that were posted a week or more ago. In other forums it is generally considered poor taste to resurrect old threads. I wouldn't say this is a major issue on here, but I suggest that some kind of guideline be developed and/or the ability to comment is no longer available after a certain amount of time has passed. Thanks!

P.S. Why are there a bunch of comments on here regarding the December debate? That is kind of confusing.

Sent by JP | 11:05 PM ET | 03-01-2008

Hey JP

I confess I tend towards letting people post on anything that has been written, regardless of when it was posted.

Several years ago, Jon Katz the great writer (HotWired, slashdot, Slate) about the 'Net said something to me that I remember to this day. The 'Net is organic. He told me how he would receive e-mails about articles he posted months, even years, before. And he would answer everyone because he believed on the Internet, nothing ever "dies." (I have experienced this a bit myself with a big review I gave to the film "Fight Club." Every few months I get a new e-mail from someone who has just found the review telling me what an idiot I was.)

So I tend towards the idea that all conversations on the Internet are alive - some more than others - but all alive.

As for the more immediate answer, the postings in the most recent section are just that, so yes, sometimes they do reflect comments that people have made on postings they have just found.

Tom Regan
Host/Newsblog

Sent by Tom Regan | 11:03 AM ET | 03-02-2008

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
Please send me updates from NPR.	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.