This morning I turned to a colleague and said, "Why is it that even when you know something is coming that you can still be surprised?"

Was I talking about:

a.) The Fate of the Boston Globe
b.) My post-screening feelings for "X-Men Origins: Wolverine"
c.) The comments on today's column

The answer, as always, is C.

Any casual observer of PressHerald.com, or really any newspaper web site, knows that the reader comment section can be the equivalent of New York in the 1980s: gritty with a high potential for danger. And just like the NYC of old, to some extent the problem is of our own making. We invite the public in to talk about the day's news, to discuss what is happening in their world, be it down the block or around the state. The idea is that the tools the Internet provides can help to create some sense of community.
The catch, of course, is that means taking the good and the bad.

Of all the things to get the reading public chatting about my column - the decline of newspapers, the media's fascination with Twitter, dinosaur jokes - what sets off the torch relay? Same-sex marriage. Here's a column where the phrases "same-sex marriage" or "gay marriage" are only mentioned three times, without one inch of space devoted to the many arguments used by those for and against LD 1020.

Yet as of the end of business today the column is the most commented-on story with over 150 comments. From a bean-counting standpoint that's great news. High comments mean more eyeballs for ads, more people reading, more people participating, more discussion...

But after a while the irony just starts to pile up on itself. As a writer you want as many people as possible to read and respond to your work. But we have no idea how many people are actually "reading" a story versus scanning it, let alone those who are just jumping into the comments section with their fists up.

If I had to guess on the percentages, somewhere close to a quarter of the comments are on the actual subject of the column: old media learning new tricks. (With apologies to the guys over at Old Media, New Tricks.0

As I wrote in the column, I was struck by the sheer volume of coverage of the debate on LD 1020 that was taking place across non-traditional channels. By the time the noon TV news was broadcast and local newspapers posted mid-day updates most observers already knew what happened thanks to journalists and individuals covering the proceedings. It seemed like a landmark, if only because of the critical mass of people Tweeting, blogging, following the Maine Campus video feed and broadcasting updates via Facebook.

Of course none of those avenues are new. And journalists fascination (some may say co-option or conversion) of Twitter and Facebook is a recent development in the slow saga to change journalism.

But at a time when the only thing being heard from the world of media is the sound of a great sucking chasm as more news outlets dwindle or die, this seemed like a moment worth noting.

And a moment worth talking about.

And instead, as a few commenters pointed out, the simple mention of the words "same-sex marriage" resulted in a completely off-topic war of words.

Like I said before, this is something I suspected was coming. Just like any journalist these days who pens a story involving sexual orientation, poverty, religion or race, I knew the opportunity was there for an online free-for-all.

But I figured maybe - just maybe - there was a chance they would at least square off about newspapers. If anything people like beating up on their daily, which in a way can be very telling for us.

No such luck.

Fixing the comments is something I have my own ideas on that we'll talk about at another time. But for the moment let's get back on topic.

It's seemed telling to me that the two emails I received about the today's column were on-topic, but from far ends of the ideological spectrum.

Michael Heath, executive director of the Maine Family Policy Council, sent an e-mail titled, 'Helpful story,' and pointed to the blogging he and others have done on the issue. Gerald Weinand, editor of the blog Turn Maine Blue, e-mailed to point out that he, along with sites such as As Maine Goes and the Maine Women's Lobby also provided live online coverage of the debate.

You don't get much more diametrically opposed than these two, yet they took the time to e-mail me directly about the column and other new media efforts in Maine.

Maybe there is hope.

SOUND OFF: Share your thoughts on old media looking to new media to try to adapt and survive.

E-mail this entry to a friend