Perhaps my previous post on the subject was too gentle. So let me try again, more clearly this time.

The blow-up on the Washington Post website was not the fault of its readers. It was the fault of the Washington Post.

It was the Post’s fault for publishing an erroneous report. It was the Post’s fault for not moving immediately to correct it, once readers pointed it out. It was the Post’s fault for disrespecting its readers but shutting down all the blog’s comments, instead of pruning ones containing obscenities and threats. And if the Post couldn’t handle the volume of pruning that needed to be done, it was the Post’s fault for not having a better comment management system in place.

So let’s quit blaming the readers. (And let’s especially quit looking at these sorts of incidents as right vs. left. In journalism, we ought to deal with correct vs. incorrect. If that means we consistently offend some political group if it is consistently wrong, then tough.)

The proper thing for any news publisher to do in this sort of case is *not* to get defensive. Own up to the mistakes and work to do better next time, instead. Post ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote some encouraging words to that effect in her latest column. Watch OJR tomorrow for an article with additional suggestions on how news websites ought to better manage readers comments, too.

After almost three and a half years, Google News officially has emerged from beta-testing mode.

Krishna Bharat announced the move on Google’s Blog.

The latest enhancement is a personalized news recommendation engine, which uses Google’s personalized search technology to suggest news stories based, in part, on other stories that a reader has clicked on.

Bharat writes:

“All of this is done automatically using algorithms. For example, we might recommend news stories to you that many other users have read, especially when you and they have read similar stories in the past. We’ve also added a section to show you the most popular stories in the Google News edition you are viewing (e.g., U.S.). Now you can see the top stories being published by editors across the web, as well as other stories popular with readers, plus topics that you track or are interested in — all on one page.”

The mess at the Washington Post over reader comments on the Post’s editors’ blog ought to remind all online publishers that managing reader interactivity is not easy.

The mess started when ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote, in her Jan. 15 column about the U.S. government scandal revolving around lobbyist Jack Abramoff, that “a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money.”

That wasn’t true. All of Abramoff’s direct contributions went to Republicans. And readers used the comment function on the Post editors’ blog to point that out. Howell later clarified her remarks, writing that “a better way to have said it would be that Abramoff ‘directed’ contributions to both parties.”

But the avalanche of responses against Howell’s column prompted the Post to shut down the comments function on the editor’s blog. (Comments remain enabled on the Post’s many other blogs.) Washingpost.com Executive Editor Jim Brady wrote that “a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow” rules against “personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech” in justifying the decision. But some bloggers disputed whether the comments went over the line.

Managing a discussion community requires much more than turning on a comment function and hoping for the best. The uproar over Howell’s error exposes the deep anger felt by many Americans toward its current government leadership and what those Americans perceive to be the press’s failure to cover the government with appropriate skepticism.

Yes, readers who become abusive or profane ought to be cut off. But those who do not ought to be heard, and not cut off with the others.

People need to vent. The Post, and other online news outlets, would do better to let them vent, then to engage those readers to discover the source of their anger and frustration — not to shut off their medium for speaking.