What do you think of Christopher Dore's responses to comments on his column in the Nightly? Do you think he should be engaging with readers in this way?

 

As editor of The Nightly, Christopher Dore was very responsive to comments on his columns, reflecting his desire to engage his audience. In particular, he used the platform to address sensitive and controversial political topics, such as Australia’s relationship with Israel and its handling of conflicts in the Middle East. His decision to communicate directly with his readers can be seen as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it allows for open dialogue, helping to build a community where opinions are exchanged in real time. This can lead to deeper discussions and more engaged readers, especially in a digital format like The Nightly, which aims to highlight the quality of journalism it provides. However, such face-to-face interactions carry some risks. Engaging readers on controversial issues, especially those involving geopolitics and nationalist sentiment, can lead to polarized exchanges. Some may view this engagement as positive, transparent, and open, while others may interpret it as confrontational or unprofessional depending on the tone and content of the responses. In short, while the approach taken by Dore has value in attracting more engaged audiences, it must be carefully balanced to avoid alienating some audiences or escalating conflict