NEW YORK, June 10 (DPI) — New York Times business writer Joe Nocera this week penned an incisive column on Russia’s chronic failure to develop a credible rule of law, and its impact on business there.

But equally impressive were reader comments reacting to Nocera’s column.  Among them was an expertly written insider’s reply that went toe-to-toe with Nocera’s column, becoming, within a day, the most highly recommended among the 53 reader replies.

The lightning-fast point-counterpoints found in digital newsrooms today are a realization of the potential of the internet, editors say, as reader replies — particularly on places like NYTimes.com — are becoming almost as valuable as the articles and columns themselves.

True, reader comments still can be vitriolic and downright nasty, but more and more, as online readers grow comfortable participating in online forums, the quality of commentary — and identification of good commentaries by readers and newspaper moderators — has improved sharply.

And, although WSJ.com remains overloaded with snarky one-liners, and WashingtonPost.com comments are far less numerous, even reader comments there are growing more fact-based and informative.

The Nocera column, “How to Steal a Russian Airport”, highlighted the pitfalls of trying to do business on any scale in Russia. Its central example was the shelving of an initial public offering by the owners of Moscow’s successful privately owned airport, which later was pressured to sell part of itself on the cheap to a Putin loyalist. As Nocera wrote, “How can anyone invest in a Russian company that is being shaken down by the government?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/opinion/07nocera.html?scp=1&sq=how%20to%20steal%20a%20russian%20airport&st=cse

Not long after Nocera’s column hit the screens, a reader identifying himself as “Old Curmudgeon” from Akron, Ohio, weighed in with an insider’s knowledge and authority on Russia’s byzantine and corrupt business climate. His reply was a little harsh on Nocera — a product of the still-prevailing culture of anonymity on the internet — yet he cited facts with ease and provided remarkable context to the overall problem. (See full comment below.)

Nocera, contacted this week by DPI, didn’t comment directly on the reader comments, saying that generally “I look at a few but don’t have time to pore through them all.” He added that “when readers are aroused” he’ll receive upwards of 400 reader comments, so “53 comments aren’t all that much.”

Still, Nocera wrote DPI in an email that, since the advent of reader reply pages, “the reader vitriol has taken me by surprise” and the level of reader hostility is “far higher than the tenor of comments in my old business comments in the news pages.”

Nevertheless, Nocera wrote, “I’m not changing my way of writing or expressing opinion. Just trying to develop a thicker skin.”

NYTimes.com in the last few months quietly made a small technical change: Online posters will find that when they change their online user name, the new user name will be applied to all posts that the user has made to any comment page on the site. This of course promotes more responsible reader behavior, and discourages “a drive-by post,” editors say.

Here is the “most recommended” reader reply addressing Mr. Nocera’s column:

Joe Nocera needs to learn a little history of modern Russia.

When perestroika came to Russia, there were no “plutocrats” because nothing was privately owned. The government owned everything.

At that time, respect for the US was the highest it has ever been in Russia. Having known for many years what Russia’s ordinary people did not—that everything in America really *was* better—Russia’s intelligentsia, many of its leaders, and even some of its KGB agents had enormous respect for everything American. If fact, “awe” might be a better term.

I know because I was there. I was one of many people funded by our government to try to help Russia turn itself into a free-market, democratic society. It was a unique opportunity to do some good and turn a former enemy into a friend.

Unfortunately, the people who got the most money and support from our own government knew literally nothing about Russia, its language, its culture, its history, or its people. Led by Jeffrey Sachs of Harvard, they decided that “shock therapy,” in the form of immediate privatization of all of Russia’s heavy industry, was just the right prescription for a society that had not known private industry for over 70 years.

With the enthusiastic but naive permission of Russia’s government, they sold all of Russia’s heavy industry to “the people,” 99% of whom had never owned a share of stock and didn’t know what it was. The bewildered people receiving “vouchers” for the shares had been taught from school onward that private industry meant “exploitation” of workers and was basically evil.

The results were entirely predictable. Russia’s people immediately sold their shares at ridiculously low issue price to a few clever and/or well-connected people, who became Russia’s “Oligarchs.”

Here Joe shows his ignorance again, by failing to use the standard Russian term. We have “plutocrats.” They have “Oligarchs.” The difference is important even in English, because the Russian Oligarchs are a lot fewer and, relative to the size of Russia’s economy, a lot richer than our counterparts.

It’s true that Russia could improve its rule of law and the independence of its judiciary. But Joe’s ignorance of or disregard for history and culture and our own egregious role in creating Russia’s Oligarchs makes his strident tone and unidimensional analysis hard to read, let alone take seriously.

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/opinion/07nocera.html?sort=recommended