Kevin Marshall's America
Over on the Troy blog, a post about an exclusive the Times Union obtained regarding the Troy School District Superintendent’s failure to properly vet a candidate for a $400/day position lead, perhaps not surprisingly, to some less than desirable comments with a tinge of racism.
I was comepelled to finally step in and call people out on it. After all, I believe the issue “boils down to an issue of competency, or lack thereof.”
Reader Nora responded:
…of Mr. Atiba-Weza or the TU Editorial policies? Require names on blog posts and cut down on the character assassination and hate speach opportunities.
Sample policy here
“Users wishing to comment on BuffaloNews.com stories after Aug. 1 must have an active MyBuffalo account (what is MyBuffalo?) and go through a verification process. To become a MyBuffalo member you must provide a valid email address, name, and ZIP code. To be eligible for commenting you must also provide your mailing address and phone number. After a Buffalo News employee has verified your personal information, your name and hometown will appear with all comments made on BuffaloNews.com stories after Aug. 2. Your MyBuffalo username will continue to be displayed on all MyBuffalo pages. “
The poicy she’s citing is The Buffalo News‘s controversial new comment policy, which no longer allows for anonymous commentary and requires people to register their real name and home town in order to respond to articles online.
I can’t speak on behalf of The Times Union since I’m just a volunteer blogger and don’t set policy. I can only provide my two cents.
What The Buffalo News is doing would cut down on a LOT of the nonsense and hate speech that we sometimes see on these blogs, the worst of which we saw in a recent blog post about the tragic death of local eye doctor Tom Little in Afghanistan. Deplorable cretins came out of the woodwork to grandstand and thump their chests proudly and defiantly in the face of good taste and common decency. It was a low point for discourse, and when I see things like that I get angry and wonder if the TU shouldn’t have a “no-anonymous” policy.
On the other hand, such a policy would also work against the sense of community and open discussion that contributes and expands on discourse that I feel is pertinent for news organizations to stay relevant in the 21st Century.
Requiring a break of anonymity also opens a person up to scrutiny simply for expressing a belief or opinion. In a perfect world, people would be able to express their stance and/or opinion on important and/or controversial matters without fear of retribution; personal, professional, or otherwise. Unfortunately, as we all are well aware, we don’t live in a perfect world.
The Buffalo News will lose the internet trolls, but it will also lose valid contributors who are an essential part of these discussions. What it comes down to is what we consider a greater priority: hiding the hate or putting up a huge barrier for people to contribute, inform, and educate.
Personally, I’m with the latter being far more important. We need to see comments like those from the cretins on Tom’s blogged obituary and especially the hate speech that sometimes pops up. It serves as an important reminder that racism, hate, and bigotry are still very real, and not even a blue state such as New York is immune to it. We need to remember that it’s out there and it’s real, rather than hiding behind the faux curtain of a “post-racial America.”
Besides, for every cretin and coward, there’s a person with something very real to say anonymously that they might not say otherwise.It’d be a shame to put up any roadblocks in their way.
Share it!
24 Responses to Anonymous Commentary
Leave a Reply
STALK ME
This blog is stupid and you’re a doodyhead.
If anything, the anonymous commentary reminds us that we are not the enlightened and progressive society that we would sometimes like to believe we are. The simple fact of the matter is that all humans are bigots. It is a natural consequence of the way the human mind operates and relates to new and unexperienced content. The good news is that we can rise above that and keep an open mind and heart and that most people do. Still, most is not all.
In any discourse, the best consequences will flow from the greatest amount of input. Even the ‘stupid’ input counts.
-genwar
I go back and forth on this issue. When I started Blogging here, I posted under TonyB…then wa smade aware that I had to use my whole name. I could’ve decided then, not to continue. Of course I stay away from cetain subjects for the most part. I’m just here to amuse. I have however commented on a few posts and then gone back and apologised, or clarified my statements. I could sign in under a different name to comment, but I kind of think that’s lame. If you say something, stand behind it.
I have also gone back and edited some of my posts(thanks to my wife, who is more sensitive than I). But once something is out there, it’s out there, and someone probably saw it….I do a little more thinking before I post or comment now(still not a whole lot though).
Be PROUD of your views! There is no need to post anonymously. You are entitled to your views as an individual as is everyone else in the world. Of course you will find those who disagree! Deal with it.
Oh Pat. You can’t believe that.
Just one small small example. I am against the legalization of gay marriage. If you read the comments on these blogs at all, you know that I will be ABSOLUTELY CRUCIFIED for that belief. When the subject comes up, I remain silent, rather than endure the insanity that will surely ensue.
There are some views that one just CAN’T have…especially around here…
there was a great article on salon.com about this last week:
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/08/03/in_defense_of_anonymous_commenting/index.html
it happened to come at a great time for me, as i was just dealing with some rather nasty comments on a couple of my bethlehem blog posts (ahem, karma?) there will always be naysayers, people who disagree just for the sake of argument, and downright rude people in the blogosphere. and, actually, in life. i guess it all comes down to how you let them affect you. i certainly won’t waste my emotions on them.
I tend to agree that people should be permitted to post anonymously. Both Kevin’s post and the post that kriskaten linked to make a good point – it puts views out there that might otherwise be lost.
But just because people can post anonymously doesn’t mean they should. Personally, I prefer to know who I’m speaking to, and I prefer for people to know who I am when I say something. I think if you have something to say, you should be proud to say it. Right or wrong, if you’re speaking intelligently and respectfully, you’ll add to the conversation.
And if there’s a topic that you don’t want to comment on because you don’t want to deal with negative or ignorant remarks made against your views, well I think that just plain makes sense. Choosing not to enter a conversation is different than doing so – but hiding while you do so. One shows rational, mature thought for which you should be commended. The other just shows your perspective (potentially) lacks integrity and reason (IMO).
I put my name on everything I comment on. I have never left an “anonymous” comment.
If I feel strongly enough about something and choose to leave a comment on a particular blog, I leave my real name, regardless of what anyone else thinks.
If I don’t want to deal with the backlash for saying something, or don’t want people to crucify me, I don’t leave a comment, but if I am going to say something I will always put my name with it.
What’s the point in identifying the cowards? Nothing. It’s not as if people are going to go to blows over the nonsense. So what’s the point? I do think there should be some type of rating system. Perhaps an “ignore” button. Collect to many “ignores” due to hate speech, and lose your privileges to post.
Get Real – It’s a good idea in theory, but I’ve seen that implemented on other websites and it’s way too easy to manipulate and abuse it.
ggiuliano – It does and it doesn’t. TU policy is on curse words and personal attacks, but you can’t not allow a comment just because it’s stupid/ridiculous/etcetera. And it’s obviously open to interpretation.
I understand both sides here. Anonymous blogging / commenting is almost a proud tradition on the Internet (funny to think of something modern being around long enough to have traditions). On the other hand, there is something to be said for owning what you assert and not hiding behind a pseudonym. But I thought comments were moderated in all TU forums? Doesn’t this sort of address the issue in a different way? How do comments get through that violate TU policy?
Kevin, reasonable. However, there are measures that could be implemented to prevent such misuse. There could be a limit on the number of times you’d be allowed to hit the “ignore” button. That would definitely cut back on spamming.
It seems to me that before I could write a post on the TU site, I had to agree to use my real name on any TU blog that I posted on.(see @3 by Tony). Tony and I have been called down for not using our full names. While I was on vacation and using someone elses computer, I inadvertantly logged in as Freddie. However, as I cruise the TU blogs, I see comments from bloggers(as in authors of tu blogs) being posted, frequently.
I think that if obnoxious readers don’t have the guts to put their real name on their comments, than their freedom of speech expired. If I have to identify myself, why shouldn’t they. It’s kinda put your money(name) where your mouth is. Like Will King said, if you don’t want your thoughts to be attributed to you, don’t write them.
You’re focused on the comments. I am equally concerned with the decision making process that results in these topics (really “news events”) winding up on blogs. It’s one thing if a blogger chooses to write commentary about a news event. It’s another to simply post the news event and then open the floor to discussion. It’s a fine line to tip toe, I suppose. But it seems to me to be a questionable practice altogether. Why incite that level of discourse? You assume people will behave in a dignified manner when stories such as these are posted in these areas. It borders on irresponsibility, in my opinion.
You need to thicken up that skin. I don’t know who made you the Blog Judge. It’s a bit much to call people you do not agree with “deplorable cretins.”
The optician’s blog you link to is pretty tame. Out of 37 posts there are only about 6 that I would consider negative or off topic and they aren’t even that bad. That’s about par for the course. And those 6 are just comments referencing other parts of the world that need assistance besides Afghanistan.
There’s no “all ______ are terrorists and need to ________, THEY TOOK OUR JOBBBssss rabble rabble rabble…”
I agree with GenWar, who wrote in the second comment: “If anything, the anonymous commentary reminds us that we are not the enlightened and progressive society that we would sometimes like to believe we are.”
I wish you could read all the comments that are submitted, not just those approved and published.
We are not a city on a hill, where enlightened and thoughtful discourse flows from every keyboard. We are bigoted, racist, hateful, mean-spirited and cruel. We are also incredibly kind, compassionate, sympathetic, witty, smart and funny.
Bloggers on timesunion.com moderate each comment before you see it. They approve some and they reject others. They control their discussion based on our guidelines: No hateful speech and no profanity.
Are those guidelines vague? Yup, by necessity. With hundreds of bloggers on hundreds of blogs, making thousands of judgment calls each day, there is bound to be wide, gray line between what one blogger approves and another rejects.
re: anonymous comments. Requiring readers to use their real names won’t end the hate, but it will stifle discussion among readers who have opinions but don’t feel comfortable having their names appear online. I don’t think less of readers who choose to post anonymously.
You came down on the right side, Kevin. Ultimately, those who frequently and instinctively favor restriction–beyond the necessary injunctions against force and fraud–simply hate freedom. To them, freedom is too blaring, too chaotic, too fast-moving. For as long as you are able, do what you see fit on your own site, and continue to stand against those who would force you, or any other blogger, to comply with their arbitrary–usually self-serving–“standards.”
Baron Von HuberBlogger: Perhaps you would like to address the point about the “have” & “have-nots”, i.e. the paid TU blogging staff and those that are not. For example, I’m thinking that “hateful speech / personal attacks” is much less a guideline for some of your freelancers than you might think.
I would assume that most of the ridiculously offensive-type comments are coming from people who are more trying to irritate and offend for their own personal entertainment, than people who genuinely believe those things. I guess it’s impossible to tell the difference, though.
Mr. Huber, you are without a doubt my favorite TU staffer. You have a clue, first of all. I remember talking to you when I freaked out that my picture showed up here without warning with the experimentation of using gravatars. I changed my gravatar and you helped get it off the web site.
Like Kevin says in a perfect world, there would be no repercussions for voicing opinion but this isn’t a perfect world and haven’t there been enough news stories about violence as a result of being too open on the internet. I use my first name and last initial and that alone worries me at times especially since I am extremely open in my comments.
I do not, however, wish to place myself or my family in physical danger because some view I express on the internet enrages some nutjob out there. They exist in the really real world. I started just using my first name but that proved too common and I use my last initial. I think the bloggers are brave to use their full names and hope no harm comes to them for it. That nothing seems to have has made me braver and less anomyous (I comment on some blogs as simply muggle and often wish I had stuck with it here but now that I’m known here as Donna H, well, I’m stuck with that) and now that I retired am even thinking of starting my own blog soon but, man, no pics of my grandson or daughter are going to be on it and no exact address, etc.
To all those calling anomoyous bloggers cowardly, I call you foolish or refusing to look at the whole picture. Maybe if your name is John Smith you haven’t much to worry about or maybe you think you can kick even Ahnold’s ass. Whatever. But to label people cowardly just because they don’t put their full first and last name out to the public in a medium that has had incidents of cyber-stalking carried over into real life, is, well, just plain cowardly on your part and kind of skunky too.
Yes, it’s a tough dilemma and a good chunk of those anomyous bloggers are just being @$$hats but to stereotype every last one with that is close-minded and narrow.
In the final analysis, nothing will assure the end to free speech on the internet more assuredly than not allowing anomyous commenting and, frankly, it will make the internet far less satisfying. One thing about the internet that makes it something I love is that the give and take I miss from 30 years ago exists on it. It doesn’t face to face any more. Free speech is very repressed face to face these days. Sad but true. You never know who is going to feel free to open a can of whup ass on you because you disagree with them or who will ostracize you for your views. I would hate to see the internet follow suit.
I obviously enjoy the TU blogs and I’m glad I do. Because I’m 52 and have been reading the TU since I was 5 and don’t find it much worth reading any more (sorry, MH) but the blogs still keep me connected to it. And there’s far too little things I’ve been connected with for the five decades of my life these days. However, if I have to post my last name, my real e-mail (yeah, I know, supposedly but they haven’t enforced it and hopefully they won’t because I’ve seen others posted and, yes, I worry about hackers), register or pay, I’ll be gone.
I’ve been holding my breath that the TU won’t do any of those things. I hope they would hate to lose me (and probably other readers/commenters too) as much as I’d hate to lose them. If not, shrug. I can’t control that. I’d hate to lose it but I’d move on. Not sure to what since there’s not much this good in way of local forums.
I would hope my opinion matters. I may not be buying the paper any more but commenting here is helping them generate ad revenue.
This topic always confuses me.
It’s easy for any author to publish on the Web, with whatever purpose and goals. That’s the core thing, and it’s very cool.
Separately, an author *might* decide to take feedback by publishing an email address, or maybe a form-to-email tool. Or not. “Not” is the default.
Or she *might* provide a Web-based commenting tool. She can offer it on any terms she likes: registration-required, queued and moderated, moderated after the fact, moderated within a policy, unmoderated. For any of these, other tools can be overlaid: spam detection, bad-word detection, automated comment closing after X days. There’s a rich palette of tools.
Seems to me that a self-publisher decides for herself which tools to offer commentors, if any, and gets on with publishing. Good prolific writing attracts the loyal, silent 95% audience all by itself; liberal comment policy attracts a small and vocal commentariat. These are *not* connected. Seriously. Obviously.
If you’re valuable, folks will read you, link to you, tweet about you, pay you, whatever. Liberal comment policy isn’t key to social-media advantage for creators.
But comment-porn *does* (for now) still drive somewhat phony metrics that matter a lot to old-skool publishers in painful transition. I wish them well, but I think it’s important to ask whether my ambitions as a content creator truly depend on their need to attach a running food-fight to my work.
Write a book. A play. A movie. Make a photo essay. An audio program. There are lots of good ones made every day. They don’t have a comment widget attached to them, and nobody argues they’d be more successful if they did.
Only in the blog space is this a question of critical concern, and I think that’s delusional. The content here (this blog) is strong — strong enough that, if it were self-published, the author might shade back the comment noise in order to better focus on just making more. I’d like more.
There simply is no universal best comment policy. The publisher, of course, decides. There should be no confusion about that.
LQ
Lou – thank you for the high compliments. I’m honored.
The worst comments I’ve seen on the TU are those approved by the staff itself. Hits is hits.
Donna H nailed it. I am happy that there are a few people left in this society who still value personal privacy.