A true People's Forum
Ted Vaden at the N&O takes the position that their site should require commenters to identify themselves with their real names. I'm assuming, too, that he thinks the paper should verify their identities before their comments are posted. Ted worries about the degradation of the paper's brand.
The N&O should foster a higher plane of discourse in this supposedly brainy community by requiring accountability of people who use our sites. The paper does so for letters to the editor and still is able to publish (because of space constraints) fewer than a third of the 12,000 letters it receives annually.
Maybe the quantity of comments would go down. But I hope the quality of discussion would go up, which is what a newspaper is about.
Ted was one of my bosses when I was at the N&O so it is with delight that I can say he is wrong. He is trying to impose a newspaper mentality onto the Web. Not as automatically a bad idea as many think, but one that on this topic severely limits the opportunities.
I agree that we all want a civil discussion that fosters a sense of community. I believe wholeheartedly that people learn through intelligent discussion; I know I do. The Web enables individuals to express themselves in all manner of ways. As so many have said, the power and control moves from we publishers to you publishers.
Yes, many anonymous online comments are offensive, off point and stupid. I value comments from people who use their real names because there is a sense of greater accountability. That's not an all-purpose civility filter, however; some of the comments by real people are offensive, off point and stupid, too. Still, there is some there there. I pay little attention to negative, vitriolic comments from people using fake names and fake e-mail address. My guess is that most people do (except for those doing it and they can have each other). We have a non-intrusive registration system on our letters blog to discourage anonymity and shoot-from-the-hip comments. (Our other blogs are monitored by their individual hosts.)
I understand the concept that people who write letters to the editor in the paper are participating in the paper's forum (even though, at the N&O, it's called the "People's Forum.") It's one-way communication, operating under a time and space limitation. Why would the paper want to impose those sorts of restrictions on itself and its users? Especially when it has the opportunity to have a true "People's Forum" online?
I've spoken with individual bloggers who delete comments out of hand they deem inappropriate and make no apologies for it. As free speech advocates, newspapers (print or online) have a different responsibility. We feel a greater obligation to be a more open forum.
The online editor at the N&O takes the stand we take: As more people visit and interact, we believe the good will drive out the bad. I think that is happening on this blog.
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
(Note to those who say this never happens: I'm disagreeing with John!)
I'll give you semi-agreement on the need for anonymity. Sometimes, people have valid reasons for hiding names. If they're offering constructive points, that's great. If they're not, then the anonymity gives you one more reason to ignore them.
In general, though, I don't see the good driving out the bad. I recently read a story on the popular TV message board Television Without Pity, where the philosophy has been to moderate with a heavy hand. Compare those discussions with what you'll find on most newspaper sites, and you'd be tempted to conclude that TWOP readers are a heck of a lot smarter and more civil than newspaper readers.
I'd agree with Ted that such a thing is not what we want to project.
Posted on April 14, 2007 2:25 PM
I think it's still early in the forum discussion development, Beau. So, yes, the wild west feel of forums occasionally occurs.
But it has occurred less often here of late. I presume it is because the posters who tend to drive the discussion into the ditch are getting tired of being ignored. That does mean that I get fewer comments, but the comments I get generally add value.
For a newspaper to begin requiring true identities and then verifying them as they do in the printed product will eliminate the spontaneity of discussion. I appreciate the desire for a brainy discussion. I just don't think that following the model of newspaper editorial pages will get it.
Posted on April 14, 2007 3:47 PM