News-Record.com

Ban that thought instead. We don't need more censorship.

I wonder if people had to use their real names (I know, it would be impossible to verify, but maybe one day. Dare to dream.), the quality of the comments would improve?
At least we should try to encourage people to show some courage in their convictions.
I don't buy the idea that this would somehow hinder the the free flow of ideas. That's a cop out.

Mindy, just for discussion, you don't think there are enough places online for infantile and mean-spirited comments to be voiced? Does this have to be one of them?

Thanks, Mike. That's my position, too. I've yet to hear a good reason for anonymous comment.

Why not? Hard to imagine it could be more lackluster & boring than it already is -

Mean and ugly commenting behind an anon name is an Internet entitlement, no?

Of course, in Lakeshia's case, I'd have to ban comments from Holden, too, as they are the same person.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-Noam Chomsky

So, are you saying anything goes? For instance, I shouldn't delete the porn links that come in? That I should let the next commenter post an offensive comment about, say, your mother?

The problem for me is always trying to properly distinguish between comments that are actually over the line and the ones that are simply stupid and annoying.

So people should use their real name when commenting on threads re: corrupt policemen, criminal gangs, crazy city councilwomen who say it doesn't matter how much the city spends because we all could be dead tomorrow, or other kinds of crazy yahoos the N&R overtly or tacitly supports?

What are you guys, brain dead?

Yes, we think people should have the courage of their convictions.

Of course, most of the comments we get from anonymous folks like you don't deal with any of those topics.

Say I work for the S&R widget co. who has widgets they want to sell to the City. At the same time I see the people who I want to sell to are corrupt, incompetent, if not flat-out looney and I want to write a letter to the ed commenting on these people. I sign my real name-no widget sale. I mean, I could just stay quiet, say nothing, but a man's got to eat.

So you are admitting brain death but saying people should be brave?

As I said, courage of your convictions. What you're arguing for is to be able to anonymously attack people. Where's the fairness in that?

Still, are you saying that your comments here under your variety of pseudonyms threaten your livelihood or your safety? I don't think so.

Our comments crossed, but that's good. Explain how that last comment or yours -- or any in this thread -- is threatening to you in anyway. (I could argue that concluding from my comments that I am admitting brain death is infantile.)

John, if you can find one instance where you were attacked by me in an out of context manner with no relevence to the thread or previous threads, show me?

One gets the feeling you are only bothered by anon. posts if they disagree with you, your actions or positions.

Blogs are unsustainable without conflict just like any narrative form. Each thread would quickly die. Blogs are like professional wrestling. People pretend to fight.

What hurts the most is when some of the comments are true. If I say somebody's momma wears combat boots: If your mom has never gone near combat boots, you are going to just laugh it off. If you know for a fact that your mom has, on rare occasions actually, secretly worn combat boots, then you are going to begin to take offense. Maybe this is operative here with recent fiscal events re; city of G-Boro etc.

You have to lighten up.

You're deflecting, to say nothing about suggesting motivations to me without any basis.

I'll ask again: What about any of this discussion fits into your stated argument about needing anonymity?

Okay John, why were you so "burdened" with the disclosure statement re the Canada Dry building. You wanted to remain anon, would have preferred this, no?

I'm getting the idea that you can't answer directly.

You put burdened in quotations. Why? I never used that word. I don't think I even implied it was a burden.

Anyway, the publication of the names proves my point, doesn't it?

So John, if I negatively comment on activities re some gang of ethnic royalty or other, I give my real name, and they visit my abode some night, I can trot out the JR "courage of conviction" blog comment and we can have tea?

I'm flattered you think they read this blog and, even better, the comments on this blog. My point is, don't make attacks if you don't have the courage to be accountable for them. I think your point seems to be that you can say whatever you like as long as you don't have to be accountable for it.

I'll stop asking you to explain how anything you've said here justifies your anonymity.

Thanks for visiting.

John, go back and read your post re; no longer having to use the disclosure statement.

John, I think quite a few people read the blog. I don't think a lot of people necessarily comment, especially with the new courage of conviction thing becomes manifest.

You are saying I'm attacking you. I'm not seeing that at all.

Seriously, if I ever get the chance to sell real estate at a premium price to somebody who says they don't care how much money they have to spend because "tomorrow we all might not be alive", I'm going to do it, and appearences be damned.

Anon was me

Where did I say you're attacking me? I'm not seeing that at all, either.

Oh, have I asked you how anything you've said here justifies your anonymity?

Bottomline: My identity is out there and your's isn't.

Thanks for the discussion. I have work to do.

John I just gave you two reasons, safety and business concerns, for anonymity. How many more do I have to give you?

I've been posting here for years under the same moniker. You know exactly who I am. You are hung up on this. I'm not changing my moniker because of your neurosis.
The best way to deal with any blogger who's opinions you don't like is to attack his logic not fret over who he is? Who's John Robinson? I mean, really, who is he? I would rather have somebody answer me with a moniker than by completely ignoring me, which is your and Allen's modus if you don't want to answer. Go look on the Canada Dry thread again , where you had no intention of answering that Tommy guys completely courteous, relevant post. Do you think ignoring somebody is preferable or more noble than giving a fake name. Not that it's unusal, but I'm having trouble following the logic there.

So that I'm clear, you're saying that the comments you've made on this thread have the potential to endanger either your personal safety or your business? If that's a fair interpretation, can you explain how?

By the way, I, too, invite everyone to revisit the Canada Dry entry and follow the comments.

John, obviously one's business or safety concerns are kind of personal and you couldn't be expected to understand all the ramifications involved, so we'll forgive you. This thread is relatively benign, but like I said before I'm reluctant to change my moniker to indulge your neurosis.

One can understand you perhaps being envious of anonymity since you have to kind of be out there and make disclosure statements. etc.

Can I explain "how"? John, I gave you two obvious examples above. Goodness me, are you not reading my posts

I am going to have to side with Skeet on this one, which is both a first and quite scary. While replying to this post with his real name may not be dangerous to his person or his livelihood, there are threads on NR.com that could anger people with violent pasts.

One that comes to mind is Allen's continuous coverage of Jorge Cornell's quest for peace. Brian444 has come out against this quite vehemently and has questioned Cornell and his supporter's motives. I have supported Brian444 on numerous occasions as I think he makes valid points that need further discussion. Would he bring these thoughts up for discussion with his real name? I'm not sure he would since he has two young daughters and a wife. I know that I would not since I also have two young kids and a wife. Our thoughts should not be discounted though.

Your argument over people knowing who you are raises an interesting point. However, you chose this as a profession knowing the risks/rewards. For many bloggers, this is just a hobby and there is no financial compensation for putting ourselves at risk.

I could buy that if the comments on this blog -- remember, this post is about comments on this blog -- actually ventured into the topics you and skeet refer to. But they rarely do. Instead, they are on mundane topics like the newspaper. What are we going to do, cut off your subscription?

If I were trying to build a conversation that was more constructive and less attack oriented -- people saying I have a neurosis, for example -- wouldn't it be more likely that would result if people had to use their real names and be accountable for what they said?

If you banned infantile and mean comments (which would be a lot of work), two things would happen:

* You'd get more comments from people actually interested in discussing the topic at hand but who are distracted and annoyed by the off-topic and mean commenters.

* You'd get fewer commenters who join in BECAUSE they're pushed to the edge by the offenders.

I'd have been content just to read the blog and never comment if it hadn't been for some responses of this nature.

(It does get tiresome to see the same soap-box themes pop up repeatedly among certain anonymous posters -- usually having nothing to do with the original blog. But that's another topic.)

I apologize if I misunderstood your meaning. Since you are referring to your blog alone, it could work.

I agree that there are instances whereby anonymous blog commenters are justified in hiding their identities -- or at least the conversation is enriched by their input, which they might be afraid to give if it were attached to their name.

But I think those instances are few and far between and almost always involve the threat of violence or some other kind of retaliation.

It's hard for newspaper people to get next to that idea because we put our names on things that get us nasty letters, obscene phone calls and even threats all the time. "Someone might be mad or do something if I put my name on it" once you've spent a little time at a newspaper.

But I also think there's a general coarsening of the tone of debate in this country that's at least partially attributable to the rise of the idea that people should be able to say whatever they want without taking responsibility for what they say, without putting their name on it if they think it's important enough to say.

No sane person would live their offline lives the way some bloggers live their online lives. There are of course things you wouldn't say out loud in front of people every day because you wouldn't want people to know you said it -- there would be consequences to your reputation, your livelihood, even your safety. So you make a choice -- you say it and let consequences be damned or you decide it's not important enough to bother and you keep your mouth shut.

Why that logic disappears on the Internet makes no sense -- except that it CAN. It's the old "what would you be willing to do if you never got caught" quandary.

The ability to hide your identity and not take responsibility for the nasty, juvenile or impolitic things you say is what allows them to be said - and I would argue part of the motivation to say them. I've had some of Greensboro's bravest, most outrageous bloggers say really awful things about me on the Internet, call me names, send me threatening e-mails, tell me they wished I was dead or that they're going to hurt me if they ever see me. But then magically, once we're actually in the same room, they turn sweet as apple pie, shake my hand, give me a hug, even laugh off everything they've said as part of some character they play online.

Which always makes me think: "Well, why don't you either calm down online or grow some balls in real life? Cause this confuses me..."

Oh, Ax, I would apply it to most online comments -- I don't really buy the argument that one's life is in danger if they comment on a blog. After all, do you read the letters to the editor? They attack people and ideas all the time, but I've never heard of a letter writer being assaulted over their opinion.

But, regardless, for the discussion at hand, I only control the comments on this blog.

By using real names, maye we'd see less of what "skeet club savage" wrote at Allen's blog, for example: "JR can then take the buy-out, retires to Fantasy Island somewhere in the Bahamas, where all rich people and C.E.O's etc. go who have raped the country dry...."

If you go to a restaurant and you felt the steak was over cooked and the service was awful (aside from whether that is true), do you summon the manager while hiding under the table, disguising your voice as you complain about the service and then tell him he should retire along with the other corporate rapists?

The manager wouldn't find you that credible. And if you kept returning, along with others hiding under tables insulting the restaurant staff (I know. Why would you keep returning to the same place if you can't stand the manager? Beats me.), other patrons who just wanted to sit down and socialize like adults would leave, a point Cindy was making.

Joe,
I heard a rumor that your birth name is not Joe Killian. Are you writing under a pseudonym?

Skeet said that about me? Well, I could understand why he'd want to say that anonymously. If it weren't such a mean-spirited and infantile comment -- hey, we're back to the original idea of this blog post! -- I'd have one of my many bodyguards go rough him up.

John, here's what ya do? You give all the reasons WHY that was a mean-spirited comment, use facts or proof of why people shouldn't have conflict of interest concerns etc. Turn the tables on the person. Instead you act hurt and fret over people saying you're neurotic.

Jerry -

It's true my birth-name is not Joe Killian. It's an old family name I've used rather than my birth-name not just in my writing but in my life since I was 19. It's down to family stuff owing to divorce and separation and nothing to do with attempting to hide my identity. I wrote about the change when I decided on it and it's always been public.

Everyone who knows me - including my family - calls me Joe Killian.

Who is this Mike Fuchs guy?. Is he really Mike Fuchs? I don't know. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. If it's really Mike, it means something to me. If it isn't, then it's irrelevant and they are just words that have simply landed here out of the ether and I can discount it.

Anyway, he's saying some bad things about me about that under the table stuff. Oh, fie!

Yeah, you're right, skeet. That was a constructive, helpful comment about me moving to where all those who raped the country dry. Sorry I misread it.

Joe, you need to see if Robinson, Lord of the Log, will recognize ''Joe" as acceptable, since it's not on your birth certificate.

Jerry, I can't believe you've outed Joe or whatever his name is.

John,
Has the N&R ever made it known that Joe Killian is is not Joe Killian? Does the newspaper have a policy about reporters using pseudonyms?

What a silly conversation I just stumbled onto. Looks like John even recognizes it now.

Skeet, you should have played this discussion differently. Instead of acting as if you are a victim here -- read your first comment and see who is attacking and name-calling -- you could have said, "Look, I fear for my job and my safety on some blogs. I choose to keep one sign on so that people will know that it is the same person, even if my comment isn't offensive or whatever it is that sets John off. That allows people to know my voice across several blogs.

"That is consistent as well as fair to my privacy. If you choose to delete my comments, well, it's your blog. And your loss."

We had an item about Joe adopting his old family name, Killian, in 2003.

I'm not aware of any policy addressing it. As a sidenote, it has been a relatively accepted practice here and at many media orgs for married women to use their maiden names, if they wish.

John,
The item you mention about Joe Killian’s name change appeared in the Campus Notebook column on Feb. 10, 2003. It follows:

“Joe Killian and Joe Wilbur are the same guy. Killian is the managing editor of the Carolinian, UNCG’s student newspaper. The former Joe Wilbur changed his surname last summer to Killian. It is an old family name, Killian said, one he prefers to Wilbur.”

The column doesn’t say whether Joe legally changed his name. Neither do you or Joe. Did he?

Your comment implies that the N&R informed its readers that staff writer Joe Killian is, or was, Joe Wilbur. But Joe didn’t work for the N&R at the time the item appeared. Since he joined the staff, readers have not been informed about his identity.

@Jerry: "The column doesn’t say whether Joe legally changed his name. Neither do you or Joe. Did he?"

I couldn't find a Joe Killian registered to vote in Guilford County when I was researching voter registration status of local journalists this fall.

I did this morning find a Joe Wilbur registered in precinct G44 in Guilford County.

I don't think Joe has legally changed his name. I'm unclear on precisely what you consider problematic with his use of the name.

It means, in Robi-Land, that Joe doesn't stand by the "courage of his convictions". I thought we established that.

John, I think there is a solution here. You can buy retinal scanners that can plug into a computer. (they are a little costly, but what the heck. Like Goldie says "we could all be dead tomorrow").
This will instantly transmit an identifying retinal signature to the N&R for each blogger. Wa-la, no more courage of conviction issue!

I think today's article is a pretty good reason why for some it is a good idea to blog without using their true identity. With employers doing searches on employees it's a gray area on what is your personal life and what can get you fired.

http://www.news-record.com/content/2008/11/25/article/school_employee_fired_over_facebook_post

However I do think some people remain anonymous so they can attack and ridicule others which is unacceptable and lends nothing to the discussion.

Re: "However I do think some people remain anonymous so they can attack and ridicule others which is unacceptable and lends nothing to the discussion."
Thank you for bringing it back to the original point of my suggesting we encourage folks to use their real names. Heck, you can call yourself Mary Poppins for all I care, so long as you're not using that as cover so you can smear others without being held accountable. Many famous authors use fake names and that's fine. Last I checked, for example, Stephen King isn't using "Richard Bachman" as cover so he can launch smear campaigns against other people while disingenuously claiming he can't help it because he's afraid of gang members or his business being maligned.

Mike, could you provide an example of such smear tactics?

Joe Wilbur has been outed on JR's Blog!!

The horror...

Yes, and this negates everything he's ever written.
JR may even try to get Mark Twain thrown out of the Library of Congress

Hi "skeet." Here's part of the disadvantage of blogging. It's hard sometimes to determine whether someone is being sarcastic, sincere or feigning ignorance, especially when they're using a fake name.

Don't take this personally, but I honestly don't have the time to sit around and ponder which of the above.

But if you're being sincere, I'll be happy to talk to you on the phone about it. Don't worry - you won't have to disguise your voice.

Here's my direct line: 336-373-3465.

Okay, Mike. I see above you had some pique about JR "moving to the Bahamas, or some such where rich people, CEO's and other people who have raped the country dry go". Although people would have to read the whole context of the post which dealt with conflict of interest concerns (does anyone think Goldie or DBS would have voted to buy Canada Dry if it was owned by The Hammers, for instance?) this was meant to describe a place, and not to imply JR has done this. (after taxes and the bankers are paid and the money is split, Canada Dry probably isn't going to get JR to the Bahamas-but I can't say). Even if, how is wishing somebody retire well in some tropic paradise a smear? Is this not the embodiment of the American Dream? I think what miffed JR the most was... this is generally considered (gulp)a REPUBLICAN behavior.

I do realize now that this was something that was easily mis-interpreted and should have been said in a different manner and I apologize to JR.

Mr. Robinson,

It would be really interesting to me if your question on anonymous posters was asked and answered by Mr. O. Scott Card - being as he was writing about this very thing well over twenty years ago.

If I remember correctly, the children in his book, wrote under anonymous names to avoid losing credibility for being children. I will agree that the opposite usually occurs - adults writing under anonymous names come across as being children.

I thought it was good to maintain one's inner child.
I also formally thought it was a good idea to try to live as frugally as possible and now Goldie says not to worry, tomorrow we could all be dead.

People seem to be doing away with all the old parameters?

Makes one confused.

I was thinking my question about the perceived problem with Joe's name would get an answer.

Pending that, I'll say this. For me, identifying yourself is about transparency. In Joe's case, everyone knows him as Joe Killian. He identifies himself to sources as Joe Killian. Call the newspaper and ask for him and they will transfer you. Call the phone number at the end of his stories, and you'll get him. E-mail him and he will get it. He is easy to find. Are our readers confused or deceived by his chosen name? I don't think so.

He also uses his name when he debates issues on the blogs. He doesn't use a moniker. He doesn't change it from topic to topic or blog to blog. You know who you're debating. If you don't like what he says and want to speak to him privately, you can find him pretty easily.

This issue is different from the one that most of these comments are about. This isn't about someone who anonymously criticizes someone else.

Not that I want to start the silliness up again.

John,
Even though you attempt to set up any response to your last comment as “silliness, let’s take a realistic look at this situation.

You hire Joe Wilbur to be a reporter. You pay Joe Wilbur. But for whatever reasons, Joe Wilbur doesn’t want to be Joe Wilbur. He wants to be Joe Killian. Yet he doesn’t want to go to the trouble of legally changing his name.

So you allow all of his articles to be published under the name Joe Killian. But you don’t inform your readers that Joe Killian actually is Joe Wilbur. Therefore every article that appears under the byline of Joe Killian contains at least one fabrication that you know to be a fabrication—the name of the reporter. And you apparently have no problem with misleading readers in this way.

There is a long literary tradition of pseudonyms. The question is this: when a reporter uses a pseudonym without the reader’s knowledge how is that not a lie?

John,
Even though you attempt to set up any response to your last comment as “silliness, let’s take a realistic look at this situation.

You hire Joe Wilbur to be a reporter. You pay Joe Wilbur. But for whatever reasons, Joe Wilbur doesn’t want to be Joe Wilbur. He wants to be Joe Killian. Yet he doesn’t want to go to the trouble of legally changing his name.

So you allow all of his articles to be published under the name Joe Killian. But you don’t inform your readers that Joe Killian actually is Joe Wilbur. Therefore every article that appears under the byline of Joe Killian contains at least one fabrication that you know to be a fabrication—the name of the reporter. And you apparently have no problem with misleading readers in this way.

There is a long literary tradition of pseudonyms. The question is this: when a reporter uses a pseudonym without the reader’s knowledge how is that not a lie?

You consider that a lie. I don't. Where's the deception?

Another example: My brother's name is Walter, but for his entire life we have called him Mike. He has published under that name. Mike is not part of his legal name. Is he lying? No. Am I participating in a lie when I call him that? No. That's how people know him. That's what he answers to.

John, why don't you just admit: If you like what people are saying you don't care about their name. And if you don't then pre-occupation with identities occurs. John, the purpose of the blog is to air things in a public forum not "if you don't like what someone is saying you can speak with them "privately" and know where to find them". That's the whole problem- closed-door back- room deals.

If somebody is voicing conflict of interest concerns re the newspaper or a destructive hands off, laissez-faire attitude towards city gvt. by the N&R, even though it's coming apart at the seams, talking in private does no good. What you do is answer these posts. It's you own arrogance and reluctance to talk that leads you to become pre-occupied with people's identities. Like you say: "your deflecting"

That whole first paragraph of your comment is just made up. You may believe it, but that doesn't make it true. Still, there you are saying it on this blog and in public. I haven't deleted it.

So we're back at the beginning: I believe that people, particularly if they are talking about other people as you so often do, should be man enough to do so without hiding behind an anonymous sign-on.

You don't. So let's save ourselves sometime and move on to another topic, skeet.

John, do you know personally everyone who reads the N&R? Why can't you just treat people on the blog as just another part of your reading public. Would it be easier to change my name to J.Q. Public. Surely you don't think Skeet club is the only guy in town who has conflict of interest concerns . You think you can micro-manage your image when you run a newspaper? That's ridiculous. The ideas live apart from the person. A blog is a huge idea collective that's bigger than any single person's idenity and must accomodate all kinds of wackos-that's the idea. It makes you look like some kind of supercilious reader of People Magazine-your pre-occupation with who individual people "are".

JOHN ROBINSON-CERTIFIED-SAFE BLOG ENTRY

Okay, John. I've thought about it and like you said, I talk about people too much.

I'm switching to plants and animals. I heard there's a good tobacco crop this year.

Think I'll rent Kung-Fu Panda this weekend, heard it's good.

When all is said and done, pre-oocupation with somebody's identity instead of WHAT they are saying is a last-ditch attempt to de-certify what they are saying, when you can't or don't want to de-certify it using argument or logic.

Limit off-topic posts by pegging each discussion to a single piece of editorial content – in other
words, discussions must be tied to an article rather than a broad topic.

Herein lies the rub