Already a member?
Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
Emily Ma is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Emily Ma and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Brazen careerist
Where ambitious young professionals connect and grow
Email
Print
Connie Schultz points out some obvious problems with anonymous blog commenters in her Sunday column. In many ways, she's absolutely right. On the other hand, why did it take her so long to finally write this column?
The evil of anonymity has been known to anyone who has participated in an internet discussions at any point in time. Before blogs there were forums and message boards. Some were moderated, others were free-for-alls. The difference in the quality of discussion was like night and day. The ones that were closely monitored had the opportunity for decent discussions; those without any rules were always reduced to the least common denominator, pushing away those with anything worthwhile to say and leaving only the nonsense and banter that had almost no value.
Schultz's take is:
Anonymous comments also alienate many thoughtful readers, who are the majority of people who read newspapers. When readers complain to me about ugly comments, I urge them to weigh in, but most balk. It's like trying to persuade your friends to visit a great tavern in a bad neighborhood: They want nothing to do with that side of town.
This basically describes me. I read a lot of blogs and a lot of news articles. The solution to offensive anonymous comments is actually very simple, but the burden lies with the content provider, not the reader: delete them. Any time a post is dominated obnoxious comments, it makes me wonder what value the author actually sees in them and why I should bother adding my own opinion?
I think there is another problem that might go overlooked when it comes to newspaper comments. A city's newspaper is supposed to be a voice of reason for a particular place. By extension, it isn't a stretch to think that commenter opinion represents the opinion of people in that place. When out-of-towners visit a city's paper for whatever reason and all they see is comments dominated by people who can't write properly or form a respectable opinion or say anything good about their own city, what are the visitors supposed to think about that city or the people who live there?
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles,
subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
- Continuing Education: Extending Learning Beyond Your Campus Years
- The Anti-Stalker’s Guide for Converting Online Contact into Real World Collaboration
- How To Find a Writing Partner Who Can Help You Achieve Your Goals and Make More Money
- A New Kind of Business Mover and Shaker
- Why You Might Be Better Off Without a Job After College
Comments
09.29.09
I haven't read the original article yet, but I just wanted to touch upon your last paragraph: "A city's newspaper is supposed to be a voice of reason for a particular place. By extension, it isn't a stretch to think that commenter opinion represents the opinion of people in that place"
So by extension would you only let people who live in that city comment on a particular newspaper story online? I know many obnoxious people in my local town that write the darnedest things on local stories, things that make our city sound like a NIMBY place where the locals are intolerant. I happen to know that not all of our city is like that and there those obnoxious comments are not something that I personally believe - but the fact of the matter is that we live in a democracy and people have the right to voice their opinion. If a newspaper provides a forum for this, then that is where they will voice their opinion there.
Anytime you have moderatorial control over posts (be it in comments, or forums or whatnot) you always run the risk of alienating your users. Newspapers and organizations do (or at least should) have guidelines that people read and agree to before they can post. In many forums where I am a member I have to abide by the rules, or else I may get banned (or have my posts removed).
Users need to know what is fair game and what is not, and how that fair game is pursued. Otherwise you will risk losing your readers. In many ways newspapers might be fighting a losing battle considering that most things they cover (politics and sports for example) are hot button issues. The people who have a weak stomach need to buck up and stand up to these internet jackasses with whom they disagree :-)
As a final note, I like my anonymity, fleeting as it might be :-)
09.29.09
Anonymity is a good thing.. to avoid tyranny of judgement from the masses and glare of the media. I am a strong believer in the message than the messenger who brings it to me.
Thanks,
09.30.09
I can understand reasons for anonymity, but license to be a nuisance shouldn't come with it. It's like here, the disclaimer makes it clear about comments. I know that offensive ones usually are the culprits, but the phrase "not in context" is just as important. If there isn't constructive contribution, it should be fair to delete (and you don't have to be anonymous to be nonconstructive). I think some of the earlier rules about letting everything stay, that monitoring loses readership and credibility, doesn't hold as true now that more people are utilizing the web. Again, provided there's a disclaimer, I'm really only looking to read comments that relate to the post. I get really turned off my blogs where the comments sections are similar to high school Slam Books.
On a slightly different note, I think there's also something to be said about credibility to the Named vs. the Anonymous. I trust named sources than anonymous, but it's a personal thing. Sure, I could be dismissing some great stuff from those contributors, but I just can't trust the source.
Thanks for the post Rob!
Got Something To Say?
Got Something To Say?
Not a Member? Brazen Careerist is a career management tool for next-generation professionals. Set up a free account today to comment on this post and start sharing your ideas. Learn more.
Login to view your networks!
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
