The proliferation of newspapers online is forcing a number of papers to deal with the nature of anonymous comments sometimes made on their Web sites. Papers generally welcome more site traffic and the potential for greater advertising revenue but the anonymity can facilitate libelous or malicious statements.
Some who submit anonymous postings do so because they fear retaliation for forthright but not necessarily incendiary comments. Newspapers have the means to tag inappropriate remarks or personal attacks.
Less Clear Standards for Online Commenting
Still the nature of print and online comments can vary, with the standards sometimes more vague for what’s posted on papers’ Web sites. Others see an inconsistency in requiring the verifiable identity of writers of letters sent to editors while not making the same demands for online comments. They also point to the use by the press of anonymous sources in stories because of possible harm from disclosing their identity.
Online comments can function efficiently if an overseer carefully monitors them, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn said. “I understand why some people don’t want to attach their real names to comments: Search engines being what they are, your stated opinions can follow you now for decades like a cloud of gnats,” he wrote in his Change of Subject column, “Pseudonymity can battle the scourage of comment anonymity” in the April 1, 2010 Tribune. “If your name is unusual enough, a prospective employer, blind date, new neighbor or anyone else can stick your name into a search engine and discover reams’ worth of tossed-off opinions, rants and retorts, some of which you may, by then, deeply regret.”
Many newspapers have long held to the theory that those who comment online will watch what they say if they know their remarks can be traced to them. For that reason papers have had readers who want to submit comments first set up a screen name, nickname, first name, or initials linked to a user profile that is reserved exclusively for a specific individual, sometimes even including brief biographical information.
Self-Monitoring Sometimes Only Safeguard
At times asking readers to monitor comments themselves may be the only recourse for papers. "Newspapers have lost a lot of money and a lot of staff. So it’s difficult now to properly vet online reader response,” John Stoehr wrote in “Newspapers, online anonymity and the right’s rhetoric of violence,” in the March 31, 2010 New Haven Advocate.
One tool papers have favored for civil discourse is having authors online for a discussion about their articles, rather than simply giving a forum for comments on a particular story to other sites such as Facebook or Twitter.
Often times the comments section of newspaper sites may be read by those who don’t comment themselves but want to see what others say on a topic. Some observers contend newspapers should be able to manage online comments or dispense with them altogether.
Columnist Connie Schultz advocated in the Cleveland Plain Dealer for ending anonymous comments completely. Her commentary followed the decision by one of the paper’s editors to reveal the e-mail address of an anonymous commenter of numerous posts on the Plan Dealer companion site, a move which appalled many privacy advocates. The address was traced to Cuyahoga County, Ohio Judge Shirley Strickland whose official actions in court cases were closely covered in the paper. The judge denied making any comments though her daughter said she had made the comments under her mother's e-mail.
Strickland and her daughter, Sydney, subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Plain Dealer for violation of the newspaper's Web site privacy policy in publishing confidential information used in setting up the username under which the comments in question were made.
Opposition to Eliminating All Comments for Offensiveness
Even with anonymous comments that rejoice over the deaths of public figures such as Sen. Edward Kennedy or columnist Robert Novak, Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander is opposed to their overall elimination, instead favoring moderating them.
“For every noxious comment, many more are astute and stimulating,” Alexander wrote in “Online readers need a chance to comment, but not to abuse” in the April 4, 2010 Washington Post. “Anonymity provides necessary protection for serious commenters whose jobs or personal circumstances preclude identifying themselves. And even belligerent anonymous comments often reflect genuine passion that should be heard.”
The Post is now developing a system that would categorize commenters by tier based on their previous online comments and whether they have followed the newspaper’s related guidelines and given their real names when submitting comments. “Repeat violators or discourteous agitators will be grouped elsewhere or blocked outright,” Alexander said. “Comments of first-timers will be screened by a human being.”
John Seidenberg - John Seidenberg has worked on newspapers, newsletters, radio news, and produced specialized news publications as well as freelance ...
