When you want your letter to the editor to be published in almost any newspaper or magazine, your letter is screened–often edited–and your identity is verified before your views grace the pages.
We have a right to free speech, not anonymity
When you want to publish your thoughts online in the same publication, however, you make up a fake name and write anything you want. Many times, your comment isn’t even screened first–it instantly pops up for thousands to read. Smart comments. Stupid comments. Vulgar comments. Untrue comments. It doesn’t matter.
Seem weird?
Well, today, I found a sad story that caught my eye and captured this disparity perfectly:
“Boy, 9, killed while rescuing duck from the road.”
Hardly a story that would attract profanity, mean-spirited theological debates, and name-calling, right? Well, read on.
The story, published online in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, goes like this. The boy was driving down a rural road with his mom. He sees an injured duck in the middle of the road. He asks his mom if he could rescue it. She pulls over. He picks the duck up and finds a safe spot to lay it down.
But when he crosses the rural two-lane road to return to his mom, he’s killed by an 18-year-old driver. The driver, the police said, was not at fault. Just a tragic accident.
Then I take a look at some of the 80-plus online comments. I couldn’t believe the very first one, from a reader with the handle “SpyderWeb.”
“you would have “lost her to god”? What the hell? Just exactly WHERE was god? Protecting the duck? The kid? Or creating a scenario where everyone loses? Leave “god” outta the picture…”he” ain’t worth mentioning under the best of circumstances.”
His rants–apparently there were more with profanity that were removed after reader complaints–came after a bunch of people wished God’s blessings on both families. Well, Spidey’s rants caused others to rant.
“Spyderweb, it is scum like you that is not worth mentioning under any circumstance, so let this be the last time you are mentioned. Your thoughts and opionions are irrelevant to decent people, and your “what the hell” question should be “whose in hell”? That will be you, soon enough.”
Another:
“SpyderWeb: You are really some kind of low-life, pond scum.”
I could go on.
Other readers lashed out at the mom. A few lashed out at the driver, claiming, incorrectly, that the teen was speeding. Some readers actually lashed out at God. There were also political comments that were removed for being “off topic.”
“What’s wrong with these people?” you might ask. “This is a touchingly sad story about a boy whose compassion got the better of him. Why are so many readers so angry?”
The question you should be asking, however, is “What’s wrong with the Post-Dispatch?“
Seriously. These comments disparage that newspaper more than the anonymous posters disparage themselves.
That’s because they’re anonymous!
If you’ve read anything online lately, you’ve been bombarded by much worse stupidity and hate. Especially political stories. Forget about YouTube. Sometimes I don’t even want to go on that site, as cool as some of the videos are, because the comments sections are filled with so much mindless trash.
So, what’s wrong with the Post-Dispatch? The same thing that’s wrong with many other publications.
They have no idea how to implement social media.
When people are anonymous, they can get crazy. They talk to others in a manner they never would if they were identified. They say things they never would normally in person. They write things without thinking. They write things that aren’t well written. They respond to stories they don’t fully read. Or understand.
They slash, poke, incite–mindlessly.
Cowardly.
It’s time to radically re-think online interactivity.
Yes, it’s (gasp!) time to examine whether social media in the newsroom is all it’s stacked up to be.
In the next post, I’ll explore this topic as well as give some solutions.
In the meantime, can I ask one favor? Whether you’re on TechCrunch, The Wall Street Journal…or your favorite celebrity gossip mag, talk online as if the recipient of your comments was right in front of you. Talk online as if you knew there was a chance that anyone could attach your words to you, the person, not the avatar.
And if you’re responsible for reader interactivity at a publication, well, I hope you’re smarter than the Post-Dispatch and the countless other publications that let readers run wild–all over those mastheads’ reputations.
Until next time.
-Justin Rubner
[...] months ago, I wrote a post, An Injured Duck, a Tragic Death and Anonymous Posters, about the absurdity of allowing nameless readers to post trashy comments on news stories. The post [...]
[...] But what about other people’s publications and blogs? In my previous post, I wrote about a boy who had been killed while rescuing a duck on a rural road. In the comments [...]
I agree Justin. There’s a time for the protection of anonymity, but online comment boxes may not be the best place for a branded news site to provide that cloak. I’d imagine that some editors are concerned they’ll chill free speech if they cull through and only post approved responses – that may be true. But if a publication seeks to foster comments that are “fit to print” and in keeping with their brand then some editorial oversight is needed.