The most Popular Posts of the past seven days.
Sep 3, 2009
Comments in the paper
I've complained before about those "reader comments" a lot of newspapers now include after many of their stories. I suppose they thought it would somehow add enjoyment to their product. I've said it is as if the papers decided to take the worst of talkradio and mix it in with the journalism they've labored to present.
Now The Birmingham News has finally woken up to the fact that the comments are sometimes nasty, racist, and hateful. About time! Read Joey Kennedy's comments...there's also a link there to their editorial about the issue.
Here's my take Joey: as long as you allow people to make the comments without having to include their real names, there will continue to be people who will make comments you wouldn't want your Mama to read.
And as I've asked before: what was wrong with the letters to the editor system?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I stopped posting at the MOntgomery Advertiser site two years ago when it descended to vile racism and name-calling, with no moderation.
ReplyDeleteThere are other local forums such as Talk Montgomery where "a good time is had by all."
The desire for Anonymity in this case is based in fear.
ReplyDeleteFear that others will know what 'you' think, or what 'you' wrote while under some influence of whatever emotion, substance, etc.
Folks whom post anonymously are afraid of retribution for their evil remarks, and the vile and putrid effluvium that pours not from their lips, but their corrupted souls.
Simultaneously, it is their own conscience that nags them about their remarks or thoughts. And so they wrestle - not with what they want to express or loose, but whether the actions that are the ultimate end of their diatribes, could ultimately and willfully damage others. They know internally that it is not right by others so to do.
Actions based in, or upon fear are rarely productive.
On occasion, I have posted to newspaper forums, though I find very little value in it, save perhaps for whatever "virtual" entertainment it may provide in the sense that we hope we're "communicating" with someone.
However, as crippled as our feeble words are, they can never replace the face-to-face method of communication in which the nuances of facial expression, body position, eyes, vocal inflection and other non-verbal indicators all support or dissuade the veracity of the speaker and remarks.
As you suggest, Tim, there are good reasons to give heed and oversight to any system, whether for "communication" purposes or not. For if it is left unattended, it falls into disrepair, decay and chaos, thereby making it unfit because it was allowed to self-destruct through neglect.
Sure, people CAN have their say, yet they must do so within appropriately civil and legal guidelines.
Say... isn't that concept one we should've learned, at the latest, by THIRD GRADE?