I’m really struggling with this one. Here’s the question:
Should newspapers publish every letter to the editor and every comment on every letter online, no matter how vile, insensitive, ignorant, petulant, or mean?”
I was the victim of this editor-less trend twice in the last couple of years: Once when I suggested privately that Karl Rove was possibly not the best choice of keynote speaker for a real estate convention (and someone leaked it to the press), and another when I was speaking out against the repeal of a local indoor smoking ban. The unmoderated online vitriol that followed got so bad that friends began asking me about my security system. I was called a commie, anti-American, self-centered, narcissistic, domineering, do-gooder, self-righteous, shmenah (?), creep, perverted, a-hole, nagging nanny, tyrannical, omnipotent moral busy-body, tormentor, arrogant jerk, rich social elitist, and [mother of] lawn apes. When it was revealed that I was a real estate agent, they added histrionic, radical, greedy, two-faced, unethical, con artist, and puke in the mouth.
This is the internet, and what goes out there stays out there forever. If someone Googles me—say, a potential employer—they might see this stuff and who knows what they might take from it? (I’m not really worried about that, but you can see the potential.) And on a broader level, this vociferous bellowing becomes our collective history. If the majority of the people who participate are the angry, ranting mobs, then what legacy are we leaving? Finally, for a small town, how does this look to potential visitors or investors who read the paper online to get an idea of what the place is like? Is that the image tourist destinations want?
As you can imagine, I learned never to participate in a newspaper’s online conversation again, but the trend continues. There are new rants daily which show up in my Facebook feed (I don’t go looking for them), and that brings me back to my question:
What do you think about unmoderated open forums on news sites?”
I’ve left that town now. This isn’t the reason, but leaving and looking back have really shown me how disturbing this appears from the outside looking in.
Bottom line, I’m all about the First Amendment, but it doesn’t say anything about a person’s right to have their diatribes published on news sites whenever they please just because they can type and click Enter.
What do you think? Should online newspapers exercise more discretion?
P.S. All those lovely bon mots and the people who offered them behind the veil of anonymous handles are verifiable online. Email me and I’ll send you the link if you feel the need to check. Otherwise, I’m not giving them any additional “ink.”
#1 by Janet on May 27, 2011 - 1:09 pm
Well said, Alice. Glad to be your muse of the day.
A friendly editorial piece: the following sentence needs a “to”
“As you can imagine, I learned never participate in a newspaper’s online conversation again, but the trend continues.”
#2 by Alice Melott on May 27, 2011 - 1:13 pm
Thanks! Always happy to have a proofreader on board! BTW — Ranting has found me on my writing FB page. http://facebook.com/alicethewriter. That didn’t take long.
#3 by Kevin Brady on May 27, 2011 - 1:17 pm
Neither civil discourse nor common decency can be legislated, only encouraged and nurtured. We are free to express our opinions and free to ignore the opinions of others. As Oscar Wilde said, “Arguments are extremely vulgar, because everyone in good society has the same opinion”. If there is no legal recourse to remedy the damage from the slurs of the anonymous, then it would seem our choice is to weigh the risks of being opinionated against the discomfort of silence. Who would have guessed that a start-up company could have raised millions of dollars in venture capital by selling a service that makes you look good when someone does a Google search on you? Its the Wild, Wild Web and the social implications are . Thanks for encouraging thinking Alice!
#4 by Kevin Brady on May 27, 2011 - 1:21 pm
I cleverly (not so much) used HTML tag delimiters in my next to last sentence, which should read “…the social implications are “fill in the blank, there are many opinions”. HINT: Don’t use the greater than or less than signs on blog replies…
#5 by Alice Melott on May 27, 2011 - 1:28 pm
Learn something new everyday! Thanks, Kevin!
#6 by Alice Melott on May 27, 2011 - 1:31 pm
And thanks, too, to Mr. Wilde.
#7 by Alex on May 27, 2011 - 7:29 pm
My theory about invective people is that they are “old children” who never felt like they got their fair share of the attention cookie jar. They want attention and when they don’t get it, they ratchet up the vile bile until they do.
Once one puts oneself out as a “public figure”, it’s much more difficult to legally pursue violations of privacy or defamation. They know this. I am afraid my dear that you have become by your actions, a “public figure.” Anyone worth their human resource salt knows that the wackos are at work on the internet attacking any public figure they choose.
My best advice:
1- Ignore the screaming two-year-old whose limited language skills prevent them from participating in a reasonable discussion.
2- Add “public figure” to your resume.
Love Alex
#8 by Alice Melott on May 27, 2011 - 10:24 pm
Amen, Brother!
#9 by J Diane Oliver-Jensen on May 28, 2011 - 1:33 pm
There are up positives and negatives to our relatively recent cultural turns towards more free & open discourse on subjects previously taboo, promulgated initially by talk shows like Phil Donahue & Oprah. Unfortunately, to get on air, competitors such as Maury and Jerry Springer had to “up the ante” and add more shock value bringing either more difficult topics or less socially acceptable witnesses, thereby allowing us all to feel better about ourselves, if only in comparison. Then, to stay on air, these same trash talk shows had to continually up the previously upped ante and the downward spiral thus created has continued unabated. We now are subjected to politicians who use this same strategy to get their campaign sound bites, confident that we will not collectively fact-check their allegations against each other.
To be heard today, it seems that the most important factor is not how well thought out your points or carefully chosen your words may be. Rather, it is most important to yell the loudest, accuse most outlandishly, and, in attempted blue humor, use the most vulgar analogy. I have rarely entered into political discussions in my life because I have witnessed too many who believe that “if you’re not with me you are against me” and all who believe otherwise are evil. I do relish a good political debate, but good debates are so profoundly rare that it is a pleasure I have been able to partake of only a handful of times in my life.
It is a reality that makes me profoundly sad, but one that I do strive to change at every opportunity. If I can loosen the grip of this malady on only one person, I believe I may have left this world a better place. Remain strong, Alice. Lead by example and join me in being prepared to be there for those who would trash us, for someday they too will get trashed and may need an understanding and empathetic person to show them a better way.
#10 by Adair on June 27, 2011 - 2:06 pm
Alice, I completely agree about the nature of so many of the online comments about newspaper articles – there seem to be a number of anonymous and cruel (and speculative and unsubstantiated) “regulars” and they write the most vicious sorts of things. You should read them in the Times-Picayune’s affiliated website, Nola.com. I don’t know what the editor’s responsiblities there are; my own sense of responsibility is thaat I don’t ever read them any more. As for letters to the editor – I would think – hope – that a responsible editor would try to publish all letters, especially the signed ones, but if the paper has a large circulation, there just isn’t room, so someone has to make some decisions; an old friend of mine has that job with a VERY large newspaper, and tries to choose letters coveering all angles of any controversy, as well as particularly well-written letters.
#11 by Alice Melott on June 27, 2011 - 2:08 pm
When my letter to the NY Times was published some years ago, I had to go through an entire interview process to ensure I was who I said I was and that I could substantiate my view. What I see in (esp. smaill) local newspapers these days is that they’ll publish absolutely anything, no matter how idiotic, ignorant, inflammatory, etc. In the end, I think you have the right idea — don’t read it! I think I can, I think I can, I think I can…