The publication policy of the “Comment” section of today’s press varies. Most of them state that your comments will be looked over before publication. Often you read the comments posted, and you wonder what you’d have to write before they wouldn’t publish it. In others, the conversation borders on academics; it’s so polite. What’s the difference? I haven’t done any research, but I’m willing to bet it’s the operational rather than stated policy of the host that makes the most difference.
Most sites claim they don’t allow “Flaming.” Flaming is a vicious personal attack on a previous commentator. It’s the kind of commentating that has been popularized by TV pundits, shock jocks, and talk radio personalities. The situation is here that you can say anything, no matter how insulting and gratuitous, in the name of free speech.
What makes this kind of dialogue more frustrating to readers is that many of these online “personalities “ are regulars. They show up and throw up on every issue, usually along political lines. All of the threadbare insults and some truly innovative versions are hauled out in every screed. RINO. Libby, Commipunks, Reganuts, and, my favorite, Choo Choo Train Lovers are bantered about like badminton birds lofting and descending on us like snowflakes with parachutes, but alas, they are not snowflakes but ash from an effigy burning. The rationale is pretty obvious. If I can evoke a reaction, then people will pay attention to me. Junior High school, you say. I agree, but it gets published.
The other problem results from mechanics. Each entry is not part of a conversation thread but a side conversation going on during a discussion. Progressive insults conservative, then there are two or three unrelated additions to the thread that may or may not be informative. Then conservative, doing his best imitation of Glen Beck, flames progressive. Two or more entries, and then Progressive comes back. You get the picture.
I’m not about censorship. I applaud the writer who states facts, backs them up, and has a well-reasoned argument, even if I disagree with it. That is what freedom of speech and the democratic process are all about. Unfortunately, we live in a time of the politics of the personal. I’m sure the guy that dislikes President Obama as much as I disliked George Bush is tempted to pull out his Steven Colbert personality and inject it into the dialogue, but it is neither appropriate nor helpful. Unless your preaching to the converted, that tactic just turns off people who just might be swayed by your argument if it was minus the bile.
I am writing a letter to the editor and asking them to not publish, in the comments section of their articles, any entries containing flaming, poor grammar, nonsentences, and attacks on other opinions without stating an opinion of their own. That should cut half the junk anyway.
Soon: ”Political office requires that you vote for a budget and tax people to pay for it. When did the tax and spend label become the property of one party? ”
And where is the almost broke; (do you think we can last a other 6 months?) newspaper going to find the money to moderate such board? There is no one minding the store at the Times and WSJ. Your local editor will agree and then just laugh like when a lady complains to the cops about those kids riding skateboards on the sidewalk.
ReplyDeleteI choose not to read the comments section as I assume most of the information was in the story. By the end I know how I feel about it and what some screamer thinks about it will not change my mind. It works out great. He gets to talk and I get to not listen. (please check for gramatical errors befor posting.)
Don't read them, or limit yourself to seldom reading them. I am impressed they have gotten under so many skins for so long.
ReplyDeleteAs bad as it is, when the MJS goes down there will be little left but a vast sea of noise and at that point the citizen journo folks of quality will need real business models or patrons if there is to be more than a total swamp made of public discourse.
It's so bad anyway, maybe it doesn't matter. What other metro regions have substantial populations (like two thirds) that simply wish to cut off, strangle, and somehow see the disappearance of the other half or third? The reality of a fundamentally broken society may be that this is as good as it gets in the civic participation arena.