Newspapers rethink Internet anonymity

Online comments are supposed to stimulate an “open dialog” about issues in blogs, news stories, and other Internet forums. But when comments are anonymous, they often disintegrate into a cesspool of hateful, nasty words directed at the author or subject of the article.

A Cleveland judge recently discovered that anonymous postings are not always so anonymous. After a series of offensive comments about a local attorney were posted on its Web site, a Cleveland newspaper publicly disclosed that the comments were posted from an e-mail address of a judge who was presiding over some of the lawyer’s cases. The judge’s 23-year-old daughter admitted to posting the comments, and the judge sued the newspaper for violating her privacy.

While the Internet creates new ways for people to connect and share ideas, sometimes people go too far. Newspapers are trying to find ways to regulate these interactions – something they have found rather difficult.

To read more about how the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, and other newspapers are trying to regulate comment streams, click here.

What do you think about online commenting?

Where are the comment police?

Heated debates are occurring in newsrooms across the state regarding when/how/if to let readers post online comments about stories. The Duluth News Tribune did some soul-searching recently about online comments that some say bordered on racist. It seems most papers, as they struggle to engage readers, feel the need to let readers have an open forum to say what they wish – usually without even having to post their real names. Then they are surprised when the discussion deteriorates quickly. We hear from clients who don’t even want to post credible online comments, because they don’t want to be in the company of inarticulate radicals. See where this is going? It’s not good. It’s time to reclaim this valuable online space.

Editors, who already have what appears to be an arbitrary process for deciding which stories merit online commenting and which don’t, should flex more muscle here. Just say no to comments that don’t add something valuable to the public discussion. Editors make subjective decisions every day about what stories to cover, which ones make the front page, and who gets to write on the editorial pages. Then why surrender so much control when it comes to online comments?