One of the most difficult policy decisions we’ve had to make since starting the Chestertown Spy is how we treat readers’ comments. Almost from the day we started publishing last summer, the fact that the Spy does not require real names for comments has troubled a number of our readers. And it has troubled us as well.
a
Unlike op-ed pieces or letters to the editor, where it has been a long standing policy with newspapers to request a full name and address, posted comments on the internet is a relatively new phenomenon. However, the web tradition of having user names instead of a commenter’s legal name is a well-established one, going back to the first computer user groups in the late seventies. In fact, even mainstream institutions like the New York Times and the Washington Post do not require full names in their comments section.
a
While this precedent has helped shape the Spy’s comment policy, it also needs to be said that no matter how repugnant or ignorant some of these views can be, they do reflect a part of this community, whether a real name is attached or not. The Spy believes is is important for our readers to know those views regardless of how cowardly they have been presented.
a
Dave Wheelan
Publisher
Donna Endzel says
I agree, anyone who won’t put their name to a comment is a coward!
Publius says
The right to anonymously criticize, whether it be government or one’s political opponents, is a cherished right well-enshrined in our nation’s history. Provided that one’s statements are not defamatory or otherwise act to infringe on the rights of someone else, they are clearly protected speech and should be recognized as such.
While one might find it distasteful or even maddening to have criticism levied from behind the shroud of anonymity, there are some who have good reason for standing behind such a veil. And while anonymous statements should have that attribute measured as part of one’s measuring of the weight of such comments, it should only be one criterion among many.
In the end, anonymous statements should be judged on their merits, like any other statements made in comment on something written (or something done).
– Call Me Publius
Gren Whitman says
As Dave Wheelan knows, I am a Spy reader who’s “troubled” by anonymous comments, and I am sorry he continues to permit them in his otherwise admirable publication.
Mr. W., the Times, the Post, and other responsible publications do NOT print letters to the editor from unidentfied persons. Yes, they DO permit anonymity in their blogs, but, frankly: (1) Do you slog into there often? (2) Who bothers to read all that silliness, anyway? And (3), most important, who cares?
The only anonymous comments of lasting value were the Federalist Papers — pssst, penned by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay! Does Mr. (or Ms.) “Publius” imagine his (or her) thoughts are actually on a par with those three? If so, perhaps he (or she) will tell us all — anonymously, of course! — where to buy what he’s (she’s) smoking!
His “Comment on Comments” indicates anonymity troubles Mr. Wheelan. Regarding such, Mr. Dooley wisely noted a century ago, “Ye can’t be sint to jail f’r it, but it’s a kind iv a disgrace.” It also makes the Spy a schitzophrenic sort of publication as it treats anonymity as equally valuable as public expression.
Keith Thompson says
As divisive as politics is these days, I see the value of posting anonymously simply because its so easy for someone with a bit of technological savvy and a destructive axe to grind, to track down the personal information of someone he/she disagrees with and harrass them. It’s easy to hide behind a user name and spew out unintelligent filth and its possible to hide behind a user name and carry on an intelligent exchange of ideas. I try to ignore the former and I will engage in debate with the latter. In my case I choose to use my name because I think it gives more credibilty to whatever I say and because (I hope) I have a thick enough skin to not lose my cool if someone calls me an idiot or worse.
Rick Eltan says
I can understand why some people might not like some of the anonymous comments, but I have to say the hostility here is a little much. The Spy is not publishing any articles or Op Ed’s without a name. It is simply allowing readers to post comments. If you don’t want to ready anonymous comments, then don’t! The content of the article remains the same, and is is in no way compromised by any of the comments regardless of wether someone signs their names or not.
COK is a small community, and some people may be afraid of incurring unfair judgements, prejudices, or wrath of their neighbors. Also some people by virtue of their positions in the community might not want to reveal their identities as it may color how people read it or their motives might be called into question. Comments to an article should be judged on the merit of their content not the messenger.
Warrior Bob Kramer says
I believe in standing up… and being counted. Yet… shouldn’t the truth stand on its on merit? Does it really matter who said it if it’s true? I’d sign my name Warrior Bob or Hokie67 because that’s what I use on the national political and college football boards where I’m a regular contributor. And I’ve carried that out policy on my own local forum at warfortheshore.com.
But on the Spy I’m quite willing to go with my full name, because I want to make sure all know the author (and in deference to Marty ABC). That’s me. I can appreciate that there are some folks who might not say what they really feel if they had to use their real life names. Ok – some may be cowards, but some may be stretching their comfort level by just sharing their thoughts… and that comfort level may exist to where they work or who they work with… or whatever.
We’re fortunate to have this forum. And it’s all about some amendment in some document that’s been around for awhile.
Kevin Shertz says
I have very mixed feelings about this topic. I would imagine it’s every publisher’s dilemma.
On one hand, hate speech, flame wars, or other derogatory comments just dumb down the discourse. We as readers can only imagine what sort of disgusting comments are submitted into the moderation system that never see the light of day. On the other hand, America has a strong tradition of “avatars” going back to our Puck-ish Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin, who used to write letters to the editor of The New-England Courant (his older brother) under the pseudonym “Silence Dogood” in the 1720’s.
Short of requiring a identity system you can independently verify (like Gravatar), I don’t know how you can eliminate anonymous comments or even people writing under someone else’s name. If there are two Ben Smiths in a community, and one of them writes in, would the other Ben Smith have a legitimate complaint if they didn’t agree with what was published?
My guess is that the major news organizations have spent many hours pondering this question in regards to Internet comments. Follow their lead.
doneitall says
I can think of a number of reasons one might choose to participate in a discussion anonymously. You may be an individual running for office and wish to speak in a manner contrary to publicly stated positions; you may be involved in an organization known for conducting vendettas against contrarian thought; you may be in a position of authority and every public utterance is dissected and analyzed often in a manner opposite to your actual statement. And, although I see that some individuals choose a user name that looks suspiciously like a ‘real’ name, I have no idea who these individuals actually are and if they are actually who they say they are – they, too, are posting anonymously. Unless we speak face to face, it’s all anonymous.
Let’s not get all wrapped up in the search of who made a particular comment. Rather concentrate on the discussion itself. You may not like what you read and it may hurt your ordered view of “how things should be” but it’s only one man’s or woman’s opinion. And your signed comments are simply your stated opinions. All perfectly, harmless.
Publius says
Gren Whitman’s comments underscore precisely why anonymous political speech is so important. Whether or not I believe my “thoughts” to be on par with the authors of the Federalist papers is immaterial. It is my RIGHTS which are on par with theirs.
Those comments also underscore his ignorance. Political anonymity in the pursuit of American liberty long-preceded the publication of the Federalist papers–and showed its importance in the numerous pamphlets that were published for nearly 50 years before 1776, rousing Colonials to the cause of independence over a period of many decades.
Since that time, and following the ratification of the Constitution, our history is replete with examples where anonymous political speech heralded important and positive change in American society, and conversely where individuals were persecuted and punished for being outspoken in their political beliefs. The Supreme Court’s protection of the donors to the NAACP is a prime example of the former, in fact.
So, Gren, while you clearly would love to know who I am, you also make it clear that my decision to remain anonymous IS the correct one in this case.
Sincerely,
Publius
Gren Whitman says
It takes chutzpah to call someone names while masked by a pseudonym.
“Publius,” whoever you are, you should understand that as long as you snipe from cover, no one really cares who you are, and likely will read your messages with a pinch or two of contempt.
MD Eastern Shore says
My earlier comment on this policy was rejected as not in compliance with the policy… I was told it was directed at commenters and not the story… but this is what I see going on above… comments directed at commenters. Let’s see if this one gets approved.
There is a time honored tactic in public discourse of seeking to discredit the speaker when one had neither the facts nor the rhetorical skill to rebut the speaker’s commentary. I see that happening again here. The argument always focuses on form over substance. Once again, I see one particular writer calling another names, and insisting that the other’s comments are of no matter, simply because the speaker chooses to be anonymous (as I do). Recognize this for what it is, readers, and disregard it. Examine ideas for their content and strength of argument. Ignore those who seek to discredit others. It is they whose arguments are weak. STand up and speak your mind, and do it anonymously if you so choose. I for one will read and critically evaluate what you have to say.
Chris says
Even the worst advised among us has a good idea now and again. Anonymity allows you to have the exchange without predetermining your enemies. It forces you to consider what has been said rather than cast snap judgment against an author at the outset.
Its is amazing how people will react to an idea when they know the source. I can cherry pick anonymous ideas and get a liberal to agree with Sean Hannity. Or a conservative to agree with Keith Olbermann.
As soon as I name the source, all reason goes out the window. Predisposition trumps cognitive function. All effective decision making falls into opposition. A once good idea can no longer be. Ive accomplished this all by simply “signing” it.
I can sign my comments with whatever name you want me to if it makes you “believe” I’m sincere. Is Chris my real name? Yes, but I can start a email address in less than 30 seconds, name it whatever I please, and start posting under “Benjamin Cantler”. Would you even KNOW if I was lying or not? I still can speak from the cover of anonymity even if you don’t surmise that I am.
You have to take any website comments thread with a grain of salt. Realize that you can be duped as fast as you can be informed. Demanding “real” names wont change anything except the effort that people will exert to foil your attempts.
Brenda says
I have been harassed for my views so I simply use my first name. Anonymous postings allow people to really say what is on their mind and that is refreshing. I really don’t need to know your name, I want to hear the passion in your voice. I am passionate about my views.