A few weeks ago, The Forum adjusted our site’s method of spam-screening, thus allowing non-spam comments to appear unencumbered and unedited on story posts. We made the fix just in time! There’s been a lot of opinion-sharing this week, both on our Facebook page and on the website, regarding our recent HBCOP coverage. Aside from a couple of posts using expletives, we’ve left everything intact.
Make no mistake about it, this is a conscious choice and not something we are in any way obligated to do. We are not the government, so we are not beholden by freedom of speech or censorship laws to print feedback. We don’t have to read your vitriol, and we certainly don’t have to publish it.
As we mentioned last week, journalists have feelings, too. While the posts may not always be pleasant, we do want to uphold our name and provide a true “forum” wherein readers are comfortable letting us know what they think. And, thankfully, it works both ways. In years past, we have gotten hundreds if not thousands of great ideas for stories from interested readers calling in with them, and we’ve already begun to find similar resource in the comments posted online.
People like to post comments to Facebook and websites using a last initial or a full-on alter-ego, with some commenters’ names sounding more like those of superheroes or pop stars as opposed to regular ol’ people living in Howard Beach or Ozone Park. We get why. And we like to hear from the superheroes just as much as we do those who keep their real names intact.
While there’s something to be said for protecting one’s privacy, especially when mouthing off on controversial or sensitive issues, we’ve noticed that some people tend to take liberties they otherwise wouldn’t when there’s an allure of anonymity, real or imagined. In fact, readers on news and other sites are so free in their sharing that they can seem downright mean – nothing or no one screening or editing them, no one to wag a finger…no one to respond, “You are hurting my feelings.” On Facebook, especially, when members can post to their own timelines or create new profiles at the drop of a hat, it’s as though some people lose all semblance of propriety or common courtesy. There is simply no fear.
That absence of fear (which can cross into pomposity) leads to a heap of trouble. Comments begin to lack substance and instead are purely insult. And the more someone is insulted, the more likely they are to be unwavering in their opinion – so that the intended “conversation” becomes essentially pointless. But remember hate crimes? Remember libel? Commenting under a pseudonym may feel anonymous, but it is not, and you may think that you are operating under “freedom of speech,” but you are not. When scathing words border upon these dangerous territories, the concern goes beyond protecting feelings or massaging egos – there must be deeper concerns about emotional welfare, reputation, and of course, legality.
Some news organizations have decided that there should be more attention paid to what is allowed in their comments sections and hire staff to screen, moderate, and remove comments when necessary. Several have added a layer to their commentary process, by forcing readers to sign in through Facebook in order to post. While there are, of course, fake accounts, the added step in the Facebook verification process causes many of the more volatile, less substantive commentators to lose steam and back down. For publishers, this can be a negative, since a site’s traffic is reduced and hence so is advertising revenue. But it also weeds out the hate, allowing for a more respectful discourse. Again, it’s not censorship, because even a monkey with an opinion can simply move on to the next site. And no, we’re not calling any of our critics “monkeys,” as to do so would engage further in their vitriolic game.
