I responded to the e-mail: "If you read anonymous (or pseudonymous) comments on various news sites, you find there are a lot of irrationally angry people in the world, and way too many of them have Internet access." My thoughts were influenced by my recent reading of the voluminous comments on the Mike Easley scandals and the Mark Sanford "hiking" trip, both of which brought hundreds of responses, many of the angry and crude.
I was also thinking of the comments that were posted on The Wilson Daily Times' online forum, which got so nasty, defamatory, insulting and uncouth that the newspaper finally killed the whole thing. The Internet has given people the opportunity to express their vilest thoughts anonymously and without fear of retribution, other than someone else's anonymous remark, and the result has been a coarsening of public discourse. Cable television's political talk shows, which seem to value caustic comment over rational analysis, may also be partly to blame. These Internet postings have, one person told me, absolutely ruined public debate. In these forums, it's the pointed, vile zinger, not carefully reasoned logic, that "wins" the argument.
This revealing of the public's dark internal anger also raises theological issues. A classic argument has always been whether mankind is basically good (i.e., formed in the image of God) or basically bad (corrupted by original sin). If you knew you could get away with it, is there anything you wouldn't do? That is a simple test of morals. On the Internet, you can get away with saying anything about anybody (although some Internet libel cases are beginning to be heard), and people are revealing their fundamental malevolence in the anonymous comments they leave.
Posts
3 comments:
Sometimes reader comments are hilarious and fun to read; other times they are cringe-worthy. A WRAL online story about Prez. Obama giving a bottle of North Carolina wine to Italian Prez Napolitano attracted scathing comments, and not too many of them about the subject of the exchange of North Carolina wine between the leaders of two countries. Here's a column that Ted Vaden, former public editor about issuing scathing comments under the cloak of anonymity
Cleaning up the online neighborhood
http://www.newsobserver.com/2758/story/1314537.html
Looking around here, I don't think you have enough commentary to worry at this point.
Something like the N@O thing wouldn't work (at this time) for the WT. Too small townish. Not sure about here. It's a matter of trust. Could you honestly trust the WDT to guard your anonymity?
The Wilson Daily is VERY lucky they weren't sued. When someone who frequently used the Wilson Daily's old forum was told by an employee of the WDT who the identify of a couple posters were, they used this info publicly. Yet consequently, their identity was also divulged. So there ya go. To me it looked like no one really wanted the responsibility of moderating it fairly and professionally. Can't say I would either.
It's pretty much common knowledge that most people in Wilson are afraid of "openly" expressing any opinions that challenge the status quo. Period. Besides being quickly and unfairly labeled as "malcontents" by pundits and those who desperately would like to block change, there is a fear of retribution. Wilson, and (sadly) the South have that reputation.
I agree that Internet debates usually end up being nothing more than posters trading insults. Having been in my share of both reasoned debates and good ol' rhubarbs, I no longer have any desire to argue with someone via the Internet, especially if the topic is politics. When the Internet was new and I was younger, I'd spend hours going back and forth with folks but I don't have time to waste doing that considering that I've never had my mind changed by anyone and I doubt I've changed anyone's mind.
Post a Comment