news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

BLOGS

The Editor's Log

Comments on stories, part 71

If you're a regular reader of this Web site -- or just about any other news Web site for that matter -- you're used to commenters going all postal on other commenters, people mentioned in stories and us. (Examples from today.)

Whenever we think people have gone beyond the pale, we delete their comments. We probably don't delete enough of them. They then respond by calling us censors and worse. (Doesn't hurt our feelings.) When we know a story will set off the worse in us, we don't open it for comments at all.

So, commenters who get their jollies by insulting others need to be aware that more and more people who are more thin-skinned than others are reading comments. And doing something about it.
Posted by John Robinson on Thursday, November 12, 2009 at 2:26 pm

Other Recent Entries

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Illiterati

November 12, 2009 - 3:07 pm EST

There was also the case of the model who was slandered in a blog (Skanks of New York, I believe it was called). She sued to have Google release the blogger's identity—and won. Rosemary Port will forever be known in the search engines for her 20-something mean-girl ways.

My commenter resolution is the old "can't say something nice, don't say nothin'." I've gone snark-free. I also don't comment with my real name, not because I think it gives me license to be a jerk, but because I know how crazy people out there can be. Just look at today's threads for evidence.

John Robinson

November 12, 2009 - 3:54 pm EST

Thanks, Illiterari. I don't mind the anonymity when the comments are constructive. It's when the comments are anonymous and filled with personal attacks that make me shake my head.

SueP

November 12, 2009 - 6:27 pm EST

Nah, the attorney is making a bad choice. In a small town, comments are the stuff of the water-cooler and corner store. The online paper is simply an extension of that. It's one thing - given no provocation - to call someone a wife-beater or murderer in an online forum. It's another to imply someone is 'having an affair.' But with an accusation of murder or some other heinous act, you unwillingly or unwittingly become a public person and crap gets written about you whether you deserve it or not (see, MSM: Richard Jewell). He can subpoena; I'd be amazed if a judge grants an order. And very unhappy.

Interested

November 12, 2009 - 8:45 pm EST

Everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty, and all are entitled to a defense. The attorney should not be subjected to ridicule and abuse because he/she is providing that defense to a presumed-innocent (or, for that matter, a guilty) client. Personally, I have no problem releasing the identity.

As to the comparison to water-cooler discussions, remember that someone would be able to identify the speaker; the speaker would have no promise of anonymity.

John Robinson

November 13, 2009 - 8:44 am EST

I agree in principle, Sue, but probably not in practice. My observation is that there are all kinds of statements "of fact" in the comments that could easily be ruled libelous, even in regard to public figures. I'd be the public figure could prove that they were made with malice and a reckless disregard for the truth.

But the other issue, to me, is the hassle and expense a commenter would have to go through to fight a court action. As a commenter, why even put yourself in that position? Just so you can say something mean and nasty and think you're being clever? Doesn't seem worth it.

jonjones

November 13, 2009 - 1:50 pm EST

When it comes to libel law a person doesn't become a "public figure" just because they're accused of a crime. If they're a private person, they remain that way unless they take some other action to become a public figure. There's some debate about whether one can become an "involuntary public figure" but Richard Jewell is a bad example because he sought public attention before he became a suspect. That's why he had a hard time winning his libel case against the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He's not like the more typical person accused of a heinous act who does not seek public attention.

And an attorney representing a client is not a public figure just because they're representing someone accused of a crime. Again, they have to do something more to become a public figure, like seek public attention or be an F.Lee Bailey type attorney.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a judge order the commenter's identity revealed. There are plenty of cases out there where that has happened -- for a recent example check out the Skanks of New York blog case. The problem is that there is no clear standard, yet, for when a court should allow that identity to be revealed. A few state courts have come up with standards that have varying degrees of strength. I believe the bar should be extremely high -- the person seeking the identity should be able to make a prima facie case of libel and the court should balance the First Amendment interests of the commenter against the claimed harm to the person supposedly libeled -- before a court makes that order.

But to give the Internet some special status, where I can say things that I would not be able to say in any other forum without liability, would be a mistake.

The story linked doesn't describe what the supposedly libelous comments were, so it's difficult to judge whether or not this attorney is making a mistake pursuing this.

Interested

November 12, 2009 - 8:36 pm EST

Followed your link to today's examples - they just hit the ground running, didn't they? Personally, I feel like most who insult others in these comments would never say such a thing in person. Anonymity provides freedom to behave in a boorish manner. Perhaps if you threatened to reveal the identity and other pertinent information (make it part of the agreement when registering) of anyone posting a personal attack, rather than removing the post, the discourse might be more civil. (I still haven't decided if I wish this to be a tongue-in-cheek suggestion.)

John Robinson

November 13, 2009 - 8:47 am EST

One problem with that solution is that we don't have the real names of the commenters. (We have their e-mail addresses.)

Doug Johnson

November 13, 2009 - 6:05 am EST

Will I do use my real name, and I do buy this paper! In fact, I will get one in a few minutes.
I also know that some folks who use the papers blog the most do not buy the paper!
Which is why I can not figure out why the NR, does not charge a small fee for blogger users!
I have had very few problems use my name.
In fact I would say I have had some good conversation over it.
In fact one lady called, was very polite and we had a great conversation, we still disagreed.
I agree with Mr.Robinson (ouch), these attacks on people, who use a tag name get on my nerves, you will notice it the same ones every day.
I also agree with him (double ouch) that putting folks name in the paper before they are found guilty serves no purpose!
.I understand that major crimes are going to get your name in the media, but lesser charges are not important to me!

jonjones

November 13, 2009 - 1:53 pm EST

John,

I'm curious: Do you think the value of the few comments that help improve reader understanding of a story outweigh the great deal of comments that are hurtful at worst and inane at best?

Get A Clue

November 15, 2009 - 8:00 am EST

If you insist on publishing Davenport's bi-weekly column in which he chooses to spew racist hatred supported by nothing more than right-wing talking points then you're no better than hit-and-run commenters who type often but have little to say.
If it truly bothers you that some comment posters don't play well with others, you could choose to do what many other sites do and simply have people register and post using their real name or link to their e-mail address. However, most newspaper websites are simply blowing smoke with their appeals for calm...since the truth is they garner ad revenue with every page hit and that's one of their few sources of income that isn't shrinking.

John Robinson

November 15, 2009 - 9:04 am EST

Publishing Davenport isn't my call, but I'll make sure Allen Johnson sees your comment. There is one difference between Davenport and the commenters we're referring to, though. He uses his real name and isn't afraid to stand up for his positions. Few of the commenters do that, as you certainly know.

We have email addresses for commenters, but I don't know how you require real names on a free site.

As for the revenue question, perhaps we're being unrealistic in thinking that people can come to a Web site and have a civil discussion.

FredGregory

November 16, 2009 - 3:37 pm EST

John,

Why no coments allowed on this controversial story ?

http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/11/15/article/study_of_landfill_...

John Robinson

November 16, 2009 - 4:25 pm EST

Apparently the box that needed to be clicked to open comments wasn't clicked on Saturday night.

John Robinson

November 16, 2009 - 4:27 pm EST

I'll open it up for you if you want, Fred.

FredGregory

November 17, 2009 - 1:41 am EST

Just for me, JR. How about others ?

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search