The continuing hassle over comments
Promoting this from a comment on the previous post, by "Coyote Contraire™":
Mr. Ayres,I appreciate your concern, and it's this sort of arbitrary and apparently capricious interference with comments that led me to begin this blog in the first place. It's impossible to determine why this is happening, but from other comments it's clear to me that it is and it's obviously not good.
I know this is off-subject to memorial day, but the cartoon reminded me of the subject of comment burial by the Courier, and I've nowhere else to turn.
The majority of my recent comment submissions have been "disappeared" by the Courier ed. staff. None have been in violation of their Terms of Use, and most have been relatively on-subject. Navigating their capricious minefield of approval is tricky at best, but would probably be less difficult if only I would just type really nice, soft things -- like, "I like bunnies and kittens". Sometimes they quickly post stuff I'm sure they wouldn't touch, then they disappear something utterly innocuous.
To wit: I wrote a comment to this article, and it got posted.
Two commenters made inquiries to me about the recent addition of the ™ symbol to my pseudo. I wrote and submitted five different comments in attempting to respond and they all have been s**t-canned. The Courier, of course, is a private enterprise and is therefore under no obligation to consider the principles of freedom of expression.
What bewilders me, though, is that all five submissions were inoffensive, vaguely humorous, and in no way in violation of the TOU. I'm beginning to think it's personal.
My response is to repeat my open invitation to any Courier commenter to post deleted, censored or edited comments here. Post them as comments on any entry, regardless of topical pertinence -- I'll create a pertinent thread and move them to it. Make a habit of copying your comments before posting them to the Courier and saving them as backups until they appear.
My own experience has been that since I started raising a regular stink over it, editing and disappearance of my comments has ceased. Interference also seems to have lessened since Ben Hansen left, but it's difficult to guage.
NB: I notice that comments frequently appear on unrelated stories, implying that the editors (or perhaps commenters) may be mistakenly attaching them in the wrong places, and that could account for some 'lost' comments.
19 comments:
Many thanks for promoting my rant. Obviously we're not alone in sharing this concern. Partly because of the Courier's rejections, I've considered starting my own blog (you've suggested that before) or even dedicating one my websites to my own blather. Seems so pompous, though. Who am I?
I ALWAYS save everything I submit, including a link the to article or opinion, the date and time of submission and the approximate time it gets posted, or a note that it was rejected. (I firmly believe everyone should do this, and have convinced a few others.)
Also, I have a "distribution list" of friends, clients, fellow ex- and current-journalists scattered around the country, and most of my comments (including some of the disappeared things) are inflicted on those hapless ones. Apparently some of those things get forwarded around a bit. I also get a fair amount of feedback from these people -- some of it putting me quite nicely in my place.
I much appreciate your offer to post our rejected stuff, and I intend to take you up on it (unless what I've written is obviously just crap, which certainly happens often enough -- and then I'll bury it my own damn self). Thanks again.
Hallelujah ! I can't tell you how many times I've been censored for NO reason that I can see. Recently I posted a comment regarding the 3 1/2 year sentence Castaneda received for stealing gas. My first post said that maybe there is a connection between his name and the sentence he received. Censored. So I wrote another comment suggesting that maybe my first comment was mistaken as being racist and that must be why it was cut. I was simply noting the fact that he is related to Dawn Castaneda and maybe that had something to do with the harsh sentence. Again never posted. ?? I noticed in my case most of the ones that have been canned were satirical in nature. I also feel that sometimes it is personal but there is really no way to tell unless some others comment on it here. I dropped a note to the editorial dept. suggesting that maybe they could have two people of different leanings agree before a comment is censored. Of course never heard back. And that's really the bitch of it. I don't know what I said that got me censored in the first place even though I provide my e-mail address. But thanks Steve. At least we can vent over here.
And again to Coyote - Congrats !
Many thanks for promoting my rant to the "front page". Obviously we're not alone in sharing this concern. Partly because of the Courier's rejections, I've considered starting my own blog (you've suggested that before) or even dedicating one my websites to my own blather. Seems so pompous, though. Who am I?
I ALWAYS save everything I submit, including a link the to article or opinion, the date and time of submission and the approximate time it gets posted, or a note that it was rejected. (I firmly believe everyone should do this, and have convinced a few others.)
Also, I have a "distribution list" of friends, clients, fellow ex- and current-journalists scattered around the country, and most of my comments (including some of the disappeared things) are inflicted on those hapless ones. Apparently some of those things get forwarded around a bit. I also get a fair amount of feedback from these people -- some of it putting me quite nicely in my place.
I much appreciate your offer to post our rejected stuff, and I intend to take you up on it (unless what I've written is obviously just crap, which certainly happens often enough -- and then I'll bury it my own damn self). Thanks again.
And thanks to Zig E.
Steven,
I've made two attempts to post a response and they haven't worked: They showed up immediately but upon reloading the page they disappeared. This happened to me before, and I think there may sometimes be a tiny problem over at blogspot.com.
And for the fourth attempt... Thanks to Zig E.
Many thanks for promoting my rant to the "front page". Obviously we're not alone in sharing this concern. Partly because of the Courier's rejections, I've considered starting my own blog (you've suggested that before) or even dedicating one my websites to my own blather. Seems so pompous, though. Who am I?
I ALWAYS save everything I submit, including a link the to article or opinion, the date and time of submission and the approximate time it gets posted, or a note that it was rejected. (I firmly believe everyone should do this, and have convinced a few others.)
Part 2:
Also, I have a "distribution list" of friends, clients, fellow ex- and current-journalists scattered around the country, and most of my comments (including some of the disappeared things) are inflicted on those hapless ones. Apparently some of those things get forwarded around a bit. I also get a fair amount of feedback from these people -- some of it putting me quite nicely in my place.
I much appreciate your offer to post our rejected stuff, and I intend to take you up on it (unless what I've written is obviously just crap, which certainly happens often enough -- and then I'll bury it my own damn self). Thanks again.
(Think I've found that blogspot has a single-comment word limit of somewhere just over 100.)
First to Steven - Sorry about calling you "Steve". I was typing in a hurry and things get away from me at those times.
And to Coyote - I'll start keeping better track of my "rejections". I would like to hear from others if they are getting this treatment as well so I can dispell the thought that all this is political/personal in nature. Be sure to let us know if you start a blog. Zig.e@hotmail.com
Thanks for having the patience to figger that out, CC, I didn't know about the comment limit.
Zig: I think the Courier's scattershot editing of comments started at the beginning, with Ben deciding he would personally approve them without a clear-cut policy. This could have created a culture.
Rather than devote more personnel resources to umpiring comments, my recommendation would be to do less. Moderate the comments for legal problems and personal attacks (and by this I mean commenter-on-commenter, regardless of political position, because it's all a waste of space), and leave it at that.
I think the next level up is to require real names on comments, like in the letters section. Steve S likes to defend anonymity, but he doesn't seem to realize that you're filtering out commenters just as much when they're anonymous. I've seen this work in restoring restore civility.
However they go about it, the policy must put much higher value on what readers contribute. That's the only way to cultivate high-value comments.
(Steven's last comment is 165 words, so we still have something to learn. This one is 262.)
The discussion about whether to allow pseudonyms will probably endure. In most things we seem to place a greater individual responsibility on ourselves when we move toward the "allowing" end of the spectrum -- though it may well mean we're apt to suffer from others' crappy behavior. Maybe it's worth it.
I respect those that post with their real names, and I come very close to revealing myself from time to time. Then I witness or read about another SWAT attack and change my mind. If I had to post under my real name I would limit things I'm willing to say. Sometimes I'm a bit harsh on the authorities and, quite frankly, they scare me. (I'm a little surprised Rita Stricker hasn't been set-up and busted, or her house invaded -- "Oops, wrong address."). Call me paranoid, but I lived through the '60s and spent a lot of years in journalism.
Obviously I agree that less umpiring by Courier ed. would be a fine idea. When commenters get into pissing matches it does seem a terrible waste of electrons, but they're easy to scroll over -- and the comments of attempted higher quality are pretty easy to spot. What's sad is that those attempts are often thwarted. Considering the community and what the readership is likely to be, the overall level of thought and language skills that show up in the comments is sometimes impressive.
(more coming...)
Though my real name is not attached, I place responsibilities on what the Coyote writes (actual set of rules) and hope it shows. Pseudonyms, it seems, can have real value. History is full of examples of those who have used pen names to express important ideas or publish "good" work while protecting themselves from the pitchforked mob or governmental reprisal. Mary-Ann Evans wrote under George Sanders, Ben Franklin was Silence Dogood. Thomas Paine signed "Common Sense" with "Written by an Englishman". Sam Clemens was Mark Twain, and who knows why? Eric Arthur Blair wrote under George Orwell and we can easily understand why.
My wild guess is that half the Courier comments of quality and relevance would not show up at all if real names were required. And if we want to write a letter to the editor we can go for it at any time.
Re: Civility and it's restoration. We can make the choice to be civil or not and I think it should remain that way. Certainly the personal pissing matches are tedious and maybe a waste of space, but it still seems better to err on the side of more freedom. When comments get to that level they're easy to dismiss.
The debate is an old one, CC. What the advocates of anonymity always miss or gloss over is the many intelligent people with much to contribute who simply won't because the venue and level of discourse are so ugly. We literally can't see what we're missing.
This has been true of online communities since the beginning (and I was there). Once they grow beyond a certain size (about 200 users), some stop identifying with the community, the civilized rules break down, and troll behavior starts to take over. Real names -- meaning public responsibility for what you say, and building social credibility in your name -- help limit this by facilitating practical social consequences like time-outs and banishment. It really does work.
Fear of reprisal is a personal choice. If our society is really so corrupt, we need more responsible social discourse, not less, and anonymity is much easier to dismiss.
In any case, why would you say anything publicly online that you wouldn't say in the City Hall lobby? That's just sensible self-control. Further, your anonymity on the Courier comments board is illusory -- the IT department can ID you in a nanosecond, and I have no doubt at all that it would happily do so for any lawnforcement agency that bothered to ask.
No, I don't buy the argument that we all need whistle-blower protection. Mostly we're all just spouting out our asses, and anonymity just allows us to be asses without consequences. Do you really see value in that?
NB: An editor chose "Mark Twain" for him, as a matter of style, a stage name, like "Lady Gaga." Women have written under men's names to facilitate sales. Many authors have taken pseudonyms to sell in 'cheaper' genres while protecting the main brand. Etc. I don't think this is a useful parallel.
With a little more time to check it out, I find that two of Coyote's comments got stuck in the spam filter. I cannot account for why.
On further reflection, I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with that 'trademark' character.
Well I used to post under my name but after getting "feedback" from people, and coincidentally losing some work from others in the same loop, I decided to go with a pseudonym. Zig E is born. It's unfortunate but in a small town market your name can be tarnished very easily. There is no way to stop people from practicing their own forms of discrimination so around here I find it best to not attract attention. I think if we all posted using our names some of us would find it harder and harder to make a living here and would end up moving to a more "friendly" environment. Eventually we'd all be living in small tribe like communities with everyone sharing the same brain.
Well maybe not THAT bad but you can see what I'm afraid of.
Again, Zig, it just doesn't make sense to me to say anything in public anonymously that you wouldn't say in person.
If your business requires you to work for people who hire based on your comments to the Courier, I'd have to say that business model could use a second look. Are you only able to steal your freedom of speech while your masters aren't looking?
Again, the ultimate answer is more open speech, not less. Enforce our rights by living up to them, and build the culture we all want to live in.
Hey I love what your saying but reality, at least for me, is not like that. It has nothing to do with my business model. If you knew what I did you would see that. I've spent years and years living and working on both coasts and in a larger environment you have anonymity even while using your name. Hell it's hard to even be acknowledged in areas with millions of people. But not here. Like I said this area, like most small towns I imagine, is different. If someone dressed up like a bear and walked around the square carrying a political sign it would make the paper here. If that happened in D.C. it would be noticed only by the tourists.
If you can live with it, you're welcome to it.
I prefer comment systems that allow for pseudonymity while providing a system of flagging/banning people who abuse it. Having to register for a site that requires a real e-mail address and registers IP addresses provides the proper balance in my opinion. Letting users flag comments that break terms of service saves website owners from having to yes/no every individual comment, they review only ones that have been flagged. Sure someone could keep creating g-mail accounts and using proxies to fight this, but this will at least slow down the "troll" rate.
As an aside, when Ben Hansen went on a tirade about people who use fake names a while back, I tried to post a number of comments to his editorial under the name of "The Fake Ben Hansen" to make the point that just because I am using a "real" sounding name, it doesn't mean it is my real name (unless the Courier was to require my social security # or something really intrusive). I thought it was a pretty sharp way of making my point.
That's probably why those comments never showed up on the article...
Post a Comment