OPINION: Why I respect the John Hancock

The newspaper has always been a venue for public debate. Anyone can participate, if they include their real name. This is a healthy American tradition. Sadly, letters to the editor pages are losing their punch.

Instead, the opinion makers have flocked online. There are certainly more opinions these days, but far less accountability. For instance, I reviewed our past 300 comments on MadisonJournalTODAY.com. Only 12 — or four percent — included a first and last name. And several of those were by the same person, commenting multiple times.

Well, you ask, why allow anonymous comments? That’s a good question. There’s a real split among journalists on this issue, even within the same organizations. And I’m on the old man side. I’d rather see the value of accountability live on. The Web is great in many ways, but it has its downsides. And I think the creation of a cyber mask, where people don’t have to reveal their identity, is ultimately a harmful, not a helpful thing in public discourse.

Early on in this job I recognized the need for a personal rule: don’t say something in an opinion piece that I wouldn’t say to someone’s face. Because, inevitably, I’m going to face that person. If I’m too ashamed to say it face-to-face in Ingles, then it shouldn’t be said.

If you write a letter to the editor about a controversial subject, you also make yourself vulnerable. You risk offending people you know who might disagree. You have to weigh your language, understanding that the sharper your attack, the more vulnerable you are to the counterattack.

But the Web is different. It eliminates all personal risk. People get meaner, nastier, much more willing to vilify.
We all recognize a certain entertainment value. There are some humorous exchanges.

But a lot of people don’t recognize the difference between an opinion and an allegation. For instance, you can say someone is a jerk, that they’re rude, insensitive, egocentric, incompetent, etc. You can say all of these things from behind your cyber mask and your comment will be approved, whether we agree with it or not. That’s your opinion.

But if you name someone and claim that they are misusing a county vehicle, stealing, cheating on their spouse, using drugs, or breaking policies or laws in any way, you have entered a new realm. You may, in fact, speak the truth. Your allegations may have merit. But you can’t anonymously throw those things into the public realm without establishing such claims through evidence. Such things are not opinions, but allegations and they require more of you than just an anonymous post.

Some news websites at other publications require registration and questionable comments are sometimes flagged for review. Consequently, libelous material is sometimes posted for everyone to see before it is removed. A person’s IP address may then be banned from the site. However, with post-first, ask-questions-later policies, news sites make themselves vulnerable to questionable material, beyond the libel issues. For instance, one recent wreck fatality story on a local news site omitted the ID of the victim, pending notification of the family. However, a blogger jumped in with the name before the paper officially reported it. Do you think this a good or a bad thing? You may get the information out there quicker, but you open the door to two things: a relative finding out terrible news in an online forum and a blogger posting unverified, and potentially bogus information.

While we don’t require any registration, we approve or deny comments before they are posted. This carries its problems. We have numerous other duties besides approving comments. So, there is often a lag time for comments. Also, some comments require a judgment call. The statements may border on libel. Anonymous posters may introduce questionable information. We open ourselves up to charges of favoritism in what we approve or deny. But the only personal feeling we have is this: does it cross the line for this faceless person to say this about this named person? I can tell you that if you include a verifiable ID, backing up your comment by putting your own name on the line, you move the approval line much more in your favor.

Whether I like this new anonymous blogger world or not, it’s here. I recognize that we are in the “what-do-you-think” era of American journalism. But I know, too, that this is not about empowering “pookie44” or “maddawgz,” who jump into any fray with loud declarations of others’ idiocy.

No, this is a money matter. News sites across this nation seek anonymous viewer commentary in order to generate web traffic. And the more people comment, the more page views you get, and the more you can sell online ads.

So far, this economic model hasn’t proved particularly successful, as many newspapers across the country are struggling to earn pennies on the Web. And beyond revenue issues come credibility concerns as anonymous cyber spats ultimately overshadow actual reporting.

Give me the good ole-fashioned letter to the editor any day. I respect someone giving their two cents and their John Hancock.

Zach Mitcham is editor of The Madison County Journal.