Making allegations requires stepping out of the shadows

Sorting through the ugliness expressed anonymously has become my least favorite part of this job, something that is ultimately disheartening, not uplifting. When I read the nastiest comments, I sometimes feel sorry for the most venomous bloggers, because I’ve never met a happy person who takes great joy in belittling others.

But given that anonymous blogging is now a part of newspaper culture, ours included, it’s worthwhile to establish some sort of direction, at least on our website. Remember this: You are entitled to your anonymous opinions, but you are not entitled to your anonymous allegations. There is a big difference between the two and many people don’t seem to understand that.

For instance, if you think a local public figure is inefficient, rude, a jerk, or a heaven-sent angel — those are your opinions. And beyond that, if you want to detail why a public official’s vote was right or wrong, backing it up with solid reasons, then you’ve performed a service to the community by sharing your opinion. It’s a good deed to address public matters in a constructive way.

But if you say specific people are taking bribes, cheating on the job, having sex with so and so, etc. — those are allegations. And if you jump from opinion to allegation, you’ve entered a whole new realm — the arena of proof. When you enter that arena, you are no longer entitled to the safety of shadows. By posting such things anonymously, you’re trying to put someone else’s character on the line, without risking any part of yourself. Even if you’re right about your allegation, you’re ultimately a coward unless you’re willing to step up and risk something of yourself, too.

Think about it this way: If you came to meet with me, I may or may not form an opinion on you. But after you go away, do I have the right to anonymously express in a public forum that you’re a drunk driver, or that you’re cheating your employer, or that you are physically abusive? These are my opinions, right? I believe these things are true, or at least I could say someone — whom I won’t name — told me they were. “Word on the street is ...” In fact, I could say some really bad things and perhaps I’d be dead on the money about you or someone you love. But I would be reckless and wrong in my method.

If we believe in common decency and standards of proof, we need a process for airing such matters, don’t we? If I want to allege something about you, I ought to put myself on the line, too, right? I ought to recognize the importance of presenting evidence to support my assertions.

This is one place where newspapers across America have totally fallen apart. The industry ought to be ashamed of what’s allowed in their name online. But it’s not. Too many publications are too scared of financial failure to do the responsible things online. The post-first, ask-questions later policy of many sites opens the door for unchecked libel. Many news sites allow any comment, then wait for someone to flag an inappropriate remark. So, you could go on one of these sites and declare the publisher a child molester and it would hit the public forum, at least for a little while. Of course, they’d flag you and remove you as a commenter, but real damage can be done in short time with unchecked comments. America’s libel law has not caught up with the Web. You can get away with most anything online —at least temporarily. And newspapers have been complicit in a cultural degradation that accompanies such lack of accountability. Some publisher is going to get sued in a big way one of these days. And sadly, it’s an industry wake-up call that needs to happen.

So, what’s my point? Well, if you believe in maintaining any standards online, then moderating comments requires a number of judgment calls. Is this an opinion, or is it more of an allegation? For instance, “Our government is corrupt” is generic enough to be an opinion. But, “Commissioner or council member (John Doe) is corrupt” is an allegation. You better back it up.

Likewise, if an anonymous poster is trying to introduce new information into a public forum, then they are essentially trying to serve as an anonymous reporting source. News organizations that rely heavily on anonymous-source reporting inevitably get burned and risk their credibility with each anonymous source they quote. But at least those organizations know who they are quoting, even if the audience doesn’t. But in online forums, newspapers have no idea who is introducing information on the blogs. The papers give up editorial authority to faceless strangers, many of whom have an agenda to present misinformation. Many call this “citizen journalism,” but if you can’t I.D. the citizen, I’m sorry, it’s not journalism.

Ultimately, if you have something you want to publicize through our site and you’re upset that it wasn’t posted, contact me about running a letter to the editor in print. If you’re willing to stand by your word with your name, the chance that you’ll get your words in print is very good. Sensitive subjects often need to be brought to public attention. But there’s an appropriate way to do this. Much more leeway should be afforded to the person who is willing to be accountable for their words.

This is also sound business on our part. Because it demeans our product and journalism as a whole to maintain a site where faceless people can hurl allegations against real people without offering any identification, without any standard of proof.

Before anyone brings up the First Amendment. Remember, it’s our First Amendment right to manage our paper and our own site how we see fit, just as it’s your right to create your own publications and sites and do the same.

No doubt, I’ll get the “who are you trying to protect comments.” That’s the nature of this. But, honestly, I don’t care one way or another if you agree with me or not.

There is no one to protect, but there certainly is something to protect — common decency. In a decent world, people get to know their accuser. Online should be no exception.

Zach Mitcham is editor of The Madison County Journal.