Sue has a post about newspapers, including the (Greensboro, NC) News & Record, deleting racists comments (in the case of the N&R, deleting entire comment threads in which objectionable comments appear.)
Here is what I said at Sue's, an opinion I would extent to also include sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and other ignorance-inspired hatreds:
--------
I fully understand a private enterprise not wanting its resources being used in a manner it finds objectionable. Fundamental property rights, the way I see it. However, whether a newspaper wants to assume this role or not (and I think there is a good argument that it should), there should indeed be some facility for racists to make their views publicly known. And not just in a limited, hush hush, out of the way manner either, but in a full blown, all out, unlimited way that gives their views full voice. Why? Because the alternative is worse.
I would rather know the extent, breadth and depth of racism in my community than to make myself (and the community) intentionally ignorant by turning a blind eye. People who find racism objectionable should want this too. If we successfully keep racism in the shadows, it is a lot harder to convince people that it is significant enough to warrant fighting it. Nobody gets motivated to fight something they perceive to have been already vanquished.
I don't disagree with you on this, Roch. I will say this, though, about the N&R's experience. Many of the comments that drive conversation on our site into the gutter are left by a couple dozen anonymous people, if that many. To derive a sense of the community's feelings about racism or anything else from those commenters would leave you in a state of depression. And, of course, in the vast majority of the cases, it would not be an accurate sense of this place.
ReplyDeleteAnd, in the end, because they shout the loudest, don't have to reveal their true identities and, seemingly, have more time on their hands to spend on the message board than they should, they monopolize the discussion.
I don't know why the newspaper would take on that burden of allowing their unfettered, destructive voices. Perhaps it's a role for we101?
Seriously, if you don't know that racism or homophobia or xenophobia exist around here -- and it always amazes me that some people don't -- then I doubt you're going to have your eyes opened by reading comments. But I could be wrong about that.
Fortunately for the opposing viewpoint, there are still many blogs and Web sites in the area where racism, et.al. are given free rein and, perhaps, even encouraged.
Thanks for the comments, JR.
ReplyDeleteWe101 is not a publishing platform, per se. It just aggregates content, so we are in different situations. But, to the extent that it can give equal exposure to differing opinions (published on their own real estate), yes, I think that is a good role for We101.
I will say this, though, about the N&R's experience. Many of the comments that drive conversation on our site into the gutter are left by a couple dozen anonymous people, if that many.
ReplyDeleteJR, this is pure BS because you filter responses on your site. Sometimes I'll post a comment anonymous just because it's easier to do, you will note though, I do sign my name. More importantlt is for the "truth" to be told and often times JR you take a liberty in that regard. Beau
yes, I think that is a good role for We101.
ReplyDeleteIt's a great place where diversed people can share opinion and idea's. The only ones like JR that don't like we101 much is because he doesn't get much, if any, sympathies (sic)from the vast majority of bloggers. Beau
I admit you've lost me, Beau. We don't filter comments unless you violate our terms of use. The vast majority of comment run as written. Unlike many sites, comments are posted immediately, without any review.
ReplyDeleteWe take no liberties with "truth," as you call it. I will agree, however, based on your comments on my site, that you and I disagree on many issues. I consider that a disagreement of opinion, not truth.
And I have no clue what you're trying to say with your last comment.
As for 101 "just" aggregating content, I suspect if you thought it was important enough to give voice to those comments that we're "filtering" out, you could figure out how to do it.
"We don't filter comments unless you violate our terms of use. "
ReplyDeleteThat is a BOLD FACE LIE. I once posted a response to you, Jim where I criticized the NR and thought the Rhino did a better job in certain areas.
It was never posted. DON'T LIE TO US.
I admit you've lost me, Beau. We don't filter comments unless you violate our terms of use. The vast majority of comment run as written. Unlike many sites, comments are posted immediately, without any review.
ReplyDeleteJohn your not lost, you've just lost the sense of truth, Hugh is an example of your filtering blogs responses to you. This attitude of yours is also a clear example of why you have a failing paper. Never met a Liberal that understood what truth was. Beau
"We don't filter comments unless you violate our terms of use" -- JR
ReplyDeleteThat's not accurate. The N&R deletes comments that do not violate the criteria enumerated in its TOS.
You might want to note that people know this and that they recognize your comments as disingenuous when you try to tell them otherwise. You could resort to pointing out that your TOS says you may delete comments for any reason or "for no reason," but it doesn't fly to say you only delete comments that violate your terms. That's not true.
Beau, I have told you before and this is your last warning. It is plagiarism to paste other people's comments without quotation marks. Do it again and I will delete your comments as a violation of my terms of service. Don't be so freakin' lazy. Don't be an intellectual thief. Abide or you will be kicked out.
ReplyDeleteHugh, I don't recall the comment that you're talking about, but I know that people differ on what they consider objectionable language or attacks on others. We had one person who used a five-letter obscenity that 95% of the population would consider an obscenity and he insisted it wasn't.
ReplyDeleteRoch, you're right in that case. We have deleted entire threads for one reason or another. But as it relates to Beau's comment, there ain't no filter.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteroch,
ReplyDeletei have had to start deleting comments for the first time this past week. They were uncalled for rants by the same people and was not going to put up with it so i told them to f themselves and thought it over for a few days on the post and said to myself screw it this is my blog and i can do whatever i want to.
I am a free speech kind of guy but wasn't having it on triadwatch. I was sorry to lash out a comment but it was a uncalled for comment and needed to get deleted.
I've been involved in these "meta" debates numerous times, and one thing you can count on is never being able to arrive at a consensus on what is or is not "acceptable" in comment content. Even posting (and trying to follow) detailed guidelines inevitably leads to a subjective analysis of whether something crosses the line or not.
ReplyDeleteI often see moderators claim, "you can't please everybody". But I have to say, if you find yourself trying to please the majority of your readers or a special type of reader, you've already wandered far off the path to objectivity.
SC Harrison