"On the Internet, Nobody Knows You’re a Dog"

There is much to criticize when it comes to experiencing newspaper content on the Web. The layouts are usually terrible, internal searches return inadequate results and, oh my favorite, the “comments” that editors foolishly allow to appear at the bottom of their stories.

Commenting is a fine idea but the execution has brought out trolls, idiots, fear-mongers and the like. A Daily News story on elections in Glendale and Silver Lake was accompanied by two readers’ comments. One was this gem: “I see the ACLU is raising their Ugly head again, I pray someone destroys that whole UN AMERICAN organization.” Over at the Chicago Tribune, a story on the costs of treating veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder prompted one reader to write: “It's a scam. Actual combat troops amount to 10% or less. most of the rest never heard a shot fired in anger, left the base or saw an enemy combatant. It's all just an extension of our neurotic victim, entitlement culture.” Taking a step back from the opinion each commentator was attempting to express -- the first appears to object to the fact that a liberal organization is bankrolling candidates in local elections and the second questions the extent of injuries suffered by enlisted men and women – neither comment elevated the conversations that resulted from the articles. In both instances, readers were able to hide behind online handles, and were published without regard for content or clarity.

Allowing readers to comment anonymously on news Web sites is a practice media companies should end immediately. This is one area where I think editors and managers have really lost control. Often the comments section that follows an article turns into a hotbed of politics, name-calling and incoherent ramblings. In a recent New York Times article on the subject, William Grueskin, dean of academic affairs at Columbia's journalism school, said, “ (A) lot of comment boards turn into the equivalent of a barroom brawl, with most of the participants having blood-alcohol levels of 0.10 or higher … People who might have something useful to say are less willing to participate in boards where the tomatoes are being thrown.”

I think Grueskin makes an excellent point. What intelligent, well-spoken or well-written person would dare wade into the swamp of commentators? The atmosphere of anonymity does more than chill speech. It emboldens readers to ridicule and denigrate others without having to attach their name or face. As a reporter, I would not allow a source to anonymously criticize another person in my story. If a source, reader – or even a friend – wants to speak out against another person or idea then do so, but have the dignity to attach your name. It becomes much too easy to throw around words when one doesn’t have to face the fallout.

The New York Times article points out that the current trend is moving away from anonymous commentators, and that is a good thing. Every minute, people use Twitter and Facebook (and Google Buzz? Is anyone using that mess?) to express their opinions, and they do so by showing their name and face. With Facebook Connect and other interfaces available to news sites, there is no reason for editors to continue to allow anonymous comments. As Jen from Chicago wrote at the end of the NYT story on this subject: “I hate anonymous comments because when I read them, I start to think that the comments are representative of humanity and it causes me to have zero faith in people's kindness and decency.”