Reichley Column: Incivility on the Internet
Published: November 3, 2009
Today is Election Day, so if you are reading this before the polls close, and you haven’t voted yet, please put down the paper, get in your car and go vote for the Republicans of your choice. Some of you
will get that joke, especially if you are a regular reader of the online comments for this newspaper. For the rest of you, I’m not really telling you who to vote for — you have to make your own decisions.
The beauty of our system of elections is that each of us can walk into the voting “booth” (before long that term will seem as inexplicable as “dial the number” does today) and cast our ballots in secrecy,
without any pressure or fear of retribution. So seriously do we treat the importance of preventing intimidation that adding identifying marks to a ballot (which corrupt officials could use to verify a person
cast their ballot the “correct” way) spoils the ballot (meaning it won’t be counted).
In a similar way, the Internet provides a way for people to anonymously express opinions. People can say what they think without having to worry about how people will react. When the opinion is about
matters of policy or thoughts about events or criticism of the actions of public figures, anonymity offers a better, more robust debate. Anonymity also helps shy people participate in discussions they
wouldn’t join if they were identified.
But the downside of people being able to say whatever they think without fear of reprisal is that people can say anything they want and avoid the normal consequences for incivility. They can be rude,
profane, make false personal attacks, or lie about whatever they want, without worrying about how it could effect their reputation.
Worse, because the Internet is also impersonal, it is easy for even well-mannered people to become belligerent — because typing on a computer doesn’t feel at all like saying something directly to
another person. One problem is the lack of visual and other feedback. When we speak in person, we watch how others react to what we are saying. If we sense pain, anger or astonishment, we tend to
moderate our words accordingly.
This newspaper does not allow anonymous letters to the editor (although I don’t know how well they verify the authors’ identities). This is somewhat limiting — a reader might be afraid to comment
negatively about a government official, fearing reprisal, or to support something if it will make their neighbors mad. But requiring writers to identify themselves probably makes the comments more serious
and more civil.
The paper also allows online comments for articles, editorials, opinion columns and letters. However, online users aren’t required to identify themselves. Users simply register, providing an e-mail account
and some personal information, which isn’t verified. Then they can say anything they want, using a “screen name.” The paper has rules of etiquette, but doesn’t seem to enforce them.
As a consequence, while the online comments include a lot of insightful and thought-provoking discussion, there are also quite a few hateful personal attacks. So while a letter-writer is clearly identified,
they can be ridiculed online by unidentified cowards.
Here is a small sampling of the childish language from recent online comments: “Weak-kneed liberals tend to do that”; “What a stupid LTE [Letter to the Editor]”; “Now the LTE is squeeling like a stuck
pig”; “This [is] the usual tactic today of the slime and scum in the Republican Party”; and “too dumb to understand anything beyond third grade logic.”
Here is an entire reply to one Letter: “Gerry Talbot is a horrible human being, I hope he gets the swine flu.” Another commenter left 19 nonsensical replies on one letter, and 15 on another,
with “enlightened” statements such as “1958NOVA loves pajama pants and peanut brittle.”
The intent of these comments seems to be to discourage people from writing. It’s not fair that letters have to be signed, while their attackers get to slander the writers in anonymity. But what can be
done?
The paper could prohibit anonymous comments or assign someone to review and delete personal attacks. Readers can help by reporting comments of a personal or offensive nature and not responding in
kind to childish rants.
If we can’t bring civility back to our political discourse, at least we could make our local paper a place where people can freely express their opinions without being assaulted by anonymous bullies.
Charles Reichley has been a Prince William County resident since 1981. He can be reached at: .
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Ron,
I find it interesting that the list of offensive media personalities never includes Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Ed Shultz, or Chris Matthews—or any of the old Air America crew like Jeanneane Garafalo and now-Senator Al Franken.
However, if you could point out a specific personal attack Rush Limbaugh made about you in the past month, I’ll be happy to condemn it for you. Until then, I’ll have to stick to discussing more local things that I might have some influence over.
Because no matter how many times I might write to Rush Limbaugh arguing that making up childish names for opposing politicians detracts from his serious points, I don’t expect he’ll ever change on my account.
Attacks on liberals and conservatives are pretty common place. I haven’t really noticed too many personal attacks, unless of course you count phdee.
Nice of you to weight in, Charles. While I appreciate your comments, I also note this with some amusement;
“Actually, I spent quite a bit of time looking for unprovoked personal attacks from all sides. I included one clearly identifiable one (you didn’t think a liberal complained about “week-kneed liberals”, did you?)“
Considering the tenor of comments on these threads, you must have searched real hard (not) to find an unprovoked attack on a Liberal.
I can’t help but make the observation that the only time Conservatives complain about “Incivility” is when they’re getting their clocks cleaned by Liberals. So I guess we Liberals are doing something right.
When I read Conservatives complaining about the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, et al., I’ll take your “Incivility” complains a tiny bit seriously. I also note that I post under my real name, as opposed to the very many Conservatives who routinely attack me.
phedee:
The die-hard Republican has obviously been impaled by postings on the site. He is fresh road kill, waiting to be picked up.
Actually, I haven’t really had a problem with negative comments to my own columns, and the e-mails I get are a lot worse than anything I’ve seen about me in comments. As I explained to Ron, my issue is with the baseless personal attacks against LTE writers and other commenters, not columnists, and certainly not me.
He apparently is part of my fan club…for some of those allegedly offensive remarks someone has posted appear to be mine.
Yes, you were a good source of examples. I did try to include others so they wouldn’t feel left out.
I do note he doesn’t have the courage, fortitude, and strength, or honesxty, to cite the language used by neo-con Republican posters.
Actually, I spent quite a bit of time looking for unprovoked personal attacks from all sides. I included one clearly identifiable one (you didn’t think a liberal complained about “week-kneed liberals”, did you?)
He points out abusive language, but he stays away from the LIES being told bym the Republican posters.
Since my column is about incivility and personal attacks, it would be a distraction to discuss arguments of fact about policy and opinion; if the lie wasn’t a personal attack on a letter-writer, it wasn’t germane to the topic.
One has to feel sorry for a 2-bit Republican columnist.
No need to feel sorry for me.
Ron, as to your later comment (yes, I read comments from oldest to newest, even though the paper shows them from newest to oldest).
To complain that there is no way of knowing whether a poster is using “verified information” is about as sorry a comment as I’ve heard from any columist. How do we, his readers, know that Charles Reichley is using his real name, as opposed to a “pen Name?“
Charles Reichley is my real name, and the picture is my real picture—but you can’t “know” that, except to the degree you trust the newspaper to not lie to you about statements of fact.
The paper also requires letters to be signed, presumably with real names. It’s only the online comments that are unchecked.
I obviously wasn’t clear with my statement about verification. I was making the point that anonymity allows people to say things they’d never say in person or if they could be held accountable—but I thought someone might argue that they had to give personal information in order to “register”. So I was answering that possible complaint by noting that there is no verification of that information. Frankly, as I tried to say, apparently not adequately, I see value in allowing anonymous comments, but find fault with the double-standard where letter-writers must identify themselves, but can be slandered anonymously in comments.
The reality is that writers like Charles Reichley want their convesations to be one-way. They want the unfettered rights to spew their “free speech” without having having to deal with the horrors of contrary opinons, or comments from people who are honestly offended by his writings.
Contrary to your opinion, I am a strong supporter of comments, and having columns online. Before the paper offered comments, I ran a blog site dedicated to my column where people could comment (it still exists, but since the paper puts columns online with comments I don’t maintain it).
I even try to answer all the e-mails people send me. In fact, I can’t imagine any columnist wouldn’t relish the chance to hear and respond to complaints about what they write.
I write because I want to persuade people; if people read and comment, I find where I was not persuasive, and can try again; and if I’ve said something offensive, I can correct it, apologize, or explain.
Ron,
If you read carefully, you will see that I am talking about comments personally attacking other COMMENTERS. I could care less what people say about me; I enjoy discussing issues with people no matter how much they mix in personal invective.
But childish personal attacks on letter-writers and commenters scares off people who deserve to have a chance to make their voices heard.
And I tried to find attacks from both sides of the aisle, and you will also see that, except for quotes which directly identified political parties, I said nothing about the politics of the commenters.
Ron,
You are probably right about the posters here at this site.
I really have not been following along until recently. I was referring to my personal experience since I began posting. (as I say, I found it entertaining) 
I will say for a fact that other political sites have equal amounts of extremists pounding away on the keyboards everyday, liberals and conservatives alike.
(both hel1 bend on proving their points, attempting to make others see things as they do, allowing emotion to take over in the process.)
It is an endless circle.
Bottom line is that when we speak of politics, religion, (you know the old saying)....
Media outlets are biased… no doubt about it, consider FOX news, MSNBC…each has their own political agendas. (my opinion)
The educated and experienced will read between the lines, regardless of the source.
Some of us are able to agree to disagree, others get angry and lash out like children on a playground.
Best of luck here in the jungle.
Poor Reichley:
The die-hard Republican has obviously been impaled by postings on the site. He is fresh road kill, waiting to be picked up.
He apparently is part of my fan club…for some of those allegedly offensive remarks someone has posted appear to be mine.
I do note he doesn’t have the courage, fortitude, and strength, or honesxty, to cite the language used by neo-con Republican posters.
He points out abusive language, but he stays away from the LIES being told bym the Republican posters. As the Nazis said: Tell a lie long enough, and eventually the people will believe it.
Reichley uses his column to plug Republican candidates—we all know. Just free advertisement. Surely he doesn’t think anyone is interested in his opinions or endorsement, does he?
Interestingly, he has stayed away from repetitious == and anonymous—posting by the fake General Patton, Liberalised, Godsaveus, and several others…all die-hard Republicans.
On this site I have been called every imaginable term possible by the diehard Republicans. It is the Republican Party’s method of politics. We cam recall the Bush campaigns: McCainwas mentally ulll Sen. Clelan of Georgia was unpatriotic, despite having lost limbs in war and the Swift Boat crowd maligned another veteran, Sen. Kerry on his war record. And VP Cheney got 5 exemptions—too busy, couldn’t be bother, had more important things; and GW Bush never showd up for Guard duty in alabama—getting dried out. Oh yes, his records have been lost, stolen, or misplaced.
One has to feel sorry for a 2-bit Republican columnist. Surely he works for free.
Just a whiner and sore head. A real loser.
newsome,
“there are just as many far left freaks posting out here in cyber space as there are rightwinged nutbags.“
No, there are actually very few “Liberal” posters on these threads compared to right-wingers. You might want to keep a running tally of the comments and perspectives to see just how unbalanced it is.
But point taken about insults, although I’ve been called far worse things than you.
There is a distinction between “free Speech,“ and the media used to disseminate that speech. For example, this paper, which is a platform givers a platform to columinsts ranging from middle of the road to the hard-core wingnutty Right. That’s their choice and relates to their business model. This paper also gives all readers a largely unfettered ability to comment on those columnists.
Charles Reichley is a right-wing columnists who has a platform to spew his ight-wing nonsense on a regular basis. He normally writes things that I don’t like, but read and comment on. In this column, he is using his media platform to complain about people who post things he doesn’t like. How hypocritical!
To complain that there is no way of knowing whether a poster is using “verified information” is about as sorry a comment as I’ve heard from any columist. How do we, his readers, know that Charles Reichley is using his real name, as opposed to a “pen Name?“
The reality is that writers like Charles Reichley want their convesations to be one-way. They want the unfettered rights to spew their “free speech” without having having to deal with the horrors of contrary opinons, or comments from people who are honestly offended by his writings.
I don’t agree with this LTE.
Regardless of the identity of the writer it’s best to side with the freedom of speech than to stiffle it.
The newspaper has the ability, if they wish to excercise it, of putting whatever controls they wish to use to validate or authenticate writers (both on paper and on the internet site) but moving towards a requirement that all persons must be identified is not in keeping with the traditions of this great nation.
I see negative comments flowing for all sides of the aisle on both the print and internet site but I think it’s enough to say that an intelligent reader will take the nuggets s/he needs from LTE’s and comments and make up there own mind on a topic. If anything else, negative comments tend to take those without a position and trying to learn more about it and push them towards the oppisition.
While civility would be nice I think it’s more about mutual respect. I may banter with certain people on here on many topics but it’s only in the interest of advancing the dialogue and debating the topic. I think adults can do that without resorting to name calling. And, in the instances when it happens, just skip that comment or LTE and go to the next - I want substance not Jerry Springer theatrics.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement