Reichley Column: Incivility on the Internet

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: criticallythinking@msn.com.