 |
| Thomas Paine had a good reason for publishing Common Sense anonymously—he could have been killed for writing it. |
This morning, irwinb posted the following comment (in part) on
the latest
missive from Jim Mageau:
“… I don't believe that you (or
CCA) should allow comment postings from "anonymous" sources. When I
read a comment, I want to know who wrote it, so that I can evaluate the comment
and its source. If some one doesn't have the courage to disclose their name,
then don't allow their comment. I hope you will change your protocol for blog
postings.” [posted at 10:42 a.m.]
Irwinb of course makes an excellent point. When I first
starting commenting here on Progressive Charlestown, I didn’t want to be
anonymous because I felt that commenting on a “hyperlocal” blog would be
a good way to get to know my neighbors. Little did I realize that by being one
of the few people to comment publicly, I’d get roped into writing for the blog
… but that’s a whole ‘nuther story.
By Linda Felaco
Then I saw today’s article in Slate by Katie Roiphe analyzing the phenomenon of the angry
commenter. Sure, she points out, “there is a long tradition of inspired
cranks [methinks perhaps she’s met Jim
Mageau—Ed.] and interested retirees who have always written letters to the
editor, but something in the anonymity and speed and stamplessness of the
Internet has unleashed a more powerful and uncontrolled vitriol.” Commenters
get “angry at the encroachment on [their] time by the offending article,” as
though they’d been strapped to a chair with wires holding their eyelids open à
la Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange and forced to
read it.
But why should this be? Of course not everyone will agree
with everything they read, but why has disagreeing with the message for some
people come to require actively hating and insulting the writer?
Then there are the commenters who get angry at the angry
commenters. Is this what socializing has been reduced to, Roiphe asks?
“As one non-angry commenter writes to
some other angry commenters: “I'm sorry your life is so empty that you find it
necessary to try and pick fights with random strangers on the Internet.”
Roiphe concludes, a tad generously I suspect, that the angry
commenters are in fact normal, decent people in their daily lives and that
comment sections perhaps perform a vital civic function in allowing people a
safe place to vent their ugliest thoughts. This would argue for allowing
anonymous comments.
Roiphe’s conclusion is borne out by a sportswriter who went
on the warpath and actually tracked
down and confronted some of the haters, who, as it turned out, were largely
just looking to get a reaction from the “famous writer.” One even turned out to
be the stereotypical young adult living in his mother’s basement.
"It's about consequences, and
not suffering from any," says Jacqueline Whitmore, an etiquette expert and
founder of etiquetteexpert.com. "There are absolutely no repercussions to
writing a nasty comment or e-mail, so people feel they can vent at will. They
never think that the person receiving the message might be a real human
being."
I’ll confess to occasionally being guilty of this myself. I
have a tendency to make flip remarks without always considering how they’ll be
received. I’ve also noticed that I’m far more polite with commenters who sign
their names, even when I disagree with them. That’s one of the strongest
arguments against allowing anonymous
comments; using names promotes civility.
Yes, believe it or not, we here at Progressive Charlestown
are real human beings. Real human beings who read and react to each and every
comment written, even if we don’t inflict all of them on the rest of our
readership. Real human beings who take great care with what we write, although
being real human beings also means we won’t always get it right. When we do get
something wrong, I would hope that people will make the effort to let us know
rather than just tune us out.
Then again, we do put our names on what we write, so we feel
no obligation to publish anonymous comments and the self-righteous indignation
when we don’t rolls right off. As for the name-calling, as the kids say,
“Sticks and stones …” To me, name-calling says more about the caller than the
callee.
So where do I stand on anonymous comments? Sure, I’d like it
if everyone felt comfortable signing their comments, if for no other reason
than that when there are multiple anonymous comments on a single story, it gets
hard to figure out how many people are commenting. Unfortunately, there are
people in this town with hidden agendas and axes to grind who make other people
hesitant to give their names. And no, I’m not talking about Jim. I think one of
the worst things he’s done is provide cover for people with hidden agendas and
axes to grind, who use him as a boogeyman excuse not to use their names.
Oh, and as Will
wrote the other day, go ahead and Google me. Be sure to use quote marks so
you get exact results. You’ll get even better results with me than Will because
unlike him, I’m the only Linda Felaco in all of North America. You’ll see
pretty quickly that I’ve always been opinionated and am not some babe in the
woods in thrall to Will Collette and his radical left-wing ideology. LOL.