First of all, we should think about whether or not news organizations are actually censoring, according to two of my sources news organizations have the right to remove comments that are "racist, obscene, xenophobic, or insensitive." News organizations are simply framing the content of their website, therefore it is not censorship.
News organizations allow commenting to promote conversation in the community, but a small minority of people do not want to have a civil conversation about the topic, therefore there is widespread agreement among news organizations that it's ok to filter out profanity and hate speech.
Again, this is what is filtered out:
Profanity
Hate Speech
Insensitive/Offensive comments
Inaccurate information
(Most news organizations have a specific set of what is ok and not ok.)
Some news organizations are transferring comment-filtering duties to an external service instead of using newsroom resources to do that job.
Some organizations allow other commenters to flag comments they find offensive, insensitive, or inaccurate.
For example: The Boston Globe, NPR and the San Francisco Chronicle are clients of ICUC Moderation Services, a company that moderates online content.
Anonymity:
People tend to be better behaved in online forums when their identity is required to post. The main reason a lot of organizations allow commenters to be anoymous is to make it as easy as possible for the public to engage in the conversation. Many sites now require users to log-in through facebook or reveal their identity in some way.
Journalists should not try to be anonymous online.
"It sort of undermines the values of truth and honesty." - Kelly McBride at Poynter
“I
think it’s chicken-shit to be posting content anywhere
anonymously as a journalist.
If you, as a journalist, are posting or
commenting you need to be up-front with who you are
and what you think.”
-Gil
Asakawa at SPJ
I think it's ok for news organizations to filter out the unnecessary and offensive posts on their website. I also agree that journalists should not try to be anonymous online. I also agree that when readers post, they should have to reveal who they are. That way they only post things they would say to others and it's more conversational and civilized.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Allison. News organizations should be able to filter out the garbage, and I think anonymous posts should not be allowed for journalists or readers. I also like the idea of the news organizations having an unrelated party filter the comments.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDitto. I believe the age of anonymous posting needs to go the way of dial-up internet. Played out. My understanding is that many websites and organizations were initially concerned about privacy. Especially in the early 2000s, when this kind of community communication was still in its infancy. They wanted people to participate in a conversation without forcing them to give up their identity.
ReplyDeleteBut as time has gone by, I think we are really starting to see the flaw in that thinking. You can't have a conversation with a disembodied voice, shouting from the crowd. It's not constructive and it only encourages divisiveness (AKA trolling). It's time to put a face on these comments. If somebody wants to say something racists, sexist, or just angry, great. I say let them do it. As long as they own it. I think this will foster better and more rewarding internet conversation.
And news outlets should be on the front lines. Dont' send people to Facebook to comment. Don't waste time editing each and every comment. Just make people log-in. With a name, and a photo. The people who don't want to do that don't have anything that important to say anyway. They're not invested in the process.
Besides, it can't make it any worse.
I'm sure most of you have already read this article, but it's a perfect example of un-constructive online commenting:
ReplyDeletehttp://missoulian.com/news/local/missoula-photographer-pleads-guilty-to-sexting-with-teenage-girl/article_ab492796-5d4c-11e3-a677-001a4bcf887a.html
I would imagine these comments have been moderated to remove profanity and what-not, but I would also imagine that the thread of comments would be a much more intelligent social discussion if folks were identified by their real name instead of "Examiner" or "Montanagirl22".